Teachers’ instructional language with elementary students with language impairment

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

11. 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!

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. Findings-sentence type

16. Findings-Functions

17. Findings-Cognitive level

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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

21. Cubing method for teachers’ self-monitoring

22. 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.

23. 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.