BRIDGING THE GAP: A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO DEVELOPING AN ORAL LANGUAGE PROGRAM FOR EARLY PRIMARY CHILDREN by Donna Preston B. Ed., The University of British Columbia, 1989 Reading Diploma, The University of British Columbia, 1992 A PROJECT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION In CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION ©Donna Preston, 1999 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA July 1999 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. To my family- Jennifer, Daryl, Brittany, Jane and Dan- and especially my husband Pat Who gave me the support, the love, and the heart for it all. Bridging The Gap: A Collaborative Approach To Developing An Oral Language Program For Early Primary Children It is well documented that children with language deficits may also demonstrate reading problems. There is a growing concern to both identify children with weak or poor communication skills at an early age and to implement intervention strategies that minimize the risk for later reading failures. The purpose of this project was to explore ways an administrator, the primary teachers, the speech-language pathologist and an academic consultant could collaborate in a curriculum development process and together design a developmental list of ora/language skills for children from pre-entry to grade two. Both the nature of collaboration and ora/language development are reviewed. Implications for future considerations are also discussed. Reflections When I'm trying to fall asleep at night , things I have experienced in my class flash through my mind... "Teacher, I ain't got no pencil." {I'm always teacher, no matter how many times I correct the students and ask them to call me by my name.) Show and tell stories drift into my head... student: Teacher, I bot a new kitten. teacher: Oh, that's nice. Tell us more about it. student: We found it on the balcony. teacher: Is it a stray? student: No, it's white. (for further Reflections see Appendix A) 2 Introduction This project is grounded in the belief that early oral language development is a crucial component for the development of literacy and communication. The work undertaken underscores the needs of a group of teachers for a developmental oral language skills inventory and points to the usefulness of a collaborative model of curriculum development involving the teachers, administrator, and speechlanguage pathologist, and academic consultant in one school. Rationale for Project At my school, teachers make a difference in children's lives each and every day. From the outside, the busy classrooms look like any other classroom, routines, seemingly running without smoothly, incident. following However, classroom upon closer examination one discovers language problems affect many of the students in the school. The rationale for this project is grounded in this problem identified within the professional setting by the administrator, the teachers, and the speech-language pathologist who work there. Two years ago the staff identified language development as the number one concern of all the teachers across all the grades. The students 3 begin school delayed in their oral language development and this hampers their progress in all aspects of school life, including reading, writing, and social interaction. Teachers have identified their own lack of requisite knowledge about oral language that would give them the knowledge of skill development. They have sought help in various ways. As a staff they realized they could not do this themselves and in 1997/1998 set aside two Professional Development Days to examine the issues involved with assistance from Dr. Anne Lindsay and Dr. Judith Lapadat from the University of Northern British Columbia. As such, the project described here is a continuation of the assistance already requested by the teachers. School District #57 has produced a teaching guideline handbook in the areas of both primary writing and reading. Teaching Guidelines: Primary Reading, Primary Writing (Russell & Bond, 1995) was produced in response to a needs survey done by the Language Arts Committee. Local primary teachers requested more guidance in both the areas of reading and writing. The intent of the document was that it be used as a helpful list of skills or a guide, not as the curriculum itself. This guide is formatted in such a way as to show 4 what skills should be introduced in what primary grade and what skills are to be maintained. However, there is no such guide for oral language development. Commercial language programs also provide little guidance. Knowing what we do about how children learn to read and write it, is amazing that current reading programs such as Journeys (Tuinman, Johnstone, & Pfaff, 1990), Open Court (Adams, Bereiter, Hirshberg, Anderson, & Bernier, (1995), First Grade Companion Reading (Von Harrison, 1990) and Nelson Language Arts (Bogusat, Finochio, Francone, Hohmann, McDonald, Mclaughlin, McPhail, Morrison, Nail, & Prokopchuk, 1999), do not stress the oral language component. Instead, most reading programs emphasize lessons on phonemic awareness, letter recognition, and instruction in the blending of sounds. For example, First Grade Companion Reading (Von Harrison, 1990), which our school is currently using, claims to be a systematic instructional system that guarantees a 90% literacy rate for grade 1 students. Teachers who use it say it is strictly a phonics program. All teachers in our school using it say there is a great danger in using "only" this program as the program does not suggest grouping the students by their needs. There is no assessment of oral 5 language development or readiness skills and it assumes that everyone is ready to begin at the same reading level using whole class instruction. There is no consideration for different learning styles or the different rates of learning. One insight into this issue is revealed in The Phonological Awareness Book (Robertson and Salter, 1995) a curriculum resource available to teachers. It states that "unfortunately, most instructional programs don't address these requisite skills because most students already have them" (p.S). Given our situation, the teachers in the school have requested a practical and comprehensive developmentally ordered list of the skills that are indicators of oral language development from preschool to grade two as generally expected by teachers and schools. The purpose of developing this list is to ensure the necessary oral "school" language skills are being developed. Experienced teachers have the resources, materials, and strategies to develop such skills, but they need an oral language skills inventory to identify skills that are missing or weak so they can plan lessons and activities to meet the needs of their students. Such a project represents a curriculum development process. 6 There are many models of curriculum development, but the choice made here is grounded in my own professional background. From the earliest days of working in Primary Open Area classrooms to the years of working as a "prep-time" teacher and an intermediate classroom teacher, to the years of working as a Faculty Advisor for Simon Fraser University, and to date, working in a challenging inner city school, I have had many opportunities to practice collaborative skills. I am sure in the beginning I was working on basic intuition, but as the years passed I have developed a philosophy about the power of win/win solutions and teamwork. The beliefs I bring to my professional career and to this project are the power of listening to your colleagues, allowing for professional autonomy, and genuinely caring for other staff members. Given my experiences, I assumed that the best approach to a curriculum development project would be a collaborative model. As such, this project is a collaborative effort of teachers working with specialists, an administrator, and an academic consultant to produce a working document that will be used in the school. Therefore, this project is grounded in both language and curriculum theory. 7 Theoretical Background: Language Fey (1999), in the current edition of Perspectives: The International Dyslexia Association provides a traditional definition of language: "Language refers to words and the rules that govern the combination of words into phrases, sentences, and higher level units of text, such as stories, reports, instructions, and arguments" (p.14). However, the work that constitutes this project is grounded in a broader theoretical perspective in which language is understood as language used to communicate through interaction, or discourse (van Dijk, 1997). Language understood as discourse involves the recognition that language use is the communication of meaning and involves more than sounds, words, and sentences. It also involves the organization of larger chunks of talk such as knowledge of question-answer routines and turn-taking in one -to-one, small group, and large group contexts. Defined this way, the skills requisite to oral language development are sometimes referred to as pragmatic skills. In addition, language both written and oral, has receptive and expressive forms. As such, oral language development is understood here to include both speaking and listening and is 8 addressed at the discourse level, the sentence level, the word level, and the sound level. Language At The Discourse Level: What Is Pragmatics? Pragmatics is the "ability to use language appropriately within a social, situational, and communicative context" (Lapadat, 1991 ). Having pragmatic ability means not just knowing the rules of social interaction, but understanding appropriateness in social situations and how to adjust or adapt language to a variety of social environments. The pragmatic categories identified by Prutting and Kirchner (1987, pp.117-119) and recombined into six categories by . Lapadat ( 1991 ), were used in this project. However, other sources (Kess, 1992; Robertson & Salter, 1995; and Tough, 1976) were also consulted and used. The categories are (1) speech acts, (2) topic, (3) turn-taking, ( 4) lexical selection/use across speech acts, ( 5) stylistic variations, and, (6) intelligibility and prosodies. Also, the role of silence (Saville-Troike, 1985) as a pragmatic skill is important to consider. For example, silence can be used in communication to show misunderstanding or discomfort or to demonstrate personal power. 9 Furthermore, effective communication depends on the appropriateness of pragmatic skills in any given social situation (Giles & Coupland, 1 991 ). Not only does the participant have to make decisions about the scene, but also the type of setting, and the purpose of the event. The relationship between the participants, and factors such as their knowledge of each other, interests, social status, and social power all affect selection of speech. Successful communication depends on making observations about the kind of situation and adjusting/adapting ' language use to this context. In addition to the pragmatic aspects of oral language, it is also necessary to examine oral language development skills at a sentence level, word level and sound level. Language Skills At The Level Of The Sentence To evaluate a child's competence with constructing sentences means evaluating the child's ability to comprehend and produce various kinds of complete sentences, including yes/no sentences and WH questions. The child also has to demonstrate his/her understanding of syntax, or construction of sentences with words in the appropriate order. Syntax means putting words together to create sentences using certain rules rather than in a random order. 