INFORMATION TO USERS
n;,.--ipt ... ... .UMI
flladiellBlCldincdytiwadlecwiai-lOC«tpY ...
n... ...
tbeIiI ...~copies. .iDtypewriIa'6c:e.whileodaa1lD1Ybe
_...,..,.".of_...
Tlleoalltyol .... _ " _ _ ...
_01...
ClIp)'... _ ... _
BrobIlor ....
iIdiIIiDc:t_-
pn.,coIaredOfpoor...
quality...
" " , , - - _... _--
Il\the UIIfikelyeYCDtthat the IUtbor didnotsead UMIacomp~
mIaUICript _ tbcre
we . . . . ,....
tt.e wiIbeDOCed. Abo.if UDUhorizedc:opyriptJDIteriIIlaidtobetedlOWd, •cotewilliDIicate""- o-me - .
(~... - . ...
dlons) . . _ _ bysectionins
theoriai-I. bePmiDI
IttheUi1'I* Idl-budCOI'DCI"and contin.JiaafiomleftcoriptiD ...leCIioaswith...novertaps. EachoriainaI
isabopbotoppbedill c-eapoanadisiac:Wedia.reduced 10m.thebK:koCtbebook..-_
~in this...
copy. JIicherqualitytl'-
x9"blade.... -
and white... _ ... ftv...,. ... " ' _
appeuiDa:illthiscopy&lr .. IdditioaIlchirp.COIl&IC:tUMldiRcdy to
...
UMI
A8cD.HlIwdl~~
lOONonbZcdlR*,AIlllArbor MI "106-1346 USA 3()1761"'100 llOOI521..(l6O(l
THE SPEECH-LANGUAGE PA1lfOLOGIST'S CHANGING ROLE:
COLLABORAnON WITHIN THE CLASSROOM
Margarel Dohan, B.A.• M.Sc.• S·Lp(C)
Athesis submined to the School of Graduate Srudies
inpartialfulfillmenl of !he requiremenlS fIX !hede~of Maslet"ofEducation
Facultyof Education Memorial University of Newfoundland
April. 1997
.+.
Ac::quiIIitiorWInCI Ac:quiIiticrlset~s-w::.s ~~
-~
.. - ... ...,..
c-.e-K'AOHooI e.-ON IUAClNoI
e - e -
The _ basgnmted
a __
exclusiveliCCDCC allowing the
Natiooa1
Libraryof Caoada to
reproduce,1oaIl, distribute0<sell
copiesof this thesisinmiaoform,paperor
dectrooicformm.
The _ mains
owtle1Ship oftbc
copyrightinthis thesis. Noilbcr tbc thesis
no<_exttaelS
&tmitmay
be printedor
otherwise reproduced withouttheauthor's permission.L'aute\D"aaccorde\JOeliccoc:enon exclusivepcrmeUaotala
BibIiod>eque Pllliooale
duCaoada
de reproduire, prfte<,di",i"'"OIl - . des copies deeeuc _ sous
Iaformede mi<:roficbcIfiIm, de reproduction.sur papier au sur format electronique.
L'auteur """""""Iaproprittedu droit d'auteurqui pro<Cge
eeuc
these.NiIathese
oi
desextroits
substaDtiels decclle-ciDedoivent !treim.primCs ou auttementreproduits sansSOD autorisation.0-612-23125.9
Canad~
This slUdy galhered descriptive information on theSIaIUSof c1assroom+based delivery of speedandlanguage services in Canada. Asample of Canadi&n speech.
language palhol.OglSlS working in schoolsweresurveyed using a questionnairemailedin MaIdl, 1996. ByJune.1996.253 usablequestionnaircshad been received. resulting in an 82%rerum rate.Atotal of73% ofrespondents spent time on imervention in classrooms.
Themean petCQlIage ohime spenl was 22.1%.
Seven servia: delivery approaches forclassroom-based intervention. ranting from leastcolIabon.tive (Approach One)tomostcolbborative (Approacb
Seven,.
werelisted on thequestion~.Respondentswere:asked[0indicatelhc: approaches mey had used. Use was compared10respondents' personal. professional. and situational characleristics.Results of chi·square analysesrevealednopatternof signifi(;llflt relationships among variabb.
Respondents were questioned about their use of the seven classroom-based approaches with fOlJrdisordertypesandfour gradelevel calegorieS. Additiooally. they were askedtojudge: lhc: success and appropriateness of the approaches. Theapproacheswere usedby thelargest percentages of respondents forlanguagedisorders. followed in order by those for aniculation. fluency. and voice disorders, and for sludents in Kinderganen to Grade 3. followed in order bydiose for Grades 4to6. Grades 7 10 9. and Grades 10 10 12.
TheapproacbtsWttejudgedsuccessfu.I and appropriate with alldisocdertypeSand allgr.tdc levelcalegorlesbya majorityofrespondentswhousedthem..
Respondentswere asked10rank advantages and disadvantages ofthe:approaches10 speech-languagepathologists. reachers. and caseload and non-caseloadstUdentS.and factorS thatencourageanddiscourage useofthe approaches.The chief benefits of classroom- basedservicedelivery were coosidem:1theincreased Iwmonizationofspeech and language goals and curriculum goals and Ihe carryover of specch and language skills [0 the
classroom.1be prime drawbacks of classroom-based approaches.were judged to be me additional timemtuiredfor planningand thede-emphasison individualized programming for students requiring speechand language services. 1be lafJest facror facilitating the use of classroom-based intervention was perceived tobe teacher suppon. The greatest constr.lining factorWilSconsiden:dlackoftime.
Respondents~queriedonneeds for funhtt information abouttheapproaches and preferred methods of otxaining information.Alargemajority of respondents perceived that further information isneeded for speech-language pathologists who use classroom- basedapproaches.The area of greatest needwasjudged to be curriculumcor.fCtIL1be pcefetmimethodofobtaining informationWilSinservic:cs or conferences.
Oti-square analyses showed that for all disorder types and grade level categories.
the approacheswere judged more appropriatebyrespondents who had usedthemthan by respondents whobad not used them. Nondircctional independent samplesr-lCStswere conducted toIesIfor differe:ncesbetween the views ofthetwo groups on advantages and disadvantages of the approachestospeech-language pathologists, teachers. caseload and non-caseload students, and on factors that encourage and discourage use. ThetwOgroups' viewson advantages and disadvantages to the four poopsWCf"esimilartooneanother.
although the poops' views on encouraging and discouraging factors differed. More respondents who had used the approaches perceiveda need for additional infonnation.
Respondents in the twO groups shared viewsonperceivedareasof need and preferred methods of obtaining infonnation.
Results of the studyareconsistent with repons in the literatureonmeIlSCof classroom-based approaches by speech.language pamologiSlS. hs findings reflect the speech-language pathologist's current shiftfroma diagnostician of speech and language disorders10aIan~specialisl: who collaborates with teachers through use of a holistic approach to students' conmunication needs.
iii
ACKNOWLE.IX:jEMEfIITS
I wouldliketo acknowledge the many people who contribultdtothis project. mosl oCwhom it isDOlpossible\10lhankindividually.
Foremost.Iexpressgratitudetothemembersofmy thesiscommiuoe,whowere generous with dlcirtimeand knowledge.Dr. HenrySchulz, Faculty of Education, provided guidance on methodological issues. Ithank. him for his unfailing encouragement and careful consideration ofdetail. K.J.thlc:cn Taylor. Avalon East School Board. offered feedback on spr:ech-langua!C pathology issues.I thankherfor her pen;eptive comments.
Ialso thank:GerryWhite, Faculty of Education,forthe Statisticaland compuler expertisehe provided duringIhcdataanalysis phase.Iam gtatefullOtheslaff ofCanadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologistsand Audiologists (CASLPA) for supplying.
information and!Othe Faculty of Education for providingmonetaryassistance.
Igratefully acknowledgethe major contribution of the respondents, myspoedI- languagepathology colleaguesacrossthe country. wim particular thanks10my valued colleagues atthe former Roman Camolic School Board for St. John's who comprisedthe piiotteslgJOup.
Finally, Ilhank my husband. Derek Nurse. for humour.and my daughter. FlORa Dohan Nurse. fordclight throughout Ihisproject.as always.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OiAPTER I:~ODUC110N.__ ..__..__.._ _
Overview of the Swdy..._..•..
