Language Levels and Modalities How to Conduct Comprehensive

Language Levels and Modalities

How to Conduct Comprehensive Assessment and Intervention

Hawaii Speech-Language-Hearing Association Nickola Wolf Nelson, PhD, CCC-SLP Professor Emerita, Western Michigan U. [email protected] Speaker Disclosure

• Financial: – Receive(d) royalties from publications that inform this presentation: • Nelson, N. W. (2010). Language and Literacy Disorders: Infancy through Adolescence. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. • Nelson, N. W., Bahr, C M., & Van Meter, A. M. (2004). The writing lab approach to language instruction and intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, Inc. [out of print] • Nelson, N. W., Plante, E., Helm-Estabrooks, N.,& Hotz, G., (2016). Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, Inc. – Financial compensation from ASHA for this Webinar and Part II on Curriculum-Based Language Intervention – Grants from U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs supporting work on the Writing Lab Approach, and from the Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Special Education Research (Grant R324A100354), for standardization of TILLS. However, the opinions in this presentation are those of the author and not the U.S. government. • Nonfinancial: – None Speaker Acknowledgements

– Coauthors of Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS) -- Drs. Elena Plante, Nancy Helm-Estabrooks, & Gillian Hotz – Coauthors of the Student Language Scale (SLS) – Drs. Barbara M. Howes & Michele A. Anderson – Codevelopers of The Writing Lab Approach -- Dr. Christine Bahr, Adelia Van Meter, Kalamazoo Public Schools – Dozens of graduate assistants, collaborating teachers, and participating students

NOTE: Case examples are composites of real students with some details modified to mask identity. All had parental permission and gave their assent for their work to be shared under protocols approved by the Western Michigan University Human Ss Insitutional Review Board. Course Objectives – After completing this workshop, participants will be able to: • Identify differences between profiles for students with oral-written language disorders, dyslexia, and specific comprehension deficits • Describe evidence-based approaches for treating problems at the sound/word level and the sentence/discourse level • Discuss how to collaborate with teachers to implement a classroom-based writing lab approach to address students’ comprehensive language and literacy needs Overview

• Why oral and written language assessment? • Need for a coherent test model that will yield interpretable results • Introduction to the quadrant model and the language levels-by-modalities assessment model of the Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS) • Gathering parent, teacher, and student input • Introduction to curriculum-based language assessment and intervention Overlapping categories and using the language-levels quadrant model to sort them out Language Impairment in School-Age Years

• What things would you need to measure? – Kindergarten/Grade 1 – Middle elementary – Later elementary – Middle to secondary school • How do you gather parental and teacher input? Two Pathways to Identification as LD or S/LI

Formal Assessment (SLS + TILLS)

RtI Tier 3 / RtI Tier 1 RtI Tier 2 IEP for SLD Assessment/ Identification

SLS + TILLS

Screening or Assessment & Identification of SLI IEP for SLD Referral

Note: PSW = Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses; IEP = Individualized Education Program; SLD = Specific Learning Disability; S/LI = Speech or Language Impaired Students Classified as Speech/Language Impaired and Learning Disabled in a Single Cohort Followed Longitudinally

70 60 50 40 30 SLI LD 20

Percentage Ed.Special of 10 0 Kdg 1st 3rd 5th Grade Level Based on data reported by Mashburn, A. J., & Myers, S. S. (2010). Advancing research on children with speech-language impairment: An introduction to the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Kindergarten Cohort. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 61-69. Language Disorders

Reading Learning Disorders Disabilities Language Disorders Reading Disorders

LD (Dyslexia) Language Disorders Learning Oral Language DyslexiaDisabilities Disorders Definition of SLD in IDEA

• The term ‘specific learning disability’ means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, spell, or do mathematical calculations. (IDEA 2004, §602.30, Definition)

Note: IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) Definition of SLD in IDEA

Note: IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) Rethinking “Processes”

Think of Reading and Writing as Language Processes, not JUST “achievement”

Academic Performance

Language Processes (Oral and Written)

Cognitive Processes

Think of Phonemic Awareness as Language Processes. May be under umbrella of “Cognitive Process” International Dyslexia Association