10 Examples of signs of syntax difficulties may be the following: using incorrect word orders, for example "I can go?", or frequently omitting small words that direct meaning, for example "He big" or "I'm going store". Other patterns that indicate difficulty are substituting pronouns, for example "Me big now" and having difficulties with irregular forms of verbs, for example "I wented there". Language Skills At The Level Of The Individual Word Knowing what a word means, that is, recognizing it, understanding it and using it appropriately and correctly is the conventional meaning of semantics. Semantics refers to understanding a word in its many contexts and being able to use it in a variety of situations, for example, for a child to understand the meaning of "It's time for your bath" without the aid of situational clues of time of day or regular routine. In the classroom situation, clues to a child having difficulties with semantics may be any of the following: (a) not knowing the meaning of common objects, for example, mistakenly giving the teacher a pencil when asked for an eraser; (b) commonly using words such as "thing" or "it" instead of its name; (c) defining a II word instead of saying it, for example "you sit on it and do your work"; (d) using immature, restricted vocabulary, or, (e) not being able to find the right word. Commonly oral development skills are associated with vocabulary knowledge. Although being able to label body parts, colours, different foods and animals etc. is important, other skills at the word level must be considered. For instance, a child must understand that a word is a separate entity and a basic unit of language (Robertson & Salter, 1995). A child must understand that individual words are embedded within a sentence and that the meaning of that word can change depending on the context. Language Skills At The Level Of The Sound Children's oral language development also involves recognition that words are composed of smaller units called phonemes. It appears researchers agree upon similar definitions of what phonemic awareness) also referred to as linguistic awareness or phonological awareness) actually is. Catts (1991) states phonemic awareness refers to the explicit awareness of the sound structure of language. It includes the awareness that words are composed of syllables and phonemes, and that words can rhyme or begin/end with 12 the same sound segment" (p.196). Similarly, Blachman (1994) says phonological awareness is "an awareness of, and the ability to manipulate the phonological segments represented in alphabetical orthography" (p.253). In the same way, Kamhi and Catts (1991) define phonological awareness as "the ability to reflect on and make judgements about the discrete phonological properties of words "(p. 28). For the purposes of this project it is understood that phonemic awareness is the awareness that streams of speech are words that can be segmented into sound units called phonemes. For instance, at an oral level a child can make the "fff" sound for the word "fire", although he/she may not know the letter name "f". This project does not extend to connecting phonemic awareness to written letters. Developmental Difficulties in Oral Language And Their Significance In the past decade, numerous studies have investigated the pragmatic language abilities of students with language disorders, learning disabilities, or language learning disabilities as compared with pragmatic abilities of non-disabled peers. Conclusions have varied, but one finding is well documented. The majority of children 13 with language deficits also demonstrate reading problems (Kamhi & Catts, 1991; Lovett, 1991; Gillon & Dodd, 1995). There is a growing concern to both identify children with weak or poor communication skills at an early age and to implement intervention strategies that minimize the risk for later reading failures. Juel's (1988) longitudinal study, Learning To Read And Write: A Longitudinal A Study Of 54 children From First Through Fourth Grades, clearly demonstrates the importance of introducing phonemic awareness to children with language difficulties. Juel suggests a "cycle of failure" beginning with poor phonemic awareness skills, is responsible for an increasing gap that develops between good and poor readers. Although Kamhi and Catts (1991) say, it is "not uncommon for children to enter kindergarten with the ability to recite the alphabet, recognize letters, use a typewriter or a computer, write their name and a few other words and sight read a dozen or more written words (p.27), others start behind and some never do catch up. As oral language skills are the basis for all teaching and learning in classrooms, it is important in other areas besides reading; for example, in writing and spelling, and all communications in context. 14 Theoretical Background: Curriculum As developing the oral language skills list for this project is a curriculum development task, the project must also be grounded in a perspective on curriculum development. Much curriculum development has been done within a transmissional model, meaning that teachers have had little involvement in the process. The end result is often that new material and ideas remain on the shelf. An alternative to the transmissional model is a transactional model of curriculum development (Miller & Seller, 1990). Miller and Seller, claim the transactional position is the application of problemsolving skills to improve the social environment, and that learning is a social process with interaction among the learners. In addition, Miller and Seller see curriculum as an "intentional set of interactions designed to facilitate learning and development and to impose meaning on experience (1990, p.3). These interactions occur at many levels including superficial layers, and at deeper layers involving hidden curriculum. Sanger (1990) focused on the problem of curriculum development and making changes in school environments. He argued that it is important for a staff to feel a sense of ownership for 15 change, be grounded in their current shared practice, gain further insight into their own practice, and come to understand how students construct knowledge. Sanger advocated action research for practitioners, which he explains, is research conducted by a practitioner for the purpose of improving the practitioner's own practice. As such, action research is an example of a transactional model of curriculum development. It has been popular throughout educational practice as it is seen as effective in making change happen in classrooms. Given my assumptions about the value of collaborative processes, the transactional model provided the appropriate theoretical approach to curriculum development for this study. Curriculum Development and Collaboration Although not grounding their arguments in models of curriculum development, a number of researchers have called for collaborative approaches in developing curriculum within language programs. The combination of collaborative planning, problem solving, effective teaching methods, and learning strategies is imperative in classroom-based interventions (Beck & Dennis, 1997). Catts ( 1991) argues that speech-language pathologists have the expertise, not 16 only in spoken language, but also to participate effectively in planning intervention programs that focus on phonological awareness training. Choosing the model that best suits the situation, the professionals involved, and most importantly, the child, are the most important considerations. The research and professional literature describes ways in which teachers and specialists can work collaboratively to integrate oral language activities into classroom environments (Valdez and Montgomery, 1997). Studies on inclusion and classroom-based interventions, such as those by Dally ( 1 9 78), Pickering & Kaelber (1978), Pruitt-Shough & Stuller (1989), and Beck & Dennis (1997) all agree on the importance of the following factors: (a) speech-language pathologists and teachers working together to teach children with language disabilities, (b) training and knowledge for both teachers and speech-language pathologists, (c) identifying "at risk" students early, and (d) integrating the principles of oral language development into the regular curriculum. In summary, this project is grounded in both language and curriculum theory. Constructing the list of oral language development skills draws on theory describing oral language at 17 various levels. Exploring collaborative ways speech-language pathologists, practitioners and support teachers can work together on oral language classroom-based interventions is grounded in the transactional model of curriculum theory and is supported by the research into curriculum development in language programs. Purpose of the Project The first purpose of this project is to develop a 'tool' that teachers will use to identify oral language skills that typically develop in children from kindergarten to grade two. However, as many of these children enter kindergarten with oral language skills substantially below those typically expected by teachers upon kindergarten entry, the skills range must extend to pre-entry oral language development. Given it is a curriculum development project, the second purpose is to explore the processes inherent in such a process. Specifically, the purposes of this project are as follows: (a) to design for teacher use, a developmental list of oral language skills for children from pre-entry to grade two, and (b) to explore ways speech-language pathologists, practitioners, administrator, support 18 teachers and academic consultant can collaborate in a curriculum development process. Methodology Following is a description of the methodology of this project. First the participants are described. Next the procedures that were followed are described. Finally the ethical issues inherent in the project are summarized. Participants The elementary school in this study is an inner city school with the problems that are typically associated with an inner city area. These include low incomes, limited education of adults, and, a high proportion of single parent families. Some children live in homes affected by substance and/or physical abuse. Many children suffer from neglect, lacking the proper seasonal clothing and food. In many homes, neither intellectual development or language development is a priority. A proportion of the children do not experience social skills training at home and so require the teaching of social skills at school to enable them to function appropriately in a school setting. This school has a wide variety of services and programs. Behavioral and emotional concerns are handled by a school counselor 19 and a youth care worker. For the large Aboriginal population, an Aboriginal worker is in place. A Community/School Liaison involves the community in the school by promoting activities and courses for adults, school age children, and preschoolers. The liaison workers also coordinate programs and events such as parent volunteers for a new reading program, fund raising, a Santa's breakfast, a career day, and a September open house to publicize available community services. Social skills are such a concern at the school that four years ago a skills-teaching program called Project Achieve was initiated. This is taught indoors and out. The many programs in place mean that classrooms have many interruptions as children come and go with the counselor, the learning assistant, and the speech-language pathologist. Other interruptions are due to lunch deliveries, the Language Development Program, or the Youth Care Worker and the Native worker checking on specific children. Procedures Language Skills Checklist Procedures used to design the developmental list of oral language skills for children from pre-entry to grade two were as 20 follows. I kept a reflective journal and recorded times, dates, persons involved, and topics discussed. I collected and reviewed a wide variety of resources from the academic consultant, the speech-language pathologist, and other teachers. I also collected and reviewed existing publications from other districts, Ministry documents, academic sources and from my own resources. The academic consultant and I drafted a preliminary Oral Language Development Checklist (see Appendix B) using A Sourcebook of Pragmatic Activities (Johnston, Weinrich, & Johnson, 1984) as our reference. I arranged the field testing