Jack S. Damico, Ph.D.
The Doris B. Hawthorne
Professor of Special Education and Communicative Disorders
The University of Louisiana Lafayette
Lafayette, LA
March 27, 2002
Presented at
New Zealand Speech-Language Therapists' Conference 2002
Wellington, New Zealand
1. We are situated in an educational system that requires
that we perform specific functions.
-- identification and intervention
of communicative/learning impairments.
-- a majority of this involves
interaction within mainstream academic, social, and
community
contexts.
2. We are aware that there are problems inherent in the
roles we are expected to perform.
-- many of our students are from diverse
not mainstream backgrounds
-- there are problems with the way our
programs are structured since they are oriented to
the mainstream.
-- There are problems with the approaches
and procedures we use since they are not
directed to
diversity.
The dilemma is between acting as an AGENT for the schools and
as an ADVOCATE for the students we serve. Some current models
tend to make these two roles incompatible.
SOLUTION
1. Must view the situation with a focus on AUTHENTICITY.
2. Must recognize the idea of SYNERGY
3. This can be done by changing our underlying view of language proficiency
and by modifying
components of our service delivery accordingly.
How This Impacts our Roles in the Schools
1. We must become more SYNERGISTICALLY ORIENTED in our
behavior.
2. We must become more INTERACTIVE, RELEVANT, AND TRANSACTIVE
with the
students and with those concerned with
the students.
3. We must modify work settings to make work more CONTEXTUALLY
EMBEDDED.
4. These changes will cause us to modify our actions, perceptions,
and roles in the schools.
---- Changes in Service Delivery model
---- Changes in Methods and Approaches
---- Changes in Context of activities
ASSESSMENT FROM A SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
1. You must ensure that you conduct assessment activities that are:
Relevant
to
the learning process
Beneficial
to
the student and teacher
Effective
in overcoming problems
Oriented
to
the Diversity Models
2. Adoption of a FOUR-PRONGED STRATEGY with this population:
A Collaborative Approach
A Pre-Referral Intervention
A Diversity Framework built into the process
A Functional/Authentic Focus
PRONG ONE: COLLABORATION
1. Concept of LEVERAGE applies here (Secord & Wiig,
1991)
2. Think in terms of a synergistic entity as service
provider rather than an individual as
professional.
3. It is necessary to utilize collaboration to achieve
temporal and spatial saturation for
language/learning support.
IS THE REFERRAL APPROPRIATE: A CHECKLIST
YES NO
__ __ 1. Has
the child's school record been checked?
__ __ 2. Does
the referring source have a tendency to refer children with particular
physical characteristics, or cultural background similar to the child's?
__ __ 3. Have
the medical records of the child been obtained?
__ __ 4. Is
there any physical condition that may account for school difficulties?
__ __ 5. Have
prior assessment findings been obtained?
__ __ 6. Are
the samples of behavior targeted as problems?
__ __ 7. Have
consultations been held with the teacher about the management of the
child within the classroom?
__ __ 8. Is
there a possibility that the difficulties result from incomplete adaptation
to
the school setting?
__ __ 9. Is
the assessment team familiar with the cultural background of the child
and
the family?
__ __ 10. Is there information
about country of origin?
__ __ 11. Is there information
about religious background?
__ __ 12. Is there information
about the student's subgroup background?
__ __ 13. Has language
dominance been determined appropriately?
__ __ 14. Has placement
in BILING ED and/or ESL been considered/tried?
__ __ 15. Have other remedial
instruction measures been tried?
__ __ 16. Does child come
from a poverty-ridden environment?
__ __ 17. Has the child
attended Chapter I or similar programs for a sufficient period
of time?
1. There must be a framework built
into the assessment process that allows the SLP to
account for diversity
issues.
2. It is not enough to recognize the
fact that poor performance may be due to
differences as
well as deficits.......you must be able to systematically account for this
possibility in
a way that is "institutionalized".
3. This can be accomplished through
the use of a BI-LEVEL ANALYSIS PARADIGM
Two levels of
analysis:
First Level:
Descriptive Analysis
-- Observe from the perspective of the mainstream culture. Function
as an
AGENT of the system
-- Ask the question: "In the context of interest, is this individual
a successful
or unsuccessful communicator?"
Three Criteria:
Effectiveness of meaning transmission
Fluency of meaning transmission (MT)
Appropriateness of MT
-- It's at this level of analysis that you focus on the directly
observed behaviors
-- This level of analysis tells you if there is a COMMUNICATIVE
DIFFICULTY. It cannot tell you if there is a COMMUNICATIVE
DISORDER.
-- There are numerous tools that can be utilized for this level of analysis.
They will be discussed directly.
Second Level:
Explanatory Analysis
-- At this level of analysis you work from the perspective of the student.
Function as an ADVOCATE of the student.
-- Ask the question: "Why does the individual exhibit the difficulties
noted
during the descriptive analysis?"
Three Possibilities:
Factors Extrinsic to the student
Factors Intrinsic to the student
A Mixture of extrinsic and intrinsic
-- Since you are operating as an advocate, your assumption is that the
problems are due to extrinsic factors.
-- It's at this level of analysis that you focus on the underlying factors
that are
not directly or easily observed.
-- This level of analysis actually requires that you make a decision regarding
the origin of the COMMUNICATIVE DIFFICULTY. Is it due to extrinsic
factors (a difference), intrinsic factors (a disorder), or a mixture.
-- To assist in this decision-making, a series of guiding questions
or
focus items have been developed (Damico, 1991a; Kovarsky,
1992;Wolfram, 1985).
1. The assessment approach that works
best is not a psychological approach but, rather, an
anthropological/sociological
approach.
2. The focus of assessment should not
be on language structure. Rather, the focus should be
on the functional
aspects of language and communication. Using real language for
real
purposes in real
situations.
3. Recognize COMMUNICATIVE SYNERGY
as an operational concept.
4. Remember three points: AUTHENTICITY
OF DATA COLLECTED
RICHNESS OF DATA DESCRIPTION
THICKNESS OF DATA INTERPRETATION
5. Approach conceptualized as consisting
of THREE SETS OF THREE VARIABLES
1.
Procedures
-- Different Technologies
-- Different Tools
-- Different People
2.
Contexts
-- Multiple Events
-- Relevant Settings
-- Multiple Occurences
3.
