Abstract
Starling, J., Munro, N., Togher, L., & Arciuli, J. (2012). Training secondary school teachers in instructional language modification techniques to support adolescents with language impairment: A randomized controlled trial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 474–495.
Recent issues of Seminars in Speech and Language and Topics in Language Disorders as well as a number of sessions at the 2012 American Speech-Language-Hearing Convention addressed the roles of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) with Common Core Standards. Authors and presenters are in agreement that supporting students with language impairments in meeting Common Core Standards will require collaboration with teachers, particularly at middle and high school levels. At that level, SLPs cannot teach all the specific language skills students are lacking; they need to find ways to enable students to access the curriculum. This necessitates a close working relationship with the students’ teachers.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a collaborative intervention where an SLP trained secondary school teachers to make modifications in their oral and written instructional language. The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial to answer the following questions:
Do mainstream secondary school teachers who have been trained in the use of instructional language modification techniques by an SLP demonstrate the use of these techniques in their classroom teaching practices in comparison with a control group of teachers who have not been trained?
Can trained teachers’ use of instructional language modification techniques be sustained over a period of time in the absence of further direct support from the SLP?
Do secondary school students with LI who have been taught by teachers who used the instructional language modification techniques demonstrate significant improvements in their oral and written language ability in comparison with a control group of students with LI whose teachers have not received the training?
If improvements in the students’ oral and written language skills are observed pre–post teacher training, are these improvements maintained after a period of time when the trained teachers have no further support from the trainer (the SLP)?
The Study
Two schools were randomly assigned to a treatment condition and a control condition. Seven 8th-grade teachers were in the treatment group and six were in the control group. The teachers were from a range of disciplines. Sixty-six students with language impairments were identified across the two schools. There were no significant differences in scores on language assessments for students in the two schools.
Program
The training program was delivered by an SLP in individual or small-group interactive meetings with the teachers. The meetings occurred at the school during a 50-min out-of-class period once a week for the duration of a school term (10 meetings). When necessary, teachers were provided with a substitute teacher so they could have class release time. In addition, the SLP attended a minimum of three lessons per teacher to observe the teachers’ use and application of the trained techniques in their classrooms.
Four types of instructional language modification techniques were presented in the program:
Teachers’ written language. Teachers modified the language they used on a teacher-prepared worksheet by breaking down large amounts of information into smaller, visually distinct sections; added graphics and visual icons; provided descriptions for instructional vocabulary; and ensured that questions were on the same page as the text for easier reference.
Teachers’ oral language. Teachers ensured that their instructions were explicit rather than inferred, allowed time for students’ processing and verbal responses, repeated and rephrased key information and instructions, and faced the class when delivering important information.
Information processing. Teachers involved the whole class in analyzing complex texts by creating a mind map on the board that summarized key points and associated facts, provided a visual planner on the board, outlined the sequence of tasks to be covered during the lesson, and involved the whole class in creating visual aids such as to assist information processing and retention.
Direct vocabulary instruction. Teachers prioritized vocabulary when starting each new curricular topic, based on the three-tier vocabulary system (Beck, McKeown, & Lucan, 2002); embedded vocabulary in the students’ learning through activities such as creating visual symbols to assist with word meanings and retention; and conducted whole-class interactive morphemic analysis.
Program fidelity was addressed in the following ways:
Teachers were given a manual that included an overview of the program, background rationale, and outline of the content including the four phases of the program (overview/planning, instruction, learning and application, and assessment).
Observation of the teachers’ use of the trained techniques was made 3 times over the course of the program.
Modified written resources that were developed collaboratively by the SLP and teachers were collected over the course of the training.
To ensure that direct vocabulary teaching was occurring, students were given pre- and posttopic instruction vocabulary tests.
Teacher Outcomes
The degree to which teachers adopted and used intervention techniques that were presented to them in the training program was assessed with the Levels of Use tool (LoU; Hall, Dirksen, & George, 2006) through a structured interview. The LoU codes three levels of nonuse and five levels of use. A score from 0 to 7 reflects a teacher’s movement along a continuum from being a nonuser of an intervention (scores 0–2) to being a self-focused user (scores from 3–5) to being an impact-focused user (scores of 6 and 7). Seven parameters were evaluated:
knowledge about the characteristics of the interventions, how to implement them, and their consequences
acquiring information by soliciting information about the intervention—asking questions and reviewing printed materials
sharing plans, ideas, resources, outcomes, and problems with others
assessing some aspect of the intervention
planning short- and long-range steps during the intervention; meets with others to organize or coordinate use of the intervention
status reporting by describing personal reflections on the intervention and
performing or carrying out the actual intervention.
As a result of this project
Trained teachers were self-focused users (scores of 3–5) for knowledge, acquiring information, assessing, status reporting, and performing.
Two parameters, sharing and planning, had a median score of 5 indicating refinement of the intervention.
Trained teachers sustained their use of the intervention over a period of 12 weeks following completion of the training when there was no further input from, or support by, the SLP.
Student Outcomes
The students from the trained and control groups were tested pre- and post-training on the WIAT–II (Wechsler, 2007) subtests of Listening Comprehension, Written Expression, Reading Comprehension, and Oral Expression.
Students whose teachers had received the training showed significant improvements in the Written Expression and Listening Comprehension subtests of the WIAT–II relative to the students in the control group. These improvements could be related to two factors: (a) the trained teachers’ increased use of language techniques targeting written language and (b) the emphasis on direct vocabulary instruction, for example, teachers identified core curricular vocabulary and used student-generated definitions and visual symbols to encourage vocabulary growth.
Standard scores for reading comprehension significantly improved for both trained and control groups over time, suggestive of maturational effects rather than effects related to the teacher training. Even though the current literature on supporting reading comprehension difficulties in adolescence informed the program content, it may be that, in comparison with the written expression and vocabulary instruction techniques embedded in the program, specific strategies for reading comprehension per se were not addressed as directly and systematically.
No significant improvements were observed in either group of students for the Oral Expression subtest of the WIAT–II. With the increasing emphasis on written language in the upper grades, there may be a corresponding decrease in the focus on the importance of oral language in secondary classrooms.
The test scores of the students whose teachers received training were stable at the 12 week follow-up. The students did not regress but neither did they gain skills during that time. The authors contend that the training program did have immediate carryover benefits to students with LI, as witnessed by significant improvements in their written expression and listening comprehension pre– to post–teacher training. The lack of significant continued improvement post to follow-up may indicate that these students require additional support to achieve further gains in the longer term. The data suggest that the use of a systems-based approach may not be sufficient on its own to shift the long-term trajectory of adolescent LI.
Comments
This study is the first to show the positive effects of collaboration between an SLP and teachers. With so many students with language impairments being served in inclusive settings, this study provides critical information on strategies for facilitating their ability to access the curriculum. Although the study demonstrated that training teachers to modify the language they use in teaching can positively influence students’ written and listening skills, it also showed that these modifications had limitations and were not sufficient for continued growth. Therefore, what else will be necessary to enable students with language impairments to meet the requirements of common core standards?