Applications of Responsiveness to Intervention and the Speech-Language Pathologist in Elementary School Settings

Froma P Roth; Gary A Troia

doi:10.1055/s-0029-1215716

Seminars in Speech and Language, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Semin Speech Lang 2009; 30(2): 075-089
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1215716

Applications of Responsiveness to Intervention and the Speech-Language Pathologist in Elementary School Settings

Froma P. Roth¹ , Gary A. Troia²

¹Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
²Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan

Abstract

ABSTRACT

This article addresses ways in which speech-language pathologists can play a proactive and substantive part in school-wide language and reading disability prevention and intervention efforts within the responsiveness to intervention framework. Within a collaborative working paradigm, specific student-focused instructional targets are presented in the areas of oral language, metacognition, and reading comprehension. A discussion of professional development focuses on enhancing teacher-student communication interaction, a critical yet often undervalued component of teacher training.

KEYWORDS

Early intervention - identification - learning disabilities - prevention - reading disabilities - service delivery models - speech-language pathologists - professional development - teacher-student discourse

Volltext

Referenzen

REFERENCES

1 Fuchs L S, Fuchs D. Treatment validity: a unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learn Disabil Res Pract. 1998; 13 204-219
2 Speece D L, Case L P. Classification in context: an alternative approach to identifying early reading disabilities. J Educ Psychol. 2001; 93 735-749
3 Fuchs D, Mock D, Morgan P L, Young C L. Responsiveness-to-intervention: definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learn Disabil Res Pract. 2003; 18 157-171
4 National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities .Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. 2005. Available at: http://www.ldonline.org/njcld Accessed February 24, 2009
5 Jenkins J R. Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December 2003 Kansas City, MO;
6 Vaughn S. How many tiers are needed for response to intervention to achieve acceptable prevention outcomes?. Paper presented at: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December 2003 Kansas City, MO;
7 Gresham F M. Responsiveness to intervention: an alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In: Bradley R, Danielson L, Hallahan DL Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum 2002: 467-519
8 Speece D L, Hines S J. Identifying children who require different instruction in a response to instruction framework. Perspect Lang Learn Educ. 2008; 15 34-40
9 Mastropieri M A. Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention (RTI): examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Paper presented at: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December 2003 Kansas City, MO;
10 Scruggs T. Alternatives to RTI in the assessment of learning disabilities. Paper presented at: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December 2003 Kansas City, MO;
11 Torgesen J K. Operationalizing the response to intervention model to identify children with learning disabilities: specific issues with older children. Paper presented at: the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December 2003 Kansas City, MO;
12 Badian N A. Reading disability defined as a discrepancy between listening and reading comprehension: a longitudinal study of stability, gender differences, and prevalence. J Learn Disabil. 1999; 32 138-148
13 Catts H W, Hogan T P, Adlof S M. Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In: Catts HW, Kamhi A The Connections Between Language and Reading Disabilities. Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum 2005: 25-40
14 Leach J M, Scarborough H S, Rescorla L. Late-emerging reading disabilities. J Educ Psychol. 2003; 95 211-224
15 Nation K. Reading comprehension difficulties. In: Snowling MJ, Hulme C The Science of Reading. Oxford, United Kingdom; Blackwell Publishing 2005: 248-265
16 Davis N, Compton D L. Falling through the cracks: children who are exceptions to the RTI identification process. Perspect Lang Learn Educ. 2008; 15 41-45
17 O'Connor R E. Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learn Disabil Res Pract. 2000; 15 43-54
18 Fuchs L S. Three conceptualizations of “treatment” in a responsiveness-to-treatment framework for LD identification. In: Bradley R, Danielson L, Hallahan DP Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum 2002: 521-529
19 Fuchs L S. Assessing intervention responsiveness: conceptual and technical issues. Learn Disabil Res Pract. 2003; 18 172-186
