Susan faucheux janna oetting www lsu edu literacylearning asha 2001
Download
1 / 37

SUSAN FAUCHEUX JANNA OETTING lsu/literacylearning/ ASHA, 2001 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 417 Views
  • Uploaded on

LANGUAGE LITERACY LAB. SUSAN FAUCHEUX JANNA OETTING www.lsu.edu/literacylearning/ ASHA, 2001. COLLABORATIVE BASED THERAPY MODEL. Lab serves 12-16 students per session Curriculum based language objectives Focus on skills needed for school/life

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'SUSAN FAUCHEUX JANNA OETTING lsu/literacylearning/ ASHA, 2001' - Rita


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Susan faucheux janna oetting www lsu edu literacylearning asha 2001 l.jpg

LANGUAGE LITERACY LAB

SUSAN FAUCHEUX

JANNA OETTING

www.lsu.edu/literacylearning/

ASHA, 2001


Collaborative based therapy model l.jpg
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


Goal of the language literacy lab l.jpg
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


Language lab facility l.jpg
LANGUAGE LAB FACILITY

Computer

Center

Writing/

Manipulative

Center

Reading/Visual

Center

Role-Play/

Game Center

Listening

Center

Net TV

Net

TV

Net TV


Listening center l.jpg
LISTENING CENTER

  • Novels/stories under headphones

  • Grammar and Math to Rap Music

  • Computer games/ Internet research via Net TV

  • Phonemic Awareness

  • Listening Comprehension


Writing manipulative center l.jpg
WRITING/MANIPULATIVE CENTER

  • Written work

  • Manipulative activities

  • Journaling

  • Board Work

  • Overhead Transparencies

  • Note taking


Reading visual center l.jpg
READING/VISUAL CENTER

  • Board Games

  • Movies

  • TV/VCR presentations

  • Group/Silent Reading activities

  • Accelerated Reader activities


Role play game center l.jpg
ROLE-PLAY/GAME CENTER

  • Role – Playing

  • Board Games

  • Net TV Activities

  • Team Competition

  • Study Skills

  • Test Taking

  • Art Work/Projects

  • Math activities


Computer center l.jpg
COMPUTER CENTER

  • Computer Games

  • Computer Tests

  • Internet Research

  • Easy Book/Story Writer

  • Grammar activities

  • E-Books

  • Teacher Resource Center


Floor activities l.jpg
FLOOR ACTIVITIES

  • Floor Games

  • Hop-On Grammar

  • Living Sentences

  • Line Dancing

  • Art Projects

  • Puzzles

  • Map Skills

  • Cable TV viewing


Student mailboxes folders l.jpg
STUDENT MAILBOXES/FOLDERS

  • Student Data Folders

  • Peer Tutor Sign-in

  • Worksheet Mailboxes

  • The Learning Tree


The learning tree l.jpg
THE LEARNING TREE

  • Grade level Branches

  • Student leaves for 80% > mastery

  • Student competition

  • Visible accomplishments

  • Salient rewards


Student folder forms l.jpg

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


Reading activity l.jpg
READING ACTIVITY

  • Teacher Directed

  • Peer tutor aided

  • Orally answer comprehension questions

  • Determine main idea/predictions

  • Identify specific story details


Math reading language activity l.jpg
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


Grammar activity l.jpg
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


Functional thematic activities l.jpg
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


Research questions l.jpg
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?


Who is served l.jpg
Who is Served?

  • 44 children on special education caseload

    22 Learning Disabled

    8 Speech-Language Impaired

    9 Speech-Language/Learning Disabled

    5 Other


Measures of student performance l.jpg
Measures of Student Performance

  • Teacher evaluations

  • Student evaluations

  • Students’ GPA in 5 subjects

  • Iowa National Percentiles


Teacher evaluations l.jpg
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?


Results l.jpg
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


Student questionnaires l.jpg
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?


Results24 l.jpg
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


Student gpa l.jpg
Student GPA

  • Average GPA

    • English

    • Math

    • Reading

    • Social Science

    • Science


Slide26 l.jpg

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


Student gpa by quarter l.jpg
Student GPA by Quarter

1.9

1.8

1.7

First

1.6

Second

Third

Mean

1.5

Fourth

1999/2000

2000/2001

YEAR


Iowa national percentiles l.jpg
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)


Results29 l.jpg
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 *


Iowa composite scores l.jpg

Bars show Means

Iowa Composite Scores

60

50

40

Percentile

30

20

10

1999

2000

2001

Year


Other indicators of success l.jpg
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.


Writing from journals l.jpg
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


Results33 l.jpg

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


Question 3 l.jpg
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


Measures l.jpg
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


Results36 l.jpg
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.


Summary l.jpg
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.


ad