Skills
-- Multiple Manifestations
-- Targeted Activities
-- Functional Results
THIS ENABLES YOU TO CREATE A TRIANGULATION OF EFFORT
6. Four Primary Assessment Technologies (Damico et al, 1996)
STRUCTURED PROBE
ACTIVITIES
Classroom Scripts (Creaghead, 1992)
Cloze Techniques (Oller, 1979)
Conversational Probes (Brinton & Fujiki, 1992)
Heath Reading Strategies Assessment 1991
Learning Potential Assessment Device (Feuerstein, 1979)
Meta-cognitive reading assessment (Paris, 1991)
Standardized and Norm-referenced Tests
Structured Criterion-Referenced Tests
Think Alouds for Comprehension (Wade, 1990)
Transactional Tasks (Brown, et al, 1983)
BEHAVIORAL SAMPLING
PROCEDURES
Academic Skills Sampling
Bartoli & Botel, 1988
Bashir, 1989
Goodman, Goodman, & Hood, 1989
Langer, 1982
Miscue Analysis (Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 1987)
Paris, 1991
Curriculum-Based Language Assessment (Nelson, 1992; 1993)
Dynamic Assessment
Lidz, 1987
Nelson, 1993
Palincsar, Brown & Campione, 1994
Palincsar & Klenk, 1992 Paratore & Indrisano, 1987
Language Sampling
Bishop & Adams, 1989
Clinical Discourse Analysis (Damico, 1985)
Loban Analysis (1976)
Adolescent Conversational Analysis (Larson & McKinley, 1987)
Narrative Analyses
Hedberg & Stoel-Gammon, 1986 Westby, 1992
Portfolio Assessment
Flood & Lapp, 1989 Gottlieb, 1991
Jongsma, 1989 Moya & O'Malley, 1994
Paulson, Paulson & Meyer, 1991
Tierney, Carter, & Desai, 1991 Valencia, 1990
Wolf, 1989
Writing Analyses
Scott & Erwin, 1992
Scott, 1994
RATING SCALES-PROTOCOLS-CHECKLISTS
Classroom Observation Checklists (Secord, Wiig, Damico, 1994)
Classroom Communication Screening Procedure for Early Adolescents (Simon,
1989)
Curriculum Analysis Form (Larson & McKinley, 1987)
Emergent Literacy Sequence (Sulzby, 1989)
High School Basics (Bassett, Whittington, & Staton-Spicer, 1978)
Interpersonal and Academic Language Skills Checklist (O'Malley, 1989)
Literacy Development Checklist (O'Malley, 1989)
Observational Guide for Integrative Language Arts (Vogt, 1991)
Pragmatic Protocol (Prutting & Kirchner, 1987)
Spotting Language Problems (Damico & Oller, 1985)
DIRECT AND ON-LINE OBSERVATION
Anecdotal Assessment
Goodman, 1985
Goodman, Goodman, & Hood, 1989
Kemp, 1990
Pils, 1991
Narrative Recording
Westby, Stevens-Dominguez, & Oetter, 1994
Participant Observation
Agar, 1987
Cheng, 1990
Damico & Secord
Kovarsky,1992
Nelson, 1993
Secord & Damico
Spradley, 1980
Social Interactive Coding System (Rice, Sell, & Hadley, 1990)
Systematic Observation of Communicative Interaction (Damico,1992)
CASE STUDY ONE
Jamal, a seven year old African-American, was referred for a possible
reading and language disability.
Interview
with the Mother (SLP) (15 min)
Wade Comprehension
Probe (SLP) (2)
Miscue
Analysis in Reading group (LA)
Dynamic
Assessment Reading Time (SLP)
Formal
Testing (T)
Communication
& Learning Checklist (T)
Teacher
Checklist - Reading (T)
Teacher
Checklist - Speaking (T)
CLA Lang
of Instruction (SLP)
Vogt Checklist
(SLP)
O'Malley
Literacy Checklist (P)
Anecdotal
Observation (P & T)
Narrative
Obser. Reading Group (SLP)
Clinical
Discourse Analysis (SLP)*
CASE STUDY 2
MIDDLE SCHOOL GIRL (ANGLO) 12 YEARS OLD REFERRED FOR VERY POOR ACADEMICS
IN SOCIAL STUDIES AND SCIENCE
Langer Probes
With Both Texts (SLP)
Think alouds
with homework assignments (SLP)
Think alouds
with in-class science activity (SLP)
Reviewed her
notes from class (SLP)
Teacher rating
scales - R,W,L,S (T)
Narrative Recording
of both classes (SLP)
Teacher language
of Instruction (T)
Child language
of instruction (Child)
Homework - Dynamic
Assessment (SLP)
SOCI in discussion
group (SLP)
Student Interview
(SLP)
Wiig Portfolio
(T-SLP)
THE INTERPRETATION OF DATA
The Process of Data Interpretation
-- This is a collaborative process
between the data collectors (examiners), those
responsible
to further service delivery (teachers, specialists), and those most concerned
about the student
and the results (the student and family).
-- There should be a restatement
of the original purposes of the assessment including the
actual questions
of interest that triggered the evaluation process.
-- The various tests and assessment
procedures (data) are brought together and discussed.
Each examiner
has the responsibility to
*
Comment of the authenticity and psychometric veracity of his/her data,
*
Comment on how these data functionally relate to the original questions
*
Respond to the direct questions regarding the results.
-- The results are all integrated
together to form a picture of the student's performance during
evaluation.
*
There should be a triangulation of all the data to comment on:
The individual's skills
The impact on interactions and learning
The impact of the context and content variables
The student's potential (Zone of Instructional Sensitivity)
*
This process typically involves the combining of LOW INFERENCE data
(observational data, test results, interview information on background,
etc) to form
HIGH INFERENCE JUDGMENTS.
*
There are sets of questions and considerations that can assist in addressing
this
process
-- This process will result in
the following:
*
A summary of the data collected
*
A deeper interpretation of the data to comment on
1. whether there are difficulties
2. what areas of functioning are affected
3. whether these difficulties are due to impairment
4. what contextual variables are significant
5. what is the student's intervention potential
*
A plan of action detailing what further service delivery should occur.
This should
include:
1. What should be done
2. Who should do it
3. When services are provided
4. What support will be provided
5. How follow-up is accomplished
QUESTIONS DESIGNED TO ASSIST INTERPRETATION
BI-LEVEL ANALYSIS PARADIGM (Damico, 1991)
--
To assist in this decision-making, a series of guiding questions or focus
items have
been developed and are listed below.
Explanatory Analysis Questions
Extrinsic Explanatory Factors
1.
Are there any overt variables that immediately explain the communicative
difficulties? Among the potential considerations:
-- Are the documented problematic behaviors occurring
at a frequency level that
would be considered within normal limits or in random variation?
-- Were there any procedural mistakes in the descriptive
analysis phase that
account for the problematic behaviors?
-- Is there an indication of extreme test anxiety during
the observational
assessment in one context but not in others?
-- Is there significant performance inconsistency between
different
observation periods in the same context?
-- Is there significant performance inconsistency between
different input or output
modalities?
-- Have any contextual variables of significant been
identified?
2.
Is there evidence that the problematic behaviors noted in the L2 can be
explained
according to normal L2 acquisition or dialectal phenomena?
-- Note the material in Damico and Hamayan, 1992
Individual Characteristics
Cognitive Factors
Attitudinal Factors
Motivational Factors
Personality Factors
Native Language Proficiency
Home and Community Characteristics
Attitudinal Factors
Home Literacy
Language Transfer Phenomena
Rule Fossilization
Cultural Assimilation
-- Note the following list provided by Westernoff, 1994:
Factors Affecting the Learner
Motivation
Prior Skills in L1
Factors in the Family
Language of the Home
Generational Pattern
Immigration Plans
Factors in the Community
Opportunities of Use L1
Factors in the government
Policies
Education
3.
Is there any evidence that the problematic behaviors noted can be explained
according to cross-cultural interference or related cultural phenomena?
Are there
any experiential differences that may result in the observed behaviors?
4.
Are the communicative difficulties due to a documented lack of proficiency
only in
L2 but not in L1?
-- Is there documented evidence of normal
L1 proficiency?
-- Has the student received sufficient exposure
to L2 predict better current
performance in the manifestation and domain in question?
-- Does the student exhibit the same types
of problematic behaviors in L1 as in
L2?
5.
Is there any evidence that the problematic behaviors noted can be explained
according to any bias effect that was in operation before, during, or after
the
assessment?
-- Is the student in a subtractive bilingual/cultural
environment?
-- Is the student a member of a disempowered community?
-- Are negative or lowered expectations for this
student held by the student, the
student's family, or the educational staff?
-- Were specific indications of bias evident in
the prereferral, referral,
administrative, scoring, or interpretative phases of the evaluation?
Intrinsic Explanatory Factors
6.
Is there any remaining (unaccounted for) underlying linguistic systematicity
operating on the problematic behaviors noted during the descriptive analysis
phase?
-- This question applies only to the problematic
behaviors that are still remaining
after application of the first five sets of questions.
-- Isolate turns/utterances containing remaining
problematic behaviors
-- Perform a systematic linguistic analysis
on these data points looking for
consistency in appearance of problematic behaviors.
Grammatical (primarily syntagmatic)
Crystal profiles (1982)
SALT (Miller & Chapman, 1983)
Semantic (primarily paradigmatic)
PRISM (Crystal, 1982)
Perceptual/Language Distancing (Blank, Rose, & Berlin, 1978)
Propositional Complexity Analysis (Kamhi & Johnston, 1992)
Cohesion/Coherence (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)
-- Look for large changes in the occurrence
of the problematic behaviors as the
complexity of one of these dimensions increases (e.g., an increase in
grammatical complexity from LARSP Level IV to LARSP Level V causes an
increase in the number of linguistic nonfluencies from 18% to 39%.
SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR EXTRINSIC ANALYSIS QUESTION TWO
Overall Effects of Cultural Diversity on Assessment may be viewed
from the perspective of a monocultural process. This is typically
the cultural orientation in the American schools and it requires:
-- A formal relationship between tester
and student(s)
-- Analytical, reflective thinking
skills
-- Experience in and acceptance of
value of competition
-- A detailed perceptual style
-- Knowledge/skill in taking standardized,
timed tests,
-- Familiarity and experience with
the culturally influenced content
-- High degree of acculturation to
mainstream culture
-- Shared verbal/nonverbal meanings
within test context.
A CHECKLIST OF SOME CULTURAL FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT PERFORMANCE
1. active --------------- MOVEMENT -----------------
passive
2. close ---------------- SPACE --------------------
distant
3. untimed -------------- TIME ---------------------
timed
4. polychronic ---------- ACTIVITIES ---------------
monochronic
5. cooperative ---------- GOAL STRUCTURES ---------- competitive
6. distinct ------------- GENDER ROLE --------------
similar
7. group ---------------- ROLE ---------------------
individual
8. external ------------- LOCUS OF CONTROL ---------
internal
9. field dependent------- PERCEPTUAL STYLE ---------
field independent
10. intuitive ------------ COGNITIVE STYLE ----------
reflective
11. contact -------------- ACCULTURATION ------------
adaptation
12. mismatch ------------ LANGUAGE PATTERNS ------- match
13. extensive ------------ LANGUAGE LOSS ------------
minimal
14. frequent ------------- CODE SWITCHING -----------
infrequent
15. nonstandard ----------LANGUAGE VARIANCE ------- standard
1. Adoption of a TEN-PRONGED
STRATEGY with this population:
A Collaborative Approach
Determination of Appropriate Placement
Creation of a Language Usage Plan
Strive for Authenticity in the learning tasks
Select situated contexts carry the opportunities for learning.
Establish communities of learners to accomplish learning on various levels
Target the actual skills and strategies needed by the child
Select materials that will enhance pragmatic mapping.
Create an empowering learning environment
Implement consistent and valued teaching/learning strategies
1. It should never be acceptable
to place a student in Special Education simply because
there is no
other support structure. Special Education placement is only appropriate
if the
student has
an intrinsic language-learning disorder. Students with difficulties
due only to
differences
should never be placed on your case load. There are several reasons
for this:
A. It is illegal
B. It is a form of Discrimination
C. Special Education is not effective for
normal learners
-- Reduces expectations
-- The curriculum is usually restricted
-- Doesn't directly address their needs
D. Locates the problem "within the Student"
and not within the System.
E. Prevents the System from having to adjust
to the actual needs of the students
F. Places increased demands on the system
in terms of fiscal and personnel
resources.
G. Places more burden on the Special Educators
H. Places the Special Educator in a GateKeeping
Role
2. If a student has difficulties
due to diversity and is not disordered ---- and there are no
resources currently
available, the SLP should do the following:
A. Document the Need for other Services
B. Formally request these services in the manner
appropriate to your system
C. Meet with the collaborative team and design
a program outside of Special
Education (peer tutoring, cooperative grouping, whole language)
D. Attempt to mobilize the appropriate individuals to
create the support programs
needed.
1. The student should always get the educational
support in his/her strongest language if at
all possible.
2. The student should never be isolated
from the language of socialization and comfort. This
is usually the first
or home language and it should never be sacrificed/discouraged.
3. There is really no need to have to
decide between the student's two languages.
Bilingualism is possible
and desirable in any individual. The key is in how you proceed.
4. Utilization of a holistic/pragmatic
paradigm and the knowledge and application of L2
Acquisition will assist
the Special educator in working with both languages. There are a
number of excellent
references regarding ESL and Bilingual Education:
Bohlender, 1986
Chamberlain & Landurand, 1991
Chamot & O'Malley,
1987
Crandall et al, 1988
Edelsky, 1986
Fanselow, 1987
Hamayan & Damico,
1991b Hudson
& Fradd, 1990
Krashen, 1982
Oller & Richard-Amato, 1983
Willig & Ortiz,
1991
Wong-Fillmore, 1986
5. The language usage plan should detail
who will be using which language, for what
purpose, and in which
skill or subject. This may be incorporated in to the IEP.
1. The basis for all "top-down" learning and
meaning-making
2. Addresses active versus passive and decontextualization
3. This enables the student to employ multiple
cueing and the power of their
meaning-making proficiency
4. Can be accomplished by adherence to Oller's
PRAGMATIC NATURALNESS
CONSTRAINTS
Meaning-based
Contextually-embedded
Temporally-constrained
5. Ask yourself: " Is this activity being conducted
for a real purpose?"
1. An important key to working on effective meaning-making
in learning contexts
centers on using those contexts
and activities that enhance pragmatic mapping.
* Should include discourse genres other than just conversations
* Should focus on skills as they are situated within event structures
* Should vary skills and activities to fit the experiences of particular
children in their everyday contexts
* Context Embedded
2. This best addresses decontextualization
3. Several Points concerning the Situated Contexts
that are utilized:
1.
Since language is a tool for making sense of something else, the
"something else" has prominence and serve as the situated contexts
-- the activities and the contexts within which those activities occur.
2.
The contexts should be as natural and authentic as possible. More work
must occur in real situations and on real tasks. Teaching/Learning
should involve true interaction and discourse that is authentic.
3.
The contexts should be rich in meaning-making and organized to
provide as much opportunity as the student can have with a range of text
types and activities.
-- Talking -- Listening
-- Reading -- Writing
-- Problem Solving -- Reflecting
-- Arguing -- Justifying
-- Drawing -- Acting
-- Gesturing -- Manipulating
These help focus on multisensory approaches and different learning styles
4. The students should be immersed in appropriate
mediational support
throughout the activities.
5. The Contexts/Events chosen often act
as scaffolds for the student
6. Themes, interest units, problem solving
activities, and topics or subjects
relevant to the students should be the situated contexts of teaching/learning.
Unmotivated activities should be avoided.
7. The following considerations should
be employed when choosing the
Situated Contexts:
-- What is most relevant to the needs of the child
-- What is most salient for the child
-- What is most motivating for the child
-- How do the targeted meaning-making skills fit into the context
-- Which Contexts/Events are easiest to stage
-- What are the preferences for the parents/teachers (for
collaborative purposes)
-- The contexts typically vary according to developmental level,
interests, and needs of the individual child.
8. You must respect the logic
of experience and not interfere with it.
9. Present a preparatory
set for the activity initially.
10. Material may be worked through
in cycles where the depth of
understanding and range of comprehension increases in each cycle.
11. The situated contexts should have authenticity
and it should have
relevance to the student.
-- Whole texts, stories, conversations and other phenomena that
occur naturally and normally in life.
-- The language, interests, and experiences that students bring to
school should have high value.
-- The students should have choices.
-- The Community in which the child is immersed should have a
part.
12. Several Situated Contexts may be used within any
session or plan.
1. Literacy activities (reading and writing)
2. Academic tasks
3. Experience Stories
4. Conversational formats
5. Representational Play
6. Hobbies
7. Excursions
8. Themes
9. Problems to Solve
10. Research Activities
11. Story Enactments
12. Preparation for authentic tasks (job interviews, work)
COMPONENT SIX: ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY OF LEARNERS/PRACTICE
1. Based upon
many naturalistic learning studies
2. So many advantages:
Authentic
Contextualized
Supportive
Scaffolded
Social
Cooperative
"Risk-free" risk taking
Active Engagement
3. Edelsky suggestions
for how to make schoolwork like a community of practice:
– Pick a community of practice that makes literacy a major part of it's
practice
– Join the community of practice yourself
– Set up Preludes to immersion
– Position the students and the work in relation to the world around them
– Immerse the students in examples, the sounds of the genre, and ways of
talking about it
– Put some emphasis on form and technique after a lot of immersion
then discuss several techniques and let the students try out various
techniques.