•• 1 . ....2
Background 10 the Study 3
A Brief HistoryofSpcedl·LanguagePathologyinCanada _••.••.3 TheRoleofthe SpecdI·Language Palhologist.. .•.•._..4 TheRole of the Spe«b-Language Palholoa:islinEdllCationaJ
Settings... . .5
The Prevalence and Nature of Communication Disorders... . ...•.•.6
Purposeof the Siudy .• .._..•.__ .. _ 8
Research Questions .••. _.. .•_ 9
Significance of !he Study __ .•••.•...•..••...•.... 11
Limitations of the Sludy.... . 12
DefInition ofTerms_.. • 13
CHAPTER2; REVIEWOFRELATEDUTERATURE. . 1.5
ColIaborntionin Spc:cwServices._.. _ •..1.5
Defmitioos .... . 15
The Conlext of Collaboration 18
Applications ofCoUabomioninSpecwServaces _.20 CollabontionSe".-een Speech-Language Pathologists and Teadw:n ..• _25
Traditional Approaches... . _ 26
Classroom-Based Approacllcs 27
Speech and Language Intervention Services Targetted in
c,""""""
...32O\aracteristicsofSlUdents Served inClassrooms 33 Advwuages and Disadvantages of Classroom·Based Approaches 34
Suppons and Barriers [0 Classroom-Based Approaches ...
Training Needs ror Speech-Language Pathologists .•.
Su:nwnary .•.__•••.•. _.•_.•.• .•_•. •• ••••.• •• _
0lAPTER 3:METHOI)(){.()(;y .•• ...
...31
. _..39
..._ 40 ..._ 43 Rc::sean:h Design ••••..•.•.._.._.
SurveyInsttumcnt
. _ _ _ 43
••...44
...52 Population andSample: ...•...•...•...•....••...•....•...41 DataCollcction
DmPreparation._ ....__ .._.. . ._.. _.._..._.. .._...•...._.. 53 DataAnalysis. ...•_..•._... .__.. .•
Sunwnary... . _.•
CHA~4: DATA RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ...
Biographical Profile orSurvey Respondents •...
Gender _•... _.•••..•._ _.. .._ _ .
..•...••_.53
. _ 54
..•...55
. 55
•..•..55 b:peric:nc:easSchoolSpccch-Lan~gePalhologists. •..•._..55 Experience asTcachers .. _.... ..•....•. .• • .••.•.•..•...•__..• . 56
DegreesHeld.... . 56
Oescriplion or Speech and Language Services.
Servia'SProvMted _. ._._._..•_
Cc:rtificacionSlaIUS.•..••
Oassroom-Based A.ssessmml Oassroom-BascdInlefVention ...
Adminisualive Duties....
Cascload Size....
Grade L..evels CurrentlyServed _..__ .
Geo~icalWork Sening ..._.._ ...
. 51
...58 ...58 ...58
. 59
...•....59
. 60
. _ 60
.... _ 62
Research Questions ...
Question Four....
Queslion Five
. 63
...63 ..._.. ...73
...n
. 78
..•..•..•..•..••..••.•...••..••...••...•..87 QuestionSiJt._.• ••__•. . . _
.••.9S
...•..•••... 104 ...••... 106
. 131
QuestionSeven __._._.._.•__ .._.... .•_...•_ •.•....•...••.•._.... .102 QuestionEight...
Question Nine
Sunwnaty ._•..__..•...•_.._.•_.•...._.•_.•
CHAPTERS: SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS .._._ .134 ..._.. _...•...•.•...•... _ 134
Recommendations. .. . ...•..•...•..•
. 141
.144 14' .148
. 160
Directions (orFu~Researdl •...•.•.... _...•.. _•.__•.
Summaryo(Resulu:
Conclusions ...
REFERENCES..••_.... _..__...._... _.. _...._...._.. _...•.._.__.. _ ...••
APPENDICES ...
A. SERVICE DELIVERY APPROACHES INVESTIGATED 161
8. SURVEY lNSTRUMENT ..._.•. 163
C. FIRST LETTER OF TRANSMllTAL TO ALL SPEECH-
LANGUAGE PATIfOLOQIS1'S... _.... . _.. 171
D. FIRSTlElTEROF TRANSMITrAL TO SPEECH-LANGUAGE
PATHOLOOISTS WORKING IN SCHOOLS 173
E. SECOND LEITER OF TRANSMI1TAL TOAll SPEECH·
LANGUAGE PATHOlOGISTS._ _.. _..__.. __ . ..•.••... _.. _..__ 175
F.SECOND LETTER OF TRANSMmAL TO SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOOISTS WORKING IN SCHOOLS.._._._ _._ _ _ .177
G. THIRD LElTER OF TRANSMllTAL TO ALL SPEECH·
LANGUAGE PATHOU:X:;ISTS... . 179
H. TIiIRD LElTER OF TRANS MiTrAL TO SPEECH-lANGUAGE
PATHOLOOISTS WORKING IN SCHOOLS _ 181
viii
L1STOFTABLES
1. Percen~gc.and Number of Speech.Language Pathologists Receiving and
Responding10QuestionnairesbyProvince. ...50
2.Percentages andYean Woriced asSpeech·language Pathologists and Teachers 56 3. Percentage of Speech·Language Pathologists Spending Time and Percc.ntage of
Time Spent on Classroom-Sued Assessment and [nterveotion, and AdJninistration ... ... .._...._...__... .•_•. ... .••._.59 4.Percc.ntage of Speech.language. PathologistS Spending TimeandPe~tageof
TuneSpent onServicestoGradeLevel Categories ... ...•..62
5. Use of ApproachesbyGender __ .. ..64
6.Use of ApproachesbyYean:of School Speech-LanpJage Palhology Experience .•...66
7. Useof Approachesby TeachingExperience. 68
8. Use of ApproachesbyPossession ofa8.Ed.or Equivalent... . 69
..._.•_•.. 74
...•.84 ...70 .72
• 76
...79
. _ 81
9. Use of Approaches by Possession of a Master'sDegree...
10. Use of ApproachesbyCcniflCationSwus ...
II. Use of Approachesby Caseload Size ...
12. UseofApproachesbyGeographical Work Sening_...
13. GeneralUse ofApproaches ...
14. Useof Approaches by DisoaterType .•.
15. Successof ApproachesbyDisorder Type
16.AppropriateneSS or ApproachesbyDiSOtdel" Type.._ .._... . 86 17. Use of Approaches by GrIde Level Category... . . 89 18. Success of Approaches by Grade Level Category.... . 91 19.Appropriateness of ApproachesbyGradeLevelCategory... . . 94 20.Comparisons of Rankings of Advantages and Disadvantages of Approaches10
Speech-language Pathologists .•..._ _.... • 97
i...
21. Comparisons of Ranldngs of Adv:u1t:lges and Disadv:Ull:lgcs of Approaches 10 Teachers.._.•_.. __._.• ._.. ...••_.•_._ ..__.. .._ .. __ .. __.98 22.Comparisons of IUnlcings of Advanlages and Disadvantages of Approaches 10
Caseload SlUdents _.. . ...••...••...99 23. Comparisons of Rankings of Advllllages and Disadvantages of Approachesto
Non-Caseload Students
24. Comparisons of Rankinp of Faclon Encounging and Discouraging Use of
•.... 101
••.•... 103 25.Comparisons of Ranlcings of Areas ofNeedfor Additionallnformation for
Speech-language Pathologists .... . .105
26. Comparisons of Rank.ings of Preferred Methods of Obta..ining Additional [nformarionfor Speech.Language Palhoklgists..._.. ..__ .•_.... _... ••••..•• 106 27. Appropriateness of Approaches 10 Language Disorders by Use of Approaches..•.•. 108 28. Appropriateness of Approaches of AnicuJation Disorders by Use of
Approaches ..• ...•._.110
29.Approprialeness0(ApProaChes 10 Auency DisoroersbyUse of ApproKhes._....• 111 30.Appropriateness of Approaches 10 Voice DisordersbyUsc0(Approaches •...•••..••. 113 31. Appropriateness of Approaches to Kinderganen to Grade3byUse of
Approaches .... ...•...•... 115
32. Appropriateness or Approaches10Grade.s4 to 6byUsc of Approaches. • ..••. 116 33. Appropriateness of Approaches toGr.ades 7 to9byUscofApproaches _119 34.Appropriarenessof Approaches toGrades10to12byUsc of Approaches 120 35. Comparisons of Rankings of Advantages and Disadvantages of Approaches to
Speech-language PathologistsbyUsc of Approaches ... 122 36. Comparisons of Rankings of Advantages and Disadvantages of Approaches to
TeachersbyUsc of Approaches _.. __ ... 123
37. Comparisons of Rankinpof AdVMluges and DisadvantageS of Approaches [0 Cascload StudenubyUsc of Approaches __ __ _•..._ _.124 38. Comparisons of Rank..ings of Advantages and Disadvantages of Approaches to
Non-Caseload Srudcnu by Usc of Approaches ... •.•... 126 39.Comparisonsof Rankinp ofFaeton Encouraging and Discour.lging Usc of
ApproachesbyUseof Approaches.._...._ .. .... ._.. __••.__.. .••..._ ...128 40. Comparisons of Rankinp of Areas of Need for Additional Infonnation for
Speech.Language PathologistSbyUse of Approaches ...••. _.... . ...••. 129 41.Comparisonsof Rankings
or
PreferredMethodsofObtaining AdditionalInformation for Spc:em.Language PatholopstsbyUse of Approacbes... .130
"
CftAPTERONE INTRODUcnON
Current~ndsiIIUStnlte that public education systems in Nonh Americaare undergoing vast revision. Major changes wilhin social. political. and economic domains have forced reevaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the delivery of educational progratTlS.Movements rovnrdrestruet\lringshan:thegoalofmodifying dwwhichhas not appearedto produce successful educational ourcomes. Acknowledging that the needs of students have been alteredbysocietal forces, educators recognizethenecessity of using educational approaches that represent adeparture from past methods.Theseinnovations are aimednot only 8lstudc:nts in regu.laredl.lCation butalso atthosestudents with special needs (Damico.1987: Huffman. 1992).
