Case Study

Jenna Sargent, Kim Caron,

Shandra Lock, Margaret Pawlowski

Demographics
Name: M.O.
Sex: Female
Birthday: 04-02-07
Age: 8 years old
Grade: 1st
Identified disability: Other Health Impairment (related to inattention and impulsive
behavior) and Speech & Language Impairment (related to articulation and
receptive/expressive language)
Pertinent Information: Foster Care due to inconsistent schooling; repeating the 1st
grade

Speech and language goals

M.O. will increase oral language skills from present level of academic achievement
and functional performance as measured by parent/teacher report, informal
assessments, and/or attainment of objectives/benchmarks defined below. In
structured one-on-one or small group setting with 0-minimal teacher cues:
M.O. will formulate complete grammatically correct sentences using past tense
verbs, past copula was, third person singular s, possessive/reflexive pronouns,
and negative forms 70% of the time.
M.O. will formulate complete grammatically correct questions using is,
do/does, where, and why 70% of the time.

Special Education goals

Enable M.O. to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum, and
to meet other educational needs that result from the students disability.
M.O. will read sentences and stories, using special print, at mid first grade
level.
M.O. will spell words at mid first grade level with 80% accuracy.
M.O. will pass in program math tests, every ten lessons, at 80% accuracy or
better.

Hallidays Functions
Whole Group Interaction (18:1)

Regular education classroom during a social studies lesson about the American flag and the Pledge
of Allegiance.
The teacher called on each student individually, except M.O.

Language Functions Used

M.O. did not use any language functions during the whole group interaction.

Hallidays Functions
Small Group Interaction (3:1)

LD classroom during a reading lesson using guided reading book, The Fat Fox and His Brother.
This lesson was very fast paced and drill-based.

Language Functions Used

M.O. only used informative (also known as representational) language

I finished all those on here.
The fat fox said, It is getting hot in this box.
A duck did not like to walk.
Sitting
Over

Hallidays Functions
One-on-one Interaction (1:1)

Speech classroom during intervention targeting // and using is/are subject verb agreement
flashcards.

Language Functions Used

M.O. used the interactional, informative, and imaginative functions most frequently.
Interactional: Thump thump thumpety thump.
With both hands. Thump thump thumpety thump.
Informative: Your phone is ringing.
They are barking.
Imaginative: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y and Z in a sing-song voice
U O P Q X Y Z in a sing-song voice

Classroom Discourse
Context:
1st Grade Classroom (18 students: 1 adult)
Circle Time on the Carpet
Social Studies Lesson about the American Flag & the Pledge of Allegiance
Observed Initiation/Response/Feedback Model
Language was very directive
The classroom discourse inhibited the students language by:
o asking a lot of questions; assessing recall, rather than teaching
o child was not provided with opportunities to share her own thoughts

Original & Recasted Utterance

Teacher: What is our state? I, what state do you live
in?
Hm. What state is this that we live in? Williams Bay
or Delevan or Lake Geneva, we are all in the same
state.
Which state are we in?
Student: Williams Bay.
Teacher: Williams Bay is the village that we live in,
who knows the name of the state? N?
Student: America.
Teacher: America is our country. So its bigger than
the village, its smaller than the country, what is our
state? G?
Student: Wisconsin.
Teacher: Wisconsin. Wisconsin is one of the fifty
states.

I remember learning that each star

stands for each state in the United States
of America. We all live in the United
States of America; it is our country. (map
to point to) Our country has fifty states. I
went on vacation to the state of Florida
last year. I drove through Georgia,
Tennessee, and Illinois to get back home
to the state of Wisconsin (Invitation to
comment). We all live in the state of
Wisconsin.

Original & Recasted Utterance

Teacher: Does anyone know how many
stars there are? J?
Student: One hundred seven-sevenseven.
Teacher: Thats actually one of the years
that the flag was made, flags were made.
E?

I understand why you would think that, J,

because that number is right above that
flag (point to it). Im thinking those
numbers above the flag mean something
else. I remember learning the first flag
was made in the year 1777. So now Im
thinking those numbers tell us when each
flag was made.

