Presentation on theme: "Should We or Shouldn’t We? Speech Pathologists in Education Paediatric Language EBP Group 2008 Brooke Funnell (Leader)"— Presentation transcript:
Should We or Shouldn’t We? Speech Pathologists in Education Paediatric Language EBP Group 2008 Brooke Funnell (Leader) Brooke.Funnell@sswahs.nsw.gov.au
Should Speech Pathologists Work in Schools?
How Should Speech Pathologists Work in Schools?
In school-aged children with SLI, is a school-based treatment model an effective way of managing SLI in the classroom? In school-aged children with SLI, is an in-class, school-based model better than a withdrawal model in managing SLI in the classroom?
In school-based treatment for school-aged children with SLI, is a collaborative or consultative model better than withdrawal?
The Papers Tollerfield, I. (2003). The process of collaboration within a special school setting: an exploration of the ways in which skills and knowledge are shared and barriers are overcome when a teacher and speech & language therapist collaborate. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 67-84 Wren, Y., Roulstone, S., Parkhouse, J., Hall, B. (2001). A model for a mainstream school-based speech and language therapy service. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 107-127. Hirst, E., Britton, L. (1998). Specialised service to children with specific language impairment in mainstream schools. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 33, supp.
The Papers McGinty, A.S., Justice, L. (2006). Classroom-Based versus Pull-Out Interventions: A review of the experimental evidence. EBP Briefs, 1 (1).
The Papers Farber, J.G. & Klein, E.R. (1999). Classroom-Based Assessment of a Collaborative Intervention Program With Kindergarten and First-Grade Students. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 30 (1), 83-91.
The Papers Cirrin, F.M. & Gillam, R.B. (2008). Language Intervention Practices for School-Age Children With Spoken Language Disorders: A Systematic Review. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 39, S110-137.
The Papers Throneburg, R., Calvert, L., Sturm, J., Paramboukas, A., Paul, P. (2000). A Comparison of Service Delivery Models: Effects of Curricular Vocabulary Skills in the School Setting. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 10-20. CBL: Students with SLI can make positive changes in their knowledge of curricular vocabulary in all 3 service deliveries (collaborative, consultative and withdrawal) but make more change in the collaborative model. Collaborative planning is essential for successful joint teaching programs.
The Papers Hadley, P.A., Simmerman, A., Long, M., Luna, M. (2000). Facilitating Language Development for Inner-City Children: Experimental Evaluation of a Collaborative, Classroom-based Intervention. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 280-295. CBL: At risk students in Kindergarten & 1 st grade involved in collaborative planning and teaching between class teachers and SLPs demonstrated greater change in regards to receptive and expressive vocabulary, as well as letter-sound associations, but no broad improvement in phonological awareness skills when compared with grade-matched peers who weren’t receiving collaborative intervention.
The CAT’s Clinical Bottom Line We’re not there yet but the generally feeling is that all forms of intervention work (traditional pull- out, consultative and collaborative), however collaborative is the best though it is the most time consuming and costly.
Evidence in Practice
2008s Achievements Academics –Thank you Natalie Munro & Kimberley Docking New members Attendance –Thank you everyone Teleconferencing –3/4 ACT link ups
Where To Now? Comprehension Specific treatment options – teaching text types ASD