ODemajor changehas been the emphasis on a coUaborative philosophy of service deliverytoexceptional students. a philosophy thathasfoundations in legislative, ethical, and empirical contexts. The espoused principle of equal right to education for all students has fosteredthenotion that special needs are preferablyadtRsscdwithin dieregular classroom through the integrationofspecial withregular services.A growing body ofresearchthat questions the efficacy ofpracticesinvolving segregation, such as traditional wi!hdnJ.wal approaches, has provided added impetus for a move toward collaborative effom by mullid.i.sciplinaryteamSconsisting of teachers. admini.straton..specialists. support staff. and parents. Through thecombinedinputofall individuals involved with SludenlS who have special needs.anindividualized plan to cap;talize on students' strengthsand address their needs is designed and implemented(0a greater or lesser degree in the inclusionary environment of the classroom (Gerber.1987;Idol. Paolucci-Whitcomb.and Nevin.1986:
WilJ.1986).
Anothermajorchange hasbeenthe inclUSCd aw.ueness of the fundamental role of communication skills and language profICiency in acad<:mic and social success. School is a
context mat demands that students listen.speak. read. and write on a daily basis. Spccch- languagepalhok)gislshave abtoadperspc:ctive on language.wilhacademic backgroundsin Iinguislic:s.languageacquisition.langUIgClcatning disabilities.spcc:chand hearingsciences.
conununication assessmentand interVention.andcognitiveanddevelopmental psychology.
For this reason. educational speech-language pathologistsIareideally suited10addressing students' needsand teachers·concernsrelatedtooral language inclassrooms(Simon&
Myrold-Gunyuz.. 1990; Wallach&:Buder. 1984).
Giventhispresent focus on collabomioningencra.Iandthe acknowledgement of the centrality of language totheeducational process inpanicular. speech-language pathologists areextendingservicesto classroom settings. Increasing.ly. practicesatebeing adapted with the aimofmakingthemmore dirccdyrelevant tothe curriculum. Althougbspctth-Ianguagc pathologists have always interacted. withother educational personnel while attemptingto provide functional intervention for students. recenttrendsprovide addition41 incentiveto workmorefrcquendy with teachers and students directly withinthe classroom environment (Cirrin&.~nncr.1995: Damico. 1987).
~icwofthc:Swdy
The thesis. designedtoinvestigate spcedJ-language pathologists' coUaboration with teachers within theclassroom.consists of five chapters. ChapterOne createsacontext for the snady. describing its backpound.purpose.researchquestions. signit'"K:anCe. andtermSin commoausage. OIapter Two offenIcomprehensive: review of IiteraIure pertinenttothe swdy. QllprerThrce providesjustiftcation forthechoice of methodologyanddescribesthe methodology. Chapter Four presents and analyzes the data. Chapter Five summarizes the results in the dual contexts of the research questions and relevant research_ draws
I The tcnn"s~h-IanguagepathOlogist" willbeused throughout the study to refer to speech-languagepathologisL~whoworkin school settings. unless oth<:rwiscspt:citi~.
conclusions based on die results. makes reconunc:ndations for further movement toward collaboration.andSlIg~relafcdareas onwhicbfurweSlUdies canusefully focus.
Backg:roundlOthcSnJdy
Thissection provides background infcxmation requisite to understandingthe sludy andinlCrpreting its findings.
n.c:
hislOry of speech-language pamology inCanoIdais outlinedn.c:
roles ol!he spccch-languagepalhologiSiingenera! and of !he scbool speech- language pathololiSlinparticulararedescribed.andinformationon theprev~enceand nalureof communication disorders is presented.A Brie' Hi'jm pr Srm;b-! ..nsnags: p,nbplplY inC;mMa
Speech-language patholog is a young professioninCanada.The earliesl record of an individual woc1dng in me area of speech-language pathotogy in scnoolsdates back 10 1938. when a leacher in the Winnipeg School Division began instruerion in lipreading and speech correction (Manin. 1995). In 1964. me first meeting of the Canadian Speech and Hearing Association (superseded by lhe Canadian A5SOCiation of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists (CASlPA) in 1985). was held among twelve panicipants fromacross Canada. At thai time.therewereonlylhrccuniversityprogr;unsin Canada. all recently founded: i1t!he: UniversilYof MonllU! (19S6). allhe University ofToronlo (1958).
and at McGill University (1963). By 1976. mere were seven university programs and approximately 700 members of !he national association. including bodl specch-{anguage pathologists and audiologists (Martin&Penlr.:o.1996).
In the mid-1980·s. a long-Ienn goal of the Associalion was mel wilh the establishment of national standards for accreditation. In 1994. continuing education became a mandatory requirement for mainlCnance of certification (Martin&Penko. 1996). There arepresently 3437 mcmbersofCASLPA. 2360 ofwbomarespeech-language pathok)g:ists (P. Aemington. personal communications. February 26. March 21. 1996). In 1988. the lalesf year for which dc:mor:raphic sl.;lfisllcS were available. 38% of speech-Ianguar:e
poItholog,isls inunadawereemployed by school districts. the rota.! numbtt approltimating 960. A numbtt ofpractisin{!: spec:ch-language pathologim do ItOt belong 10 the: national association due[0either ineligibilily or choice. [n1988. 70%of speech-language pathologists and audiologistsinCanada weremembers ofCASLPA.wimrateSbyprovince rangingfrom38'1.(Qucbc:c)10 93% (British Columbia) (CASLPA. 1990: Rubin. 1990).
VariOllStides have been used10describe professionals whowortwith individuals who have communication disorden. These have included speech correctionist, speech leacher,speech therapist. communication therapist. and speech.language clinician.In1984, the nationalassociationofficiallysanctioneduse
or
the title~specch-languagepalhologisc.whichwasbelieved10mostaceunlelyIdkctthe: tr.lining of members and the services thai they provide (Newfoundland Depamnc:nt of Education.1986). It is acknowledged that in the current conlext of the educalion system,thetenn "speech-Ianguage pathologist" with itsfocus00pathology is a misnomer. Severalu:rmsthatrtturintheliteraIUJe on services toschool-aged children are communication specialist, language specialist, and speech and language specialist, Although the lalter lenns are judged more appropriate to Khool 5eltinp:.the title "speech.language pathologist" is used throughout this siudy in keeping withconventionalusage.
TheRo!c;qfl!¥; S(X'&jCh-l.angIl3fCParbglmis
Speech-language pathologists arc specialists in human communication. its normal development. and its disorden and delays.lbey provide services aimed at preventing and lessening the impact of communicatioo diffICUlties, including impairments of language.
articulation. voice. and fluency. Their services include SWldatdized and non-standardized assessment in additiontoinlervention appropriate 10 me individual's needs, abilities, and limitations (CASLPA. n.d.a).