-- Provide a mix of inquiry and experimentation Some Examples
– A middle school "survival manual"
– Writing your memoirs
– Cross generational changes
– Experiences of immigrants
– Radio plays
1. The content during instruction -- WHAT MEANING-MAKING
SKILLS and WHAT
STRATEGIES TO
ENHANCE THOSE SKILLS -- will be chosen is
determined by
the needs of the student(s) based on the goals and objectives of the
classroom
and the student's social circumstances.
2. The concept of "Kid watching" is relevant here.
3. Assessment of the student's present level of functioning
in the various uses, aspects, and
manifestations
of learning can assist in determining content. Assessment procedures
should focus
on meaning and the communicative process in all the text manifestation.
4. Stress operationalizing your teaching plan and activities
to the classroom or to other
authentic
manifestations of meaning-making
-- Focus on actual meaning-making (academic) skills needed in the
classroom or social contexts. Even problems with transition.
-- Orient to the following:
Meaning-making Skills needed to be successful
Strategies that can be used to develop or improve the skills
Applications of the skills to settings outside of intervention
5. Conduct a functional/observational analysis:
Focus on Overt Behaviors that may serve as Indices of Problems
Functional Difficulties and Strengths and Adjustments
Demonstration of Skills, Strategies and Applications
Organize
Class Notes........Outlining, Flow charting, Ask what is important &
Topicalize with headings ...... Notes useful for others, Improved scores
on
examinations
Fluency in writing ...... Ask: What do you want to say and talk it through,
Write
information sentences and then paste them into your template, Write ideas
and
then go back and revise for grammar & conventionalizations, Write then
use
"directive/evaluative statements ...... Longer written homework, More coherent
and detailed essays, Increased time-on-task when writing.
Improved Word Attack skills ...... Skip the unknown word and read to the
end of
the sentence then ask, "what word would make sense". Put in a word that
makes
sense and go on, Look for a known chunk or small word in the unknown word
and ask what fits with the pictures and my prior knowledge ......Increased
fluency
in reading, increased in speed of reading, Increased comprehension of reading
passages.
Reading
for meaning ...... Ask: What does the author want me to know?, Use
pre-initiation strategies, Ask while reading: Does this make sense?, Focus
on
"what the author says NOT the sounds or words. Read faster, Listen to others
read
stories ......Increased reading comprehension scores, more relevant discussion
in
reading circles. More independent reading.
Understanding class lectures ...... Listen for the topic sentence and write
down the
main point, use clarification strategies if you don't follow, after the
lecture review
your notes with others, Ask at the first of the lecture what the teacher
wants to
get across, consult a brief chapter outline while listening ...... Better
notes in class.
Improved participation in class discussions, Improved test scores.
Increased verbal interactions with peers ...... employ various initiation
strategies,
comment positively on what someone said and ask a relevant question, make
eye
contact when listening and comment, appropriately bring up topics of interest
to
others ....... Increased time-at-talk at recess, longer individual conversations
with
others, increase in friendships.
1. The most important consideration is that the materials
used are:
-- well-written
-- well-organized
-- interesting
2. These qualities are usually found in trade books more frequently
than they are found in
textbooks or basal readers.
3. The materials should be chosen by the students and the teacher/interventionist
in a true
collaborative process. This will aid
the motivation and help set-up important
expectancies.
4. Care must be taken to ensure that the materials possess strong
episodic structure. That
is, that they are motivating (this may involve
conflict), that they have well-
organized sequential and temporal structure,
that they are culturally relevant and they
are experientially relevant to the students.
5. It is important to remember that the primary emphasis should
be placed on the ability
to utilize language for meaning transmission
and construction rather than learning
actual content. That is what creates an educative
experience.
6. Do choose material from a variety of genres and in a variety of text modalities.
7. Make certain that the materials encourage a great degree of
cross-over between
speaking, reading, writing and special
project activities.
8. Expository books should be chosen that make use of cue words
that signal various
text structures. Describe:
first second last; same different; compare contrast;
problem solution cause
9. Texts that provide frequent headings and subheadings serve
as advance organizers
for students enabling them to predict what
is coming and facilitate comprehension.
10.Using a variety of materials that can allow for a cross-modal experience
or a wide
number of learner activities for repetitive
theme building or topic focus is preferable.
11. Remember that the materials frequently serve as important scaffolding materials.
12. Refer to the extensive handout passed out in class.
1. Provide an environment in which students are encouraged
to take risks with
language. A second language is best
acquired naturally in much the same way
that a first language is acquired (These
points are adapted from Sandra Fradd).
A.
Expect and respect a "silent" period in which students listen actively,
taking in language and expressing themselves non-verbally and in their
L1.
B. Expect errors in speech and celebrate approximations to
correct form but
not at the expense of meaning.
C. As students talk, remember that the oral language
proficiency in L2 does
not necessarily reflect a level of cognitive functioning (thinking ability).
D. As students talk, pay attention to what they are saying
(meaning) rather
than how they say it (accent, grammar)
E. Use instructional methodologies which focus on learning
by doing and
require higher level thinking processes.
F. Develop non-verbal ways in which students can demonstrate
their knowledge.
G. Celebrate the different languages and cultures throughout
the school year.
H. Arrange the environment so that all students can actively
participate and
contribute to the success of the class regardless of language or culture.
I. Encourage high levels of interaction among students
and utilize experiences
familiar to the students as part of the curriculum.
2. Provide an environment in which students are encouraged
to take risks with
learning. This typically requires
Cooperative rather than Competitive learning
strategies and it requires Scaffolded
Support
3. Use instructional methodologies which are active and
which focus on learning by
doing and require higher level thinking
processes.
4. Develop non-verbal ways in which students can demonstrate their knowledge.
5. Arrange the environment so that all students can actively
participate and contribute
to the success of the class regardless
of level of performance or competence.
6. Encourage high levels of interaction among students and
utilize experiences familiar
to the students as part of the
curriculum.
7. Create a Comprehensive Language-Learning Environment
-- Input must contain some language
already known to students and some language not
yet acquired.
-- The knowledge to be acquired is acquired
with the assistance of context and gestures
as scaffolds.
-- The instruction must focus on meaning
and not on form, and must be
interesting
to students.
8. Milieu must induce self-confidence and lower anxiety.
9. Employ the power of a Holistic Perspective to learning
-- Someone reads aloud to the students
daily.
-- Students engaged in reading/writing
for real purposes
-- Students talk about reading/writing
processes as a natural part of activities.
-- There is lots of talk about plans,
observations, and things of interest.
-- There are all kinds of print materials
available.
-- There are always projects or
thematic units used.
-- The focus is on whole texts,
stories, conversations, phenomena that occur
naturally and normally in life.
-- There is a value placed on
the language, interests, and experiences of students
-- The learners have choices.
-- Communities are part of the
curriculum.
-- The curriculum is learner-centered.
-- Writing activities should be conducted
everyday.
10. To increase and facilitate cultural awareness utilize five
strategies:
A.
Use resources and materials that:
-- have accurate, authentic information about
different groups
-- include multiple cultural perspectives
-- teach about various groups' ways of life
-- reflect cultural experiences of your students
-- challenge stereotyping and discrimination
of minority groups.
B.
Provide opportunities to explore and openly discuss:
-- global and local community concerns
-- students' own cultural heritages
-- prejudice and discrimination concerns
-- intercultural communication issues.
C.
Provide direct instruction/guidance to students on:
-- communication strategies
-- cooperative learning strategies
-- conflict resolution strategies
D.
Be familiar with, try to involve, students' FAMILIES in school
E.
Instill an attitude of respect of all people and of diversity.
