SUSAN FAUCHEUX JANNA OETTING lsu/literacylearning/ ASHA, 2001

1. LANGUAGE LITERACY LAB SUSAN FAUCHEUX JANNA OETTING www.lsu.edu/literacylearning/ ASHA, 2001

2. COLLABORATIVE BASED THERAPY MODEL • Lab serves 12-16 students per session • Curriculum based language objectives • Focus on skills needed for school/life • Focus on compensatory strategies to overcome language deficits • Daily collaboration between special education faculty, target children, peer models • Weekly/monthly collaboration with university personnel

3. GOAL OF THE LANGUAGE LITERACY LAB • To provide intervention/remediation in receptive and expressive language skills, math problem solving, reading comprehension skills, and written language skills • Work station/small group centered • Collaborative service delivery model • Multisensory instructional approach • Curriculum based goals/objectives

4. LANGUAGE LAB FACILITY Computer Center Writing/ Manipulative Center Reading/Visual Center Role-Play/ Game Center Listening Center Net TV Net TV Net TV

5. LISTENING CENTER • Novels/stories under headphones • Grammar and Math to Rap Music • Computer games/ Internet research via Net TV • Phonemic Awareness • Listening Comprehension

6. WRITING/MANIPULATIVE CENTER • Written work • Manipulative activities • Journaling • Board Work • Overhead Transparencies • Note taking

7. READING/VISUAL CENTER • Board Games • Movies • TV/VCR presentations • Group/Silent Reading activities • Accelerated Reader activities

8. ROLE-PLAY/GAME CENTER • Role – Playing • Board Games • Net TV Activities • Team Competition • Study Skills • Test Taking • Art Work/Projects • Math activities

9. COMPUTER CENTER • Computer Games • Computer Tests • Internet Research • Easy Book/Story Writer • Grammar activities • E-Books • Teacher Resource Center

10. FLOOR ACTIVITIES • Floor Games • Hop-On Grammar • Living Sentences • Line Dancing • Art Projects • Puzzles • Map Skills • Cable TV viewing

11. STUDENT MAILBOXES/FOLDERS • Student Data Folders • Peer Tutor Sign-in • Worksheet Mailboxes • The Learning Tree

12. THE LEARNING TREE • Grade level Branches • Student leaves for 80% > mastery • Student competition • Visible accomplishments • Salient rewards

13. Student Log Forms date of attendance present/absent comments % of mastery Student Data Form student identification IEP/evaluation information medical information student schedule STUDENT FOLDER FORMS

14. READING ACTIVITY • Teacher Directed • Peer tutor aided • Orally answer comprehension questions • Determine main idea/predictions • Identify specific story details

15. MATH/READING/LANGUAGE ACTIVITY • Teacher Directed/ • Peer-tutor/Para- • Educator Monitored • Design Haunted House, draw maps • Internet research • Collect money, count, make deposit • Write story on Easy Book

16. GRAMMAR ACTIVITY • Teacher Directed • Peer tutor assisted • Identify parts of speech • Formulate complex sentences • Expand sentences with more complex structures • Unscramble sentences • Identify incorrect sentence structures

17. FUNCTIONAL/THEMATICACTIVITIES • Design, construct, and run Haunted House – students collect, count, and deposit money. • Treasure Island-read story, build the island and characters, draw maps • Scavenger hunt utilizing maps in the zoo in the rainforest section. • Rain forest unit – write E-Book • Huckleberry Finn-read novel, take the trip • American Revolution – learn about the people, customs, politics

18. Research Questions • Who is served by the lab? • Does the lab lead to improved skills of the children? • How do children classified as language impaired differ from those on the special education caseload who do not receive this educational classification?

19. Who is Served? • 44 children on special education caseload 22 Learning Disabled 8 Speech-Language Impaired 9 Speech-Language/Learning Disabled 5 Other

20. Measures of Student Performance • Teacher evaluations • Student evaluations • Students’ GPA in 5 subjects • Iowa National Percentiles

21. Teacher Evaluations • Anonymous questionnaire collected Spring, 2001 • Have you visited the lab? • Do you have students who attend lab? • Did the SLP collaborate with you on a regular basis? • Do you feel the lab has helped your students? • Should the lab continue? • Do you have any suggestions to improve the lab?

22. Results • 15 teachers completed questionnaire • All had visited lab, had students in lab, and reported weekly collaboration with SLP • All felt the lab should continue • Suggestions: • Larger facility, incorporate more math into lab

23. Student Questionnaires • How does the lab help you with school? • How does the lab hurt your school work? • Should the lab be offered next year? • How would you change the lab?

24. Results • 33 students completed the anonymous questionnaire • 28 (85%) provided positive comments about lab helping them • 28 (85%) felt the lab should continue • Suggestions: • More advanced help, larger facility, have lab everyday, more tables, more peer tutors, let students select centers, let students work on homework

25. Student GPA • Average GPA • English • Math • Reading • Social Science • Science

26. 1999-2000 No Lab Average GPA =1.67 5th = 1.81 6th = 1.49 7th = 1.30 8th = 2.08 2000-2001 Lab Average GPA = 1.87 5th = 1.68 6th = 2.11 7th = 1.53 8th = 2.19 GPA

27. Student GPA by Quarter 1.9 1.8 1.7 First 1.6 Second Third Mean 1.5 Fourth 1999/2000 2000/2001 YEAR

28. Iowa National Percentiles • 1998-1999 No Lab (n = 7) • 1999-2000 No Lab (n = 14) • 2000-2001 Lab (n=14) • All analyses involve pair-wise comparisons (child is compared to him/herself)

29. Results Iowa Composite Percentiles 1999 29.71 (20.68) 2000 28.64 (19.85) 2001 38.57 (15.60) t(13) = 2.70, p = .018 * Math differences t(13) = 2.61, p = .02 * Writing differences t(13) = 3.20, p =.007 *

30. Bars show Means Iowa Composite Scores 60 50 40 Percentile 30 20 10 1999 2000 2001 Year

31. Other Indicators of Success • 1999-2000 50% of 8th grade students in special education graduated. • 2000-2001 70% of 8th grade students in special education graduated. • All students completed Treasure Island Reading Comprehension Test with 80% during Spring, 2001.

32. Writing from Journals • Kranz, L. (1999). All about me: A keepsake journal for kids. Flagstaff, AZ: Rising Moon. • Fall 2000 at beginning of school year • Spring 2001 at end of school year • 3 journal entries each semester

33. Fall, 2000 Total utterances per entry = 12.80 Difference word roots per entry = 46.65 Use of complex syntax in utterances = 4.80 Spring, 2001 Total utterances per entry = 16.05 Different word roots per entry = 60.95 Use of complex syntax in utterances = 6.20 Results

34. Question 3 • How do children with a history and current classification of speech-language impairment differ from others in special education that do not carry this educational classification? • 10 speech-language impaired/+/-LD • 10 learning disabled only

35. Measures • Standardized language tests • Grey Oral Reading Test • Test of Auditory-Perceptual Skills • Test of Adolescent Language • Clinical Evaluation of Language Functions • Oral language sample analyses • Written language sample analyses • Teacher ratings of communication skills • Grades

36. Results • No statistical differences, but trends • Standardized language tests • Children with speech-language classification scored lower than those without classification. • Language samples • Children with speech-language classification produced more language with greater complexity and diversity than those without classification. • Teacher ratings • Children with speech-language classification received higher ratings than those without classification.

37. Summary • Lab is working • Teacher/Student evaluations • Student grades • Student standardized test scores • Student graduation rate • Lab meets the needs of children traditionally served by speech-language clinicians as well as meets the needs of others in special education.