Inaddition 10 wortcing directly wid! individuals. spec:ch-Iangwgc pathologists playa major role on educational or health care inlerdisciplinary leams work.ing wilh communicatively impaired individuals. Speech.language pathologists disseminate
infonnation about limitations onthelevelofabilitytocommunic'.lIeandtheimplic"tions of those limitations for educational or rehabilitation programs. As speechOf"language i~ntsoflen Ilave majordfcccs on socialinlCfaCUon and education. speech-language pathologists provide support and counselling to individuals and their families (CASLPA.
n.d.a).
1bcBpi,pftheSperrh-Janglligs; PwbnIogisl in fdyeabonal Selljpls
Speech and language programs in schools Ilavebeendeveloped at different times with different prioritiesWIderdiff~ntdivisions within governments and school distticts.
Thishasresulted in wide variation among program objectives. However. speech-language pathologists~cootinually seeking ways10improve prw;tice in relation10Outcomes.Both speech-language pathologists and program administratorsare evahwing the effcctivcnc:ss andcfficic:ncyofvarious service deliveryapproaches.The~Itingrefinemenl ofprognms is altering the: roleofthe educational spocch·!anguage pathologist (e.g... OntarioAssociation of SpeeCh-Language Pathologists and AudiologiSts (OSLA). 1996: New Brunswick OepanmentofHealthandCorrmunityServices. 1994).
The major responsibilitiesofthespeech-languagepathcMogistin educational scttinp have always includedtheevaluation and management of communication di.sordc:rs. In addition10these gcneral responsibilities. which involve direct contaCl with speechand language disordered students. thc school speech-language palhologist's duties have included. but have not:been limitedto.conducting spccch.language. and hearing scm:ninp;
supervising speedI·language pathology student internS; writingreportSand additional required documentation; and other adminisU1ltivc duties related to coordination of the speech and language program (American Speech-language·Hearing Association (ASHA), 1993: Nussbaum_ 1991).
Thelale1980's and 19IJO's have witnessed heavy demand for speech and langWige servicesin theabsc:ncc of additional humanresou.n:eallocations.The impact has been that speech-language pathologists in school sclling.s have beenincrca.~inglyrequired 10 fulfill the
role of specialist consultanl and~urceperson in addition 10 !hat of a provider of direcl service10 students. This eltpandcd role has placedgrealfi emphasis00consuhatioo and supporttoeducators. parentS. and odler caregivers. and on provision of programs foc implementation wilh odler professionals whoan: involved wilh students00daily basis.
Recentlyadded duties of school spc:cch·language padlolopslSan::planning modificationsto curriculum and insttuetion; helping develop individualized edl.QlionaJ programs (lEPs);
participating in conferencesasamemberofamultidisciplinary leam:puticipatin, in ongoing1eaChcr andparentconfcrcnccs; coordinating :assistive ICChnology suppon services:
and providing inservice education for school personnel (ASHA. 1993: New Brunswick DepartmentofHea11h and CommunityScrviccs. 1994).
The
Prmkoce
and Nama; p[Cmynunje.tionPisvdm:Estimates ofIhc:prevalence:c(communicationdisorden vary according ro theIype of communication disorder.theagerangeundcrdiscussion. andthesourceof infonnation.
Vast inconsistencies in figures. which have been reponed to range from3%[033.4%.arc:
largely explainedbydifferences inmlena.measu~.andmethodologies employed in me determination of c.uimates. However. in a metbodologicallyri,OOCOl1S study of Onawa Kioocrpnen sludenlS. BcilChman. Nair. Oegg. and Patel (1986) found Ihat Ihe overall ptl:vaJellCe of speech and language disorders at the Kinderganen level was 19%. More recently. Winzer (1993) reponed !he overall rate of communication disorders tobelower.
approximately IOCJ, amongtheschool-aged population. This discrepancy is attributable 10 the fact that some speech and language disorders are resolved throtlgh intervention.
maturation. or both. Wiig and Semel (1984) stated that languagedlsocdersare cvW:lc:nt in 40% 10fiO'l,of learning-disabled studenlSand in 1.5% 10 2% of all school-aged children.
A recent study by OSLA (1996) cited approximately 75% 10 80% of leaming-disabled students and over 6OoCJ, of behaviooT1!ly diSOfdered students as having C{lncomilanl Ianguagc:diftkultics.
Language disorders:tnd delays typically comprise a majorily of a school speech- language patholog.iSl·scaselcad. The remaincb of !he caseload consisuoflesswidespread communicationdifflCUltics such asarticulation. fluency. and voice disorders. In CASLPA's 1988 demographic study. 79% of Canadian speech-language palhologislS workingin schools reported dlat Uieir primaryareaof practice was language (CASlPA. 1990).
lnfonnationpined via the CASLPA followup surveyin1990 indicated dlat Canadian school speech-language pathologistssetvemainly slUdenlS who emibil predominantly language disorders (75'1». followed by articulation disorders 08'1».fluencydiSOfders (4%). and other conununicalion disorders (1%) (Rubin.1990).
With thedemandforspeechandhtnguage services having far exceededthe supply.
services have hislorica.lly focussed on !he provision of early lnlefVefltion. Tbc rationale has stemmed from research supponing the notion thai communicationdisorders have a significant impact on psychosocial and academic development intheearly schoolyears (e.g.• Cazden. 1988: Miller. 1989: Simon. 1985a. 1985b: Wallach&Buder. 1984).
However. m;entresearchhas highlighted theneedsof studcnlS wilh language·learning difficulties as theyprogressthroughthehigheTpUs. when the inlenSity ofpeerilUaaction andthecomplexity of curriculum conceptS become su:adily more demanding of language skills (Boyce&larson. 1983: Gruenewald&Pollack. 1984: New Brunswick Depanment of Heahh and Communily Services. 1994: OSLA. 1996; Simon&Myrold-Gunyuz.. 1990:
Wiig&Semel. 1984).
Approaches tocasdoad managemenl havevariedconsiderably. Tbc charactcrislics of a dislricl's human resoun:esand. geographical selting have been !he majordeterminanlS of oplimum caseload size. Some school districts have advocated a maximum number of students served per speech-language pathologisl. while others have specified the r.ttio of total SludenlS in !he school disuietfOspeech-language palho!ogist or the ralio of lou!
schoolsservedto speech-language pathologiSl (New Brunswick Depanmenl of Healthand Communit)" Services. 19941. National guidelines on the issue are none:<istent: however. the
Newfoundland govemment has recommended U1atthe maximum number of students to which a speech-language palhologW shouldprovide directinrervention is4Sper annum (Newfoundland Department of Education. 1986). ASHA'srecommendedmaximum caseload number is40foraUtypes of service delivery. Acknowledging that wone conditions may preclude application of this recommendation. ASHA has emphasized the weighing of variables that impinge upon time and ultimately affect casc:load size.1besc
...=
the severity of the communication disonter. the effect of the disorder on me student's abilitywfunction in an academic setting: overall needs of the student.the number of locations in which services are provided_ travel time between locations.
and effect ofyt:ar-round school schedules. (ASHA. 1993. pp. 34-35)
Purposeofdle Swdy
According toa burgeoning body of literature. some speech-language pathologists arebeginning to deliver services direcdy withinclassroomsettings. Numerous aniclcs provideevidence (orsuccessful c1assroom-l:asedspeechand languageprogramsbasedon a philosophyo(collabomion between speech-language pathologists and teachers. Several manuals that provide specifk guidelines for analysis of classroom communicationarenow commercially available (e.g.. Borsch&Oaks. 1993; Hapn. McDannold.&Meyer. 1990;
Prelock. Miller.&Reed.1993).
1begenen1purposeof the study was to increase knOWledge of collaboration between speech-l:I.nguage pathologists and teaChers within the classroom setting by describing its present Slatus in Canada. The specificpurposeof the slUdywasto answer the questions penainingtoclassroom-based intervention services thatan:posed in the foUowing section.
Resean:h Questions
Results ofthe: sludy extend exisling rescvc:h by examining speech-language pathologiSlS'pBCtices.experiences.andjudgemcnts relating10classroom-basedservice delivery.TheslUdy was designed10answerthefollowing. generalandsubsidiary rese:an:h questions related to use of seven specific service delivery approaches chosen for investigation. (Foranitemization of the seven service delivery approaches.seeAppendix A-)
I. Is use oftheseven service deliveryapproachesfor classroom-based interVentionrdated to Ihe following personal and professional characteristics of speech-language pathologists:
a)gende:r.
b) years of specdI.languagc pathoIO!yexperience in schools:
c)teaehingexperience;
d) possession ofaBachelor of Education orequivaJent degree;
e) possession ofa master'sdegn:ein speech·language pathology:
f)eenificarionstalus?