20 IDEAS FOR THE USE OF MATERIALS IN OTHER LANGUAGES
1. Make easily accessible around classroom
2. Create student's own newsletter
3. Class cookbook
4. Include publication choices from L1
5. Compare advertisements
6. Create comic strips in L1
7. Make own ads using slogans
8. Explain graph/chart found in a newspaper/magazine.
Write about it in journal.
9. Dramatize folktales/use story puppets
10. Interview each other.
11. Do classification exercises(meaningful).
12. Use materials for a research report.
13. Read articles for discussion/ point of view.
14. Develop set of Q/A's for interview/game.
15. Make collages.
16. Look for culturally rich magazines.
17. Translate main ideas from L1 to L2
18. Use classified ads
19. Do a treasure hunt in different magazines.
20. Read articles about different groups to raise self-esteem.
SUPPORTING L1 WHEN TEACHER DOESN'T SPEAK THOSE LANGUAGES
1. Ensure environmental print reflects L1
Signs Bilingual Stamps
Basic Words Book Marks
2. Supply school with books, papers, magazines in L1.
3. Encourage bilingual students to publish books and share
stories in L1.
4. Allow bilingual students to respond in L1 to demonstrate
comprehension of content in L2.
5. Have bilingual students read and write with aides,
parents, other students who speak L1.
6. Use videotapes/audiotapes in L1 produced professionally
or by students.
7. Use nonverbal ways of responding.
8. Use external context.
STRATEGY NUMBER ONE
READING ALOUD
(Adapted from Teale, 1984; Trelease, 1989)
1. This simple strategy is most effective
in preparing and developing literacy.
2. Research has indicated that reading
aloud develops at least 6 areas:
---
develops assumptions about the functions/uses of written language
---
develops concepts of print, books, and reading and the form and structure
of written
language itself.
---
Develops positive attitudes toward reading
---
Provides and develops reading strategies (self-monitoring, predicting)
---
Provides the opportunity for vocabulary development
---
Provides the opportunity to gain more knowledge of the world without direct
experience.
3. Someone should read aloud to students
daily (minimum of 15 minutes).
4. The material should be of high interest
to the students. This will usually involve the issues
and books that the
students are interested in reading themselves.
5. In general, your local library and
the librarian are your best resources for literature.
6. Although most of the research has
been done on reading aloud to pre-literate children, this
strategy is effective
at all levels. It is especially effective with learning-disabled
students
and provides them
positive reading attitudes.
7. There is a difference between a student's
listening level and his/her reading level. Most
students can effectively
listen and benefit from material that is three or four grade levels
above their reading
level. Reading aloud to students helps expand awareness of the
reading process and
their exposure to material at a higher level of functioning.
Why is this activity
important?
1. The
real key is that it exposes the individuals to the PATTERNS OF LANGUAGE
* MEANINGFULNESS
* STRUCTURAL SCHEMES
* GENRES
* STANDARDIZATION
* VOCABULARY
* SPELLING
2. This
results in an increase in PREDICTABILITY
3. Because
it is repetitive, engaging and motivating.
STRATEGY NUMBER TWO
INITIATING A READING/WRITING ACTIVITY
1. Shared reading activity
2. Use of Quick shares
3. Use of brain storm activities
4. Use of quick writes
5. Share work with others
STRATEGY NUMBER THREE
DIALOGUE JOURNALS
(Adapted from Staton, 1983)
1. The dialogue journal is a private,
interactive dialogue in writing between a
student/interventionist
acting as communicative partners.
2. The goal of the journal is improved
personal communication and mutual understanding
between the student
and the teacher
3. This strategy meets the criteria for
promoting authenticity constraints because the focus
enables attention
to meaning and function rather than grammatical form, an emphasis on
interaction, and relevant/motivating
communication.
4. The journal entries can address a
broad range of topics to the interventionist and student
including personal
information, interpersonal exchanges, and academic topics.
5. The Dialogue Journal is implemented
as follows:
---
The student and interventionist write each other on a scheduled basis about
whatever they find interesting.
---
All entries are confidential and each student has his/her own journal book
or
"diary".
---
The interventionist responds only to the content of each student entry;
The teacher
does not correct any grammatical mistakes.
---
Each teacher response should take about 5-10 minutes.
---
Interventionist entries are characterized by comments, expansions, and
various
types of questions including clarification questions when student grammatical
errors
severely impede communication.
6. Dialogue journals result in the interactants
getting to know each other as unique
individuals.
This leads to more motivation and interest on the part of both parties.
Such
interaction is very
empowering to most students.
7. Dialogue journals encourage students
to write more by reducing the risks normally
associated with traditional
error correction, and by supporting topics inherently
interesting to each
student.
8. Students become progressively less
dependent upon the interventionist and write
progressively longer
entries.
9. Students typically go from making
few grammatical errors to more grammatical errors as
they become more comfortable
and daring, just as in normal language acquisition.
Simultaneously, meaning
units also increase.
10. This strategy promotes more than writing.
Cognitive processing increases, there is more
integration and transformation
of information, more generalization, greater perspective-
taking, and other
benefits.
STRATEGY NUMBERS THREE AND FOUR
PEER TUTORING/COOPERATIVE LEARNING
(Adapted from Larson & McKinley, 1987; Willig & Ortiz, 1991)
1. This strategy enables the intervention to
shift from the clinician or teacher to other students
in the target child's
environment.
2. There are several advantages to peer tutoring:
-- TEMPORAL SATURATION
-- SPATIAL SATURATION
-- AUTHENTICITY
-- Due to the structure of the interactions, there is typically a
give-and-take that
provides benefits for both the tutor and tutee.
-- Peer tutoring is an ideal approach to use when expanding to a
more collaborative
service delivery model.
-- This strategy is particularly effective with adolescent clients
because of the reliance
on peer influences at this stage of development.
-- This strategy provides an opportunity for incidental learning
to occur that can benefit
the targeted student in terms of social and academic proficiency and it
provides a
supportive network that can function outside of the school environment.
3. To benefit from peer tutoring, careful selection
of the tutors must occur. These students can
be recruited by teacher
recommendations or by self-nomination through posters or
advertisements in the school.
It is important that the tutors:
-- Are serious about the commitment to work with another
-- Have no "hidden agenda" for serving as a tutor
-- Have the patience to work with others
-- Have the ability to interact and work with others
-- Have a positive attitude about education
-- Have the time available to work with the tutee
-- Are dependable
-- Have the ability to plan and execute a lesson plan.
4. Once selected, peer tutors should be oriented
and trained to Perform their tutoring
activities. It is
important that tutoring are provided with instruction and demonstration
of
several simple techniques
that they may use with the targeted students. Some of the
techniques described in
this workshop are appropriate.
5. Peer tutors should also be instructed to
do the following:
-- Be able to interact and provide support to the targeted student
in the classroom in a
on-disruptive manner.
-- Provide a reinforcing and empowering set of interactions for the
targeted student.
-- Be able to ask for help if they are having problems.
-- Be able to provide support for the target student without actually
doing all the work
him/herself. The tutor works with not for the tutee.
-- Be able to help the targeted student organize activities and attend
more to the
teacher.
-- Encourage the targeted student to be a more appropriate risk-taker
during learning
activities.
6. For peer tutoring to be effective, the interventionist
must carefully monitor and follow- up
with the tutors on a regular
basis. Without such follow-up, the tutoring as a strategy will
not be effective.
1. Cooperative Learning Groups are adaptations
that allow students to work in small
groups that encourage mutual
cooperation. Cooperative Learning Groups are usually
heterogeneous in regards to
gender, ethnicity and ability. Each team consists of four
or five members and the group
is responsible for the learning of all of its members and
rewards are earned by groups
not by individuals.
2. There are several advantages to cooperative
learning groups:
-- It provides
social and emotional advantages as well as academic ones.
-- It provides
higher levels of motivation and greater intrinsic motivation.
-- It provides
increased self-esteem.
