Kim

Caron
Interview Analysis

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)
Language characteristics:
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:
1. 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.
2. M.O. will formulate complete grammatically correct questions using is, do/does,
where, and why 70% of the time.
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.
1. M.O. will spell words at mid first grade level with 80% accuracy.
2. M.O. will pass in program math tests, every ten lessons, at 80% accuracy or
better.
3. M.O. will read sentences and stories, using special print, at mid first grade level.
Pertinent Information: Foster care due to inconsistent schooling; repeating the 1st grade
Interview Settings: (April 14, 2015)
The interview with the teacher took place in the classroom at a small table (1:1).
Please describe M.O.s participation in the classroom with you and with her peers.
How do her peers respond to her?
What instructional formats do you feel are most beneficial for M.O.?
How do you coordinate services with the LD teacher and SLP for M.O.?
What is M.O.s daily schedule? Is it different from the other students?
During what class/subject is M.O. typically pulled out for other services?
Describe M.O.s language learning characteristics.
What are the challenges in providing instruction for M.O.? What might you do
differently under optimal circumstances?
The interview with the SLP took place in her office (1:1).
How did M.O. qualify for services? When was her IEP developed? What is the
frequency and duration of her sessions?
Please describe a typical session with M.O.
What service delivery models have you found to be most beneficial in the delivery of
M.O.s services?
How do you integrate curriculum into your intervention?
How do the general education teacher, LD teacher, and you coordinate services for M.O.?
Please describe M.O.s language characteristics.
What are the challenges in providing services for M.O.? What might you do differently
under optimal circumstances?
Does M.O. qualify for free and reduced lunch?
The interview with the LD teacher took place in her classroom at a small table (1:1).

How often do you see M.O. in a week?

What are her goals?
What content/subjects does M.O. work on when she is with you?
Do you use the same curriculum as the general education teacher?
How do you coordinate services with the general education teacher and SLP?
Please describe M.O.s language learning characteristics.
What are the challenges in providing instruction for M.O.? What might you do
differently under optimal circumstances?

Themes:
Theme #1: discrepancy of service delivery models
Based on the interviews with the general education teacher, the speech-language pathologist, and
the learning disabilities teacher, there was a discrepancy of the service delivery models for M.O.
The general education teacher does not like loosing time with M.O., but the LD teacher believes
the small group pullout model is best for M.O. According to Nippold (2012) 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 (p. 118).
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.
LD Teacher: M.O. is in here during her reading time so we dont need to coordinate
the reading or the math because I am the teacher for that.
Theme #2: Matthew Effect
M.O. was put into the foster care system due to a lack of schooling. The SLP reported that she
was not showing up to school on a consistent basis. Because M.O. has had a lack of schooling,
M.O. may have a reduced exposure to language and print when compared to her first grade peers.
The general education teacher and the LD teacher both stated they have difficulties keeping M.O.
focused. This could indicate a lack of motivation to learn. Because M.O. is placed in the LD
classroom for reading, spelling, and math with 2 other children having the same difficulty, she
will not get the language models of her peers during those times. Her placement in a low group
also suggests low expectations the teachers and foster parents may have for M.O. All of this
taken together may be resulting in M.O.s impulsive behaviors. (Stanovich, 1986)
SLP: She was put in foster care for lack of consistent schooling she just wasnt
showing up to school. lack of exposure to language and text
SLP: Her full scale IQ was an 82, so the fact that her receptive vocabulary was an
84, its kind of where its going to be probably. low expectations
General Education Teacher: Her focus can be a challenge. low motivation
LD Teacher: The biggest challenge is keeping her attention. low motivation
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. low expectations and placement in low group
Theme #3: lack of informal assessment
The SLP reported that M.O. qualified for services using the standardized assessments of the
CELF and the SPLET. There is a need for a comprehensive assessment that includes
standardized testing, as well as look at M.O.s language use in the home and at school, and her