• Dyslexia is a language-based learning disability. • Dyslexia refers to a cluster of symptoms, which result in people having difficulties with specific language skills, particularly reading. • Students with dyslexia usually experience difficulties with other language skills such as spelling, writing, and pronouncing words. • Dyslexia affects individuals throughout their lives; however, its impact can change at different stages in a person’s life. DSM-5 definition of dyslexia

• “Dyslexia is an alternative term used to refer to a pattern of learning difficulties characterized by problems with accurate or fluent word recognition, poor decoding, and poor spelling abilities” (p. 67). The purpose of this letter is to clarify that there is nothing in the IDEA that would prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in IDEA evaluation, eligibility determinations, or IEP documents. … However, regardless of whether a child has dyslexia or any other condition explicitly included in this definition of “specific learning disability,” or has a condition such as dyscalculia or dysgraphia not listed expressly in the definition, the LEA must conduct an evaluation in accordance with 34 CFR §§300.304-300.311 to determine whether that child meets the criteria for specific learning disability or any of the other disabilities listed in 34 CFR §300.8, which implements IDEA’s definition of “child with a disability.” Dyslexia Guidance (continued)

OSERS reminds SEAs and LEAs about previous guidance regarding the use of MTSS, including RTI, and timely evaluations,1 specifically that a parent may request an initial evaluation at any time to determine if a child is a child with a disability under IDEA (34 CFR §300.301(b)), and the use of MTSS, such as RTI, may not be used to delay or deny a full and individual evaluation under 34 CFR §§300.304-300.311 of a child suspected of having a disability.

N. W. Nelson, Western Michigan U., 2016 Dyslexia Guidance (continued)

In determining whether a child has a disability under the IDEA, including a specific learning disability, and is eligible to receive special education and related services because of that disability, the LEA must conduct a comprehensive evaluation under §300.304, which requires the use of a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child. This information, which includes information provided by the parent, may assist in determining: 1) whether the child is a child with a disability; and 2) the content of the child’s IEP to enable the child to be involved in, and make progress in, the general education curriculum. 34 CFR §300.304(b)(1).

N. W. Nelson, Western Michigan U., 2016 Language Levels (NOT receptive/expressive)

Expressive

Sentence/ discourse Language Word level comprehension recognition & Formulation & Production • Construct • Decode/encode ideas/message words using • Formulate or phonology & analyze morphology vocabulary, Sound/ sentences, & • Recognize/pro- word discourse nounce/ level spell/write words

Receptive Evidence for a language levels model

• No evidence for separate factors for receptive and expressive language (Tomblin & Zhang, 2006) • Evidence does support a “simple view” with phonological and nonphonological language skills as separate factors (Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Adlof, & Ellis Weismer, 2006; Tunmer & Chapman, 2012) Simple View of Reading (SVR)

Vocabulary Part of C

D C R Word Oral Language Reading Recognition Comprehension Comprehension

Simple View of Reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer, 1986) Simple View of Reading Redux (Tunmer & Chapman, 2012) You can find this diagram on the Internet simply by Googling “reading rope.” The citation is:

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis) abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97- 110). New York: Guilford Press. Relationships of Disorders of Oral & Written Language

• Two dimensions may explain dyslexia and specific language impairment (SLI) – Phonological skills (sound/word level) – Nonphonological skills (sentence/discourse level)

(Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Adlof, Hogan, & Weismer, 2005) Quadrant Model

Sentence/Discourse Ability

Good listening comp + sentence formulation when talking Normal Language Dyslexia Low reading decoding + Average in both fluency + spelling + word inflection when writing

Sound/Word Ability

High sound/word skills Spoken + Written Low Reading + Low Oral and surface reading Specific Language Good Reading Decoding Disorder + Poor Comprehension Comprehension Deficit

(Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Adlof, Hogan, & Weismer, 2005; Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006; Ramus, Marshall, Rosen, & van der Lely, 2013) Comprehensive planning – What next?

Does the What kinds What should What kinds child have of needs? we target? of needs? intervention?

• Problem of • Most • Parent input spoken and/or important • Materials • Student input written • Most impaired • Theoretical language? • Teacher input • Most likely to model • Particular • Formal testing make a profile? difference • Comorbid problems? Connecting Assessment and Intervention

• Assessment • Teacher, parent, child interviews • Norm-referenced testing (curriculum relevant levels x modalities) • Curriculum-based language assessment (integrated sound/word and sentence/ discourse) • Intervention • Explicit instruction in the code and structure of words (sound/word level) as needed • Curriculum-based language intervention (integrated sentence/discourse level) Formal and Informal Assessment

Formal Assessment Informal Assessment

• Provides norm-referenced • Provides rich qualitative information information • Provides information about • Provides information about student’s strengths and this student, but not clear weaknesses compared to how performance compares peers to peers • Must be administered exactly • May be modified to probe as standardized deeper; repeat • Must NOT use assessment • May use same materials for materials for intervention assessment and intervention • May be curriculum relevant • May be curriculum based Screening Gathering Teacher, Parent, Student Input

Student Language Scale (SLS) Consider teacher, parent, and student input on the SLS Multiple sources Co-norming Student Rating Scale Using the SLS for 3 Validated Purposes

. Screening for dyslexia and other language/literacy disorders; . Gathering input from teacher, parent, and student perspectives to contribute to planning; and . Promoting home-school communication for students with and without language/literacy concerns. Gen Ed. Teacher SLS in 3rd Grade Parent SLS in 3rd Grade

January January A Little More than One Year Later Gen Ed. Teacher SLS in 4th Grade Parent SLS in 4th Grade

May May Teacher’s ratings on the first 8 items--

• Are 2 or more ratings <5? • Are all (but 1) ratings >5?  High sensitivity High specificity 90% of 68 students with LLD 90% of 203 students with NL identified accurately as identified accurately as not having problems having problems

Sensitivity Specificity

Teacher 61/68 = .90** 182/203 = .90** Parent 203/239 = .85* 1065/1290 = .83* Student 66/90 = .73 257/419 = .61

Correlation between Items 1-8 and total TILLS for Teachers = .752** Parents = .613** Consider teacher, parent, and student input on the SLS Multiple sources Co-norming Student Rating Scale

Correlation between Items 3-4 and Sound/Word Composite: Teachers = .671** Parents = .595** Consider teacher, parent, and student input on the SLS Multiple sources Co-norming Student Rating Scale

Correlation between Items 1- 2, 5-8 and Sentence/Discourse Composite: Teachers = .720** Parents = .570** (Nelson, Plante, Helm-Estabrooks, & Hotz, 2016) What are the language demands of the curriculum?

• Integration across language levels • Master reading decoding by Grade 3 • Be a competent speller by Grade 3 • Expectation to process complex language that is discipline specific • Complex sentence structure • Cohesion demands connections across sentence and discourse boundaries Language Levels X Modalities Model

Nelson, N. W., Plante, E., Helm-Estabrooks, N., & Hotz, G. (2015). Test of Integrated Language and Literacy SkillsTM (TILLS™). Brookes Publishing Co., Inc. Assessing the Sound/Word Level

Assessing Phonological language skills Use Nonwords or pseudo-words Use Real words Common Core State Standards Grade 2. Phonics and Word Grade 3. Phonics and Word Recognition Recognition • CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3 • CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3 Know and apply grade-level phonics • Know and apply grade-level phonics and and word analysis skills in decoding word analysis skills in decoding words. – Identify and know the meaning of the most words. common prefixes and derivational suffixes. – Distinguish long and short vowels – Decode words with common Latin suffixes. when reading regularly spelled one- – Decode multisyllable words. syllable words. – Read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. – Know spelling-sound correspondences for additional common vowel teams. FluencyGrade 5. Phonics and Word Recognition – Decode regularly spelled two-syllable • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.5.3 words with long vowels. Know and apply grade-level phonics and – Decode words with common prefixes word analysis skills in decoding words. and suffixes. • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.5.3.A – Identify words with inconsistent but Use combined knowledge of all letter- common spelling-sound sound correspondences, syllabication correspondences. patterns, and morphology (e.g., roots and – Recognize and read grade-appropriate affixes) to read accurately unfamiliar irregularly spelled words. multisyllabic words in context and out of context. Sound/Word Level – Formal assessment

2. Phonemic Awareness (PA)

“If the word is bip, and we take away the first sound, the word becomes[hesitate]… ip.” “If the word is stig, and we take away the first sound, the word becomes… tig.” Sound/Word Level – Formal assessment using nonwords 4. Nonword Repetition (NWRep)

5. Nonword Spelling (NWSpell) Does the student • represent phonology of the spoken word? • show awareness of morphology? 10. Nonword Reading (NWRead) Does the student • represent phonology using the spoken word? • show awareness of morphology? Sound/Word Level – Formal assessment using real words

11. Reading Fluency (RF) The Principal’s Daughter Example - Age 8-10 We have a principal. - Mark any words not The principal has a daughter. read fluently Her name is Sara. - No… She wants to be a clown. - Sounding out She came Monday. - Hesitation ... - Omission She had on makeup. - Repetition .. - Change She looked scary. … Some children cried. … She took off her wig. The children were happy. They knew Sara. Sound/Word Level – Formal assessment using real words 12. Written Expression (WE)

The Little Dog Example to illustrate There was a dog. sentence combining. He was little. • Narrative discourse He was brown. • Syntactic abilities He was white. • Word-level abilities A car almost hit him. It was in front of our school. He was scared. He was okay. Word Level – Formal assessment using real words

Discourse: 4/20 = 20% SS 2 Sentence: 4/4 = 1.00 SS 7 Word: 18/23 = 78% SS 3 Discourse Score: 18/20 content units = 90% WE-Disc SS = 10 Sentence Score: 18 content/7 T-units =2.57 WE-Sent SS = 11 Word Score: 74/88 wds without error = 84% 18 WE-Word SS = 0 14. Digit Span Forward 15. Digit Span Backward

14. Digit Span Forward (DSF) Say, “I am going to say some numbers. Listen to the numbers, and when I finish, you say them back to me exactly the same way.” 15. Digit Span Backward (DSB) “This time, when I read the numbers to you, I want you to listen carefully and say them back to me in backward order.” Assessing the Sentence/Discourse Level (and Vocabulary)

Curriculum-related language assessment (Norm- referenced measures can be) Curriculum-based language assessment (Requires use of materials from the student’s actual curriculum) Common Core State Standards (Grade 2)

Informational Text Literature • CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.2.1 • CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.2.1 Ask and answer such questions Ask and answer such questions as who, what, where, when, as who, what, where, when, why, why, and how to demonstrate and how to demonstrate understanding of key details in a understanding of key details in a text. text. • CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.2.2 • CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.2.2 Identify the main topic of a Recount stories, including fables multiparagraph text as well as and folktales from diverse the focus of specific paragraphs cultures, and determine their within the text. central message, lesson, or • CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.2.3 moral. Describe the connection • CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.2.3 between a series of historical Describe how characters in a events, scientific ideas or story respond to major events concepts, or steps in technical and challenges. procedures in a text. Common Core State Standards (9-12) Informational Text Literature • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.9-10.4 • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.2 Determine the meaning of symbols, key terms, and other domain- Determine the central ideas or specific words and phrases as they information of a primary or are used in a specific scientific or secondary source; provide an technical context relevant to grades 9-10 texts and topics. accurate summary that makes • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.9-10.5 clear the relationships among Analyze the structure of the the key details and ideas. relationships among concepts in a text, including relationships among • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.3 key terms (e.g., force, friction, Evaluate various explanations reaction force, energy). for actions or events and • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.9-10.6 Analyze the author's purpose in determine which explanation providing an explanation, describing best accords with textual a procedure, or discussing an evidence, acknowledging experiment in a text, defining the question the author seeks to where the text leaves matters address. uncertain. Sentence/Discourse Level – Formal assessment

3. Story Retelling (SR) “I’m going to read you a story. Listen carefully. Your job is to tell the story back to me just like I tell it to you.” [score as retained content units]

9. Delayed Story Retelling (DSR)

“Remember the story [Tommy the Trickster/The Rubber Raft]? Tell me the story again. Try to remember as much as you can. Start now.” Sentence/Discourse Level – Formal assessment

6. Listening Comprehension (LC)

7. Reading Comprehension (RC) Sentence/Discourse Cohesion • Referencing – “…two new territories. Each…” – “President…his…” • Ellipsis (omitting established info) – He did • Lexical substitution (same concept in different words) – “topic the teacher makes her class write about the first day of school every year” … “usual first writing assignment” • Conjunction / transition – if…then, but, when, etc. – however, therefore, consequently

Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Sentence/Discourse Level – Formal assessment

8. Following Directions (FD)

13. Social Communication (SC)

Rachel [Ron] wants to politely turn down an invitation for a party she thinks will be boring. What do you think Rachel [Ron] would say? Assessing WE-Discourse and Sentence level

12. Written Expression (WE)

Discourse: 4/20 = 20% SS 2 Sentence: 4/4 = 1.00 SS 7 Word: 18/23 = 78% SS 3 12. Written Expression (WE)

She

*Took 30 min

Discourse: 10/20 = 50 SS=3 Sentence: 10/5 = 2.0 SS=11 Word: 35-1=34/35 = 97 SS=11 Vocabulary – Formal assessment

1. Vocabulary Awareness (VA)

Not a single definition bat Requires student to activate semantic awareness owl • Categorical • Traits eagle • Part – whole • Switch set • Rule out what applies to all 3 Evidence for the Quadrant Model Scientific evidence for the two dimensions of the quadrant model

Factor Reference Final Structure Communality (Semipartial Correlations) Estimate Factor 1 Factor 2 Phonemic Awareness 0.547 0.074 0.550 Non-word Spelling 0.600 0.067 0.642 Non-word Reading 0.734 -0.058 0.786 Reading Fluency 0.406 0.077 0.325 Written Expression Word Score 0.409 0.009 0.267 Story Retelling -0.052 0.500 0.345 Vocabulary Awareness 0.229 0.472 0.629 Listening Comprehension 0.009 0.548 0.476 Reading Comprehension 0.264 0.420 0.589 Following Directions 0.153 0.409 0.412 Social Communications 0.075 0.476 0.428

Interpret TILLS results for 3 validated purposes • Identify language/literacy disorder • Profile patterns of strengths and weaknesses • Track change over time (6 mos. +) Purpose 1.

Identify language/literacy disorder Identification Core Subtests and Sensitivity/Specificity

6-7 year olds 8-11 year olds 12-18 year olds

• Core subtests • Core subtests • Core subtests – Vocab – Vocab – Phoneme Aw Aware Aware – NW Spell – Phoneme – NW Spell – Rdg Comp Aw – NW Read – Reading – NW Rep – WE- Fluency • Sensitivity 84% Discourse – WE-Word • Specificity 84% • Sensitivity 88% • Sensitivity 86% • Specificity 85% • Specificity 90%

TILLS Sensitivity/Specificity Purpose 2.

Profile strengths and weaknesses Language Levels

Sound/Word Composite Score

Sentence/Discourse Composite Score

Sd/Wd (low) < Sent/Disc  Dyslexia

Sd/Wd = Sent/Disc (both low)  LLD, S/LI, LD

Sd/Wd > Sent/Disc (low)  Specific Comprehension Deficit Purpose 3.

Track change over time Interpreting language and literacy profiles Applying the Quadrant Model

Sentence/Discourse Ability

Good listening comp + sentence formulation when talking Normal Language Dyslexia Low reading decoding + Average in both fluency + spelling + word inflection when writing

Sound/Word Ability

High sound/word skills Specific Language Low Reading + Low Oral and surface reading Specific Impairment Language Good Reading Decoding Comprehension Deficit + Poor Comprehension History of articulation difficulties 7;9 Grade 1 Working on /l/ Boy Getting RtI Tier 2 help for reading delays 7 year 9 month old boy 7 year 9 month old boy

 Core subtests . Vocab Aware Sound/word 48 . Phoneme Aw Sentence/discourse 73 . NW Rep Consistent with diagnosis of dyslexia? 7 year 9 mo old boy

Sentence/Discourse Ability School Classification: S/LI-speech Good listening comp Only & sentence formulation High in both? Should there Low reading decoding & fluency & be more? spelling

Dyslexia Dx is Sound/Word Ability appropriate High sound/word skills and surface reading? Low in both? Low comprehension in listening and reading? 7;10 Grade 2 Girl Teacher and Parent SLS for 7;10, Grade 2

Gen Ed Teacher SLS Parent SLS Grade 2 girl (age 7;10) 7;10 Grade 2 Girl

 Core subtests Sound/word 50 . Vocab Aware Sentence/discourse 71 . Phoneme Aw . NW Rep Which quadrant? 7;10 Grade 2, Girl

LD as primary eligibility Sentence/Discourse Ability (rdg). Also gets help in class

(co-taught by special ed Good listening comp teacher and other & sentence formulation High in both? assignments read to Low reading her). decoding & fluency & spelling Sound/ Reading decoding and Word Ability fluency goals on IEP. High sound/word skills and surface reading? Low in both? Should there be goals Low comprehension related to oral in listening and language? reading? Written expression and spelling? Sound-symbol association (alphabetic principle) • Use multi-modality, multi-sensory approach to make sound-symbol association automatic • Sound/letter  speech “Say /p/” – Make page for “My Sounds & Letters Book” – Symbol chip (avoid letter names) – Precise articulation; attention to distinctive features • Sound/speech (visual or aud only)  symbol “Point to /p/” – From array of easily distinguished sounds/letters ee p t m _o_ s a_e • Symbol  sound “What sound does this letter make?” • Sound  letter “Write /p/” • Letter name  “Point to ‘p’” (use with caution) Identify words with inconsistent but common spelling-sound correspondences. Misses orthographic cues about how to pronounce vowels Reading fluency is a big problem Word Pattern Recognition (Orthographic Principle) Is student aware of inflectional and • Consonant  Vowel derivational morphemes? – Single consonant  multiple vowels Is student using relatively – Multiple consonants  single vowel better sentence/ discourse skills to assist with fluency? • Vowel  Consonant Is student monitoring – Single vowel  multiple consonants comprehension – “Does – Multiple vowels  single consonant that make sense?” • CVC • Onset  Rime – Common “word families” • Morphology  Orthography – Common “chunks” -ing, -tion, un-, dis- Decode words with common Latin suffixes. Sound blending/ orthographic patterns

oo1 fa_e

b o fee t

e foo1 Distinguish long and short vowels when reading regularly spelled one-syllable words. Word Families (analogical processes)

• Misses cues about orthographic regularities in reading and spelling

• Limited use of analogical reading strategies

Read grade- appropriate irregularly spelled words. Sources for Word Structure Approaches

• Barrie-Blackley, S. (2011). The Structure of Written English & Orton-Gillingham for SLPs [online course] http://support.lexercise.com/entries/20510387- lexercise-professional-education-courses • DuBard, E. (1974). Teaching aphasics and other language deficient children: Theory and application of the association method. Hattiesburg, MS: University Press of Mississippi. • Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, P. (1998). Lindamood phonemic sequencing program for reading, spelling, and speech (LiPS; formerly called Auditory Discrimination in Depth). Austin, TX: ProEd. • Monsees, E. K. (1972). Structured language for children with special language learning problems. Washington, DC: Children’s Hospital National Medical Center. • McGinnis, M. (1963). Aphasic children. Washington, DC: A. G. Bell Association. • Ritchey, K. D., & Goeke, J. L. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham— Based Reading Instruction: A Review of the Literature. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 171-183. • Wasowicz, J., Apel, K., Masterson, J. J., & Whitney, A. (2004). Spell-Links to Reading & Writing: A Word Study Curriculum. Evanston, IL: Learning by Design. Identified as having a learning disability Reading goals on IEP 10;5 Grade 5 ADHD No history of spoken language problems Boy Is there evidence of any? 10 year 5 month old boy 10 year 5 month old boy

 Core subtests Sound/word 91 . Vocab Aware Sentence/discourse 66 . NW Spell . NW Read . WE-Discourse Consistent with diagnosis of dyslexia? 10;5 Grade 5 boy School Classification: LD-Reading Sentence/Discourse Ability Impairment Only + ADHD

Good listening comp NOT best fit for & sentence formulation? dyslexia, but High in both? words in context Low reading decoding & fluency & are low spelling?

Needs: Sound/Word Ability

Listening comp High sound/word Reading comp skills and surface reading? Vocabulary Low in both Low comprehension (semantic in listening and relations) reading? Social comm *Stories may be relative strength Using Curriculum-Based Language Assessment to Evaluate School-Age Students Curriculum-based language assessment and intervention

“Use of curriculum contexts and content for measuring a student’s language intervention needs and progress” (Nelson, 1989)

• Answers the question: – Does the student have the language skills to learn the (reading/math/social studies) curriculum? Ethnographic Interviews

• Student • Teacher • Parents “The goal in interviewing is to have participants talk about things of interest to them and to cover matters of importance to [you] in a way that allows participants to use their own concepts and terms.” (Stainback & Stainback, 1988, p. 52)

Lists and labels about Anecdotes about specific strengths and needs events • When was the last time you felt • What’s the easiest/best “bored”? thing about school? • “When the teacher explained • What’s the hardest/ the math lesson, and I didn’t worst thing? know what to do.” “If you could change just one thing, what would that be?” Interviewing Dan

• M Are you bored with the assignments that are given? • M Like, the types of things • M Are those boring? • M What makes it boring? • D Sometimes it’s boring. • D Well, sometimes she gives out something> • D I don’t know. • M (Well, um) Let’s think about today when you were in school. • M Can you think of a time when you were bored today? • D Yeah. • M Okay, tell me about it. • D We were doing math. • D And I had no idea what to do. • D So I was bored, I guess. Curriculum-based language assessment & intervention: 4 Questions Question Target Procedures

1. What language Identify language skills and Expected Response skills are required? strategies effective students [ER] use

2. What does the Observed Response Observe student’s current student currently [OR] independent attempt do? 3. What might the Mismatch between Use dynamic assessment to student learn to do ER  OR establish instructional differently? procedures and targets

4. How should Design scaffolding to help Bridge from curricular task be student make connections; OR  ER scaffolded and modify task only if necessary changed? Math discourse - CBLA

• If there were 5 bike racks at the 1. ER – What does the school and each could hold 5 bikes, task require? how many bikes could park at the school? 2. OR – What does the – ER: 5 x 5 = 25 student do – Child OR: “10” currently? • Dynamic assessment: Show me 3. OR  ER – What how you figured that out? might the student – Child OR: 5 + 5 = 10 learn to do differently? • Dynamic assessment: Let’s look at 4. OR  ER – How that a little closer and see if we can should the task be figure it out. scaffolded or – First draw the problem modified? – Then do the math If there were 5 bike racks at the school Math discourse and each could hold 5 bikes, how many bikes could park? First draw the problem: (Think aloud)

Then do the math:

5 (racks) x 5 (bikes each) = 25

Does that make sense? Does it match the picture? WHAT DO I NEED TO DO?

First draw the problem: (Think aloud)

Then do the math…

Does that make sense? Does it match the picture? Self-talk for math

1. Read the directions 2. Identify important direction words 3. Say the directions in your own words 4. Solve the problem step-by-step by asking yourself: - Do I understand what this problem is about? - How can I solve this problem? - What does this problem look like (draw the picture)? - What is the first step I need to do? - What is the next step? - Am I done? 5. Recheck to make sure the answer makes sense. Take-home points • Comprehensive assessment provides insights not available otherwise. • Subtests can be compared psychometrically only when they are co-normed on the same standardization sample. • Assessment models should make sense to parents, teachers, and students—the language levels X modalities model does this. • Labels are problematic, but individual differences are more important for planning than a specific label. • Language/literacy disorder applies whether the child has S/LI, LD, or dyslexia. References Badian, N. A. (1999). Reading disability defined as a discrepancy between listening and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study of stability, gender differences, and prevalence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 138-148. Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K. Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., Hawkins, J.. M., & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching Spelling and Composition Alone and Together: Implications for the Simple View of Writing. Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, Vol. 94, No. 2, 291–304 Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 858-886. Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., Hogan, T. P., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1378-1396. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10. Hoover, W. A. & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127-160. Nation , K., Clarke, P., Marshall, C. M., & Durand, M. (2004). Hidden language impairments in children: Parallels between poor reading comprehension and specific language impairment? J. of Speech, Language, and hearing Research, 47(1), 199-211. Nelson, N. W., Plante, E., Helm-Estabrooks, N., & Hotz, G., (2016). Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Ramus, F., Marshall, C. R., Rosen, S., & van der Lely, H. K. J. (2013). Phonological deficits in specific language impairment and developmental dyslexia: Towards a multidimensional model. Brain, 136, 630–645. Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S.B. Newman & D.D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97–110). New York: Guilford Press. Silliman, E. R., & Berninger, V. W. (2011). Cross-disciplinary dialogue about the nature of oral and written language problems in the context of developmental, academic, and phenotypic profiles. Topics in Language Disorders, 31(1), 6-23. Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Annotation: Does dyslexia exist? The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35(4), 579-595. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2007). Language-related differences between discrepancy-defined and non-discrepancy-defined poor readers: A longitudinal study of dyslexia in New Zealand. Dyslexia, 13(1), 42-66. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux: Vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 453-466. Thank you – Aloha Q and A