2_Isuseoftheseven servicedelivery approaches forclassroom-bascd inlervention relaled tothe following situational characteristics of speech· language pathologistS:
a) case load nllmber:
b)gradc:leYelsservcd;
c)geograpbicaJwort.seuing?
3. Whatpercmta&eJof speech-language pathologiSlSareusing the seven service delivery approaches for classroom-based interventionandwhich approaches are considered man:successful?
a) Whal percentages of speech-language pathologistSare using each oftheservice deliveryapproacbes?
b) Which o(the
service
delivery approachesarc
consideredme
rTIOSIand meIcast successful?4.What are the majordisordcr types (i.e.. language. articulation, fluency, and voice) of students served using the scven service delivery approaches(orclassroom-based intervention andwhich.approaches~considcm:1nnesuccessful?
a)Which ofmeSCl'Vk:edeliYCl)'approadlcsateusedwithwhichdiJordcTlypCS?
b)Which of theservicedelivery approachesan: considered
me
most and the lcur successful for each disordertype?c) Which o( the SCl"lice delivery approachesateconsidered appropriate for each disonjc(-typc?
S. Whatatelhcgradelevel categories (i.e.• KindcrganentoGrade 3. Grades 4 10 6. Grades 7 10 9. and Grades 10 10 12) of students scl"lcd using the seven service delivery approaches for classroom-based inteo'ention and wbidl approachesare considered moresuccessful?
a)Which of lhc scl"lice deliveryapproachesaR:usedwith which grade level categories?
b)Which of the service delivery approachesarc considered lhe mosr and lhe least StJCCCS5ful for eachgradelevel calCgot)'?
c) Which of !he service deliveryapproaches arc consideredappropriate for eachgrndc:
levelcalCgOry'!
6. Whatarcthe perceived advantages and disadvantages of the seven service delivery approaches for cWsroom-based interVention10thefoUowinr:poups:
I) specctI-languagepathologists:
b)lCaChcrs:
c) case-load students:
d) non-cascload students?
7. What arc rhe factors thai arc perceived 10 encourage and discourage usc ofrhc:seven scrvice delivery approaches forclassroom·based inlCrvenlion'!
III
8.Dospeech-language pathologists perceivean«df« additional information for spcech- languagepathOIOPSlSwhousethe seven service delivery approaches forc1a.ssroom- bascdinte:rYention?
a)Ifso.whataretheperceivedareasofneed for additional information?
b)Ifso.whatarc the preferred methods for additional infonnation?
9. What diffcn::nccs.ifany.existbc:coNcenthe views of speech·language palhologists who useandchosewhodo not uscthesevenservice deliveryapproachesforc1assroom- based inlerVention on the foUowing issucs:
a) appropriacencss ofeachofchc service deliveryapproachesto:
I)disoroertypes:
2)grade kvelcaqories;
b)advanClgcsanddisadvantlge5of theservice delivery approachesto:
() speech-language pathologists;
2)ceachers:
3) cascload seudcncs:
4) noo-caseload students:
c} facrors chat encourage anddiscourageuseoftheservice deliveryapproaches:
d)eliscence of aneed for additional craining of speech.language pathologists who use the service deliveryapproaches:
e)areasof needforadditional information for speech-language pathologists who use theservicedelivc:ryapproaches;
f)preferred methods of obtaining addidonal infonnation for speech-language pathologists who usethe service delivery approaches?
SigniflCaJ1CC oftheStudy
Acoosiderable number of articles have been publishedon collabor.ation between speech-language pathologists andclassroom (eachers intheUniled Stales. The majority of
II
published studies are anecdolal attounts of professional expcricnca. While repons from individuals in thef'Cldare valuablebecausetheysupplynewideas.lhereare few Sludieson the5WUSofcollabon.tionbetween spc:cdl-langu.age palbologists and teachers.
This Sludy constitutes a timely conoibution to the professional competencies of speech-language pathologists working in schools by providing a StatuS repon Oil classroom coUaboratiooand intervention. Research results are of practical relevance to speech- language pathologists. educators.iIIldpolicymakm as lbey continue to improve upon selVadelivery while open.ring intimesofincreasing fiscal restraint. OutcOmes of the study provide guidance for planning. implementation, and refinement of classroom-based intervention programs for speech- and language-impaired Sludentsbyhighlighting facoors that influence service eff"lCaC}'. Resultsan:also of usc to specch-lan!1Jage pathologistsand other schoolteammembers in joinLly developing inservices for regular teachers. special educators. and lIdminisctluon responsible for faciliuring a multidisciplinary approach.In addition, resultswill assist universiry training programs in designing courses to prepare speech-language pathologiststowork inschools.
LimicaDonsofmeSttdy
Several factors imposed limitations on the generalizability of conclusions derived fromthe data.
First. although a sufficient response ratewasachieved, non-response bias may nonetheless be present. Thepractke:sand beliefs of spcc:ch-Ianguage pathologists who opted not torespondmay differ markedly from lhose who did respond.
Second,due to complex sampling: procedures described in the ChapterTIuee,there were twO sources of non-response for five provinces. As non-response from speech- language patholOJislSwhowort in schools and speech-language pathologistswhoworir:in other settings couldnotbedelennined separately. figures for these five provinces reflect only aggregate ll()fI·response niles.
Third. responsebiasll1ily have affected me data.. Respondents may have been averse:
[Q01"incapable of answeringsome itemson thequcstionna~.resulting in inaceur.uc responses andthe:omission of items.1ncdara.arcvalid only if respondentsan:willing and able toprovideaccUJ111e inronnation.
Fourth, the sampling frame may have been undemgistem:l:. resulting in a biased samp'e. By selc:cting. me sample rrom the populations orCASLPA members and provincial association members, school-based speech·language pathologists wno were not members of theseassociations due10eilher ineligibility orcboicewere nOipanof the sample. Recenlly quaJifled speech-language pathologisu who hadnoIyetappliedfor membership and others whose applicationswerebeingprocessedwere001included in
me
slOOy. There. may be a tendency for CASLPA members to differ fromnon-membersinsomemajor way.(fthis is the case. then the gencralizability of the study's conclusions to the entirePOPUI3~ionof 5ptt.Ch-languagepathologistsWOIting:inschoolsis circumscribedFifth. the large numbtt of analyses required to answer !he research questions increased the likelihood of incurring Type I elTOf. Therefore, individual cases of signifICancemus~be reptded with caution.
Sixth.theinletnalvalidity of thes~udywaslimiledbyits design. As mis study involved use of descriptiveresearcilmethods.cause couldnotbe ascribed by analyzingthe dara.. Therefore:. results do not yield infonnation onthemany causal factors involved in speech-language pathologists' service delivery wimin classrooms.
Definition ofTams
A number of terms are commonly used throughout the description of this study.
Definitions of some of these arc provided in this section. based on Borden and Harris.
1980; CASLPA. n.d.b: Newfoundland Department of Education, 1986: and Nicolosi.
Harryman. and Krcshed:.. 1989. Further definitions follow IhroughOlil !he body of Ihe study. as they pertain to the literature review and to the methodology.
"
Articulalion: the pronunciation of sounds in woros. lmpairments of aniculation include distonion of sounds(e.g.•-ship-producedas-thipJ. substilution of sounds(Mrcef' producedas-wedJ.and omission of sounds (e.g.. McaC prodt.lCCd as-cal.
Communication disorder; impairment inthe abiJily 10 receive. process. or produce a linguistic symbol syslem. Impairment is observed in one or more ofthe following areas:
hcaring.languase-articulation. fluency. or voice.
Fluency:smoothness with which sounds. syUables. words. and phnses are combined in speech. Impairment of fluency may result in repetitions of sounds. syllables.words.and phrases; prolongations of sounds: hesiwions: and inlerjecrioos (i.e.• slUucring).
Lanluace:communication system governed by rules for the fOOllation of meaning.
language has tWO main components: receptive language. or the eomprehension of language.and expressive language. or the production of language.Languagemaytakethe form of ocal communication. wrilten communication. pictures. symbols. or hand signs.