20 Kavale K A, Holdnack J A, Mostert M P. The feasibility of a responsiveness to intervention approach for the identification of specific learning disability: a psychometric alternative. Paper presented at: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December 2003 Kansas City, MO;
21 O'Connor R E, Fulmer D, Harty K R, Bell K M. Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: changes in teaching and student outcomes. J Learn Disabil. 2005; 38(5) 440-455
22 Vaughn S, Linan-Thompson S, Hickman-Davis P. Response to treatment as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Except Child. 2003; 69 391-409
23 Moore-Brown B J, Montgomery J K, Bielinski J, Shubin J. Responsiveness to intervention: teaching before testing helps avoid labeling. Top Lang Disord. 2005; 25 148-167
24 Kuhn D. Speedy speech: efficient service delivery for articulation errors. Perspect School-Based Issues. 2006; 7 11-13
25 Taps J. An innovative education approach for addressing articulation differences. Perspect School-Based Issues. 2006; 7 7-11
26 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association .Roles and Responsibilities of Speech-Language Pathologists with Respect to Reading and Writing in Children and Adolescents [technical report]. Rockville, MD; Author 2001
27 Roth F P, Rogers P, Michney J, Mahon N. The literacy partnership: application of RTI to preschool education. In: Coleman MR, Roth FP, West T Roadmap to Pre-K RTI. New York, NY; National Center for Learning Disabilities In press
28 Lonigan C J. Emergent literacy skills and family literacy. In: Wasik B Handbook of Family Literacy. Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum 2004: 57-82
29 Paul D R, Blosser J, Jakubowitz M. Principles and challenges for forming successful literacy partnerships. Top Lang Disord. 2006; 26 5-23
30 Roth F P, Troia G A. Collaborative efforts to promote emergent literacy and efficient word recognition skills. Top Lang Disord. 2006; 26 24-41
31 McCutchen D, Abbott R D, Green L B et al.. Beginning literacy: links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. J Learn Disabil. 2002; 35 69-86
32 Troia G A. Building word recognition skills through empirically validated instructional practices: collaborative efforts of speech-language pathologists and teachers. In: Silliman ER, Wilkinson LC Language and Literacy Learning in Schools. New York, NY; Guilford Press 2004: 98-129
33 Wolf M, Bowers P. The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. J Educ Psychol. 1999; 91 415-438
34 Janota J. Speech-language pathology data indicate professional trends. The ASHA Leader. 2004; 3 13
35 Al Otaiba S, Fuchs D. Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. J Learn Disabil. 2006; 39 414-431
36 Fujiki M, Spackman M P, Brinton B, Hall A. The relationship of language and emotion regulation skills to reticence in children with specific language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004; 47 637-646
37 Roth F P. Vocabulary instruction for young children with language impairment. Perspect Lang Learn Educ. 2002; 9 3-7
38 Roth F P, Speece D L, Cooper D H. A longitudinal analysis of the connection between early language and reading. J Educ Res. 2002; 95 259-272
39 Roth F P, Baden B. Investing in emergent literacy intervention: a key role for speech-language pathologists. Semin Speech Lang. 2001; 22 163-174
40 Troia G A. Phonological awareness acquisition and intervention. Current Practice Alerts. 2004; 9 1-4
41 Troia G A. Phonological processing and its influence on literacy learning. In: Stone CA, Silliman ER, Ehren BJ, Apel K Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders. New York, NY; Guilford Press 2004: 271-301
42 Troia G A, Roth F P, Graham S. An educator's guide to phonological awareness: assessment measures and intervention activities for children. Focus Except Child. 1998; 30 1-12
43 McGregor K K, Friedman R M, Reilly R M, Newman R M. Semantic representation and naming in young children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002; 45 332-346
44 Olness R. Using Literature to Enhance Written Instruction: A Guide for K–5 Teachers. Newark, DE; International Reading Association 2005
45 Stahl S A. Vocabulary Development. Cambridge, MA; Brookline Books 1999
46 Strong W. Creative Approaches to Sentence Combining. Urbana, IL; ERIC Clearing House 1986
47 Crick N R, Ladd G W. Children's perception of peer experiences: attributions, loneliness, social anxiety, and social avoidance. Dev Psychol. 1993; 29 244-254
48 Fujiki M, Brinton B, Clarke D. Emotion regulation in children with specific language impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2002; 33 102-111
49 Stevens L J, Bliss L S. Conflict resolution abilities of children with specific language impairment and children with normal language. J Speech Hear Res. 1995; 38 599-611
50 Brinton B, Fujiki M. Social and affective factors in children with language impairment: implications for literacy learning. In: Stone CA, Silliman ER, Ehren BJ, Apel K Handbook of Language and Literacy Development and Disorders. New York, NY; Guilford Press 2004: 130-153