of this checklist and asked teachers to observe and record the oral language behaviors of two different children in their class. I interviewed teachers individually about the checklist's usefulness and its comprehensiveness. I then summarized their comments for each of the questions (see Appendix C Summary of Comments From Teachers). Next the academic consultant and I considered the teachers' input and revised the checklist of oral language skills (see Appendix D Language Observations). We structured the description of the skills to reflect both receptive and expressive modes. We formatted 21 the developmental oral language skills list similarly to the one used in Teaching Guidelines: Primary Reading, Primary Writing (Russell & Bond, 1995) to indicate approximate expectations of skills for grade levels. As we knew of no other resources for the task we relied on our professional experience in making these judgements. Again feedback was requested from the four primary teachers, the administrator, and the speech-language pathologist at a focus group meeting. The agenda for this meeting is provided in Appendix E Agenda Of Focus Group Meeting. In preparation for the June 9th focus group meeting I prepared the following three questions based on the checklist itself: ( 1) Were there any surprises for you with the redesigned checklist? (2) Do you see any potential problems with using the re-designed checklist? and (3) Do you think this re-designed checklist will be helpful to you for planning oral development activities? If so, please explain further. At this meeting the academic consultant's role was one of support and constant consultation. The administrator's role was to provide support and input, and the speech-language pathologist's role was to provide input from another specialist's point of view. 22 The primary teachers' role was input about the effectiveness of the redesigned oral language development checklist. Their contributions were worked into a final draft (Appendix D) which is to be distributed to teachers for use in the following school year. Curriculum Development Collaboration Procedures used to explore ways that speech-language pathologists, practitioners, administrators, and support teachers can collaborate on a curriculum development process were as follows. I kept a reflective journal and recorded day to day interactions with colleagues. I used this journal not only to record events but also to think about the issues dealing with collaboration for this project. As soon as the proposal was accepted, I handed out the letters of consent. I went over the consent letters with each person individually, and explained again what we would be doing, what was expected of them, and the procedures for the project. They were all told they would have two opportunities to have input into the process, once at an individual meeting after the field testing of the first checklist, and again at the focus group meeting to discuss the re-designed checklist. 23 After the academic consultant and I decided to rename and use the Pragmatic Observation Checklist (Johnston, Weinrich & Johnson, 1984), we set up the field test. Teachers were asked to choose two students from their class, one a good communicator and one a poorer communicator. We hoped teachers would begin to observe some explicit differences between children's abilities to communicate. Thus, we decided to call the checklist Language Observations as we wanted teachers to begin looking at oral language development in a broader context. The following is the note I hand-delivered to teachers to explain the field testing task: • Hi there fellow Language Researchers! Apri/27 The first little task of this project is for you to please help me out with some data. Could you please choose two students from your class; one a child you consider a capable communicator, and one you think is not as effective. It would be helpful if you could use the checklist provided to try and figure out what the child does well and what skills he/she does not have yet. This checklist is only the beginning to our discussion so any comments you can add would be greatly appreciated. I will arrange to meet with everyone individually (in about a week) to discuss this checklist. Thank you so much! This is the only job for you .. . until September. I'll bring the snack for the meetings. 24 At this time I thought the next part would occur in September, but revised the timeline for logistical reasons and we completed the project in June. After the teachers had time to field test the checklist, I arranged to meet with each one individually and wrote the following observation: May 3rd I talked to each teacher individually and nailed down a time. I gave them the choice of before school, lunch or after school. Some teachers said mornings were out; they use the time to prepare. Some said mornings were best because they were busy after school. One preferred lunch time. So I hand-delivered, face-to-face to suit their needs- pleasant, friendly, and promising to be brief. Teachers, including me, are very busy people. It's hard to pick a time that suits everyone. Once the re-designed checklist was ready, my academic consultant and I picked a date in June for the focus group meeting. We knew June was going to be an extremely busy month, but hoped if we gave teachers plenty of notice, the day would be all right for everyone. As soon as I knew the date, I asked each teacher individually if they had any conflicts on June 9th. Once I had a verbal confirmation, I followed this up with a hand-delivered written invitation to the focus group meeting. I created the following collaboration questions to add to the language-based questions to 25 guide the discussion: ( 4) What did you appreciate the most about the collaborative nature of this project? ( 5) Do you have any ideas about the ways the collaboration could have been improved? And (6) Any further comments? For the teachers to feel prepared for this meeting, it was a conscious decision to give everyone involved a full week to read over all the materials. These were a) a copy of the first checklist, (b) a copy of the teachers' comments about the first checklist, (c) a copy of the re-designed checklist, and (d) a copy of the six final questions to be asked at the focus group meeting (see Appendix E). In the journal I also recorded my role in communicating the concepts on the checklist to my colleagues. I expected that topics such as point-of-view, time restrictions, sensitivities, use of humour, and the importance of people skills in the work place would come to light. I collected articles and other resources related to transactional curriculum theory to inform the work. I related my experience to the curriculum theory in the literature in my journal. Summary of Ethical Considerations The early primary teachers, speech-language pathologist, and administrator were asked to participate and provide input to the 26 project. All were asked to sign consent forms (see Appendix F, Consent Form for Teachers and Speech-Language Pathologist, and Appendix G, Consent Letter from Administrator) and to give their feedback as the project progressed. The Ethics Approval Form (see Appendix H) provided the necessary information as mandated by the University of Northern British Columbia. This project did not harm the people involved. Confidentiality of the students in the school was protected as their names were not used in this project. Names of teachers, the speech-language pathologist, and the administrator also were not used. The teachers, speech-language pathologist, and administrator of the school will receive a copy of the project upon its completion. In return, the teachers were listened to, and may have learned more about oral language development. Through the teacher's use of the list of oral language skills in their classroom practice, students' oral language skills may improve. Outcomes Of The Project Below, the outcomes of the project are summarized. Detailed descriptions for each section are found in Appendix I, Outcomes Of 27 The Project: Describing Oral Language Skills List and Appendix J, Outcomes Of The Project: Describing Curriculum Development. Describing Oral Language Skills List All stakeholders agreed that many children in the building were behind in oral language development for their grade and wanted a guide for assessment purposes and curriculum development. The experienced teachers said they wanted to maintain their own style of teaching and use their own strategies and materials, but wanted a way to improve their practice in the area of oral language development. As the support teacher in the building, I saw my role as the facilitator among the stakeholders. One of the outcomes of this project was an oral development skills list (see Appendix I, Outcomes Of The Project: Describing Oral Language Skills List). The final list includes an introduction page describing how to use the checklist itself. Teachers are directed to use their professional experience to judge if the level of skill development observed is appropriate for the grade. The checklist is divided into four main categories, language at the discourse level, sentence level, word level, and sound level. The checklist addressees the nature of pragmatic skills using the following headings (a) what 28 can the child do with language, (b) turn-taking and topic development, (c) adapting language to context, and the use of nonverbal aspects of language. Language at the level of sentence includes skills such as constructing complete sentences and asking Wh questions. Language at the word level covers skills such as producing rhymes and giving vocabulary for various collections of words. Language at the sound level includes skills such as breaking words into syllables and identifying words at the beginning, the middle and the end of words. Describing Curriculum Development This project is also grounded in a transactional perspective on curriculum development. As previously mentioned in the theoretical background section, the transactional model involves participants willing to problem-solve together, wanting to improve their own practice, and wanting to feel a sense of ownership for change (see Appendix J, Outcomes Of The Project: Describing Curriculum Development). In this project we used the transactional model to produce an oral language skills list for classroom use. From the beginning I saw my role as a facilitator among willing and enthusiastic participants. In order to establish and 29 maintain a collaborative process I addressed the need to be sensitive to teachers' needs by ensuring the anonymity of participants, by respecting the need for their busy lives and keeping the amount of time to a minimum and by ensuring the materials used were "teacher friendly." To respect the need to keep people fully informed I ensured they had the timeline, information updates, and materials for the focus group meeting. I attempted to be approachable by using pretty notepaper, informal conversations, using teachers' boxes, and attempting to create a welcoming atmosphere for the focus group meeting. My role as a responsive facilitator was evident in the fact that the original problem was identified by them and as we began to develop the checklist we ensured that their requests and their concerns were all integrated into it. Some of the ways trust was promoted were not making unrealistic demands and always trying to build group cohesiveness, such as at the focus group meeting. I ensured that the process was provided with necessary resources by involving a number of stakeholders with various types of expertise and my theoretical knowledge and continuing to refer back to them. The contributions of the participants were respected through protecting anonymity, and 30 including teachers' contributions to the final draft. Enabling the participants in the contribution process was ensured by giving stakeholders ample time to prepare for and express their opinions, by asking open-ended questions and by providing material that fuelled thinking. Being sensitive