Language acquisition normally follows a predetennined sequence. However. this sequence can be impaired by a language disorder. characterized by developmcnUtI gaps. or by a language:delay. ctwacrcrizcdbynonnallysequencedbutslowed developmenL Speech: a medium ofon.!communication employing meaningful sound !hat adheres 10 a linguisticcode.
Voice: sound produced by the vocalcoeds. lmpairments ofthevoice include loss of voice.
pitch!hat: is 100 high. too low. orintemlp!Cdbybreaks:volume: [hat is 100loud or looquiec orqualirylhatislOOhoarsc:ortoostridenL
CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OFREI..ATED LITERA1lJRE
This chapter presents a comprehensive review ofthe Iirerature on collaboration
to the specific. focussingfinloncoU.boRtioninspc:c:ialservices and second on coUaboration between speech-language pathologistsand leachers in schools. By initially providing a geoemJ lilel'atun: review. a framewort wilhinwhich[0fit subsequent sections of the: review is buill. Emphasis is placed on viewing speech and languageprogramswithin a broades' contcxt. aspanof a unifiedapproach lOdelivery ofserv~lOS1udefl.ls withspecial oeed>.
CoUabooIlioninSpecial Services
This Stttion provides a conceptual frame of reference roc collaborationbydefining the tenn. describing the context within which a collaboration has gained momentum. and discussing applications of coUaboouion as exemplified by tWO conunonpr.lCocesinspecial services. consuIwionand professionalreaming.
No universal definition of collaboration e",ists in the litcnuun::. despite extensive discussion of collabon.tive programs and their benefits. The tcnn has been used inconsiscentlytodenofcbod!an oymlding philosophy of SCf"ice delivery andspecdJCtypeS of service delivery. such as consuhation and learning (Friend&Cook.. 1991. 1992;
Pryzwansky. 1977). For example. Idol etaI.(1986) have combined the notions of collaboration and consultatiOfi to fonn
me
!eRn Mcollaborative consultation'". which they dc:fineas... an in!eractive process thaI enables people with diverse expertise to gener:ne creative solutions to mutually defined problems. The outcome isenh~nced.altered.
and produces solutions thai arc different rrom those thai the individual team memberswouldproduceindependently. The major outcome of collabor,uive consultation is to provide comprehensive and effective programs for srudents with specialneedswilltin the most appropriate context,thc:~byenabling them to achieve maximumCOllSllUCriveintef3Clionwithlbeirnonhandicappedpecrs.(p.I) This definitionbasbeenwidely adopted intheIiterawrcon coUabor.ationinbothspecial education and speech-language parhology (e.g...chilles. YalC:S.&.Fn:ese. 1991; Borxh&.
Oaks. 1992; Cooper. 1991; Coufal. 1993:Ferguson. 1992:Hoskins. 1990; Monrgomcry.
1992: Roller. Rodriguez. Wamer.& l.indahll992: West. Jdol.&Cannon. 1989).
Althoughrhc tenn Mcollabor.ationM
hasalso been used as synonymous with
"consultalion". several authors have poSlUlated me existence of a dicholOmy berween collaboration and consultation (Coufal. 1993: Idolet31..1986: Marvin. 1990: West etal.
1989). Tbc staled distinction ismal.whelUS collaboration isaway of interacting in any oneofa number of situations. consultation is an actiyity-based Pr'Ol:eSS. In!hisvein. Friend
&Cook (1992) provided a precise definition ofcoUaboration. "Interpersonal collaboration is a style fordifttt interaction between at leasttwOcoequal panics voluntarily engaged in shared decision nWcingasmeywort:IOwardacoounongoiLI.M(p..5)Themajor"element matdiffe~ntiatesthisdefinition from !har of Idol etaI.(1986) isuseoftheword "srykMto describe a mode of interaction_ Collaboration is nor regardedas an end bul rather as a means to an end. Thus. Friend and Cook (1992) viewed ways of interacting as scpal"are fromspecifIC:activities thar could be accomplishedthroughuseof anyoneofa number of interpenonal styles.
According10Phillipsand McCullough(1990).preconditions for rhe establishment ofacollaborativcclimalearc:
1. Joint~ibilityfor problems (i.e.. all professionals share responsibility and
~foraJlstudcnl$).
2. Joint accountability and recognirion for problem resolution.
3. Belief thai pooling Ialents andresourcesis mUluaily advantageous. with lbe folkJwintbenefits:
a.lncreascd range of solutions genera!ed;
b. Diversity of expertise andresoun:esavailable10engage problems:
c.Superiorilyandoriginalityofsolutions generalCd.
4. Belief thai ceacher or Sludent problem resolution merits expenditure of time.
energy,andresowt:eS.
5. Belief that correlates of coUaboration are importantand desirable (i.e.• group morale.poopcohesion. increasedknowledgeof probtem--solvingprocessesand specific alternative classroom inrcventions). (p. 295)
Additional charaaeristics that are conducive 10 successful coUaborative programs. as cited by Friendand Cook (1990. 1992). include volunllU)' panicipatiOll. parity among participants. and shared resouttes. Although some degree of mutual ttust and sense of community atIbeOlltselisadvantageous.theongoing IlSC ofI.collaborative interactional style foslersgrowthin these areas (Friend&Cook. 1990. 1992).
Marvin (1990) regarded collaboration as existing at one end of "a continuum of reciprocal interactions amongco-workers~(p. 41). Using general principles to refer speciClCally to relationships between speech-language pathologists and teachers. she identified four poinlS on the continuum. The first point. co-activity. consisls of parallel instructional activity wilh little. if any. interaction. The second point onthecontinuum.
cooperation. iscfwxtc:ri.t.edbysome mUluai dcvclopmc:nt of comnunication goalsthatan:
direcled IOwardthe: class in genc:ral ratherthanIOward individual SlUdenlS. Umited sharinl ofideas or evaluative feedback occurs.1llc:third point. coordination. involves discussion of specific students' needs and strategies 10 assist them in class. The speech-language pathologistandIbeteaCherbqin 10 develop IlUSIand exchange ideas. which facilitates a willingness 10 accept one aOOlhtt·s suggestions. Lines of responsibilily remain clearly delineated.witheach panicipant maintainingitseparate professional role. The founh point
17
on the continuum. collabor.ltion.is defined by ItUst. respect. and a sharing of responsibility for iLIl swdcnlS.Ananillideof "ownership" IOwardtheclassroom-basedprogrammeans thatthespeccll-language~and~exchangerolesasraeccssarytoa.ccomplish jlindyestablishedgoa..ls.
TheCoptexrofCpl!.boratiOQ
fdol etat.(1986)couchedthe contellt of collaboration in historical. legislative.
empirical.andethicalICl'lTIS.providinganexhaWitivc~icwofthetirer.tture. Principles arising£rom American legislation. which has often hadfOOlSin titiption. have encouraged cstablishment of collaborative approaches in special education. lbcse have included the right to education for all. the least restrictive environment. protection from discriminatory assessment practices. and implcmcncationofindividuafu:edcducationalpropams(lEPs).In Canada.theseprinciplesarcgenerallyespousedin policy andpracticemhcr dwlthrough legislation.
The empirical context for coUaboration has included research results that have lead to criticism ofUtesegregating struCture traditionally found in special educatic;lQ. Will (l986). inhefo seminalrcpontotheSecretaryofthl:: United Swcs DepartmentofEducation.
cited fourmapdiffkultic:swithspecialeducationpractices..
First. the compartmentalization created by the designation of special programs means thatsomestudcnlS who need services '"fall through the cracks".Inaddition•
. . . the assistancethe child needs in~ssinghis or her lcaming problem is. in manyCll5CS.pcedctcrminedbytheavailabilityofaparticular program... Notenouth attention is liven to assessing individual learning needsand~iloringa specifIC program 10 meet those needs. This results in a failure to meetthe child's unique lcam.ingneedstothe greatest extent possibl.e. (Will. 1986. p. 8)
Second.•dual systemofregularand special education -contributetoa lack of coordination. raise questions aboutlcadcrship. cloud areasofresponsibility.and obscure lil'lCS of accountability within schools" (WilL 1986. p. 8\. Programs for students with
special needsartmost often administered at the district levelbut are delivered on-site.
meaning that school administrators frequently donot:talce responsibility fo.-programs or their objectives. Special programsattfurther fl\U'!inalizedbylack:of communication between regular and special education teachers. resulting in an uncoordinated approach to inslJ'UCtton.
