Evidence-Based Interventions for Students with Learning and Behavioral Challenges

Richard J. Morris, Nancy Mather

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• Print ISBN: 9780415964548
• eBook ISBN: 9781135925130
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book assembles into one volume summaries of school-based intervention research that relates to those who deal on a regular basis with the growing body of students having high-incidence learning disabilities and/or behavior disorders: special educators, school psychologists, and clinical child psychologists. Chapter authors begin with an overview of their topic followed by a brief section on historical perspectives before moving on to the main section – a critical discussion of empirically based intervention procedures. In those instances where evidence-based prescriptions can legitimately be made, authors discuss best practices and the conditions (e.g., classroom environment, teacher expertise) under which these practices are most effective. A final section deals with policy issues.

III
STUDENTS HAVING LEARNING CHALLENGES

7
Oral Language Problems

Kathleen R. Fahey

Research findings regarding efficacious speech and language intervention have been on the rise in recent years. Efforts have been made to link science to practice across many areas of intervention through the life span (Fey & Johnson, 1998; Hodson, 1998; Imbens-Bailey, 1998; Ingram, 1998; Wilcox, Hadley, & Bacon, 1998). Some researchers use their empirical findings to provide details regarding how clinicians and educators can adapt them to their work with students including characteristics of individuals who will benefit from such research, and what methodology needs to be utilized for implementing the interventions (Holland, 1998). Clearly, the movement for evidence-based practice is forging new and exciting connections between researchers, clinicians, and educators. In this regard, in 2005, the editors of Topics in Language Disorders (Butler, Nelson, Wallach, Fujiki, & Brinton) devoted the fall issue of the journal to a look at how researchers have studied the nature of language and learning disabilities, and how practitioners have worked with such students during the past 25 years. The perspective of the articles was to examine how we have changed our views based on both research and practice, but also how we have remained the same in many of our beliefs and practices across time.

The most remarkable changes in recent years regarding language learning problems have occurred in our understandings of the nature of such problems in the context of the school day and across the oral-literacy continuum, the ways in which they should be identified relative to the school curriculum and other social and vocational settings, the collaboration of professionals including general education teachers to make identification and intervention relevant for classroom learning, and the participation of the students and parents as active decision-makers in team intervention planning. These advances in our thinking and actions have led to our current interventions that are decidedly more student and curricula-centered than they have been in the past. Intervention must be focused on building a student’s success in academic, social and vocational realms. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs), special educators, and classroom teachers are learning to work together toward the realization of intervention goals, which is of central importance in integrating language learning goals into the curriculum. In this regard, the recent addition of the Response to Intervention (RTI) model is an exciting avenue for strong collaboration of educators with the goal of applying interventions directly in the classroom. The core principles of RTI stress that: we can effectively teach all children; early intervention matters; a multi-tier model of service delivery provides appropriate and effective intervention; a problem-solving approach to decision-making is profitable; interventions and instructions are research-based and scientifically validated; student progress informs instruction; data is used to make decisions; and assessment is used for screening, diagnostics, and progress monitoring (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005). Under this model, SLPs and related service professionals must redefine their roles to become actively engage in the general education curriculum. In addition, teachers are encouraged to take advantage of the particular and specialized education and experience of SLPs and related service providers to maximize the shared responsibility for the implementation of RTI.

The focus of this chapter is on what we know about oral language problems, how these problems are manifest in academic and social situations, and the current state of interventions available to practitioners in classrooms and through other service delivery models including collaboration, consultation, RTI, and traditional pull-out intervention strategies. In particular, the focus is on students who have language-learning problems, hereafter referred to as students with language impairment (LI). It does not include students who have speech disorders exclusively (i.e., articulation, voice, fluency) or students who have severe motor, sensory, or cognitive challenges, even though many of the interventions described herein are effective with such students.

CHARACTERISTICS OF LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS

Language problems are often described according to our understanding of language as we receive it (reception) or produce it (expression) within the language skill set appropriate to the students’ ages. In an attempt to study, discuss, teach, and assess language characteristics in students, professionals consider several components, including language form (phonology, morphology, syntax), language content (semantics, metalinguistics, figurative language), and language use (pragmatics and discourse). Students with LI may have difficulty with all or some of these components. Table 7.1 provides a detailed list of characteristics from the literature and illuminates the numerous problems students experience within the oral-written continuum of language learning

Viewing language characteristics is helpful for understanding the variety of skills involved, but it often results in a fragmented presentation of the aspects of the language leading to fragmented intervention for language problems (Wallach, 2004). Such decontextualized descriptions of language problems, as noted in Table 7.1, make it difficult for teachers, SLPs, and related service providers to consider how language problems directly affect the daily performance of students in classrooms, and most importantly, how to intervene with these children (Nelson, 2005; Simon, 1991; Ukrainetz, 2006; Wallach, 2004). Thus, the goal of the following pages is to describe language problems as they often appear in classroom contexts for children of various ages and to present interventions within the classroom setting.