-- It results in
more positive perceptions about the intentions of others.
-- It results in
a decrease of negative competition.
-- It provides
greater acceptance of differences in others.
-- It results in
decreased dependence on the teacher.
-- It increases
achievement test scores.
-- Due to the structure
of the interactions, there is typically a give-and-take that
provides
benefits for all the students in the grouping.
-- Cooperative learning
is an ideal approach to use when expanding to a more
collaborative/inclusive service delivery model.
-- This strategy is particularly
effective with adolescent clients because of the
reliance on peer influences at this stage of development.
-- This strategy provides
an opportunity for incidental learning to occur that can
benefit the targeted student in terms of social and academic proficiency
and it
provides a supportive network outside of the school.
3. Some other characteristics of Cooperative
Learning Groups:
-- Groups can focus on
activities in process-oriented/meaning-based manner.
-- Individual roles should
be assigned to each group member so that each student feels
they have a role and a function. Roles (e.g., facilitator, secretary,
time-keeper,
materials person, checker) can be assigned and rotated so that each student
has a
chance to work for the group in each role. The primary
role, of course, is mutual
learning, discovery and/or problem-solving.
-- Cooperative Learning
Groups can be used in writing activities, reading activities,
and across the curriculum. De Avila, Cohen, & Intili (1981) and
Slavin (1986) have
effectively demonstrated Cooperative Learning Groups with Potentially English
Proficient (PEP) students and with SPED Students.
4. Implementation suggestions (based on my experience)
-- Provide the students with
practical examples of what you want them to do.
-- Strive for heterogeneity
in groups
-- Consider students' ability
to work together
-- Keep groups together for
several weeks but no longer
-- Make certain "buddies" are
not always in the same group
-- Never create groups larger
than 5...3 or 4 are better for younger students.
-- Arrange desks or tables
to fit within the cooperative paradigm
-- You likely will have to
develop cooperative skills
*
Ask the kids what they like and dislike about C.L.
*
Ask how it should be done differently
*
Provide opportunities for students to practice specific social skills
*
Utilize specific roles
6. Cooperative Learning can be used for many various
activities:
A.
Conducting research for any class
B.
Reading Expository Texts
C.
Reading Engaging Fiction
D.
Writing Stories or Reports
E.
Working out Academic Puzzles and Problems
7. Cooperative Learning can be achieved with various
kinds of grouping techniques:
A.
Group retellings
B.
Group Communal Writing
C.
Dyadic Learning
D.
Roundtable
E.
Roundrobin
F.
Three-Step Interview
G. Numbered
Heads Together
H. Think-Pair-Share
I.
Jigsaw
J. Literature
Circles
STRATEGY NUMBER FIVE
STORYTELLING
(Peck, 1989)
Storytelling, the oral interpretation of a traditional, literary, or
personal experience story, is a very effective strategy for focusing students
on literacy. It tends to promote expressive language development (oracy
and written composition), receptive language development (reading and listening
comprehension), and the schemata necessary for literacy.
Two distinct learning situations are
available:
A. The teacher or an actual storyteller that
tells a story in a natural manner with all
the flavor and language of the particular tradition from which it comes.
Develops critical listening.
B. The students as storytellers after learning
from the adults as models. This allows
for the development of oral and written expression.
After storytelling, and important component is the guided discussion in which the students and the storyteller interact about the story and what the students liked best about it. The students can develop critical awareness, focus on rhetorical devices that they enjoyed, focus on specific facts or Information. This is also a good time to seek predictions and motivations from the students.
Mini-lessons can be effectively used after the students participate in some storytelling from real storytellers. They can revolve around developing the story, mentally mapping out their story, creating a story structure that is effective and clear for the telling, exploring vocalization, gestures, movement, and eye contact.
Storytelling is a great way to get the community and individuals from different cultural backgrounds involved and participating in your program. This not only enables students to be proud and embrace the diversity of the class, it also allows for excellent "spin-offs".
STRATEGY NUMBER SIX
SHELTERED INSTRUCTION
1. Sheltered instruction is a way that
mainstream teachers can make language in the
classroom more comprehensible.
2. Sheltered Instruction Means:
Using Contextual
Cues
-- these will increase the opportunities
for scaffolding to occur
-- visuals, realia, manipulatives, gestures,
hands-on experiences, modelling and
demonstrations.
Accessing and Building
Background Development
-- prior knowledge and cultural experiences
-- concept "mind set"
-- vocabulary necessary for concept learning
-- referential questions.
Organizing Purposeful
Peer Interactions
-- peer tutoring
-- two-way tasks
-- cooperative groups
Focusing on the Message
versus Form of Language
-- comprehensible input
-- here-and-now focus
3. The following are techniques that facilitate
Sheltered Instruction:
-- Whole group instruction based on hands-on
experiences like experiments,
field trips, and inquiry activities
-- Language experience stories written based
on hands-on experiences
-- Shared book experience
-- Study Guides
-- Dialogue journals and learning logs
-- Contract of 10-50 activities related to
the content area theme
-- Learning center task cards
-- Peer tutoring
-- Cooperative learning
-- Literature based activities
-- Total physical response
-- Use of technology like software programs,
videos, films and cassettes
-- Use of rhythmic language like chants,
poetry and song
-- Multiple reading selections that express
content area theme and Vocabulary in
context (i.e., trade books in L1 and L2)
-- Coordinate services with other instructors
who serve the C/LD student
-- Use of strategies that access and build
prior knowledge like KWL and
semantic Webbing.
4. To initiate Sheltered English Instruction,
Watson, Northcutt, & Rydell (1989) has
proposed an Eight Step
Plan for Sheltered English Instruction:
A. Preplanning the year by developing themes
-- decide what the students need to master
-- organize content around themes
B. The Diagnosis
-- develop objectives for content and language
C. Think of ways to bring lessons to life
-- identify visuals and manipulatives
-- identify concrete models to illustrate ideas
D. Setting the stage
-- present a broad overview of the unit/lesson
content
E. Preteaching two vocabulary sets:
-- learning vocabulary
-- content vocabulary
F. The Instruction
-- use consistent lesson plans
-- find ways to animate the direct instruction
(realia, role-plays and models
for learning)
G. Guided Practice
-- more examples and tryouts
H. Independent Practice
-- student interaction maximized (dyads, groups,
and cooperative learning)
-- evaluation (student-developed products and tests)
STRATEGY NUMBER SEVEN
ADAPTING MATERIALS FOR CONTENT BASED
LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
1. Modify to the students' proficiency
level.
*
Exposing students to different formats (pictures, diagrams, graphs, etc.)
will
help cater to different learning styles
2. Build on students' prior knowledge.
*
Moving from the known to the unknown, and from concrete to abstract, while
relating
materials, if possible, to students' experiences
3. Highlight specific text.
*
Main points should be highlighted, extraneous detail is excluded
4. Control new vocabulary.
*
Vocabulary should be simplified, but key technical terms retained
*
New vocabulary should be clearly introduced and reinforced
5. Simplify grammar.
*
Simple verb tenses/simplify word order/write in active voice
6. Structure paragraphs carefully.
*
The topic sentence should appear first
*
Key features of text that guide information flow should be maintained
ASSESSMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archer, P. and Edward, J.R. (1982). Predicting school achievement
from data on pupils
obtained from teachers: Towards
a screening device for disadvantaged. Journal of
Educational Psychology,
74, 761-770.
Bassett, R.E., Whittington, N., and Staton-Spicer, A. (1978).
The basics in speaking and
listening for high school graduates:
What should be assessed? Communication Education,
27, 300-307.
Blank, M., Rose, S. & Berlin, L. (1978). The language
of Learning. New York: Grune and
Stratton, Inc.
Brinton, B. & Fujiki, M. (1992). Setting the context for
conversational language sampling.
Best Practices in School Speech-Language
Pathology, 2.