to my own credibility with colleagues meant being prepared, organized, and efficient throughout the entire collaborative process. The following examples are offered as evidence that the collaborative process worked. At one early morning meeting during a teacher interview when the batteries expired in the tape recorder, the teacher and I shared a laugh, and the teacher willingly agreed to repeat the interview the next day at another early morning meeting. Despite being very busy with year-end activities ·and moving an entire school back to a newly renovated building, all stakeholders were accommodating when asked to reschedule the focus group meeting from September to June. Another example is the revised checklist itself. It is evidence of collaboration as it includes teachers' comments and ideas such as the background information section and the comment section for each element. Also, the language used in the checklist is "teacher friendly." Further 31 evidence of collaboration was the discussion at the focus group meeting. When someone posed a question, all offered suggestions and added to the discussion as equal partners. In addition at this meeting, all stakeholders commented about having a sense of ownership, having a common goal, and the value of working in a collaborative way. And finally, although all stakeholders agreed the checklist was worthwhile and currently meets our needs, further evidence that the collaborative process worked would be further development of this tool. Discussion The first purpose of this study was to draft for teacher use a developmental list of oral language skills for children from preentry to grade two. To accomplish this purpose the project was designed to construct a framework of oral language skills developing in young children. The completion of the project presents three observations about the nature of the curriculum material that has been developed. Oral Language Framework The first observation involves the use of the broad theoretical background for language on which we based this project. It is clear 32 from this project that the nature of the theoretical background used in developing curriculum materials strongly influences the nature of the materials developed. As teachers we often observe that there appears to be little theoretical background explicated within the curriculum development process. Following are three examples of how that has happened here. First is that, our broad background in language emphasized the role of pragmatics, therefore, we emphasized pragmatics in this checklist. Although teachers are intuitively aware of these problems with children, they typically do not know how to identify and explain them as pragmatic concepts, and therefore would not know how teach to them. A second example of how this background informed the project was the inclusion of silence. Typically teachers do not think of silence as part of oral language. However, again we know from our children in this school that this is a very significant part of their communication pattern. The third example is our emphasis on both comprehension and production. Again, teachers typically focus on production without realizing perhaps that comprehension is just as important. Teachers may misunderstand a child's behaviour, perhaps 33 blaming it on behavioural problems when it fact, it is a comprehension problem. The second broad observation that can be made involves the inadequacy of materials that are available for oral language development in young children. This inadequacy can be seen in the Summary of A vailable Curriculum Materials in Appendix K. It is clear from this chart that there is not one comprehensive resource available to teachers that includes the skills we have identified. This inadequacy not only suggests a lack of theoretical background behind this development, but it may also suggest the lack of teacher involvement in the development of their curriculum materials. When teachers point out the problems and the needs it becomes clear these are issues that have to be involved when looking at oral language. The nature of this project suggests that too often teachers are not consulted. The third observation that can be made based upon the curriculum development done here is the integral role of the professional in all curriculum materials. It would be impossible to identify the exact language performance of an individual child 34 within a framework like this without relying on the professional judgement of teachers. The Collaborative Process The second purpose of the project was to explore ways speechlanguage pathologists, practitioners, an administrator, support teachers, and an academic consultant can collaborate in a curriculum development process. We know that transmissional models are ineffective and that teachers typically leave materials that are supplied to them on the shelves. However, collaborative approaches to curriculum development are often resisted because of the time involved, and the coordination of a number of stakeholders. This study provides evidence that in fact this process can work and is worth the time taken. Using a collaborative curriculum development process gave all stakeholders a sense of ownership and I think will increase the chances that this work will continue. Using this model meant all stakeholders were equal partners in the collaborative process of curriculum development. Teachers commented that they felt the time they need to spend on oral language development has been validated and that they have a concrete place to begin to improve 35 their practice. The curriculum has to be part of the teachers themselves to be worthwhile. It was agreed by all stakeholders that this project brought a sense of relief to the oral language concern identified in the building two years ago and offers a common goal for further work. This study also points to the inside story in a collaborative process. Collaboration is sometimes seen as occasional formal meetings, or the sending out of surveys. This project points to a very different view of collaboration. It could be described as "grass roots." The person coordinating the collaboration process played a complex and intimate role within the school. To establish and maintain a collaborative process meant being sensitive and responsive to teachers' needs, respecting the need of their busy schedules, respecting their need to be fully informed, and attempting to always be open and approachable. Ensuring credibility, providing opportunities to enable participants, and promoting trust throughout the entire process were also considerations. The view of collaboration seen in this project points to the importance of merging of various forms of expertise. The tool that was the final product of the process was an attempt to capture the 36 expectations teachers typically have of both mainstream and nonmainstream children. This tool reflects children's needs in a way that other tools that we have available do not. Specifically we saw how the speech-language pathologist brought her understanding of the importance of pragmatics into the project. Previously she had been frustrated in not being to communicate this knowledge to teachers. Teachers brought in the necessity of thinking about planning lessons to meet the variety of needs for a large group rather than a one to one situation, which is where speech-language pathologists typically work. Recommendations And Applications This project is a work in progress. After teachers have had a chance to use this checklist next year, I recommend they again have an opportunity to suggest ways to improve this checklist. For example, ways to record language between peers, in small groups, and in large groups on the checklist and including morphology at the word level. The use of word endings and inflections such as, the "s" for plurals and "d" to indicate past tenses are important components to consider adding to the checklist. Teachers suggested using this checklist in kindergarten and sending it along with the child so the 37 next teacher could track his/her continued progress. It was also suggested incorporating these skills into already existing Project Achieve lessons. I would also like to see a list of resources, materials and strategies put in use in conjunction with the oral language checklist. Prior to this, speech-language pathologist materials have not been readily accessible for teachers' use. These resources could be shared amongst all primary teachers and the speech-language pathologist in the building. For example, the original Pragmatic Observations checklist (Johnston, Weinrich and Johnson, 1984) was an excellent choice to reveal the deeper levels of oral language development to include pragmatics. And finally, I recommend information from this checklist be shared with parents of primary children at parent/teacher interviews, and through the school newsletter. Parents need to be aware of the types of activities to do with their children to enhance oral language development. In conclusion, at the heart of this project is respect for the abilities of my fellow colleagues and the well being of our students. By asking open-ended questions, listening to the participants' 38 opinions, and changing the questions during the process to reflect an increased understanding of the problem, I believe we have moved toward meeting the oral language development needs of our students. When I started the project I thought "Bridging The Gap" was a good title to refer to the gap between the students' home language and school language, but then realized this project was much more: April 2ort': Bridging The Gap- It occurs to me that this project will hopefully serve three purposes; to "Bridge The Gap" between students' home language and school language, to ~~Bridge The Gap" between students oral language skills and reading readiness skills and to "Bridge The Gap" between speech language pathologists' approaches, skills and knowledge and the teachers' approaches, skills and knowledge. This project is the beginning to bridging these gaps. 39 References Adams, M., Bereiter, C., Hirshberg, J., Anderson, V. & Bernier, S. (1995). Open court. collections for young scholars: Framework for effective teaching . New York: Open Court. Barton, J., Lanza, J., & Wilson, C. (1983). SCOR: Sequential communication objectives for remediation. East Moline, IL: Lingui Systems. Beck, A., & Dennis, M. (1997). Speech-language pathologists' and teachers' perceptions of classroom-based interventions. Language. Speech. and Hearing Services in Schools. 28 (4 ), 146-1 52. Blachman, B.A. (1 994}. Early literacy acquisition: The role of phonological awareness. In G.P. Wallach & K. G. Butler (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents: Some principles and applications (pp. 253-274). Toronto, ON: Maxwell Macmillan Canada. Bogusat, C., Finochio, C., Francone, M., Hohmann, H., McDonald, J., Mclaughlin, J. McPhail, S. Morrison, F. Nail, M. & Prokopchuk, L. (Advisory Panel). (1 999). Nelson Language Arts. Scarborough, ON: International Thomson. 40 Brown R. ( 1 973 ). A First Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burnaby, 8., Guebert, L., Izatt, M., Upper, M., Mcinnes, J., Moore, W., & Speares, J.(1985). Circle: Teacher's Book/Kindergarten. Markham, ON: Fitzhenry & Whiteside. Catts, H. W., ( 1991 ). Facilitating phonological awareness: Role of speech-language pathologists. Language. Speech. and Hearing Services in Schools. 22. 196-203. Dally, A. (1978). Language remediation with primary schoolage children. Language. Speech. and Hearing Services in Schools. 9 (4), 85-90. Fey, M. (1999). Speech-language pathology and the early identification and prevention of reading disabilities. Perspectives: The International Dyslexia Association. 25,13-17. Fey, M.E., Warr-Leeper, G., Webber, S.A & Disher L. M. (1988). Repairing children's repairs: Evaluation and facilitation of children's clarification requests and responses. Topics in Language Disorders . .a, 63-84. 41 Giles, H. & Coupland, N.