Interview Settings
The interview with the teacher took place in the classroom at a small table (1:1).
The interview with the SLP took place in her office (1:1).
The interview with the LD teacher took place in her classroom at a small table (1:1).

Themes

Theme #1:
Theme #2:
Theme #3:
Theme #4:
Theme #5:
Theme #6:
Theme #7:
Theme #8:

discrepancy of service delivery models

Matthew Effect
lack of informal assessment
lack of opportunities for different models of language
need for collaboration
consistent thoughts on language characteristics
wanting more time
agreement on her progress

Theme: discrepancy of service delivery models

General Education Teacher: To have her miss chunks of the day has been
new to me. I would love it if it was push-in losing time with her is hard.
SLP: Im in the classroom 2 days a week and pull out 2 days in essence I
see M.O. every day of the week even for just a few minutes here or there.
LD Teacher: I think were doing everything I would like to do.

Theme: Matthew Effect

SLP: She was put in foster care for lack of consistent schooling she just
wasnt showing up to school.
General Education Teacher: Her focus can be a challenge.
LD Teacher: The biggest challenge is keeping her attention.
LD Teachers goal for M.O.: Enable M.O. to be involved in and progress in
the general education curriculum, and to meet other educational needs that
result from the students disability.

Collaboration
SLPs must work in partnership with others (general education teachers,
reading specialists, special education teachers) to meet students needs.
LD Teacher: M.O. is in here during those times so we dont need to
coordinate the reading or the math because I am the teacher for that.

Curricular Analysis
Social Studies A Childs View
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt School Publishers

The lesson used in the classroom during observation was titled, I pledge Allegiance.

Curricular Analysis
The textbook was examined using the Common Core Standards for the State
of WI at the 1st grade level.
The textbook provides many scaffolds that support the standards
o Images
o Different sizes, colors, and fonts
o Continuity between lessons
However, many of the CCS cannot be illustrated using this text alone.
o Example: Explain major differences between books that tell stories and
books that give information, drawing on a wide range of text types

Curriculum Modification and Scaffolds

CCS:

Describe the connection between two individuals,

events, ideas, or pieces of information in a text.

Text:

Each star stands for one of the states in our

country

Additional Support to enforce the CCS:

The students could make a large paper class flag
and use their handprints for the stars.
Explicit language accompanied with this activity
can help the children make and strengthen the
connection between the two ideas.

Curriculum Modification and Scaffolds

CCS:
Text:

Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown words

The American flag is a symbol of our county

Additional Modifications and Scaffolds:

The students in the classroom could make their own flags out of
construction paper. The students flags would be a symbol of what
they are, just like the American flag is a symbol of what our country is.
This additional activity supports the students learning by integrating the
new vocabulary into a meaningful context.

Assessment
Need for a comprehensive assessment that includes standardized testing, as
well as looking at language use in the home and school, and exposure to
meaningful instruction and text.
Children and their environments must be assessed in order to diagnose an
impairment of the internal mechanisms responsible for language
development (Hoff & Tian, 2005).

Assessment
Assessments need to address many different areas involved in language, including:

Working Memory: Working memory should be assessed to discover underlying factors that are not
seen through language assessment, to provide information on influences of language processing, and to
identify possible discrepancies within language (Boudreau & Contanza-Smith, 2011).

Phonological awareness: A childs ability to reflect

on language itself, specifically the sounds of
language and especially the phonemes, support the
child understanding of the logic of the written code (Yopp & Yopp, 2009)

Writing: Previous research has revealed that children with language impairment (LI) produce written
texts that have fewer words, syntax errors, and poorer organization, similar to their oral language
(Osborn, 2008)

Intervention
According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) (2001), For those [SLPs] working
in schools, it is a requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that intervention be
relevant to the expectations of the general education curriculum.
Need for explicit modeling, direct explanations and re-explanations, invitations to participate in the
conversation, and verifying and clarifying student understandings (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000).

Tharp (1994) stated, The critical form of assisting learners is through dialogue, through the
questioning and sharing of ideas and knowledge that happens in instructional conversations To truly
teach, one must converse, to converse is to teach (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000).