exposure to meaningful instruction and text. According to Hoff and Tian (2005), Children and
their environments must be assessed in order to diagnose an impairment of the internal mechanisms
responsible for language development (p. 276).
SLP: She qualified for services using the CELF and the SPELT. Her score on the
CELF was a 68 and the SPELT was a 54.
SLP: When I gave her the Receptive and Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary
tests, she had an 82 and 84 not stellar, but 85 to 115 is average. Her single word
vocabulary was commensurate with her IQ. Her full scale IQ was an 82, so the fact
that her receptive vocabulary was an 84, its kind of where its going to be probably.
Theme #4: lack of opportunities for different models of language
The LD teacher explained that M.O. answers a third of the questions in the small group setting.
According to Wilkinson and Silliman (2000), 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 The
Origins of Classroom Language Research section). The SLP also noted that she has M.O. go
through a deck of cards with all the question words on them. M.O. is to go through and ask
specific questions using the specific words on the cards. This type of drilling and memorization
limits M.O.s use of language.
LD Teacher: She gets a chance to answer questions theres only three in the group
so she answers a 3rd of the questions.
SLP: We use a deck of cards with all the words that questions can start with (who,
what, where, when, why, how, which, could, should, can, may) and she goes through
and gives me a question starting with the word.
Theme #5: need for collaboration
The general education teacher and the SLP stated they do not coordinate services with the LD
teacher. Both explained that the LD teachers program is very pullout and very structured. The
LD teacher believes her program is beneficial for M.O. because she is in a small group and can
get individualized attention. According to Wilkinson and Silliman (2000), Effective teaching
and learning occur in collaborative activities with teachers and peers (Scaffolds for Learning
section).
General Education Teacher: She [LD teacher] has her own program, so really only
phone calls and emails about where my class will be.
SLP: I do not coordinate as much with her [LD teacher] because she does a very
different, not contextualized, very pullout, very structured, its called direct
instruction. It hammers very basic skills, but it does not really relate to anything
totally pullout and totally its own entity.
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.
LD Teacher: Small group is definitely beneficial for her. She gets to participate
more. I get to monitor her participation.
Additional themes were found in which all the relevant professionals working with M.O.
had similar thoughts.
Theme #6: consistent thoughts on language characteristics
Each instructor that works with M.O. had consistent thoughts on her language characteristics. All
three agreed that M.O. had difficulty formulating grammatically correct sentences and questions.

General Education Teacher: She struggles to formulate complete questions and

statements.
SLP: She could not formulate any complete grammatical sentences and could not
ask any complete questions flips word/deletes words (You go bathroom now?).
LD Teacher: Asking questions is really hard for her she gets a lot of modeling
from me asking questions and answering questions.

Theme #7: agreement on her progress

The general education teacher, the SLP, and the LD teacher all stated that M.O. has made great
progress in just one year. The general education teacher and the SLP explained that her speech
and language skills have improved immensely in less than a year. The LD stated that M.O. is
excelling in her classroom and is reaching the goals set for her.
General Education Teacher: She has come so far!
SLP: She is doing really really well right now she has just flourished this year.
LD Teacher: She is so sweet and works so hard, and I think shes happy in here.
She can do the stuff Im giving her which is my goal so thats great. She is making
good progress.
Theme #8: more time
Both the SLP and the LD teacher stated they wished they had more time with her. They believe
that M.O. needs more time with them.
SLP: I worry how long I will have her because shes in foster care. Her foster
family is fantastic so if there were any way for them to keep her, that would be
optimal. She was put in foster care for lack of consistent schooling she just wasnt
showing up to school.
LD Teacher: I wish she could be here next year because one year is good, but I
really think she could catch up a lot in another year.
Assessment:
Need for a comprehensive assessment that includes standardized testing, language use in
the home and school, and exposure to meaningful language instruction and text.
o Standardized testing is valuable for doing exactly what it was designed to do:
pointing out the areas in which the child is performing significantly more poorly
than peers (Paul, 2012, p. 292)
o Children and their environments must be assessed in order to diagnose an
impairment of the internal mechanisms responsible for language development
(Hoff & Tian, 2005, p. 276).
o Thus some children enter school knowing how to use language for a variety of
school-like purposesbut not all students know the rules of the game, and some
have difficulty learning how to participate appropriately. These children may also
have less experience with a variety of literacy functions and forms (Wilkinson &
Silliman, 2000, The Origins of Classroom Language Research section).
o Since participation in school activities determines access to learning, educational
failure may result for students who lack or have difficulty acquiring classroom
communicative competence (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000, The Origins of
Classroom Language Research section).
If children do not understand the classroom and its unique communicative demands, they
may learn little from classroom experiences. Accurate assessment of their achievement is
unlikely, since access to their knowledge is predicated on optimal communicative