Brown, J., Anderson, A., Shillicock, R., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching
talk. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chalfant, J., Pysh, M., & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance
teams: A model for
within-building problem solving.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 2
Chamberlain, P. & Landurand, P. (1991). Practical considerations
in the assessment of
bilingual students. In E.V.
Hamayan and J.S. Damico (Eds.) Limiting bias in the
assessment of bilingual students.
Austin: PRO-ED.
Chamot, A. & O'Malley, M. (1987). The cognitive academic
language learning approach: A
bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly,
21, 227-249
Cheng, L.L. (1987). Assessing Asian language performance. Rockville,
MD: Aspen.
Cheng, L.L. (1990). Ethnography as a language assessment procedure.
Journal
of Childhood
Communication Disorders, 13.
Cloud, N. (1991). Educational assessment. In E.V. Hamayan
and J.S. Damico (Eds.) Limiting
bias in the assessment of bilingual
students. Austin: PRO-ED.
Creaghead, N. (1992). What does this student know about school?
Analysis of classroom
scripts for interaction. Best Practices
in School Speech-Language Pathology, 2.
Crystal, D. (1982). Profiling Linguistic Disability.
London: Edward Arnold.
Damico, J.S. (1985). Clinical Discourse Analysis: A functional
language assessment
technique. In C.S. Simon
(Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success: Assessment
of language-learning disabled
students. (pp. 165-204) San Diego: College Hill Press.
Damico, J.S. (1991a). Descriptive assessment of communicative
ability in limited English
proficient students. In E.V. Hamayan
& J.S. Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the
assessment of bilingual students.
(pp. 157-218) Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Damico, J.S. (Ed.) (1992a). Descriptive and nonstandardized assessment
in the schools. Best
Practices in School Speech-Language
Pathology, 2. (The Psychological Corporation...
512-299-1061)
Damico, J.S. (1992b). Systematic Observation of Communicative
Interaction: A valid and
practical descriptive assessment technique.
Best
Practices in School Speech-Language
Pathology, 2.
Damico, J.S. & Damico, S.K. (1993). Language and social skills
from a diversity perspective.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 24, 236-243.
Damico, J.S. and Oller, J.W., Jr. (1985). Spotting Language
Problems. San Diego: Los
Amigos Research Associates.
Damico, J.S., Secord, W.A., & Wiig, E.H. (1992). Descriptive
language assessment at school:
Characteristics and design. Best
Practices in School Speech-Language Pathology, 2.
Deal, A., Trivette, C., and Dunst, C. (1988). Family Functioning
Style Scale. In C. Dunst, C.
Trivette, and A. Deal, Enabling and empowering
families: Principles and guidelines for
practice. (pp.179-184)
Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1989). Reporting reading progress: A comparison
portfolio for parents.
The Reading Teacher, 42,508-514.
Garcia, S.B. and Ortiz, A.A. (1988). Preventing inappropriate
referrals of language minority
students to special education. New
Focus: Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, 5,
1-12. Wheaton, MD: The national
clearinghouse for bilingual education.
Goodman, K., Goodman, Y, & Hood, W. (Eds.) (1989). The whole
language evaluation book.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, Y.M., Watson, D.J., & Burke, C.L. (1987). Reading
Miscue Analysis: Alternative
procedures. New York: Robert
C. Owens Publishers.
Gottlieb, M. (1991). Portfolio Assessment. A workshop
developed for the Illinois Resource
Center. Des Plaines, IL.
Graden, J.L., Casey, A., & Bonstrom, O. (1985). Implementing
a prereferral intervention
system: Part II. The data. Exceptional
Children, 51, 487-496.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English.
London: Longman.
Hamayan, E.V. & Damico, J.S. (Eds.) (1991a). Limiting
bias in the assessment of bilingual
students. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Heath, S.B. (1986). Taking a cross-cultural look at narratives.
Topics
in Language Disorders,
7, 84-94.
Hedberg, N.L. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (1986). Narrative analysis:
Clinical procedures. Topics
in Language Disorders.
7, 58-69.
Jongsma, K.S. (1989). Portfolio assessment. The Reading
Teacher, 43, 264-265.
Kamhi, A.G. & Johnston, J.R. (1992). Semantic assessment:
Determining propositional
complexity. Best Practices in School Speech-Language
Pathology, 2.
Kemp. M. (1990). Watching children read and write. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Kovarsky, D. (1992). Ethnography and language assessment:
Toward the contextualized
description and interpretation of communicative
behavior. Best Practices in School
Speech-Language Pathology, 2.
Langdon, H.W. & Cheng, L-R.L. (1992). Hispanic children
and adults with communicative
disorders: Assessment and prevention.
Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Langer, J. (1982). Facilitating text processing: The elaboration
of text knowledge. In J.
Langer & M.T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Reader
meets author/bridging the gap. Newark,
Delaware: International Reading Association.
Larson, V.L. & McKinley, N.L. (1987). Communication assessment
and intervention strategies
for adolescents. Eau Claire,
WI: Thinking Publications, Inc.
Lesley, L. & Caldwell, J. (1990). Qualitative Reading
Inventory. Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman.
Lund, N. & Duchan, J. (1988). Assessing children's language
in naturalistic contexts. (2nd
Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Loban, W. (1976). Language development: K-12. Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Mattes, L.J. (1985). Spanish Language Assessment Procedures:
A communication skills
inventory. San Diego: Los
Amigos Research Associates.
Mattes,L.J.& Omark,D.R.(1984). Speech and language assessment
for the bilingual
handicapped. San Diego, CA: College-Hill
Press.
Miller, J. and Chapman, R. (1983). SALT: Systematic
analysis of language transcripts, User's
manual. Madison: University
of Wisconsin.
Morris, D. (1992). What constitutes at-risk: Screening
children for first grade reading
intervention. Best Practices in School
Speech-Language Pathology, 2.
Moya, S.S. & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). A portfolio assessment
model for ESL. The Journal of
Educational issues of langauge minority
students. 13, 13-36.
Nelson, N.W. (1985). Curriculum-based language assessment and
intervention. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
16, 170-184.
Nelson, N.W. (1992). Targets of curriculum-based language assessment.
Best
Practices in
School Speech-Language Pathology, 2.
Oller, J.W., Jr. (1979). Language Tests at School: A pragmatic
approach. London: Longman.
O'Malley, J.M. (1989). Language proficiency testing with limited
English proficient students.
Georgetown University Round Table on Languages
and Linguistics 1989. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Paris, S. (1991). Assessment and remediation of metacognitive
aspects of children's reading
comprehension. Topics in Language
Disorders, 12, 32-50.
Paulson, F.L., Paulson, P.R., & Meyer, C.A. (1991).
What makes a portfolio a portfolio?
Educational Leadership, 48, 60-63.
Pierce, L.V. & O'Malley, J.M. (1991). Using a portfolio
approach to monitor academic
language development. Paper
presented at the 25th Annual TESOL Convention, March,
New York.
Pils, L. (1991). Soon anofe you tout me: Evaluation in a first-grade
whole language classroom.
The Reading Teacher, 45, 46-50.
Prutting, C.A. and Kirchner, D.M. (1987). A clinical appraisal of the
pragmatic aspects of
language. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 52, 105-119.
Rice, M.L., Sell, M.A., and Hadley, P.A. (1990). The Social Interactive
Coding System
(SICS): An on-line, clinically
relevant descriptive tool. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools. 21,
Scott, C.M. & Erwin, D.L. (1992). Descriptive assessment
of writing: Process and products.
Best Practices in School Speech-Language
Pathology, 2.
Secord, W.; Wiig, E., & Damico, J. (1994). Classroom Assessment.
Chicago, IL: Riverside
Publishers.
Silliman, E.R. & Wilkinson, L.C. (1991). Communicating
for learning: Classroom observation
and collaboration. Gaithersburg,
MD: Aspen.
Simon, C.S. (1989). Classroom Communication Screening Procedurefor
Early Adolescents: A
handbook for assessment and intervention.
Tempe, AZ: Communi-Cog Publications.
Sulzby, E. (1989). Assessment of writing and of other children's language
while writing. In L.