Third.stigmatization commonly results from labcUing students and isolating them frompeen.Stigmatization compoundsthe effects of leaming diffICUlties by reinforcing -low cxpClClattonofstaCCCSs. failure 10 persist on tasks.
me
belief that failures are causedby personal inadequacies.aOOa continued failuretoIeameffectively"(Will.1986. p. 9).Founh. rigid eligibility criteria for entrytospecial programs produce negative conflict between educational penonnel andparents. whobc:comcadversaries during the placementprocess(Win.1986).
Gersten and Woodward (1990) noted that segregated programs have become
"dumping grounds" for students who are a challenge to teach. such as minority students and students from low income families. Pullout programs waste large amounts of insuuctional time when students~in nnsitiontoand from resource rooms. Most significantly. there is discontinuity betv.'een what is laught in specialprograms and in regular classrooms. with linle attempt to integrate information disseminated in pullout programs with that provided in regular classrooms.
AccordingtoWiJI (1986). creating aneweducational environment is less beneficial tostudentswith special Deeds than working to meet their needs within regular classrooms.
Regular classroom environments must be altered through the use of instnlction and curriculum thai has been adapted using insighl gained from special programs. Will's (1986) specific proposals for change to assist special sWdents withinthe regular classroom were grealer lime for instruction: increased suppan for regular teachers. including multidisciplinary teams and ICam teaching: site-based administrationc:'specialserv~and innovative a.lternatives. such as cuniculum-based assessment and cooperative learning. The
majority of these: proposals. based on prindplesofempowerment and participatory decision-making. require acollidxxative: ethos10be effectively implemented..
ARgljgriooSpfCgllabQ!'jlljgn in Sprri;alScryjm
The following discussion of collaboration in special services focusses on desaipcions ofconsuhation andaeaming. two commonly used suueturesofSCfVice ddivery in which a collaborative: style is most oftendcsirable(Friend&Cook. 1992).
CoIwI1Wim.Friend and Cook (1992) summarized the many definitions offered for consultation as "a voluntary process in which one professional assists another to address a problem concerning a third pany" (p. 17). According to Friend and Cook (1992). thenatu~of consul tauon is triadic. inditttt.and voluntary. Typically. it involves a
~[ationshipbetween two professionals whoatenot onpariI)' as one. the consultant. has more expertise than the other. the consullee. Participants in consultation shaR:the problem.
solvingprocess. but differentiare responsibilities. with the consu[1ee being accountable for any decisions made teprding the implementation of sntegies.
PhiUipsand McCullough (1990). based on an extensive literature review. cited the followingrenetsofschool-based constIltariOllprograms;
I. lndirectservioc(Diadic model; consultant-consultee (mediator)<lient.
2. Collaborative professional relationships (includes notion of coordinate statuS;
ownership of problemand process).
3. Recognition of consultee rights (engagement is voluntary and confidential:
consulcee~tainsrightfOreject solutions).
4. Problem-solving orienlation.
S. Attention to a two-fOld goal;
a.Immediate problem~solution:
b. Increase in consultee skilllknowledge for independent resolution of similar problems inthe fururc:. (p.293)
Pickering (1981) identirted rour models or consuhationbetween5peedl-Language pathologisu and teachers.1bc models could be regardedascomplemcnwy and used simullanCouslyorone model could be adop:ed to the exclusion or others. depending upon circumstantial need. In the "consultant as instrUctor' model. the speech.language pathologist provides the teacher with information aboutspcc:ch and language disorders.
Thi5 model does not specify active involvementofthe teacher.The~consu.ltaIllas specialist" model. the speech-language pathologist designs recommendations either alone or in conjunction with the IeaChcr.11Jcteacher implemenutherecommendations. which in...olvc stnllegies for cnhancin, communication skills in the classroom. Accordingto Pickering (1981).thismodel or consultationistime<0n5uming.asit involves geoenting written objectives rorteache~and deteRnining ir objccti...es ttavc been followed andare crfective. In the "consultant as racilitator" model. the speech-language pathologist develops acomprchcnsi"C language dC'ldopmentprognrntobe carried out solelyby!he:
teacher. While this modelproposestheIeaCher asthecentral figure in the student'Ssc:hooI experience, many teachers reel that they do not po'SCss adequate expertise to conducta structuredoral language program.1bc "communication-based consultation" model also acknowledgesthe: teacher's powerful role. but attentionisfocussed onthe: student as c:orrmunicator, withtheIC3CberISracilitaoor or strategies that promote effective classroom communication.1lJecommunicativeprocessis viewed primari.ly withinthecontextofsocial and academicuse,rather thanasconsisting only or discrete linguistic entities. suchas vocabulary andgranwnar.
As previously mentioned. the tenns "consultation- and "collaboration- have rrequently been equated or combined. However,theteRn "consultation- was used independently until the laIC 1970's,wtle:nitbccame generally accepted that a racilitative and supponive approachtoconsultation was prerenble to a dirc:ctive approach. Thus.
collaboration became auociated with consultation. rcnccting increased. emphasis on collegial rather than prcKriptive relationships between spcdalists and teachers (Friend&
Cook. (992; Idol et aL 1986). A collaborative style can be used with any ofanumber of consulrative models. includinr. behavioural consulwioo. clinical consuhation. andmental heaIlhconsultation. As weD. different inretpenonal styles (e.g... dim=tive, aulhoritarian) can be judiciouslyused with any model of consullation. depending upon the demands of a given circumstance (Friend&Coot. 1992).
PmfSSSKJO.1Ui.i1rm,.Friend andCook;(1992)describedateamas~arelatively small .set
or
iDlerdc:pendent individuals who workMk! interaCt directlyinacooo:I.ilWed manner [() achieve a common purpose" (p. 24). According to Friend and Cook (1992). it is not feasible to form aAd mainlain a team. as distinguished from a loosely formed poup. inthe absence of acoUabor-.uive style of inter.aetion.Teams are characterizedbycollaborative relationships among members. Team member-sshare parity. tlave a common goal. share responsibility for decision making.and share accountability for OUtcOmes. Teams have common norms and shared beliefs and values. and learn membersaust ooe anolher. Collaboration's c:mergent characleristiC of inlc:n1ependem;e is a critical defining characleristic of a Ie.am.(p.31)
Use of lhe word"team~in special education has mosl oflen refemd to a mullidisciplinary team. also termed inlerdisciplinary and II1lnsdisciplinary. with responsibility for planning and implementationofprograms for mainsttearned special needs srudenlS. 1bese teams. consisting of special and regular educalOfS, specialistS. and parents haveprovided a method of monitoringc:ducalional propamsand managing relaled concans (Winzer.1993).
A relatively recenl innovation in special education has been Ihe use of cooperative IcamS for teaching. In co-teaching. also refened 10 as learn leaching intheliterature. the special education teacher learnswith!beregularIeICherintheclassroom. The f1uionak is thai a combined effon win ircrease the effectiveness of illSUUClion 10 leaming disabled and otht'r special needs siudems in 3n inlcV'lt«l setting. The: advant3gel; of this Iype of service:
deliva)'. in whichmespecialeducatorprovides service to all slUdenlS withinmeregular class. arc incn:asingly recognized (e.g... Bauwens. Hournde.&Friend.1989: Friend&
Cook.1992).
Although regular and special educators
are
jointly responsible fortheprovision of insuuction. a division of duties orten exists..For example. qularteaehcn;possessin-depth knowledge of cunic:ulum content. appropriate levels and .sequencing of insuucUon. and behavioural managemenl of large groups of studenlS. Special education teachers have knowledie of methods of program individualization including analysis of curricular rcquirancnlS. idc:ntifkation and adapwionofareasofdifficulty widtinthecurriculum.and dcvelopmcnl of insuuctional modifICationstoassist studenL$. In a cooperative teaching situation. regularands~iaJeducation teacncrs' complcmcnlary skills arc combined forthe benefit of all studcnlS(Bauwens etaL (989).Avariely of cooperative teaching anangemcntS havebeendescribedintheIirerature.
Thesehave nOIbeen presented as muwaJly exclusivc. but rather as approaches thai can be used sequentially oc simultaneously within a classroom. Bauwens et al. (1989) classified cooperative insuuctional approaches inlo three broad calegories: complementlU)' instnlction. learn teaching. and supportive learning activities. Descriptions of these approaches were subsequently applied by Borsch and Oaks (1993) to cooperative relationships between speech-language pathologislSandlCachers.