51 Redmond S M, Rice M L. The socioemotional behaviors of children with SLI: social adaptation or social deviance?. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998; 41 688-700
52 Whitehurst G J, Lonigan C J. Child development and emergent literacy. Child Dev. 1998; 69 848-872
53 Brinton B, Spackman M P, Fujiki M, Ricks J. What should Chris say? The ability of children with specific language impairment to recognize the need to dissemble emotions in social situations. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007; 50 798-809
54 Weitzman E, Greenberg J. Language Learning and Loving It: A Guide to Promoting Children's Social, Language, and Literacy Development in Early Childhood Settings. Toronto, Ontario, Canada; The Hanen Centre 2002
55 Breen M P. Navigating the discourse: on what is learned in the classroom. In: Candin C, Mercer N English Language Teaching in Its Social Context: A Reader. New York, NY; Routledge 2001: 306-322
56 Barkley R A. Linkages between attention and executive function. In: Lyon GR, Krasnegor NA Attention, Memory, and Executive Function. Baltimore, MD; Paul H. Brookes 1996: 69-102
57 Ehren B J. Looking for evidence-based practice in reading comprehension instruction. Top Lang Disord. 2005; 25 310-321
58 Gersten R, Fuchs L S, Williams J P, Baker S. Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: a review of research. Rev Educ Res. 2001; 71 279-320
59 Williams J P. Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: a focus on text structure. J Spec Educ. 2005; 39 6-18
60 Ivey G. Building comprehension when they're still learning to read the words. In: Block CC, Pressley M Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices. New York, NY; Guilford Press 2002: 234-246
61 Gajria M, Jitendra A K, Sheetal S, Sacks G. Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: a research synthesis. J Learn Disabil. 2007; 40 210-225
62 Pearson P D, Duke N K. Comprehension instruction in the primary grades. In: Block CC, Pressley M Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices. New York, NY; Guilford Press 2002: 247-258
63 Palinscar A S, Brown A L. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cogn Instrum. 1984; 1 117-175
64 McMaster K N, Fuchs D, Fuchs L S. Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: promise and limitations on peer mediation. Read Writ Q: Overcoming Learn Difficulties. , In press
65 Klingner J K, Vaughn S, Schumm J S. Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elem Sch J. 1998; 99 3-22
66 Burgess S R, Hecht S A, Lonigan C J. Relations of the home literacy environment (HLE) on the development of reading abilities: a one-year longitudinal study. Read Res Q. 2002; 37 408-426
67 Pianta R C. Teacher-child relationships and early literacy. In: Dickinson D, Neuman SB Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York, NY; Guilford Press 2006: 149-162
68 Hart B, Risley T R. American parenting of language-learning children: persisting differences in family-child interactions observed in natural home environments. Dev Psychol. 1992; 28 1096-1105
69 Pianta R C, La Paro K M, Payne C, Cox M J, Bradley R. The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. Elem Sch J. 2002; 102 225-238
70 Berry R AW, Kim N. Exploring teacher talk during mathematics instruction in an inclusion classroom. J Educ Res. 2008; 101 363-377
71 Blanton M L, Berenson S B, Norwood K S. Using classroom discourse to understand a prospective mathematics teacher's developing practice. Teach Teach Educ. 2001; 17 227-242
72 Hamm J V, Perry M. Learning mathematics in first grade classrooms: on whose authority?. J Educ Psychol. 2002; 94 126-137
73 Kim O, Hupp S. Teacher interaction styles and task engagement of elementary students with cognitive disabilities. Educ Train Dev Disabil. 2005; 40 293-308
74 Nguyen H. Rapport building in language instruction: a microanalysis of the multiple resources in teacher talk. Lang Educ. 2007; 21 284-303
75 Rubie-Davies C M. Classroom interactions: exploring the practices of high- and low-expectation teachers. Br J Educ Psychol. 2007; 77 289-306
76 McVittie J. Discourse communities, student selves and learning. Lang Educ. 2004; 18 488-503
77 Bohn C M, Roehrig A D, Pressley M. The first days of school in the classrooms of two more effective and four less effective primary-grades teachers. Elem Sch J. 2004; 104 269-287
78 Hattie J AC. What are the attributes of excellent teachers?. In: Webber B Teachers Make a Difference: What Is the Research Evidence?. Wellington, New Zealand; New Zealand Council for Educational Research 2002: 3-26
79 Topping K, Ferguson N. Effective literacy teaching behaviours. J Res Read. 2005; 28 125-143
80 Fuchs L S, Fuchs D. Enhancing mathematical problem solving for students with disabilities. J Spec Educ. 2005; 39 45-57

Froma P RothPh.D.

Professor, Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland

LeFrak Hall 0100, College Park, MD 20742

eMail: froth@hesp.umd.edu