1 / 23

Teachers’ instructional language with elementary students with language impairment

Teachers’ instructional language with elementary students with language impairment. Wenjing Zheng & Erna Alant. Acknowledgement. School teachers and students Paulo Tan, Lindsey Ogle, and Michael Verde Marwa Tagheb Erin Peabody Xuyang Cao. Rationale.

clay
Download Presentation

Teachers’ instructional language with elementary students with language impairment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Teachers’ instructional language with elementary students with language impairment Wenjing Zheng & Erna Alant

  2. Acknowledgement • School teachers and students • Paulo Tan, Lindsey Ogle, and Michael Verde • MarwaTagheb • Erin Peabody • Xuyang Cao

  3. Rationale • Importance of special education teachers’ instructional language • Current studies of special education teachers’ interaction with children with special needs • Kim & Hupp (2005): cognitive disabilities • Nind, Kellett,& Hopkins (2001): learning disabililies • Dukmak (2010): comparison between special and general • Wang, Bernas, & Eberhard (2001): severe language impairment • Popich & Alant (1997): miscellaneous group

  4. Research questions • What are the characteristics of special education teachers’ instructional language during one-on-one instruction? • Are there any differences between the instructional language with students with mild language impairment and students with severe language impairment?

  5. Method • Setting: two self-contained elementary special education classrooms • Participants: Two special education teachers • Facilitating participants: • Two students with mild language impairment • Two students with severe language impairment

  6. Participants

  7. Method • Recorded session: “Teacher work” • Audio recording: 10 sessions (15-25 minutes) for each student • Nvivo: coding of the characteristics of teachers’ instructional language -Sentence type -Sentence function -Level of cognitive demands • Inter-rater reliability • Sentence type: 100% • Sentence function: 80.0% • Level of cognitive demands: 73.3%

  8. Examples of coding

  9. Excerpt 1 (Mild; book reading) • T:Show me blue gloves. • S: Blue. • T:Those are red gloves. Can you show me some blue gloves? • S: Blue gloves. • T: Yes, there is sky. Sky is blue. Blue gloves. • S: Blue gloves. Turn the page. • T: Turn the page. You want to see the TV? OK, sit down. What do you see now? Can you see a baby? • S: baby. • T: What is that baby doing? Waving! Good job!

  10. Excerpt 2 (Severe; Matching) • T: Match cup! Matching cup! Good job! • T: Put it in the basket. OK, my turn. • T: Look! Match bowl. A little closer! Let’s try again. • T: Match bowl. Matching bowl! Good job! Are you OK? • T: Use your hands and eyes. Match cup. Let’s try again. You are very fast. • T: Let’s practice cups three times, and we will move on.

  11. Excerpt 3 (Mild; sight word ) • T: I am going to write some words and see if you know them. Are you ready for a test? • S: Yeah! • T:Good! I am going to start with a really hard one. Are you ready for a hard one? • S: MOM • T: “Mom”! Great! She is gonna be very happy. It is too easy for you. OK. How about this? • S: YOU • T: “You”! Yes, you know it. You are so smart! How about this one? • S: BOY • T: “Boy”! That’s right! (name) Am I a boy? No? Who is a boy in our class? Who? Is Karla a boy? • S: No.

  12. Excerpt 4 (Severe; language and social interaction) • T: Want ball. Want ball. • T: Good job signing! Want ball. Want ball. Orange ball. Do you put it under your shirt? • T: Under shirt. Under shirt. There it is. Ball. Ball. • T: Do you want ball? No? OK. Oh, want toys? OK. Let’s put some back. What would you like? • T: Oh, what is this? Want dinosaur. Want dinosaur. That is a big hit today. • T: Green dinosaur! Dinosaur! • T: Ok, my turn. (name) My turn. Let’s take off the tokens. Thank you! Tokens off. Put it on the table.

  13. Findings-sentence type

  14. Findings-Functions

  15. Findings-Cognitive level

  16. Discussion • Variation in the language use, patterns between two classroom are similar • Difference between mind and severe • Structured instruction with variation • Common Core Essential Element for k-1 for communication: With guidance and support, to identify and retell, match similar information, and to state thoughts, feelings, and ideas.

  17. Limitations • Method: audio recording; two classroom in one school strict • No description of the Students language level and responses (matching between T and S) • No focus on specifically how teachers modify their language in interaction between severe and mild

  18. Implication for practice • 1. pre-instructional sections in “teacher-work” • Social interaction • Review and recap • 2. post-instructional sections in “teacher-work” • Raising questions • Communicate with students and share thoughts

  19. Cubing method for teachers’ self-monitoring

  20. Future • How the coding and analysis of this study raise awareness of instructional language • Whether teachers will spontaneously adjust their instruction (two directions) • How teachers’ perceptions of the curriculum and students’ language level interact with their practice.

  21. References • Blank, M., Rose, S.A., & Berlin, L.J. (1978). The Language of Learning: The Preschool Years. London: Grune & Stratton, Ltd. • Dukmak, S. (2010). Classroom interaction in regular and special education middle primary classrooms in the United Arab Emirates. British Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 39-48. • Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated Instructional Strategies: One Size Doesn’t Fit All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. • Kim, O., & Hupp, S. (2005). Teacher interaction styles and task engagement of elementary students with cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 293-308. • Nind, M., Kellett, M., & Hopkins, V. (2001). Teachers’ talk styles: communicating with learners with severe and complex learning difficulties. Children Language Teaching and Therapy, 17(2), 145-159. • Popich, E., & Alant, E. (1997). Interaction between a teacher and the non-speaking as well as speaking children in the classroom. The South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 44, 31-40. • Wang, X., Bernas, R., & Eberhard, P. (2001). Effects of teachers’ verbal and non-verbal scaffolding on everyday classroom performances of students with Down Syndrome. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9(1), 71-80.

More Related