Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2001; 22(3): 209-220
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-16148
Copyright © 2001 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

The Speech-Language Pathologist's Role in a Writing Lab Approach

Nickola Wolf Nelson,1 , Adelia M. Van Meter1 , Dawn Chamberlain2 , Christine M. Bahr3
  • 1Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan
  • 2Kalamazoo Public Schools, Kalamazoo, Michigan
  • 3St. Mary-of-the-Woods College, St. Mary-of-the-Woods, Indiana
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2001 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

In a writing lab approach, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) work on collaborative teams with general and special educators to foster language growth using inclusive, curriculum-based, computer-supported writing process instruction. By engaging students in authentic writing projects using recursive writing processes-planning, organizing, drafting, revising, editing, publishing, presenting-and supporting them with instructional scaffolding, peer feedback, and computers, SLPs can address individualized needs while achieving goals of the general education curriculum. Case examples illustrate how intervention can be designed to meet the needs of students with diverse disabilities to interact socially and progress academically within the general education curriculum.

KEYWORD

Writing process instruction - computer supports - inclusive language intervention - speech-language pathologists' roles in literacy

REFERENCES

  • 1 Christenson S L, Thurlow M L, Ysseldyke J E, McVicar R. Written language instruction for students with mild handicaps: is there enough quantity to ensure quality?.  Learn Dis Q . 1989;  12 219-229
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bos C S. Process-oriented writing: instructional implications for mildly handicapped students.  Excep Ch . 1988;  54 521-527
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Koppenhaver D A, Yoder D E. Classroom literacy instruction for children with severe speech and physical impairments (SSPI): what is and what might be.  Top Lang Dis . 1993;  13 1-15
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Blischak D M. Thomas the writer: case study of a child with severe physical, speech, and visual impairments.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Schools . 1995;  26 11-20
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Nelson N W, Van Meter M A, Bahr C M. Inclusive language intervention using a computer-supported writing process approach. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Washington, DC; Nov. 16, 2000
  • 6 Atwell N. In the Middle: Writing, Reading, and Learning with Adolescents.  Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; 1987
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Atwell ed. N. Coming to Know: Writing to Learn in the Intermediate Grades.  Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; 1990
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Calkins L. Living between the Lines.  Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; 1990
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Calkins L. The Art of Teaching Writing.  2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; 1994
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Graves D H. Writing: Teachers and Children at Work.  Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; 1983
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Harris K R, Graham S. Making the Writing Process Work: Strategies for Composition and Self-Regulation.  Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books; 1996
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Graham S, Harris K R, Troia G A. Self-regulated strategy development revisited: teaching writing strategies to struggling writers.  Top Lang Dis . 2000;  20 1-14
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Blachman ed. B. Foundations of Reading Acquisition and Dyslexia.  Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1997
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Catts H W, Kamhi A G. Language and Reading Disabilities.  Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1999
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Stanovich K E, Siegel L S. The phenotypic performance profile of reading-disabled children: a regression-based test of the phonological- core-variable-difference model.  J Ed Psychol . 1994;  86 24-53
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Hoyt, L. Snapshots: Literacy Minilessons Up Close. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; 2000
  • 17 Bashir A S, Conte B, Heerde S M. Language and school success: collaborative challenges and choices. In: Merritt DD, Culatta B, eds. Language Intervention in the Classroom San Diego, CA: Singular 1998: 1-36
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Lund N J. Assessment of language structure: from syntax to event-based analysis.  Semin Speech Lang . 2000;  21 267-274
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bahr C M, Nelson N W, Van Meter M A. The effects of text-based and graphics-based software tools on planning and organizing of stories.  J Learn Dis . 1996;  29 355-370
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Bahr C M, Nelson N W, Van Meter M A, Yanna J V. Children's use of desktop publishing features: process and product.  J Comput Ch Educ . 1996;  7 149-177
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Daiute C. Writing and Computers.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1985
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 MacArthur C A. Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with learning disabilities.  J Learn Dis . 1996;  29 344-354
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 MacArthur C A. New tools for writing: assistive technology for students with writing difficulties.  Top Lang Dis . 2000;  20 85-100
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Prelock P A, Miller B L, Reed N L. Collaborative partnerships in a language in the classroom program.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Schools . 1995;  26 286-292
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar