Communication Disorders Quarterly

http://cdq.sagepub.com/

Effects of Collaboration on Language Performance

Lauren E. Bland and Patricia A. Prelock
Communication Disorders Quarterly 1995 17: 31
DOI: 10.1177/152574019501700204

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://cdq.sagepub.com/content/17/2/31

Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Communication Disorders Quarterly can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://cdq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://cdq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1995

What is This?

Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2013

journal of Children's Communication Development
1996Vol.17, No.2,31-37
°1996 The Division for Children's Communication Development

Effects of Collaboration on Language Performance

Lauren E. Bland
University of Cincinnati

Patricia A. Prelock
University of Vermont

f Language samples from fourteen students with communication disorders were obtained over a three year period to determine
the effectiveness of a language-in-the-classroom (LIC) intervention model While there were few differences noted in syntax,
semantics or morphology for students served in a collaborative model as compared to students served in a pull-out model, sig-
nificant differences in the completeness and intelligibility of student utterances were noted. Results indicated that students
who received intervention using an LIC model had more complete/intelligible utterances and fewer incomplete/unintelligible
utterances than students who received intervention using a more traditional pull-out model. Implications for speech-language
pathologists (SLPs) are provided.

A
lthough there has been some research examining the
effectiveness of collaborative models of service
delivery with at-risk and typically developing popu-
lations, there has been limited research regarding the effec-
tiveness of the collaborative model in the treatment of stu-
dents w i t h language disorders. Further, efficacy studies
examining the collaborative model have focused on con-
cept development, vocabulary, and the ability to explain
math problems (Kaufman, Prelock, Weiler, Creaghead &
Donnelly, 1994; Seifert & Schwartz, 1991; Wilcox, Kouri &
Caswell, 1991). No studies reported to date have examined
the effects of collaborative intervention on the connected
discourse of students with language disorders which has
implications for academic success. This study was designed
to document the differences in the language production
skills of children with communication disorders following
service delivery using a Language-in-the-Classroom (LIC)
model versus a traditional pull-out model.
Public school speech services have traditionally been
provided via the pull-out model. In this model, the speech-
language pathologist (SLP) alone is responsible for the
assessment and treatment of children with communication
disorders. It has been a popular model of service delivery
for communication disorders frequently seen in the schools
such as articulation, phonological and language disorders.
As a supplement to the pull-out model, alternative mod-
els have been proposed. Miller (1989) described several inter-
vention models all of which incorporate some degree of inter-
action with classroom teachers. For example, the SLP could
consult with a teacher regarding a particular child, provide
program development for school personnel, teach in a self-
contained classroom, team teach, or provide individual inter-
vention which supports the classroom curriculum. Some of
the approaches described by Miller may be considered more
consultative than collaborative. What appears to differentiate
consultative from more collaborative models is the level of
shared involvement in the delivery of services.
Professionals involved in the collaborative model share
responsibility for decision making including assessment,
treatment planning and intervention (Hoskins, 1990). SLPs,
administrators, teachers, parents, and when possible, the
student, share responsibility for identifying and remediating
the communication problem.
Effectiveness of collaboration
The effects of collaborative models on vocabulary and
concept development have been examined in preschool
and kindergarten settings (Seifert & Schwartz, 1 9 9 1 ;
Wilcox, Kouri & Caswell, 1991). Wilcox et al., (1991) com-
pared differences in vocabulary training for preschool chil-
dren. One group of children received therapy in the class-
room while the other group received individual interven-
tion in a traditional pull-out setting. The initial focus of the
study was to look at the effectiveness of early intervention.
The authors noted that the children w h o received class-
room intervention used the targeted vocabulary at a more
productive level than did the others.
Seifert and Schwartz (1991) examined the effectiveness
of training basic concepts in a large group. They selected 14
concepts and taught these in a Head Start classroom instead
of pulling out the children for therapy. When compared to a
control group (no therapy at all), it was determined that the
students taught in the classroom made significant progress.
The authors felt that this was a viable service delivery model
especially if a variety of teaching methods, like direct
instruction and incidental teaching, were used.
Studies designed to document the effects of collabora-
tive intervention on academic success have also been com-
pleted. Kaufman et al., (1994) determined that students

Bland & Prelock: Effects of Collaboration 31

Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2013
trained in explanation adequacy using a collaborative
model were better able to recognize and justify appropriate
explanations in math than students not receiving the train-
ing. Gottschalk, Prelock, Weiler and Sandman (1995)
demonstrated that those explanation skills could be main-
tained for up to six months following training. Sheeran,
Prelock and Weiler (1993) found that a greater percentage
of the students trained in the collaborative model per-
formed at a higher level on the mathematics portions of
standardized achievement tests.
The effectiveness of collaboration on written language
has also been investigated. Bowman (1992) suggested that
both the form and content of written language improved
when at risk and typically developing students were taught
using an LIC model.
The results of collaboratively serving young children with
communication disorders and at risk school age children in
the regular classroom are promising. Further research, how-
ever, is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of this model for
school age children with language disorders. The purpose of
this study was to examine the connected discourse of school
age students with communication disorders over time as they
participated in a traditional pull out and/or collaborative LIC
model of service delivery.
METHOD
Subjects
The subjects were 14 students with communication dis-
orders in grades one through four. Seven pairs of students
were matched using their composite standard scores on the
CLINICAL EVALUATION OF LANGUAGE FUNDAMEN-
TALS - REVISED (CELF-R) (Semel, Wiig & Secord, 1987).
Standard scores for each pair were within one standard
deviation of each other. Each pair ranged in age from 6-2 to
9-9 upon initiation of the study, with the CA of the matched
pairs being within seven months of each other. The type of
language problem (e.g., word finding, phonological, prag-
matic, semantic, etc.) was also considered when matching
the subjects. Certified SLPs evaluated or supervised the
evaluations of all subjects. All subjects were previously
diagnosed with a language disorder by their school SLP and
were enrolled in therapy. In addition to the CELF-R, the SLP
used other standardized tests, informal assessments and
teacher observations to determine the need for placement.
No gross neurological or physical problems were reported
for any of the subjects. Upon enrollment in the project,
none of the subjects were identified as having any cogni-
tive impairments. Children with chronic ear infections or
hearing loss were not included in the study. Table 1 pre-
sents a description of the subjects' characteristics.
All of the students participating in the study were from
a small city school district in Southwestern Ohio. Many of
the students in this district were considered disadvantaged
because of the large percentage of families qualifying for
services based on low income status, such as the number
of children on free or reduced lunches. A significant per-
32 Bland & Prelock: Effects of Collaboration
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2013
centage of the students in the district also qualified for
Chapter I services in reading.
Intervention Program
The three components of the intervention program
were inservice training, planning meetings and LIC ses-
sions. Before beginning the LIC intervention, each team
which was composed of the SLPs, teachers and university
student SLPs, participated in seven, two-hour training ses-
sions. Topics covered included:
1. Transdisciplinary teaming and role sharing
2. Normal and disordered communication
3. Classroom scripts
4. Collaborative, curriculum-based assessment
5. The language of math
6. Connections between language & literacy
7. Issues in implementing collaborative models of ser-
vice delivery (e.g., planning, curriculum-based interven-
tion, etc.).
Planning meetings were scheduled w e e k l y or b i -
monthly, depending on the schedule of the teacher and
SLP. The length of these meetings varied from 30 to 45 min-
utes. During planning, the teacher-SLP-student SLP team
followed a format for LIC lessons which included the fol-
lowing:
1. Establishing collaborative concerns for students with
communication disorders as well as all students within
the class;
2. Identifying and targeting curriculum and communica-
tion goals for identified and non-identified students;
3. Brainstorming ideas for activities which meet both
curriculum and communication goals;
4. Specifying those facilitating techniques to be used
with the students with communication disorders to facili-
tate their language performance in the classroom;
5. Outlining the procedures of the selected activities;
6. Determining the materials needed and sharing respon-
sibility for gathering the materials;
7. Selecting a method of data collection to evaluate the
success of the lesson in meeting the stated objectives;
and,
8. Sharing ideas for follow-up to be used in the class-
room or home.
At these meetings, team members determined which per-
son would function as the leader, helper/modeler, or data
collector during the implementation of the classroom inter-
vention sessions. See Appendix A for a sample lesson plan.
The third component of the project was the LIC ses-
sions. The duration of the in-classroom sessions varied from
30 to 45 minutes and occurred once a week. During these
sessions, each member of the triad (classroom teacher, site
SLP, student SLP) assumed responsibility for the academic
and communication objectives for identified students. All
academic curriculum areas were used as the foundation for
the development of the communication goals.
Several procedures to insure consistency and reliability of
the implementation of the LIC model were in place. Each team
Table 1. A description of subject's characteristics

PAIR SEX CA UPON CELF-R STANDARD PRIMARY

SUBJECTS ENTERING SCORES COMMUNICATION
PROJECT PROBLEM

R E T

PAIR 1
1 M 9-2 67 59 61 Verbal fluency
2 M 9-2 63 78 69 semantics

PAIR 2
3 M 7-0 101 76 88 expressive organization
4 M 7-5 103 64 83 syntax; semantics

PAIR 3
5 M 8-0 80 73 75 semantics; pragmatics
6 M 7-11 85 67 74 semantics; pragmatics

PAIR 4
7 M 8-1 85 82 82 expressive organization
8 F 8-0 89 73 80 expressive organization

PAIR 5
9 F 8-0 72 76 72 expressive organization
10
I M 8-0 50 73 63 word finding, semantics

PAIR 6
11 F 8-9 93 70 80 oral & written expression
12 M 8-5 99 76 86 expressive organization

PAIR 7
13 F 6-2 78 85 80 verbal fluency
14 F 6-6 78 89 82 verbal fluency

* CELF-R - Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Revised

R-Receptive E-Expressive T-Total

Bland & Prelock: Effects of Collaboration 33

Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2013
was observed at least eight times during the school year by the
project director. To monitor implementation, they were
observed four times during planning meetings and four times
during LIC sessions. Each SLP met with the project director at
least once a month during the course of the project. Student
SLPs met with the Project Director on a weekly basis. In addi-
tion, teacher, SLP, and administrative representatives met quar-
terly at an advisory committee meeting. Finally, the teams
maintained notebooks to document progress and organize
information.
Students not being served in the classroom were seen
one to two times each week, for 30 to 45 minutes in a tra-
ditional model. In this model, the SLP integrated the acade-
mic curriculum into pull-out therapy. For example, spelling
or vocabulary words were used to develop written lan-
guage or semantic skills.
Data Collection
Language samples were obtained during six time peri-
ods, in the fall and spring of each school year for the three
years of the project. For one pair (Pair 3), language samples
were obtained for all three years. For five pairs (Pairs 1, 2,
4, 5, 6), language samples were only available for two of
the three years because one member of the pair either
moved into the district following initiation of the project, or
moved out of the district prior to completion of the project.
For these same reasons, language samples were only avail-
able for one year for Pair 7.
Because we were unable to control for the classrooms
in which students were placed and there were constraints
on the number of teachers at each grade level who were
trained in the LIC m o d e l , some members of the pairs
received pull-out one year and LIC another year. For these
reasons, effects were examined on a yearly basis (from Fall
to Spring) and each member of the pair receiving interven-
tion in an LIC model was compared to the member of the
pair receiving intervention through a pull-out model.
Language samples were audio recorded and contained
100-200 utterances. The utterances of both the SLP and the
students with language impairment were orthographically
transcribed from the audiotaped samples. Conversational top-
ics between the SLP and the students focused on class pro-
jects, field trips, family vacations or students' favorite activities
(e.g., Nintendo, sports). Samples taken during the same
school year were carried out by the same SLP and focused on
similar conversational topics. Nonverbal communication,
such as head nodding, was indicated on the written transcript
and subsequently coded. The audio recordings and/or written
transcripts were coded by an ASHA certified SLP.
Coding of the orthographic transcriptions was complet-
ed using the guidelines and software from the Systematic
Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) computer program
(Miller & Chapman, 1986). Each sample was coded for
morphological and syntactic structures using utterances
from both the SLP and the subject. Upon completion of the
coding process, three SALT analyses were run to gain infor-
mation across language domains (semantics, morphology,
34 Bland & Prelock: Effects of Collaboration
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2013
pragmatics, syntax) and fluency and rate. These analyses
were the Word and Morpheme Summary, Distributional
Summary, and Frequency and Percent of Utterance Types.
The Word and Morpheme Summary determined the num-
ber of different root words in the sample, computed a mean
length of utterance by morpheme count, and calculated a
type token ratio (TTR). The Distributional Summary exam-
ined and compared speaker turns as w e l l as utterance
length and completeness. The Frequency and Percent of
Utterance Types analyzed the number of total utterances,
and those which were complete and incomplete, and yield-
ed a percent of intelligibility.
Articulation errors were noted on the written transcript
and the adult form of the word was entered for coding
when it could be determined by the context as suggested
by the SALT conventions. An utterance was considered
unintelligible if it was inaudible or there was some interfer-
ence during production (e.g., subject's hand in mouth,
severe articulation error prevented the SLP from determin-
ing the target word). An utterance was considered complete
if it contained a subject and a verb and if it expressed a
complete thought. Table 2 presents a portion of the tran-
scripts containing complete/intelligible and
incomplete/unintelligible utterances for one matched pair.
RESULTS
Examination of the SALT analysis revealed little differ-
ence in the subjects' language production. The Word and
Morpheme Summary revealed similar TTRs and MLUs at or
beyond Brown's Stage V for all subjects. The Distributional
Summary indicated comparable speaker turns for all sub-
jects. Fluency and rate were adequate for both groups.
The Frequency and Percent of Utterance Types revealed
differences for complete/intelligible and incomplete/unin-
telligible utterances across the language samples analyzed.
It was determined that comparisons between subjects
served in an LIC versus pull-out model across the six time
periods should be explored further for complete/intelligible
and incomplete/unintelligible utterances.
Non-parametric analyses were used to determine if
there were differences over time in the completeness and
intelligibility of the utterances of the children with commu-
nication disorders and if those differences were influenced
by the type of service delivery the students received.
Group Comparisons
The M a n n - W h i t n e y U for i n d e p e n d e n t measures
(Bruning & Kintz, 1987) was applied to the subjects' utter-
ances. A significant difference was found for the number of
intelligible and complete utterances produced by subjects
served in the language in the classroom model as com-
pared to subjects served in the pull-out model (U=.0250)
during time period six. LIC students produced more intelli-
gible and complete utterances than non-LIC students. No
other significant differences were found for LIC versus non-
LIC subjects for the first five time periods.
Table 2. A sample of the language transcripts for Rair 3 during the third and sixth periods of data collection.

Subject 5 Non-LIC
Time 3, Fall Time 6, Spring

SLP SO YOU PLAYED WITH TERMINATOR SLP THAT'S REALLY NEAT, D O YOU LIVE
ALL DAY? NEAR ANYBODY ELSE THAT YOU ARE
S YEAH. FRIENDS WITH?
SLP WHAT'S THAT? (UH) LET ME THINK.
S (UM) I SAW THE MOVIE. AND (HE'S UH) NOT REALLY BUT JUST DOWN THE
HE'S A ROBOT (THAT UH). STREET (JUST DOWN THE STREET) WELL
HE CAME FROM THIS WAR. YOU HAVE TO GO DOWN MAPLE THEN
AND ALL THESE ROBOTS HE HAS JUST TURN REAL, YOU TURN DOWN
TO FIGHT. OUR BLOCK AND (UH, UH) THERE'S
AND HE KILLED THEM ALL, BUT ANOTHER FIREND OF MINE.
THERE'S ONLY ONE LEFT HIS NAME IS DF.
THAT'S JUST LIKE HIM. SLP HE'S IN YOUR GRADE.
BUT, (AND UH HE HAS A) HE HAS A EYE S YEAH, HE'S IN MY ROOM TOO.
THAT CLOWS. SLP SO YOU GUYS GO BIKE RIDING
XXX. TOGETHER?
YEAH, WE RIDE OUR BIKES A LOT.

Subject 6 LIC
Time 3, Fall Time 6, Spring

SLP WHAT KIND OF NINTENDO GAMES SLP WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME H O W YOU
DID YOU GET? PLAY BASEBALL CAUSE I HAVEN'T
S XXX, XXX, XXX, AND XXX. PLAYED IN A LONG TIME AND I'M NOT
SLP WHAT WAS THE LAST ONE? SURE I UNDERSTAND H O W YOU PLAY
S PRO. IT, HMM?
SLP H O W D O YOU PLAY THAT? S IDONTKNOW.
5 WITH A CAR YOU DRIVE. SLP WELL H O W D O YOU START?
SLP A N D YOU GET XXX AND YOU CAN GET S YOU START BATTING AND YOU XXX.
FIRST, SECOND OR THIRD AND THEN THE NEXT PERSON BATS
A N D WHEN YOU'RE OUT IT SAYS OUT UNTIL YOU GET THREE OUTS.
A N D YOU GOTTA MAKE IT THEN THE NEXT TEAM GETS UP AND
TO THE FINISH LINE TWICE. THEY BAT UNTIL THEY GET OUT.
TRY TO MAKE IT TO FIRST, SECOND OR ALL XXX TRY TO CATCH THE BALL AND
THIRD. HIT IT HIGH.
YOU TRY TO GET A TROPHY. IF THEY HIT IT, I'LL THROW IT TO THE
PERSON ON FIRST BASE IF THEY'RE
RUNNING TO FIRST AND GET THEM
OUT.
SLP YEAH, SO IF YOU GET THREE OUTS
THEN.
$ THE NEXT TEAM GETS UP TO BAT.

Bland & Prelock: Effects of Collaboration 35

Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2013
Time Comparisons
A Wilcoxon-T test for related measures (Bruning &
Kintz, 1987) was used to compare the completeness and
intelligibility of the subjects' utterances over time. A signifi-
cant difference was noted over time for subjects served in
the LIC model. There was an increase in the number of
intelligible and complete utterances produced by the LIC
students from Time 3 (Fall—Year 2) to Time 5 (Fall—Year 3)
(T=.0069) and from Time 3 to Time 6 (Spring—Year 3)
(T=.0469). There was also a decrease in the number of
unintelligible/incomplete utterances by the LIC students
from Time 3 to Time 4 (Spring—Year 2) (T=.0357) and Time
4 to Time 5 (T=.0180). Results for students served in the
pull-out model were not significantly different over time.
DISCUSSION
Results indicated that overall the language performance
of all subjects improved regardless of type of service deliv-
ery. Differences were found, however, in the completeness
and intelligibility of the subjects' connected discourse,
favoring students served in the LIC model. Consistent with
other research documenting the effectiveness of the collabo-
rative model (Bowman, 1992; Gottschalk et al., 1995;
Kaufman et al., 1994; Seifert & Schwartz, 1991), this study
demonstrated the positive effects of a collaborative interven-
tion model on the language production of subjects with
communication disorders. Notably, however, changes in the
students' connected discourse were not seen immediately.
The focus for intervention in the LIC model described
in this study was the overall development of effective com-
munication, within the context of the curriculum, rather
than the training of isolated language skills. Therefore, it
was not surprising to find few differences in the subjects'
vocabulary, syntax and morphology. The significant finding
for increased utterance intelligibility and completeness by
the LIC subjects, however, supported the original intent of
the collaborative intervention. The communication skills
necessary for achieving message success were the focus for
intervention long term. Further, the use of complete and
intelligible utterances was a curriculum requirement and a
teacher expectation.
CONCLUSION
With only 14 subjects, it is difficult to generalize the
findings of this study. However, some implications may be
drawn. First, school-based SLPs attempting to gain support
for a new approach to intervention may need to assess the
effectiveness of the model following implementation over
time. Second, the oral language sample has limitations for
the observation of change in the communication skills of
school-age children. Further, the method of analysis select-
ed to examine the sample should take into consideration
all aspects of language.
Additional studies exploring the effectiveness of the
collaborative model on various types of communication
36 Bland & Prelock: Effects of Collaboration
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2013
disorders are needed. Teacher behaviors should also be
examined in an assessment of treatment effects for in-class-
room models. As the instructional leader for the classroom
and the person with whom the students interact with the
most, it would be important to identify teacher behaviors
which may help facilitate language growth in children.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was supported, in part, by a grant from the
U.S. Department of Education (#H029B00096).
REFERENCES
Bowman, J. (1992). A collaborative, whole language approach to letter
writing instructional compared to a traditional skill approach.
Unpublished master's thesis, University of Cincinnati.
Bruning, J.L & Kintz, B.L (1987). Computational Handbook of Statistics
(3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Harper Collins.
Gottschalk, M.E., Prelock, P.A., Weiler, E., & Sandman, D. (1995).
Maintenance of metapragmatic awareness of explanation adequacy
six months following intervention. Manuscript submitted elsewhere,
University of Cincinnati.
Hoskins, B. (1990). Collaborative consultation: Designing the role of the
speech-language pathologist in a new educational context. In W.
Secord (Ed.), Best Practices in School Speech-Language Pathology-
Collaborative Programs in the Schools: Concepts, Models, and
Procedures (pp. 29-36). San Antonio: The Psychological
Corporation.
Kaufman, S.S., Prelock, P.A., Weiler, E. Creaghead, N.A. & Donnelly, C.A.
(1994). Metapragmatic awareness of explanation adequacy:
Developing skills for academic success from a collaborative com-
munication skills unit. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in
the Schools, 25, 174-180.
Miller, L. (1989). Classroom-based language intervention. Language,
Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 20, 153-169.
Miller, J. & Chapman, R. (1986). SALT: Systematic analysis language tran-
scripts-Apple computer version [Computer program]. Madison, Wl:
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Waisman Center, Language
Analysis Laboratory.
Seifert, H., & Schwartz, I. (1991). Treatment effectiveness of large group
basic concept instruction with Head Start students. Language,
Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 22, 60-64.
Semel, E. Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (1987). Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals -Revised. San Antonio: The Psychological
Corporation.
Sheeran, K., Prelock, P.A., & Weiler, E.M. (1993). The effect of a classroom
based communication skills unit on overall academic achievement.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Cincinnati.
Wilcox, M.J., Kouri, T.A., & Caswell, S.B. (1991). Early language
intervention: A comparison of classroom and individual
treatment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology:
A Journal of Clinical Practice, 1, 49-62.
ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Patricia A. Prelock, Ph.D.
Communication Sciences Department
E.M. Luse Center for Communication Disorders
Allen House
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05405-0010
(802) 656-2529
(802) 656-2528 (fax)
pprelock@moose.uvm.edu (e-mail)
 APPENDIX A

FACILITATING/TIME MANAGER: Reed RECORDER Hinkebein

COLLABORATIVE CLASSROOM LESSON PLAN

LEADER: Hinkebein DATE: 4-30-91

HELPER: Reed GRADE:

DATA COLLECTOR: Judd ACADEMIC AREA: Lang. Arts&Math

ESTABLISHING CURRENT COLLABORATIVE CONCERNS: (e.g., evaluating

previous lessons, problem solving, integrating observations)
Students, esp. J. doing better with speaking & listening skills.
J. <S class - difficulty in descriptive vocabulary & writing.

TARGETED CURRICULUM GOALS: TARGETED SPEECH-LANGUAGE GOALS:

1) Given a topic, the students 1) J. & class-students will
will be able to write related comprehend & apply
sentences to form a paragraph descriptive vocabulary.
(L.A.)
2) the students will interpret 2) J. & class-students will
a pictograph (math) comprehend & apply vocabulary related to
quantity & comparative relationships.

BRAINSTORMING ACTIVITIES: FACILITATING TECHNIQUES:

-make a pictograph -class model
-brainstorm meaning & interpret -helper sit with J. & prompt/cue for vocabulary
as class
-ice cream for describing -visual graph - hands on

PROCEDURES: (e.g., include instructions, sequence of events)

1) Introduce top 5 flavors of ice cream from UDF (choc.mint, choc,
orange sherbet, strawberry, peanut butter).
2) Have students vote on their favorite flavor and place results on pictograph.
3) Interpret results as a group & discuss. Target least, most & why.
4) Students will brainstorm describing words for favorite & least favorite flavors.
(List on chart) :6
jtr^fL OP9^rCU%
categorized by it^A
taste, texture, appearance ^*

^ift<jredi^k

TARGETED VOCABULARY: MATERIALS:

fewest, least, most, more, single -construction ice cream scoops - Beth
double, triple,favorite,appearance, -pictograph, structure -Beth
texture, taste, ingredients, -two brainstorm cones - Nancy & Anne
pictograph, adjective, describe

DATA COLLECTION:
written stories, narrative comments

FOLLOW-UP: (e.g., consider activities for classroom, home, &/or

individual therapy)
-The students will make ice cream in classroom, brainstorm describing words and write a
descriptive paragraph. Share with class.
-Math game will be set up in classroom center utilizing vocabulary of quantitative &
comparative vocabulary words.

Bland & Prelock: Effects of Collaboration 37

Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2013