( 1991). Language in context. In H. Giles & N. Coupland, Language: Contexts and consequences (pp. 1-31 ). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole. Gillon, G. & Dodd, B. (1 995). The effects of training phonological, semantic, and syntactic processing skills in spoken language on reading ability. Language. Speech. and Hearing Services in Schools. 26 (1 ), 58-68. Huisingh, R., Barrett, M., Zachman, L., Orman, J., & Blagden, C.(1 993). The assessment companion: Communication checklists for sips. teachers. and parents. East Moline, IL: Lingui Systems. Johnston, E. B., Weinrich, B. D., & Johnson, A. R. (1 984)._A sourcebook of pragmatic activities: Theory and interventions for language theory (pk-6). Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders. Juel, C. (1 988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology. 80. 437-447. Kamhi, A. G. & Catts, H. W. (1 991 ). Language and reading: Convergences, divergences, and development. In A. G. Kamhi & H. W. Catts (Eds.), Reading disabilities: A developmental language perspective (pp. 1-34). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 42 Kess, J. F. (1992). Psycholinguistics: Psychology. linguistics and the study of natural language. Amsterdam: Jon Benjamins. Lapadat, J. C. ( 1 991 ). Pragmatic language skills of students with language and/or learning disabilities: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 24 (3). 147-158. Lovett, M.(1991 ). Reading, writing and remediation. Perspectives on the dyslexic learning disability from remedial outcome data. Learning and Individual Differences.3, 295-305. Miller, J. & Seller, W. (1990). Curriculum: Perspectives and practice. Toronto, ON: Copp Clarke & Pittman. Pickering, M., & Kaelber, P. (1978). The speech-language pathologist and the classroom teacher: A team approach to language development. Language. Speech and Hearing Services in Schools. 9 (1 ), 43-49. Pruitt-Shough, A., & Stuller, A. (1989). Language intervention strategies for the kindergarten population. Los Angeles Unified School District CA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 322 656). 43 Prutting, C. & Kirchner, D.(1987). A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. 52. 105-119. Richard, G., & Hanner, M. (1987). Language processing remediation. East Moline, IL: Lingui Systems. Robertson, C. & Salter, W. (1995). The phonological awareness QQQk. Moline, IL: LinguiSystems. Russell, S. & Bond, L. (1995). Teaching Guidelines. Prince George, BC: School District No. 57. Sanger. J. (1990). Awakening a scream of consciousness: The critical group in action research. Theory into Practice. 29 (3), 1 7 4179. Saville-Troike, M. (1985). The place of silence in an integrated theory of communication. In D. Tannen & M. Saville- Troike (Eds.), Perspectives on silence (pp. 3-18 ). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tough, J. (1976). Listening to children talking. London: Ward Lock Educational. Tuinman, J., Johnstone, S. & Pfaff, C. ( 1990). Journeys: Strategies for language and learning. Scarborough, ON: Ginn Canada. 44 Valdez, F., & Montgomery, J. (1997). Outcomes from two treatment approaches for children with communication disorders in Head Start. Journal of Children's Communication Development. 18 (2), 65-71. van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as interaction in society. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction. 2, {pp.1-38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Von Harrison, G. (1990). First grade companion reading: A systems approach integrating phonetic skills and language arts. Salt Lake City, UT: Metra. Weiss, R. S. ( 1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. Toronto, ON: Maxwell Macmillan. 45 Appendix A Reflections 46 Reflections Teacher, can I take a bathroom? (I remember telling him he had to replace "his" word for bathroom.) In the gym experiences... teacher: All right everybody find a spot on the floor. teacher: What are you doing, Johnny? (talking to a student who is crawling all over the floor with his head down) student: Looking for a spot. (said most seriously) These humorous images are reminders of the children with language difficulties that I work with everyday. Other stories more sad than humorous come to mind... student: I want to print dad. teacher: OK (I start pronouncing) ddddddddddddd... student: (looks blank and stares straight at me). teacher: (continuing to make the dddddd sound) student:( blank stare) teacher: What makes the "d" sound, Tamara? student: (looking forlorn, slightly sad, shrugs her shoulders and looks at the floor) teacher: Ok. Look up at the alphabet. (pointing to the large, animal alphabet displayed in the class). Find the duck. student: Which one is the duck? All the beliefs I have about teaching and the way children learn are challenged each and every day in my grade one class. I must continually reflect upon my practice to meet the needs of my students and I can not assume anything. Each lesson begins and ends with a check for understanding as I want to be sure I have them all with me. I'll never forget the day Tamara knew she could read. She had just enough sight word knowledge and decoding skills to read a patterned story. I read "Some", she read "dogs", I read "are", she read " fa,t. "I read "Some", she read "dogs', I read "are", she read "thin." I smiled. Her eyes popped out of her head in surprise and disbelief. We instantly hugged each other. There is nothing like the feeling of teaching a child to read. 47 I think teaching is an art and a science. They say an artist makes something that is difficult seem simple. Teaching reading for me is just like that. It's is knowing how difficult and complex the task is, but trying to make it seem simple, fun and most enjoyable. - I, 9 LANGUAGE OBSERVATIONS NAME: DATE: ___________________ Can The Child: 1. say Quasi-complete sentences? 2. use commands? 3. use negative sentence structures (other than e.g., Mummy, no drink)? 4. ask yes/no Questions? 5. ask WH Questions? 6. use grammatical structures: i)adjectives ii)adverbs iii) clauses iv) pronouns for nouns appropriately and vice versa v)correct pronouns (e.g. her goes to the store) vi) prepositions 7. ask for help? 8. label objects? 9. give names to people and animals? 1 0. offer help? 1 1. greet oeoole? 1 2. verbalize a problem? 13. disagree with another? 14. predict outcome? 15. give directions? present not ---. 50 16. tell others they have made an error? 17. suggest action? 18. make choices? 19. speculate? 20. tell jokes and play with language? 21. tell stories? 22. express needs and feelings? 22. console? 23. deceive? 24. pretend? 2 5. Does the child use language when it is not relevant to the context? 26. Does the child use language that is not appropriate to context? 27. Does the child use language that is not appropriate to the people to whom he/she 28. Does the child provide sufficient information? 29. Does the child provide too much information? 30. Does the child use his/her manners(e.g. thank you, please, excuse me)? 31. initiate conversation? 32. respond to conversation? 33. continue a conversation by taking conversational turns? 34. establish a topic? 35. maintain conversation appropriately? ~ 5i 36. terminate conversation appropriately? 37. ch ange topics appropriately? 38. establish eve contact? 39 resp apond to eye contact? 40. ask for clarification? Com me ~ ~ * This checklist was adapted from A Sourcebook of Pragmatic Activities (Johnston, Weinrich, and Johnson, 1984). 52 Appendix C Summary of Comments From Teachers Re: Language Observation Checklist • 53 Summary of Comments From Teachers Re: Language Observation Checklist When I conducted the meetings I did not have a list of questions to begin with. I wanted the sessions to be open-ended allowing the teachers to tell me what they thought about the checklist and the language concern in our school generally. However, a pattern of questions did emerge with the first interview and I asked all the teachers thereafter the same questions. Each teacher's comments are in a different font to protect their anonymity. 1. Did you have any problems with any of the questions? • Yes, # 25 (Does the child use language when it is not relevant to the context?) and# 26 (Does the child use language that is not appropriate to context) were confusing. I wanted some examples to clarify what you meant. • Yes, I had trouble with the "present or not" because the child exhibits the skills occasionally or sometimes. For instance sometimes there is evidence of passive resistance behavior. I also found the degree or rating hard to gauge. # 6 (use grammatical structures: adjectives, adverbs, clauses, pronouns for nouns appropriately and vice versa, correct pronouns, and prepositions) was confusing to observe all the grammatical structures. • 1jes, 111Mt ate"'"'h "'questlmts? find does e~ i Sc»ttetintes the questions h1e'ie exttfflples. ~ ~ i ~ ktto"' 111Mt "'quasi" nteans? id and sc»tte questions nuded d i~ i 111ith • NO. THE Q UESTIONS WERESTRAI GHTFORWARD. BUT I DID HAVE PRO BLEMS WITH PRESENT O R NOT. SOM ETIMES ITS MAYBE. THELANGUAGE ISJUST COMI NG .ORMAYBET HEY HAVE IT. AND JUST DON'T USEIT. I'DSAYTHERATING SYSTEM IS TH EMAIN PROBLEM. THEREISNOT-SORTOF'. 2. Did the results show a difference between the children with good communication skills and the children with poor language skills? • Not much difference between the two. Judging language is subjective and it's hard to do. Usually as teachers, we are analytical when we think about language. • No, results didn't show a difference between the two. I think maybe its my ability to use the fonn. 54 • YES. NOT SO MUCH ON THE FIRST PAGE. NOT SO M UCH ON THE LANGUAGE PART. BUT M ORE ON HOWTHEY USETHE LANGUAGE AND HOW THEY CAN MANIPU LATE IT ANDGET WHATTHEY WANT FROM IT. SOMEOF IT IS CONFIDENCE . ITS THEIR SOCIAL SKILLS. AND MATURITY. YO U CAN SEE GREATER GAPS (SAY SIXMONTHS) IN CHILDREN AT THIS AGE THAN IN CHILDREN IN GRADE SIX. 3. Given the skills were grouped together without titles were you able to categorize the skills? • A little. As teachers we don't categorize language. For instance,# 6 (use grammatical structures: adjectives, adverbs, clauses, pronouns for nouns appropriately and vice versa, correct pronouns, and prepositions) the grammatical structure question- it was very difficult to pick out the different words. It was also difficult to say yes and no to the different skills because the answer can be sometimes. For instance a student can use manners if prompted. • # 25 (Does the child use language when it is not relevant to the context?) and # 26 (Does the child use language that is not appropriate to context) were very relevant observations, but I didn't know how to answer# 29 (Does the child provide too much information?). • j 110tiad that ?'loups o6 skilLs weu. ?'louped ~ e Clhe. ~i sec.tic»t sumed to k 6asic ~ e tthd the. searnd 7Mup we'le mou. sod4l tthd uqui'led the child to think mme. ~ e don't usuafht 7'-ve these ~ ie much ~ • YES. THE FIRST SECTION WASMORETHEACTUAL LANGUAGE. ACT UAL WORDS. THESECOND PART 7TO 141S STARTING TO USE LANGUAGE. LIKEASKI NG FOR HELP. AND GREETING PEOPLE. THE NEXT QUESTIONS ARE MORE SOPHISTICATED AND DIFFICULT FOR INSTANCE TO SPECULATE AND GIVE DIRECTIONS..#25 TO 30 REFERS TO HOW ARE THE CHILDREN IN GROUP SITUATIONSAND BEING ABLE TO PART ICIPATE IN THOSEKI NDSOF SITUATIONS. THELAST Q UEST IONSCOULD BE CULTURAL.(THEWAYYOU AREBROUGHT UP) BU T IT COULD BEMO RE. ITSCONFIDENCE TOO. TH EY CAN BESHY. SOME ARE WILLING TO TRY AND SOME ARE NOT. 4. Is there anything missing from this checklist? • Yes, sequencing in a conversation, that is maintaining a sequences of thought. Number 35 (maintain conversation appropriately) is too general of a question. Also,# 36 (terminate conversation appropriately) is too subjective to answer in an objective way. There needed to be an opportunity to clarify some of these questions or more examples. • This checklist needs to include age/ months because we have higher expectations for children that are older. It needs to be recorded if the child is taking medication and what kind, if the child has problems in others areas, such as a learning disability and if the child has problems with emotional climate. 