It is not uncommon for teachers to say that children with LI are considerably disadvantaged in schools, especially those who participate in assessments, planning meetings, and intervention programs for school-age children with such problems. Teachers describe the language difficulties demonstrated by students in relation to their performance within the learning environment. Some examples of what teachers say regarding student difficulties include: understanding complex oral and written directions for projects and assignments; participating in activities, such as rhyming, word segmentation, and spelling; recalling information; using background knowledge to predict outcomes from discussions, debates, narratives or plays; making inferences during discussions or readings; understanding and using multiple meanings of words in conversations; developing new and expanded definitions for words, and explaining and understanding metaphors and other figurative forms as encountered in readings, discussions and social interactions. Teachers often understand how each student’s language problem directly impacts the tasks that are required within the classroom, sometimes without knowing or recalling the specific results of language assessments. The specific and relevant information that teachers give regarding the language and learning demonstrations of students can serve as the basis for not only assessment, but also for intervention planning. Such information should be used in conjunction with assessment data from norm-referenced and observational data to plan intervention strategies that directly impact the student’s performance within the classroom or other contexts determined by the planning team (Ukrainetz, 2006).

TABLE 7.1
Characteristics of Oral Language Problems

---

Articulation, Phonology, and Metalinguistics

---

Delayed phonological acquisition

Articulation disorder

Phonological processing deficits result in speaking, listening, and reading problems

Ineffective access of phonological codes from working memory for rapid automatic naming

Difficulty making sound-symbol associations, sequencing sounds and syllables to decode words, encoding sound and syllable patterns to spell words, and comprehending rapid, distorted speech, especially in noise

Limited perception and production of complex phonemic configurations

Reduced phonological awareness

Incomplete development of sources of knowledge regarding phonemic awareness

Morphology and Syntax

---

Overall immaturity in grammatical structure with less elaboration and fewer complex forms than age peers

Difficulty with sentence repetition and completion tasks

Differences in the comprehension and production of syntax

Lack of appreciation for the morphemic structure of words

Low but significant frequency of grammatical errors, particularly in written text

Lack of later developing morphological and syntactic structures

Limited variety and combinations of verb forms, especially morphemes that mark verb tense

Limited ability to generalize morphemes to new word roots

Limited use of the copula, auxiliaries, and modals along with forms such as the perfect, progressive, and passive involving verb suffixes and auxiliaries

Fewer and more limited range of questions containing wh and auxiliary and modal elements

Fewer complex sentences

Limited use of later developing adverbial connectives for syntactic conjunction and discourse cohesion

Difficulty with left branching clauses and combinations of clauses

Limited production and complexity of noun phrase expansions

Continued use of spoken language forms in writing

Reduced ability to use grammatical rules to understand sentences produced by teachers

Reduced flexibility in understanding word order variations

Ineffective use of grammatical morphemes to predict words in academic tasks

Semantics and Figurative Language

---

Reduced rate and quantity of acquisition of vocabulary

Comprehension difficulties and misinterpretations of messages

Difficulty establishing new words, their definitions and their use

Limited variety and flexibility of word use

Premature decisions about a speaker’s intentions

Difficulty comprehending basic classroom vocabulary and concepts

Immaturity in the acquisition and use of figurative forms including idioms, metaphors, multi-meaning words, jokes, and puns

Failure to interpret headings in books and newspapers

Off-target responding

Inaccurate word selection

Word-finding and recalling problems

Use of invented words and phrases (neologisms)

Rigidity in categorizing words and difficulty making rapid associations or shifts in meaning relative to context

Difficulty drawing inferences and comprehending the broader meanings of textual information

Lack of strategies for using the dictionary

Oral and Written Discourse

---

Quantity and quality differences in oral and written narrative development including less detail about characters and events, omission of story segments, and failure to use cohesive ties and explicit referents

Problems in the management of narratives and expository texts

Use of starters and stereotyped phrases

Inadequate or inaccurate use of pronouns for anaphoric reference

Immaturity in the comprehension and production of school discourse

Inadequate topic closure

Disorganized sentences and events in stories

Poor advanced cognitive planning and immature command of linguistic structures

Difficulty identifying misunderstandings and lack of strategies to seek clarification

Difficulty learning and applying classroom communication rules

Poor ability to express thoughts in a connected fashion

Pragmatics

---

Misinterpretation of nonverbal messages

Failure to accurately interpret facial expressions and gestures that accompany spoken messages