performance (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000, The Origins of Classroom Language Research
section).
Does the child have opportunities for different functions of language?
o Much of his difficulty with language in schools arises because he is required to
accept a stereotype of language that is contrary to the insights he has gained from
his own experience. The traditional reading and writing tasks are a case in
point, since they fail to coincide with his own convictions about the nature and
uses of language (Halliday, 1969, p. 50).

Intervention:
Nippold (2010) stated, Intervention should focus on the language demands of the regular
classroom (as cited in Nippold, 2012, p. 118).
Effective teaching and learning occur in collaborative activities with teachers and peers
(Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000, Scaffolds for Learning section).
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, The Origins of Classroom Language Research section).
We must be mindful that how one learns is as important as what one learns (Harris et al.,
2011, p.59).
To build a semantic lexicon, children must be exposed to words in meaningful contexts
(McGregor, 2004, p. 305).
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.
The Wisconsin Common Core Standards (WI CCS) for English Language Arts (2011) stated
it is crucial to improve access to rigorous academic content standards for students with
disabilities (p.15).
Changes in materials or procedures which do not change the standards but allow students to
learn within the framework of the Common Core (WI CCS, 2011, p. 15).
Models of service delivery:
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, p. 118).
According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) (1991), In
the most common service delivery method, speech-language pathologists work
independently as they pull students out of their regular classrooms for individual or
small-group treatment sessions. However, recent emphasis on whole-language
approaches to instruction, least restrictive educational settings, and better generalization
of treatment results demands the consideration of alternative service delivery options for
public school speech and language intervention (Introduction section).
In the collaborative [service delivery] 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. Professionals, paraprofessionals, parents, and students communicate
and collaborate with one another to make meaningful decisions and to provide
appropriate and effective services (ASHA, 1991).

Collaboration:
SLPs must work in partnership with others (general education teachers, reading
specialists, special education teachers) to meet students needs.
Note observations from all relevant instructors because everyone observes different tasks
and abilities
The students needs would be better supported with increased collaboration and
communication between all relevant professionals working with the child.
Effective teaching and learning occur in collaborative activities with teachers and peers
(Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000, Scaffolds for Learning section).

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.
Wisconsins Common Core State Standards (2011). Wisconsin Common Core Standards for
English Language Arts (pp. 9-199). Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction. http://commoncore.dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/commoncore/pdf/ela-stds-app-arevision.pdf
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 to the
classroom: How children really learn vocabulary. In S. B. Neuman and D. K. Dickinson
(Eds). Handbook of Early Literacy Research, (vol. 3, pp. 49-65). New York: Guilford.
Hoff, E., & Tian, C. (2005). Socioeconomic status and cultural influences on language. Journal of
Communication Disorders 2005, 38, 271-278.
McGregor, K.K., (2004). Developmental dependencies between lexical semantics and reading. In
Stone, C.A., Silliman, E.R., Ehren, G.J., & Apel, K. (2004). Handbook of Language and
Literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 302-313). New York: Guilford Press.
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/ed02)
Paul, R. (2012). Language disorders from infancy to adolescence: Assessment and Intervention.
4th Ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book.
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