55 • ITDOESN'TTALKABOUT AGE DEVELOPMENTALLY. OR THEIR HOME LIFE. THEIR HOME ENVIRONMENT MAKES SUCH A DIFFERENCE OR WHAT THE LANGUAGE EXPERIENCES THEY BRING TO SCHOOL. FOR SOME KIDS ITS THEIR ABILITY. AND FOR OTHERS ITS NOT. FOR ONE OF MY STUDENTS HER SIBLINGS ARE TEENAGERS. SO SHE TALKS ABOUT THINGS MUCH OLDER AND ANOTHER CHILD IS AN ONLY CHILD AND IS USED TO ONE TO ONE WITH ADULTS. IT CAN BE THEIR PERSONALITY. BUT MOST IMPORTANT IS HOW WELL THE TEACHER KNOWS THE CHILD. THERE IS NO PLACE FOR BEHAVIOUR ON THE CHECKLIST: FOR INSTANCE OUTBURSTS. NON-STOP TALKING AND TOTAL PASSIVE RESISTANCE. THERE IS NO MENTION IF THESE INTERACTIONS ARE ONE TO ONE SMALL GROUP OR LARGE GROUP. I ANSWERED THESE QUESTIONS ASSUMING ITSASN\ALL GROUP. 5. Do you have any suggestions of how to bridge this oral language development gap? • We need to talk about listening and talk about talking. Children need to verbalize how to solve a problem and to think about thinking logically. Our students do not learn through modeling; you have to teach them and then model and practice it. You can't assume anything. You have to make everything explicit that which appears to be implicit. • 'Ua.chas 1IUd to spe11d time i ~ "'ith stotieS, ttctU»ts, use poet'Ll(, cotUditJ7 the child. 'Ua.chets should empkttsiU ~ d lite'ltltute tt1ld emphttsi%e tepetitioh 'Role modeli..tJ7li.ke Stll(itJ7 qood /11ot1titJ7 "'he1J. ehild'leh ha.ve to pMctice "'he1t e i ~ tltte1tM1tct tlM i~ \lha.AA I(OU tl'le impottAAt. i ~ tt1td sodttl skills like i~ pMise ttt assem/Ji.es. We have to make. i ~ the pti1tdpttl's M1td i ~ cleat bl( e ~ tt1td de i ~ thi1J79· • WE DO NOT HAVE VERY MUCH CONTROL OVER HOME LANGUAGE SO WE HAVE TO CONCENTRATE ON SCHOOL LANGUAGE. WE ARE SCHOOL AND WE HAVE TO FOCUS ON SCHOOL LANGUAGE NOMATTER WHAT THEIR BACKGROUND OR CULTURAL IS. SCHOOL LANGUAGE IS FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE AND SOCIETY LANGUAGE SO EVEN IF IT IS NOT THEIR STRENGTH OR WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM. THEY STILL NEED TO BE AWARE AND FUNCTION IN IT. SCHOOL LANGUAGE IS VERY APPROPRIATE IN THE REAL WORLD; TO KNOW RULES AND REGULATIONS. HOW TO BE PART OF A GROUP. LINING UP. KNOWING THE QUESTIONS TO ASK. AND BEING POLITE. WE NEED TO WORK ON THE LINK BETWEEN HOME AND SCHOOL PARENTS HAVE TO SEE SCHOOL IS IMPORTANT. WE HAVE TO SEND BOOKS HOME (EVEN IF THEY DON'T COME BACK). A LOT OF INFORMATION ON WHAT TO DO WITH YOUR CHILD AND HOW TO READ STORIES HAS TO GO BACK AND FORTH. FOR INSTANCE. LITTLE BOOKS WITH REPETITIVE LANGUAGE TO PRACTICE. 6. Any further comments? • One child carries on a conversation in a very adult manner and one child had difficulties maintaining sequence of events in a prolonged story. • There are degrees of capability. A child may be able to do something in a limited way. It is hard to give yes/no answers. If one specific child is not medicated she is less able to stay on topic. 56 • j thihk the pzojtct will 6e ~ d beca.use it will pw11ide a 6asic list with ~e and skills included. jam ~d phottemic awa'lehess and i e ~ will be. ittdu.ded • WHERE IS A GUIDE WE CAN LOOK ATWITH GENERALITIES AND AGE APPROPRIATE EXPECTATIONS FOR ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT? IF WE HAD A GUIDE WE COULD DO AN ASSESSMENT. IDENTIFY THE GAPS. AND START FROM THERE. I DO MAKE SURE THE KIDS KNOW THE CONCRETE WORDS LIKE COLOR WORDS. THE NUMBER WORDS. AND BODY PARTS. BUT THERE ARE MANY MORE THINGS IN TERMS OF SUBTLETIES. SUCH AS CONCEPTS. DIRECTION WORDS. PRONOUNS. WHEN IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ASK QUESTIONS AND THE WHOLE SOCIAL SIDE OF THINGS. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A PLACE FOR EXPLANATIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE CHECKLIST I NEED MORE INFORMATION TO MAKE OTHER CHOICES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN .. DOING THIS ALSO MADE ME THINK ABOUT MY OWN LANGUAGE. HOW I USE IT. HOW I USE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE FOR DIFFERENT TIMES. AND FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE. 51 Appendix D Language Observations with reference to the speakers, the situation, the topic, as well as to the amount of information and the type of information. but whether the child uses it appropriately in the classroom context. Appropriateness involves using language that is normally expected However, essential to the observation and judgement of children's language at the discourse level is not just whether the element is present Observation of children's language at the sentence, word and sound levels only entails judging whether the element is present. to decide if the level observed is appropriate for the age or grade of the child. Each of the elements are observable through many levels of development. Teachers will need to use their own professional judgement The column "comment" can be used to add any additional information the teacher wishes. teaching. The symbol* is used in this guide to represent where the skill is best introduced or, the first year of exposure, with some formal planning. Possible uses of this tool are to track a child's progress through the primary grades or to use for oral language development lesson below those typically expected by teachers upon kindergarten entry, the skills range must extend to pre-entry oral language development. children from kindergarten to grade two. However, as many of these children enter kindergarten with oral language skills substantially The purpose of this project is to develop a 'tool' that teachers will use to identify oral language skills that typically develop in LANGUAGE OBSERVATIONS • re_guest help. • promis!h_ _ __ • offer help. - ---- • state what they would like. • give orders. e.Q. "You be the mommy." • request information etc .. * * * * The child can: • request clarification. Pre K What Can the Child Do With Language? (Ch-Ch), Small Group (SG), and Large Group (LG). * K ~ * , * 2 ---- - - Comments The presence and appropriateness of each element below can be considered at the following levels: teacher-child (T-Ch); child-child Discourse Level etc.)'------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND INFORMATION (For Instance-previous referral history, educational history, DATE: ________________ AGE: _____________ _ NAME=--------------------------------- • imagine. • speculate. • predict outcome. • tell jokes and play with language. • express needs and feelings. • tell a stOfY. _(in se_g_uence and using story structure) • report an event. • give directions. • insist. • suggest. • make statements about events, actions etc.. • excuse oneself. • console. • disagree with another. • apologize. • thank people. • greet people. The child can: * * * * * * * * * Pre K * * * * K * * 1 * * 2 Comments ! r ~e topics appropriately. - ----- - ~ ------- • adapt language use to different situations, playground, classroom__,_ gym etc.. • use lanauaae appropriately with adults. • use lanauaae appropriately with oeers. The child can: Adapting Language to Context - -- • listen when it's not his/her turn. • understand when to take turns. • • establish a topic. • terminate conversation appropriately. • take responsibility for communicative break-downs in a conversation. • continue a conversation by taking conversational turns. • respcmd to conversation. • initiate conversation. The child can: Conversation - Turn-Taking and Topic Development * * K Pre * * K Pre * K * * * K 1 * * * 1 2 * 2 Comments Comments I I • respect the place of silence. • use silence appropriately.( e.g. is silence used for passive resistance?) • make use of eye contact. • ada_Qt facial expression. • adapt use of gestures. • adapt physical proximity and contact. • adapt pacing. • adapt intonation. • adapt voice level. (loud and soft voices) • speak articulately. The child can: Use of Nonverbal Aspects of Language * * Pre K * * * * K * * * * 1 2 Comments 62 vi) prepositions_ ~ ___ ~ v) correct pronouns (e.Q. "She Qoes to the store.") iv) pronouns for nouns appropriately and vice versa iii) clauses iil adverbs • use grammatical structures. i) adjectives • complete a cloze sentence _(e.g. Once uoon a---.... ) • ask WH questions. {e.g. why, what, where, when who) • ask yes/no questions. • construct negative sentence structures. (other than ones ~ e word "no" e.g. "No go up.") • construct commands. • construct com_Qiete sentences. • construct quasi-complete sentences. (e.g. to the store) • use one-word structures. The child can: Sentence Level * * * * * * * K Pre * * * * * K 1 * * 2 Comments 63 i I • give vocabulary for seasons, weather, holidays, calendar. • give vocabulary for animals. plants. and places. • Qive vocabulary for food and food preparation. • Qive vocabulary for personal groominQ. • give vocabulary for people and places in the home and neiQhbourhood. • Qive vocabulary for personal data. • give vocabulary for directional concepts. • give vocabulary for quantitative concepts. (e.Q. few/many) • give vocabulary for colours. • give vocabularv for body parts. • seQment and construct comoound words. • say sentences to indicate/emphasize individual words. • construct categories of words. (20 questions, word collections) • repeat multisyllabic words. • recognize and produce rhyming words or patterns of alliteration. The child can: Word Level * * * * * * * * * Pre K * * * * * K * 1 2 Comments 64 ' ' I I K Pre * * Pre K * * * K K * * 1 * 1 2 2 Comments Comments * This checklist was adapted from A Sourcebook of Pragmatic Activities (Johnston, Weinrich, and Johnson, 1984 ). Summary Comments: • identify whether words have the same end sound. • identify_ whether words have the same middle sound. • identify whether words have the same beainnina sound. • orally break words into syllables. • say words to indicate/emphasize different sounds. The child can: Sound Level • recognize words with multiple meanings. (e.g. bank, club, stamp etc.) • give vocabulary for toys and equipment. (e.g. home, office, outside) • give vocabulary for soorts, activities, actions and events. The child can: 65 66 Appendix E Focus Group Meeting 67 Focus Group Meeting Hello Fellow Language Researchers The agenda for the final meeting for Bridging The Gap: A Collaborative Approach To Designing An Oral Language Program For Early Primary Children on June 9th is as follows: 1. -to briefly go over the original checklist 2. -to go over teachers' comments about that checklist and add anything else 3. - to present the new improved checklist 4.- and by using the following questions to fuel discussion, give everyone an opportunity to be heard: • Were there any surprises for you with the re-designed checklist? • Do you see any potential problems with using the re-designed checklist? • Do you think this re-designed checklist will be helpful to you for planning oral development activities? If so, please explain further. • What comment can you make about the collaborative nature of this project? • Do you have any ideas about the ways the collaboration could have been improved? • Any further comments? I just want to thank everyone in advance for the time and consideration you have given this project. I admire the work each one of you does everyday. I know how busy you all are and how hard the job can be at times. It makes the attention you have given this concern even more special. Thank you once again. 