Morrow & J. Smith (Eds), Assessment
for instruction in early literacy (pp.83-109).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Taylor, O.L. (1977). The sociolinguistic dimension of standardized
testing. In M. Saville-
Troike (Ed.), Linguistics and anthropology,
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Taylor, O.L. & Payne, K.T. (1983). Culturally valid testing:
A proactive approach. Topics in
Language Disorders. 3, 8-20.
Tierney, R.J., Carter, M.A., & Desai, L.E. (1991). Portfolio
assessment in the reading-writing
classroom. Norwood, MA:
Christopher-Gordon.
Valencia, S. (1990). A portfolio approach to classroom reading
assessment: The whys, whats,
and hows. The Reading Teacher,
43, 338-340.
Valencia, S. & Lipson, M. (1990). Evaluating the reading context.
The
Reading Teacher, 44,
330-332.
Vogt, M.E. (1991). An observation guide for supervisors and administrators:
Moving toward
integrated reading/language arts instruction.
The
Reading Teacher, 45, 206-211.
Wade, S. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The
Reading Teacher, 43, 442-
451.
Westby, C. (1989). Assessing and facilitating text comprehension.
In A. Kamhi & H. Catts
(Eds.), Reading disabilities: A developmental
perspective (pp. 199-259). Boston:
College-Hill.
Westby, C.E. (1990). Ethnographic interviewing: Asking
the right questions to the right people
in the right ways. Journal of Childhood
Communication Disorders, 13, 101-111.
Westby, C. (1992). Narrative assessment. Best Practices in
School Speech-Language
Pathology, 2.
Wiig, E.H. (1990). Wiig Criterion Referenced Inventory of
Language. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Wiig, E.H. & Secord, W.A. (1992). Measurement and assessment:
Making sense of test results.
Buffalo, NY: Educom Associates,
Wolf, D.P. (1989). Portfolio Assessment: Sampling student work. Educational
Leadership,
46(7), 35-39.
Wolfram, W. (1983). Test interpretation and sociolinguistic differences.
Topics
in Language
Disorders, 3, 21-34.
Wolfram, W. (1985). The phonologic system: Problems of second
language acquisition. In
J.M. Costello (Ed.), Speech disorders
in adults. (pp. 59-76), San Diego CA: College Hill
Press.
INTERVENTION BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atwell, N. (1987a) In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning
with adolescents.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bashir, A. (1989). Language intervention and the curriculum.
Seminars
in Speech and
Language, 10, 181-191.
Bohlender, J. (1986). Setting up an ESL peer tutoring program.
TESOL
Elementary SIG
Newsletter, 7-8.
Brinton, B. & Fujiki, M. (1989). Conversational management
with language-impaired
children. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Calkins, L. (1983). Lessons from a child: On the teaching
and learning of writing. Exeter, NH:
Heinemann.
Cochran, C. (1989). Strategies for involving LEP students
in the all-English medium
classroom: A cooperative learning
approach. Washington, DC: NCBE.
Creaghead, N.A. (1990). Mutual empowerment through collaboration:
A new script for an old
problem. Best Practices in School
Speech-Language Pathology, 1, 109-116.
Damico, J.S. (1992). Whole Language for Special Needs Children.
Buffalo, NY: Educom
associates. (Now handled by Riverside Publishers,
1-800-767-8420)
Damico, J.S. & Hamayan, E.V. (1993). Multicultural Language
Intervention: Addressing
cultural and linguistic diversity.
Buffalo, NY: Educom Associates. (Now handled by
Riverside Publishers, 1-800-767-8420)
Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in
the student-centered classroom.
New York: Stenhouse Publishers.
De Avila, E., Cohen, E., Intili, J. (1981). Multiculturalimprovement
of cognitive abilities.
Final Report to the California State
Department of Education.
DeJoy, D. (1990-1991). Overcoming fragmentation through the client-clinician
relationship.
NSSLHA Journal, 18, 17-25.
Dudley-Marling, C. & Rhodes, L. (1987). Pragmatics and literacy.
Language,
Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 18, 41-52.
Dudley-Marling, C. & Dippo, D. (1991). The Language of whole language.
Language
Arts, 68,
548-554.
Edelsky, C. (1986). Writing in a bilingual program: Habia
una vez. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Edelsky, C., Altwerger, B. & Flores, B. (1990). Whole
language: What's the difference?
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Edelsky, C., Draper, K., & Smith, K. (1983). Hookin' em in
at the start of school in a 'Whole
language classroom'. Anthropology
and Education Quarterly, 14, 257-281.
Farr, R. (1990). Setting directions for language arts portfolios.
The
Reading Teacher, 43, 103.
Fey, M. (1986). Language intervention with young children.
San Diego: College Hill Press.
Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1989). Reporting reading progress: A comparison
portfolio for parents.
The Reading Teacher, 42, 508-514.
Flores,B., Cousin, P. & Diaz, E. (1991). Transforming deficit myths
about learning, language,
and culture. Language Arts,68,
369-377.
Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language?.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work.
Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Hamayan, E.V. & Perlman, R. (1990). Helping language minority
students after they exit from
bilingual/ESL programs. Washington,
DC: NCBE.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1980). Circles of Learning:
Cooperation in the classroom.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1987). Learning together
and alone: Cooperative,
competitive and individualistic learning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
King, D.F. & Goodman, K. (1990). Cherishing learners and
their language. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
21,
221-227.
Langdon, H.W. & Cheng, L-R.L. (1992). Hispanic children
and adults with communicative
disorders: Assessment and prevention.
Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Langer, J. (1982). Facilitating text processing: The elaboration
of text knowledge. In J.
Langer & M.T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Reader
meets author/bridging the gap. Newark,
Delaware: International Reading Association.
Miller, L. (1989). Classroom-based language intervention. Language,
Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 20, 153-169.
Nelson, K. (1985). Making sense: The acquisition of
shared meaning. New York: Academic
Press.
Nelson, N.W. (1985). Curriculum-based language assessment and
intervention. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
16,
170-184.
Nelson, N.W. (1990). Only relevant practices can be best. Best
Practices in School
Speech-Language Pathology, 1, 15-28.
Norris, J.A. & Damico, J.S. (1990). Whole language in theory
and practice: Implications for
language intervention. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 212-220.
Norris, J.A. & Hoffman, P.R. (1990). Language intervention
within naturalistic environments.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 21, 72-84.
Oller, J.W., Jr. & Richard-Amato, P. (Eds.). (1983) Methods
that work. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Paris, S. (1991). Assessment and remediation of metacognitive
aspects of children's reading
comprehension. Topics in Language
Disorders, 12, 32-50.
Peck, J. (1989). Using storytelling to promote language and literacy
development. The
Reading Teacher, 42, 138-141.
Secord, W.A. (1990) (Ed.) Best Practices in School Speech-Language
Pathology, 1. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Slavin, R. (1986). Using student team learning.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Stabb, C. (1990). Teacher mediation in one whole literacy classroom.
The
Reading Teacher,
43, 548-552.
Stabb, C. (1991). Classroom organization: Thematic centers revisited.
Language
Arts, 68, 108-
113.
Staton, J. (1983). Dialogue journals: A new tool for teaching
communication. ERIC/CLL
News Bulletin. ERIC, March.
Sulzby,E. (1988). A study of children's early reading development.
In A.D. Pellegrini(Ed),
Psychological bases of early education
(pp.39-75).Chichester, NY: Wiley.
Teale, W.H. (1984). Reading to young children: Its significance
for literacy development. In
H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith.
(Eds.). Awakening to literacy. (pp. 110-121)
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational
Books.
Trelease, J. (1989). Jim Trelease speaks on reading aloud to children.
The
Reading Teacher,
42, 200-205.
Wollman-Bonilla, J. (1989). Reading journals: Invitations to participate
in literature. The
Reading Teacher, 42, 112-119.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1986). Teaching bilingual learners.
In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching, 3rd Edition.