For both typical students, and more especially for those with LLD, listing and defining words is just
not enough to get the words firmly implanted in their lexicon. They need to engage with words
repeatedly over several different occasions, both receptively and expressively, in speech and in
print, in a variety of experiences that intensify and expand knowledge of their meaning (Paul,
2012).

Intervention
Six Principles of Word Learning
Principle 1:
Principle 2:
Principle 3:
Principle 4:
Principle 5:
Principle 6:

Frequency matters
Make it interesting
Make it responsive
Focus on meaning
Be clear
Beyond the word

Service Delivery Model

Intervention should be implemented in the least restrictive environment and
constantly adapted to the changing needs of the student.
Given the need for frequent, intense, explicit and systematic intervention,
it is clear that school-age children with spoken and written language
disorders require a different approach from the traditional pullout model
(Nippold, 2012).

Service Delivery Model

Embedded-Explicit Intervention
The SLP will work with the teacher to develop classroom techniques to implement the standards and assist
with differentiated instruction for students who are at different proficiency levels across the standards (ASHA)
Emergent literacy intervention is designed to ensure that successful transition of all young children from prereaders to readers, and endorses the integral involvement of SLPs in supporting all learners, including those
who are vulnerable for difficulties in such transitions (Kaderavek and Justice, 2004)

Service Delivery Model

Collaboration Between Professionals
In the collaborative model, it is assumed that
no one person or profession has an adequate
knowledge base or sufficient expertise to
execute all the functions (assessment, planning, and intervention) associated
with providing educational services for students (ASHA, 1991).

References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (1991). A model for collaborative service delivery for students with language-learning disorders in the public schools
[Relevant Paper]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (2001). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading and writing in children and
adolescents [Guidelines]. Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy.
Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R. D., Swanson, H. L., Lovitt, D., Trivedi, P., Shin-Ju, L., &Amtmann, D. (2010). Relationship of Word- and Sentence- Level Working Memory to
Reading and Writing in Second, Fourth, and Sixth Grade. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 41(2), 179-193. Doi.10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0002)
Boudreau, D., Costanze-Smith, A. (2011). Working Memory in Language Assessment & Intervention in Children {PowerPoint slides}. Retrieved from
http://www.asha.org/events/convention/handouts/2011/boudreau-costanzasmith/#_ga=1.151112890.246331706.1425939282
Halliday, M. (1969). Relevant models of language. In Power, B. & Hubbard, R. (2002). Language development: A reader for teachers. (pp. 49-53). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Harris, J., Michnich Golinkoff, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., (2011). Lessons from the crib for the classroom: How children really learn vocabulary. In S. B. Neuman and D. K. Dickinson
(Eds). Handbook of Early Literacy Research, (vol. 3, pp.94-65). New York: Guillford.
Hoff, E., & Tian, C. (2005). Socioeconomic status and cultural influences on language. Journal of Communication Disorders 2005, 38, 271-278.

References
Kaderavek, J.N. & Justice, L.M. (2004). Embedded-explicit emergent literacy interventino II: goal selection and implementation in the early childhood classroom. Language
Speech and Hearing Services in Schools. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2004/021)
Nippold, M. (2012). Different service delivery models for different communication disorders. Language Speech Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 117-120. doi:
10.1044/0161(2012/ed-02)
Osborn, L. (2008). Assessing Written Language in Children with Language Impairment {Handout} Retrieved from
http://www.asha.org/events/convention/handouts/2008/1654_osborn_lori/#_ga=1.200465382.979549416.1431366788
Paul, R. (2012). Language disorders from infancy to adolescence: Assessment and Intervention. 4th Ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book.
Pinnell,G.(1985).Ways to look at the functions of childrens language. In Power, B. & Hubbard, R. (2002). Language development: A reader for teachers. (pp.110-117).
Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly. XXI. 360-406.
Wilkinson, L.C., & Silliman, E.R. (2001, February). Classroom language and literacy learning. Reading Online, 4(7). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/
articles/art_indexasp? HREF=/articles/handbook/Wilkinson/index.html
Yopp, H. & Yopp, R. (2009). Phonological awareness is childs play! Young Children, 12-21.