68 Appendix F Consent Forms From Teachers and Speech-Language Pathologist 69 CONSENT FORM For Teachers and Speech-Language Pathologist UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA Bridging The Gap: A Collaborative Approach To Designing An Oral Language Program For Early Primary Children The two purposes of this project are to 1) design a developmental list of oral language development skills for children form pre-kindergarten to grade two so teachers can make use of it, and 2) to explore ways speech-language pathologists, practitioners and support teachers can collaborate on oral language classroom-based interventions. My plan is to develop a checklist which will allow you to assess the level of oral language development of the students in your class. The developmental list of skills can also be used to guide instruction of students' oral language skills. This project will also explore ways that specialists and professionals can work collaboratively to find solutions in this curriculum area. I am requesting teachers' help in field testing a checklist of oral language skills, and telling me about its effectiveness. I am requesting the speech-language pathologist's help in identifying existing resources for assessing oral language development, and reviewing the developmental list that I compile. From the feedback teachers give me, the resources and consultation from the speech-language pathologist, and with input from language experts on the committee, I will construct a developmental list of oral development skills for teachers. I do not foresee any risks to you. To protect against any risk of confidentiality, students' names will not be used on the evaluative tool. Teachers' names will not appear in the working draft or in the final document. 70 Throughout the entire process you will be kept informed of the progress of the project. You may ask any questions regarding the project, and they will be answered fully. You may withdraw from the study at any time. Your participation is voluntary. The final document will be a collaborative effort by the professionals working in our building and published as a guide for our teachers' use. This project has been approved by the University of Northern British Columbia. You can contact either Dr. Anne Lindsay at 960-6313 or Donna Preston at 962-5212. Donna Preston Respondent's Name Respondent's Position Respondent's Signature *This form was adapted from Weiss' book Learning from Strangers (p. 217-218). Date 71 Appendix G Consent Form From The Administrator 72 ScHOOL DISTRICT No.57(PRINCE GEORGE) 99.04.14 Mrs. Preston Dear Mrs. Preston: I have discussed the project entitled Bridging the Gap; a Collohoratil •e Apf"·oach To Developing An Om/ Language Program For Early Pri111ary Chihiren with you. I agree to participate in this project. I am participating voluntarily, and understand that I may withdraw at any time. !understand that in the writing up nr this project, my identity will be kept strictly confidential. Thank you for your interest. Yours truly, Principal 73 Appendix H Ethics Approval Form ,, ,. . ...... ETHICS APPROVAL FORM ('") (' , _.,2-k Address : ),QJ ll Phone #: .......,. . -k.d.q r::. v q G ;; -52 l 2. c._l.l..rr: · ;,..L . . . v-A TitleofProject: 1'1 e :J ~ ~ ;...J - Rr- ·, dq,r-.a fue u ~ ~ Supervisor's Signature: (if Researcher is a student) Program : ~ '"'Prec±c a 'Dcf\QC\. Researcher's Name: ~ I - I ~ ~ v..c--\-' A ~ r"" ii ~ ~ g _ _ _ __ r ~ ..·c. . For Office Use Only: Proposal#: Attach a copy of the Research Proposal. including a 1 page summary Source of Funding: 1. Is this ~ e a replication of an earlier project that received a Research Ethics Certificate? []/(Go to question 2) NO YES D (Attach a copy of the Certificate. Go to question 9. 2. Does this project require any invasive procedures (e.g., blood tests) , potentially harmful physical regimes (e.g., special dieting) or potentially harmful mental experiments (e.g. , illusory perceptionJests)? NO GV{Go to question 3) YES D (If information fully explaining the procedures is not included in your proposal, attach such information and go to question 3) 3. Will each research subject be asked to sign a Consent Form? NO D (Attach information subjects will receive about (a) the voluntary nature of their participation, (b) how anonymity is guaranteed , (c) how confidentiality is guaranteed, (d) name and phone number of person to contact in case questions ..arise, (e) how to get copy of research results if ~i e to the participant. (Go to question 4) YES QiAttach a copy of the Consent Form containing information on items (a) to (e) above and go to question 4) 4. Will the research subjects be from an institutional population (e.g., school , prison , hospital) or First Nations group? NO D ~ to question 6) YES Q"{Go to question 5) 5. Check off appropriate population and attach letter of consent from school principal , Band Council , etc. / G' Hospital 0 Prison 0 First Nations 0 School OTHER 0 (specifY-----------------------4 6. Does the research you are proposing require any other ethical approval (eg ., Hospital, First Nations B~d Health Board etc.)? If so please ensure that all guidelines are followed . NO ci(Go to question 7) YES D Please specify the agency. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Does Y9Ur project involve completion of an interview or questionnaire? NO rn"(Go to question 8) . YES 0 (Attach interview schedule or questionnaire and go to question 8) 8. Does your project involve students interacting with research subjects? NO 0 (}3o to question 9) YES rY'(Note that students are not protected under Section 84 of the Universities Act, nor do they enjoy full protection under UNBC's liability insurance policies. Go to question 9. 9. Please send 8 copies of all documentation to the Office of Research and Graduate Studies. Please attach a this form to all 8 copies. Following is a schedule of Ethics Committee Meetings. Proposals will be due to the Office of Research and Graduate Studies on the Friday preceding the meeting date. These deadlines will be strictly adhered to, so please plan your research accordingly. Proposals Due to R&GS (Room 1065 Adm. Building) Oct. 30 1998 Nov.20 1 1998 Dec. 14, 1998 Jan. 151 1999 Jan.29 1 1999 Feb . 261 1999 April 1 1999 I I " Ethics Committee Meeting FOR THE FOR THE FOR THE FOR THE FOR THE FOR THE FOR THE Nov. 6 1 1998 Nov. 27 11998 Dec. 18 1 1998 Jan.221 1999 Feb. 51 1999 March 51 1999 April 9 1 1999 75 76 Appendix I Outcomes Of The Project: Descriptions Of The Oral Language Skills 77 Outcomes Of The Project: Descriptions Of The Oral Language Skills The final draft of the language development checklist is provided in appendix D. We based our decisions throughout on our theoretical background to language, and on our commitment to a collaborative development process. We added an introduction page providing directions for teachers about how to use the tool. Using a . format similar to the familiar Primary Reading, Primary Writing, we decided to use the symbol * to indicate where a skill was to be introduced. We made it clear teachers needed to use their professional judgement if the level observed was appropriate for the grade. We emphasized the term appropriateness be used throughout. For example "The child can greet people appropriately." We addressed the issue of including both receptive and expressive components by stating on the introduction page these components are inherent in pragmatic skills, but at the sentence, word and sound level we added "comprehend and produce" to "The child can." To some extent this is a limitation as many children can understand what they can not yet produce. Thus, comprehension tends to precede production. One of the concerns of the teachers was using the terms "present or not." They explained that they had 78 difficulties deciding whether or not a child always used the skill and that they wanted a "sometimes" column. However, once we had introduced the term "appropriateness," the teachers believed that this would take care of this problem. As the teachers requested, we added a background information section and additional space for teachers' comments. We also recommended teachers consider the presence and appropriateness of each element at the following context levels: teacher-child (T -Ch), child-child (Ch-Ch); small group (SG, and large group (LG). We organized the checklist into the following categories: (a) discourse level, (b) sentence level, (c) word level, and (d) sound level. We deliberately used this order to give primary emphasis to pragmatic skills, and secondary emphasis to grammatical skills and vocabulary development. Discourse Level At the discourse level we used the categories identified by Prutting and Kirchner (1 987). The first was speech acts. We titled that section What Can the Child Do With Language? This section includes skills such as requesting information, giving orders, greeting people, apologizing, and promising. It is important to note 79 here that effective communication is the responsibility of both the speaker and the listener (Fey, Warr-Leeper, Webber and Disher, 1988). For instance, a speaker must consider the age, vocabulary, and the complexity of the message to be sure he/she will be understood. The listener must pay special attention to the speaker and self-monitor his/her comprehension. Then the listener shifts roles and selects a verbal or non-verbal response. Some children with language -difficulties fail to recognize there has been a breakdown in communication. They fail to use requests for clarification, even if they recognize the need to use them and know how to use them. Some children with learning disabilities do not fully accept their social responsibility as conversationalists to signal instances of miscomprehension to their partners. For these children it is easier to say nothing, to ignore, or to avoid requests for clarification. It is important for these children to learn it is their social obligation to repeat or revise the original message. This section should help teachers identify children having this type of difficulty with speech acts. The second category was topicalization and turn-taking. We addressed these together in a section we called Turn- Taking and 80 Topic Development. This category includes introducing, maintaining, and terminating a topic as well as taking responsibility for communicative break-downs in the line of conversation. The next category identified by Prutting and Kirchner (1987) was lexical selection/use across speech acts. We considered these to be embedded in the speech acts and turn-taking sections. We called the fifth category, stylistic variations or varying of communicative style, Adapting Language to Context. In this section teachers will judge the appropriateness of items such as language use with peers and adults and adapting language to different situations. Finally, the category of intelligibility and prosodies was called Use of Nonverbal Aspects of Language. This section involves paralinguistic and nonverbal aspects of language. It includes skills such as speaking articulately, adapting voice level, and adapting physical proximity and contact. Also we added the role of silence to this section. Saville-Troike (1985) argued that both sound and silence must be part of an integrated theory of communication. Some students can appear to put up boundaries by ignoring or using passive resistance strategies. Silence is a way of expressing personal power and influence. 81 Sentence Level The original Pragmatic Observation list (Johnston, Weinrich and Johnson, 1984), included a category labeled Sentence Modalities. This category is used to evaluate a child's competence with constructing sentences, such as evaluating the child's ability to comprehend and produce complete sentences, yes/no sentences and WH questions. To demonstrate a child's understanding of the normal order of words within a sentence, this grammatical structures section was included in the checklist. Word Level Although the pragmatic observation list did not refer to language at the word level, many other sources on children's oral language emphasized it. Also our experience told us that there are many skills at this level that children must develop. We called this section language at the word level. We used the terms "comprehend and produce" in this section to stress the importance of the child being able to both understand and use one word structures. This section includes recognizing and producing rhyming words and vocabulary words. 