ASHA Thursday, November 15, 2007 3:30 -5:30

1. Integrating Speech & Language Interventions in Kindergarten: Co-Teaching ApplicationsDonna D. Merritt, Ph.D.merritt@ctserc.orgDebra BeveridgeLisa Smith-Horn ASHA Thursday, November 15, 2007 3:30 -5:30

2. Who Are We? SERC – Connecticut's State Education Resource Center (www.ctserc.org) South Windsor, Connecticut Public Schools (www.swindsor.k12.ct.us) • About 5,000 students • 7 schools • Special Education Prevalence Rate: 11.8% Pleasant Valley Elementary School (HOT School)

3. Teachers and SLPs Co-Teaching in Connecticut • Statewide initiative since 2001 • About 400 teams trained • Customized training and job-embedded technical assistance to some districts • Using Marilyn Friend’s Co-teaching structures

4. The Co-Teaching Professional Development Model in South Windsor, CT • Multi-year commitment (year 3) • Administrative Support • Dedicated co-planning time • Coordination with other initiatives and priorities • Training • Job-embedded PD

5. Why Co-Teach? • Resonates with the principles of inclusive practice • Provides a structure for ensuring access • Addresses OSEP’s State Performance Plan Indicator #5 (increase TWNDP) • Is an Evidence-Based Practice

6. EAHCA (Education for All Handicapped Children Act) 1975 IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) 1990 IDEA Reauthorization 1997 IDEA Reauthorization 2004/NCLB Access to schools Access to classrooms Access to and progress in general education curriculum; higher expectations Scientifically-Based Interventions; EBP: Accountability; Educational Benefit from IEPs Access

7. CT’s State Performance Plan FAPE in the LRE – Indicators # 5 and 6 5A. Increase the percentage of students with disabilities aged 6-21 removed from regular class less than 21% of the day Targets • 2005-06 62.5% (Baseline) • 2006-07 65.0% • 2007-08 67.5% • 2008-09 70.0% • 2009-10 72.5% • 2010-11 75.0%

8. Evidence-Based Practice • McGinty, A. S. & Justice, L. (2006). Classroom-based versus pull-out interventions: A review of the experimental evidence. EBP Briefs, 1(1), 1-25. New York: AGS Publishing. • Throneburg, R.N., Calvert, L.K., Sturm, J.J., Paramboukas, A. A. & Paul, P.J. (2000). A comparison of service delivery models: Effects on curricular vocabulary skills in the school setting. American Journal of Speech-language Pathology, 9, 10-20.

9. Definition of Co-Teaching Co-teaching is a service delivery system in which: • two (or more) certified staff, • contract to share instructional responsibility, • for a single group of students, • primarily in a single classroom workspace, • for specific content, • with mutual ownership, pooled resources, and joint accountability, • although each individual’s level of participation may vary. Marilyn Friend, 2005

10. Student Benefits • Speech and language IEP goals and objectives relate to general education curriculum, instruction and routines • Intervention strategies and communication skills are embedded in authentic learning contexts

11. Benefits of Co-teaching for Teachers and SLPs Teacher Learns… SLP Learns… Speech & language underpinnings of the curriculum Factors related to literacy Interactive language techniques generalizable to other learners Curriculum Scope & sequence Instructional methods Expectations for average learners Respond to student concerns Implement strategies for all students

12. Potential Barriers for Teacher/SLP Co-teaching Partnerships • School culture of isolationism • Traditional service delivery model only • Limited role of SLP • Insufficient time for designing and implementing collaborative plans

13. Co-Teaching ApproachesMarilyn Friend – The Power of 2 • One Teach, One Observe • Parallel Teaching • Station Teaching • Alternative Teaching • Teaming • One Teach, One Assist

14. One Teach – One Observe Co-teachers decide in advance what types of specific observational information to gather during instruction and they agree on a system for gathering data. Afterward, the co-teachers analyze the data together.

15. One Teach – One Observe

16. One Teach – One Observe Applications for SLPs – Collecting data re: • Number of conversational turns • Use of targeted vocabulary during teacher-led discussion (oral, signs) • Accuracy in following directions as compared to typical peers • Use of language to negotiate cooperative group interactions • Fluency during an oral presentation • Use of targeted syntax structures in response to teacher questions

17. One Teach – One Assist One person has primary responsibility for teaching, while the other professional circulates through the room, providing unobtrusive assistance to students as needed.