Incomplementary instruction.theregularteaCherassumes primary rcsponsibililY for instrUCtion andthespecial education teacher assumes responsibility forthe sttalC:giesand techniques necessary 10 mulCT the material (e.g.. taking notcs. identifying main ideas) (Bauwens et al .• 1989). When a speech-language palhologist nuher than a special education teacher is involved.thespeech-language pathologistcon~naalcson speechandlanguage skills that are related to the lesson (e.g.. sequencingthe steps of a language-based mam problem. identifying and phrasing me main ideas of a narrative I. Allhough tcachin@:
panners are logelher responsible for the design. delivery. evalualion. and adaplation of Prov.uns.lheyICactIaccordingto!heirspecific area of~se(Borsch&Oaks.1993).
InteamleaChing. botheducaoorsplanandimplement lessons.monitor"students' progress. and modifymeprogramas necessary.butmedivision of responsibilities is not dependenton bllckground (BauwenselaI.•1989).Whenaspeech-language pathologist and ateacher team teach.bolll individuals teach str.uegiesandcontent. dividing teaching responsibilities inthewaymosl appropriatetothe subject
maner.
F«example., bothl:bc speech-language pathologistand the tcacheTcouldteachlhcmalh curriculum. covering content while focussing on verbal reasoning skills suchasinferencing and predicting (Borsch&Oaks.1993).Supponive learning activities entail jointdesignanddelivery ofkssons but, whc:I'eas lhe teacher delivers core cwriculum content,the special educationteaChcTsupplements comeO! with addilionalleaming activities.11Ie provision of supponive teaming activities differsfromcomplementary teaching in that activities and materialsaremore closely related 10cootentareasthan theyareto stntegiesthaIpromoce acquisition of content (Bauwens et aI .•1989).Activities developed collaboratively by a speech-language padlologist anda teaCher involvethe speech-language pathologist pn:senting malCrialthat both reinfon:es curriculum COOlCnl and targets speechand languagegoals(Borsch&Oaks.1993).
Ellesnin and CapiloulO (I994b) adapted Friend's(1992)taxonomy of cooperative leaching approaches for use in a study of speech-language pathologists' perceptions of inlCgJ'1l11ed service delivery. Their modiftcd classification Syslem encompassed seven approachesto !he provisionofspeechand language services:
I. One teach. one observe: Eitherthe speoch-Ianguage pathologist or the classroom teaehcrobsctves. whiletheother assumes primary instnlCtionai responsibiJity.
2. One teach. one "driO":Thespeech-Iangua~pathologist or classroom teacher assumes primary insuuetional responsibililY while the other assists students with theirwortc.monilors beh:lVior.c~assignments. and thelik~.
J.Station leaching; The speech.hmguage pathologist or classroom teacher divide instruCtional content into twopans(e.g.• vocabulary and content. new concepts and review). Groups are switched50that all studenu receive insuuctionfrom
4.Parallelteaehin.:The speecb-Ianguage pathologist and classroom ICaChercach insU"UCtshalf the group, eacb addressing the same instruCtional objectives.
S.Remedial teaching: The speech-language pathologist or classroom teacher instruel5 studenlSwhohave mastered the material tobeleamed whiletheother n:teaehc:sth05CstudcnlSwhohaYenot~thc:mao:rial.
6. Supplemenw teaching: The speet:h-tanguage pathologistOC"classroom teacher presenlS the lesson usinga standard formal.1beother adaplStheleuon for thosestudents who cannotmasterthematerial.
7. Team teaching; Both the speech-language pathologist and clas5room teacher presentthe lesson to allstudents.This mayinclude shared lecturing or having one teacher beginthelesson while the other t.lI.kesoverwhen appropriate (p.
260).
Aliterature review on collaboration in schools indicates that a collaborative philosophyis increasingly influencing the provision of special services. including speech and language services. Advancement of knowledge about special school.aged populations hasincreasedservice deliveryoptions. In addition. ithu conuibuted toward~sharing andreliance among school profc:ssKmals in dcterrninin, and meetingStudents'needs(Cook
&Friend.1991: Ganner&Upsky,1987: WiederhoIl1989).
Collaboration Between Speech-language Pathologists and Teachers This section prescnlS an overview of traditional and classfOOlTt-basc:d approaches to delivery ofspeech and language services. anddescribesthanctcristicsofdi50fdertYPes and student levels targetted through the use of classroom·based approaches. In addition. this
section discusses advantages and disadvantages and supports andbanie~toclassroom- based services priorfOoutlinina: training needs ror speech.language: pathologists whoadopt these innovative: approaches.
Ip!djtjog,1Apgmarbt:s
The:spc:ech.language: pathologisCs delivery or services[0students wilh language:- leanting difficulties hasmirrored spccialc:ducatioa puUoutmodesof scrvicedelivery. With rootsinmc:dicinc:. b1Iditionaipracticehas rocussed on diagnosis and lrCatme:nt wimaviewto curinga disorder. Assessm:nt has consisted primarily orIhc:administration or standardized tc:s1S in coouoUc:d environments.Bc:causec:vaIuationtLasbeenmus decoo.rr:xtualized. it has rrequentlyproducedinrormation thatisinapplicable: toIhc:studen!"s daily milieu and experience (Cirrin&Penner.199.5: Gutkin. 1990: NeISOfl. 1989. 1990).
InIhc:traditional pullout model, the spcc:ch-language: pamologist provides servicesto a range or St\JdenlSwithvarying disorde:rtypeSanddegrees or severity. SlUdenu' placement may be in e:ither regular oc special education classrooms. InterVention services areprovided10stude:nlS individually or in small groups or bam,mostorten inaroom othc:r than the classroom. The rreque:ncy and Ie:ngm or sessions and
me:
duration or service provisionvaries according10 the:needs ofthe swdc:nt (ASHA.1993: Nelson. 1990).The1970's and 1980's produced a prolireration or research on child langua.ge:
development. beginning with the: publication or Bloom's(1970)influe:ntialworkonthe:
semantics or e:arty grammatical structureS in children's language. Bale:s' (1976) slUdy or pragmatics.Of"the: use or language: inconlUl,undcncon:d the inseparability ormc:anwgand the cnvironmc:nt in which itisderived.Despite accumulalcdknowledge
or
the: wayin wfUch children lcam language:, delivery or servicestosrudcnlS who experienced difficulty leaming language mnaincd largc:ly unchanged (MiIle:r.1989).Problems associated <Nim b1Iditional deliveryofspeech and languagesef"tliceshave been wide:ly documented. Nelson (1990)describedmajor problc:ms associatedwith pullout approachesa.~Ie:ss time: allollied to each sludent when caselOitd size increases, lack or time(0
,.
individualize instr\lClion 10 spcech-aOO Ianguage·impaira:l sndents. limite:d generalization of s!Udenu' newlylearnedcommunkation skills10classroom interactions. and minimal sludentprogress:despile provision ofservice ona long-tenn basis. Omer negative aspects of tradilional approaches include goals thaiarefrequently irTelevant to sludems' socialand academicneeds;incruscd Studenl responsibilitY for new information. inaddition10regular wod:: missed while in pullout sessions; a focus on remediationtothe a;c1usion of prevention:and!he requirement mat speechand language services be provided solelyby speech-language pamologists(Andenon&.Nelson. 1988; Cirrin&Penner. 1995: Gutkin.
1990;Miller. 1989).
Qaumom_Rasqi Agpmaebq;
New approachestodelivery of speech and language services stem from research results that stress mat languageis most readily learned within meaningful contextS (Damico, 1987; MiUer, 1989; Norris. 1989; Simon. 1987).Theseresults. coupled with recognitionof the cenlnl role that oral language plays in socialization, cognition. and academic achievement. have forced a reexaminationofthe speech-language pathologist's role.
The dominance of language in school scuings is universally acknowledged (e.g., Caz:den, 1988; Silliman&Willcinson. L
c..
1991:Simon. 19851. 1985b: Wallach&BudeT.1984: Wiig&.Semel, 1984). Bush (1991) summarized the mediating function that language serves 001 only in reading and writing but inaUsubject areas.
Reading requires a structural. phonological, and semantic knowledge of the language. Math requires good comprehension (espec:ially for slOry problems), sequencing.,the followingofdirections. and problem-solving skills.Social studies and science require worid knowledge, a developed vocabulary. and association and memory skills. Good communication skills are cssentiailO all academic learning.
(p.1)
Extensive study on language~uiremcntswithin classrooms has created Inewview of the intimale relationship between language learning and academicsucc~ss.Thischangcd