Significantly less eye contact

Inappropriate maintenance of distance during conversational situations

Poor use of survival language

Inappropriate interaction with peers

Limited use of style shifts to fit social situations

Information processing

---

More time necessary to process information

Slower rate of acquisition of lexical, syntactic, and morphological structures

Short-term memory difficulties

Difficulty recalling verbal facts and details from long-term memory

Failure to take an active role in learning

Reduced comprehension monitoring and question asking

Persistence of comprehension difficulties into adolescents and adulthood

Immaturity in the interpretation of events

Inadequate selection and attention to relevant information

Difficulty remembering and following directions

Ineffective use of strategies for learning, remembering, and generalizing information

Disorganization of thoughts and reduced flexibility in thinking

Ineffective and inefficient learning strategies

Reduced language processing and reading problems

Psychiatric and social problems

---

PRINCIPLES THAT UNDERLIE LANGUAGE PROBLEMS

Some principles have been learned across decades of research about language and learning. The first principle is that children do not outgrow language and learning problems. In fact, longitudinal studies show that language problems are pervasive and change as children age (Bashir & Scavuzzo, 1992; Bashir, Conte, & Heerde, 1998; Wallach, 2004). The difficulties that children demonstrate in acquiring the language as toddlers and preschoolers do not resolve themselves with time or completely, even with intervention. Rather, such problems take on different manifestations as the demands increase and change through the curriculum. Nelson (1998) describes language as multifaceted, complex, and heterogeneous. That is, language users must have a solid and flexible system that can be adapted to suit a variety of situations and levels of complexity to meet current and future demands for learning and the application of information to familiar and new situations.

The second principle regarding students with LI is that the context of the situation is an important variable in how the student uses language (Nelson, 1998; Simon, 1991a). Despite decades of research to the contrary, language-learning interventions continue to be offered in a fragmented and decontextualized format with a focus on competence for single skills. When we ask only about the nature of a child’s language problem, we miss the important idea that the student performs differently depending on the nature of the task at hand. The more useful question for assessment and intervention is: What is this child able to do and what is she or he having difficulty with in your classroom (or with this assignment, task, subject, etc.)? Mather and Goldstein (2001) place the learning environment among four foundational skills within their framework for understanding classroom learning and behavior. They discuss many attributes of effective teachers and offer concrete suggestions for creating optimal classroom environments, noting that what works for the majority of students require flexibility and thoughtful engineering for others. The language environment in particular is a critical component in language intervention and contextual learning is vital for students to use language within classrooms. Ukrainetz (2006) calls for “contextualized skill intervention” that emphasizes naturalistic, hybrid (blend of child and adult-centered), systematic, and explicit interventions.

Language and learning problems in children require individualized, direct and specialized intervention. Each student’s needs must be carefully identified within the classroom and other settings to design a comprehensive plan for intervention with participation from the student, parents, teachers, and related service providers. Such a plan requires short- and long-term objectives that lead to academic, social, and/or vocational progress. Educators should together, in consultation with parents of students with LI, direct classroom-based and consultative/collaborative services that will provide maximum instructional and generalization opportunities. Short-term pull out services should primarily be used to teach new strategies and skills. Student goals and objectives should be clearly focused to improve language in all of the affected areas.

A fourth principle is that language is not only a primary avenue for interaction with others, but it is also a primary tool for learning. Thus, students with LI have difficulty across modes. Language competence and performance develops and is refined over many years and within overlapping modes. Thus, language must be thought of as a continuum of abilities that include speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Further, language interacts with the development of executive functions including attention, memory, critical thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving. As students encounter difficulties with learning in classrooms, it is a complex process to discover the nature of their problems and to plan appropriate evidence-based interventions.

Students with LI are disadvantaged. LI interferes with academic, social and vocational success. Children, who have enriched language backgrounds, a typical rate and sequence of acquisition, and ongoing strategies for learning, continue to gain in all of these areas. Conversely, children, who do not have adequate opportunity and show weaknesses in learning language, do not catch up and continue to get further behind across time (Aram, Ekelman, & Nation, 1984; Aram & Hall, 1989; Hall & Tomblin, 1978; King, Jones, & Lasky, 1982). Thus, those students with impoverished language and learning abilities not only continue to demonstrate these problems across the curriculum, but also show the additive effect of their depressed skills on their acquisition and use of academic knowledge and written language. Such students do not catch up to age-matched peers and may continue to have language problems as adults (Johnson & Blalock, 1987).

Early intervention is critical for students with LI. The identification of infants, toddlers and preschoolers who have commu...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• Contributors
• I: Introduction
• II: Students Having Behavioral Challenges
• III: Students Having Learning Challenges
• IV: Issues Related to Teaching Students Having Learning and Behavioral Challenges
• V: Commentary on Teaching Students Having Learning and Behavioral Challenges