18. One Teach – One Assist

19. One Teach – One Assist Applications for SLPs: • Support for use of an AT tool in writing tasks or an AAC system during oral tasks • Rephrasing task demands • Asking students to paraphrase directions prior to beginning task (comprehension check) • Scaffold the sequence of steps to complete a task • Target vocabulary words or concepts essential in the instruction

20. Station Teaching In this approach, the co-teachers divide the content into three short instructional segments. The class is also divided into three small groups. Each adult mans one station, teaching the same content to one group and subsequently repeating the instruction for the other groups. The third station offers students an opportunity to work independently.

21. Station Teaching

22. Station Teaching Applications for SLPs: • “Mirror” practice targeting articulatory awareness and production of targeted phonemes during phonics instruction • Explicit instruction of essential concepts or vocabulary related to a literature, science or SS unit • Identifying similarities and differences between key content vocabulary • Responding to “wh” questions (content based)

23. Parallel Teaching On occasion, student learning would be greatly facilitated if they had more supervision or more opportunities to respond. In parallel teaching the co-teachers divide the class group, both teaching the same content simultaneously.

24. Parallel Teaching

25. Parallel Teaching Applications for SLPs: • Support dialogue among students during conversational turns • Reinforce comprehension of critical vocabulary and concepts • Use graphic organizers as support for expressing key ideas • Scaffold “round robin” listing of ideas

26. Alternative Teaching In most class groups occasions arise in which several students need specialized attention. In alternative teaching, one teacher takes responsibility for the large group, while the other works with a smaller group. The alternative group is not a special education group.

27. Alternative Teaching

28. Alternative Teaching Applications for SLPs: • Application of an AT tool to complete a writing assignment (other students in group also need to complete their assignment) • Pre-teaching essential vocabulary or concepts • Teaching and practicing the language of negotiating turns (authentic task; classroom content) • Practice blending sounds or producing multi-syllabic words

29. Teaming In teaming, both teachers co-deliver instruction at the same time. Most co-teachers consider this approach the most complex, but satisfying way to co-teach, but it is the approach that is most dependent on teachers’ styles and requires the most planning.

30. Teaming

31. Teaming Applications for SLPs: • Alternate reading dialogue from a chapter (exaggerated paralinguistic cues) • Sort and write “brainstormed” information into logical categories (use for review) • Record cause-effect information on a graphic organizer • Role play conflicting points of view

32. Pleasant Valley School Co-Teachers Debra Beveridge, SLP Lisa Smith-Horn, Kindergarten Teacher

33. Who Are Our Kindergarten Students? • 20 in a.m. and 18 in p.m. classes • Ages: 4.5 – 6.5 • Different educational experiences • Range of learners and abilities • Challenge of differentiating learning

34. Teacher/SLP Partnership • 2006-07 training – some experimentation • Curriculum writing days - summer 2007 • Planned 15 weeks of intervention – 2 lessons per week

35. Dual Intervention Focus • Phonological awareness, story comprehension and storytelling • Basis for literacy - primary areas of focus in the district • Correlation to reading success • District test scores (Connecticut Mastery Test drives instruction)

36. Story Braidy Organization of Lessons • 4 weeks of phonological awareness • 4 weeks of story comprehension and storytelling

37. Phonological assessment • Reading consultant reports improved rhyming ability of Kindergarteners compared with students last year at the same point in the year

38. Narrative Assessment • Books with easily recognizable story elements – hiding the words • Prompt: “Tell me a story.” • Second try: cues and scaffolding as needed to gather diagnostic information • Scoring using Kindergarten narrative rubrics

39. Kindergarten Story Comprehension Rubric

40. Kindergarten Storytelling Rubric

41. Sample Co-Taught Lessons: Phonological Awareness

44. Sample Co-Taught Lessons:Storytelling and Comprehension

46. Lessons Learned • Importance of the relationship • Need for flexibility • Scheduling and planning challenges • Who’s Who? – learning names

47. Environmental challenge - background noise • Gathering data and monitoring “at risk” students prior to and during referral to “strategy team” (Response to Intervention - RtI) • Carryover and generalization of learning • Pull-out option as needed

49. Questions All resources available at www.ctserc.org • Co-teaching lesson plans • Kindergarten story comprehension rubric • Kindergarten storytelling rubric • Co-teaching lesson plan form • Co-Teaching: An Evolving Role for SLPs (article) Contact Information • merritt@ctserc.org • Story Braidy – www.mindwingconcepts.com