82 Sound Level Finally, we also included a section for language at the level of individual sounds. We adapted the phonological awareness skills identified in .The Phonological Awareness Book (Robertson & Salter, 1995) for this section and called it language at the sound level. A child must have the ability to "stretch out" words to comprehend and produce the different sounds and be able to hear the syllables in words. A child must first be able to understand and say the words that start the same, then proceed to words that sound the same in the middle and at the end. These phonological awareness skills are at the oral development stage and precede letter recognition tasks. 83 Appendix J Outcomes Of The Project: Describing The Curriculum Development 84 Outcomes Of The Project: Describing The Curriculum Development The administrator, speech-pathologist and teachers in the building were all busy people. The speech-language pathologist had the expertise to assist with their concerns, but was extremely pressed for time. The teachers were willing to incorporate oral development skills into their daily routines and lessons, but had identified their lack of knowledge about the nature of oral language development. As well, the school staff were feeling the normal stresses of year-end activities, and the logistics of preparing to move an entire school back to the newly renovated building. The challenge for the collaborative curriculum development involved in this project was merging the expertise· and needs of various individuals in a busy context. My understanding of collaboration told me that I had to both create and maintain a climate of cooperation. This meant being sensitive and responsive to the needs and ideas of the people involved, keeping everyone fully informed and up to date, always being approachable, respecting the contributions of all participants, enabling the contribution process of participants and being sensitive to the need for my credibility to 85 be recognized and accepted by the participants. Another part of my role in collaboration was to collect and provide the necessary resources for the process. The spirit of trust was another factor in building a collaborative process. Trust had to be built up and fostered before collaboration could begin. I call it trust as everyone involved has to be able to trust that others will not make unrealistic demands on them. From my experience, the strength of trust is tested when something unexpected happens, for instance, a meeting date having to be re-scheduled or the batteries going dead in the tape-recorder. If the spirit of cooperation is healthy everyone shares a laugh, and is willing to make a new plan. If not, people become frustrated, and eventually uncooperative and so collaboration breaks down. Here I will describe how I proceeded to attempt to create and establish a collaborative climate. I will summarize events in their chronological order, sometimes using extracts from my reflective journal to illustrate particular points. Getting The Project Going At this time I was a support/learning assistance teacher. This meant it was my responsibility to help the primary teachers in the 86 building meet the individual needs of children. The kindergarten teacher asked me, as her support teacher, to assist her with the children with language development concerns in her classroom. After listening to similar concerns from other primary teachers in the building and the speech-language pathologist, I attempted to respond to their needs. Following is the first journal entry discussing this idea: November 73 ... there is something missing. The primary teachers will all tell you some children are two years behind in language development. What teachers want is not more strategies; they want a list of targeted skills or learning outcomes. They want the missing skills identified and made explicit. I think by working with the teachers we can create a checklist, an assessment tool, a scope and sequence for identifying these missing skills. Teachers say they can figure out the strategies to meet these needs but what they need is a continuum of skills-some kind of a framework we all can agree upon and work on. Thus, discussions about this project began with informal conversations that gradually evolved into the formalized process presented here. Prior to the proposal being passed by the University of Northern British Columbia ethics committee I informed stakeholders of my intentions by putting a timeline in their boxes. The following is a journal entry dated March 25th: 87 I handed out this timeline for the project, along with a personalized note to each of the teachers involved. Teacher A said when she saw teacher B's note, Oh, I was hoping I would get one too. The paper is so pretty." It's a small thing, but personal touches express openness, gratefulness for being involved and caring. This delivered with a smile show colleagues, we are all on the same page and we are working through this problem, together. 11 Initially, the speech-language pathologist suggested setting the list up in "stages" as in Brown's Mean Length of Utterances (Brown, 1973), that is, determining the child's level of productive speech according to their MLU. However, the teachers requested the list to be set up similarly to Teaching Guidelines: Primary Reading, Primary Writing, a tool they were familiar with and used as a reference regularly. The teachers wanted the oral development skills down one side of the chart and grades attached. On the recommendation of the academic consultant we decided to construct the first draft of the checklist (Appendix B), based on a checklist from a resource recommended by the speech-language pathologist (Johnston, Weinrich & Johnson, 1984). It was evident we needed to simplify, clarify and adapt this list to make it more "teacher friendly." For example, the original "Can the child produce negative modality?' was changed to "Can the child use negative sentence structures (other than e.g. Mummy, no drink?). Also, there 88 was too much material embedded in some of the points, so we decided to pull some points apart and make each point more explicit. For example "Does the child use syntactic structures (determiners, pronouns, relative clauses, and adjectives) to provide pragmatic information?" was changed to "Can the child use grammatical structures: i) adjectives, ii) adverbs, iii) clauses, iv) pronouns for nouns appropriately and vice versa, v) correct pronouns (e.g. her goes to the store) , and vi) prepositions. Field Testing The First Draft I asked the teachers to field test the checklist with the following suggestions: Please choose two students from your class: one a child you consider a capable communicator, and one you think is not as effective. It would be helpful if you could use the checklist provided to try and figure out what the child does well and what skills he/she does not have yet. This checklist is only the beginning to our discussion so any comments you can add would be greatly appreciated. Prior to giving the teachers the Language Observations checklist to field test, I removed the titles of each section. I deliberately wanted to fuel the teacher's thinking processes about oral language development and hoped they would come to the individual meetings with questions and comments. I wrote about this decision in my journal: 89 April 27th First of all when I re-designed the checklist, I took out the statements that were not specifically for oral language development. Then I took out the titles because I wanted to fuel the thinking process. By not giving them (teachers) everything up front, I hope they will bring questions and comments to the meeting. I purposely addressed the teachers as "Fellow Language Researchers" to make them feel as equals in this journey. I also was polite, informative, friendly, and very precise as to how much time I expected this project to take. No surprises! ! I chose to conduct individual meetings with each teacher to allow each teacher the maximum amount of time to express their opinions about the checklist and oral language development in general. I did not have written questions to begin as I wanted the conversation to be as open-ended as possible, but a pattern of questions did emerge. The questions are as follows: 1. Did you have any problems with any of the questions? 2. Did the results show a difference between the children with good communication skills and the children with poor language skills? 3. Given the skills were grouped together without titles were you able to categorize the skills? 4. Is there anything missing from this checklist? 5. Do you have any suggestions of how to bridge this oral language development gap? 6. Any further comments? In response to " Did you have any problems with any of the questions?" three of the teachers said "yes." They wanted examples 90 to clarify what was meant by "relevant to the context," "not appropriate to the context," and examples of the "grammatical structures. They had difficulties with judging the "present or not" and wanted to put in a "sometimes" column. In response to the second question, "Did the results show a difference between the children with good communication skills and the children with poor language skills?" one teacher noted that there was a greater difference in "how they can manipulate it [language], how and get what they want from it. Some of it is confidence, it's their social skills, and maturity." When asked the third question all the teachers noticed the differences between the sections and were able to group the skills. One teacher said, "The first section seemed to be basic language and the second group were more social and required the child to think more." When asked, "Is there anything missing from this checklist?" generally, the teachers wanted more space to record general information. More specifically, they needed room to note information such as age, previous referral history, behavioral issues and medical issues. 91 In response to "Do you have any suggestions of how to bridge this oral language development gap?" teachers offered many suggestions. Teachers said that our students need to "talk about listening and talk about talking ... You can't assume anything ... You have to make everything explicit that which appears to be implicit." Another teacher suggested spending time "singing, with stories, actions, use poetry and correcting the child [speech] ... also, making things clear by teaching and modeling things." Yet another teacher suggested to focus on "school language ... to know the rules and regulations, how to be part of a group, lining up, knowing the questions to ask and being polite." She also suggested working on the link between home and school by providing parents with lots of information about literacy issues. And finally, when asked "Any further comments?" most teachers commented that they were looking forward to seeing and using the guide. Revising The Checklist The next step was to revise the checklist to include the needs and observations of the teachers and to be sure it included all the skills involved in developing oral language. The academic consultant and I made many changes to the first draft of the checklist using 92 Kess (1992), Prutting and Kirchner (1987), Tough (1976), and our own experience as our guide. Setting Up The Focus Group Meeting To set up this meeting I paid special attention to the timing. I knew June was a busy month for everyone so I checked the tentative date with everyone concerned first. I then distributed a complete package to everyone a week in advance. Included in the package was the agenda for the meeting (see Appendix E), the summary of the teachers' comments (see Appendix C), the revised checklist (see Appendix D), and the new questions (see Appendix E). we would be discussing. Again, there was a note thanking them in advance for their time and commitment to the project. I deliberately handed out this package a week in advance to give them ample time to think and go over everything at their convenience. I also put the packages in , their boxes as I think this is a less intrusive way to deliver material. Focus Group Meeting The day of the meeting the academic consultant arrived early to go over the last minute preparations. To be sure everything was ready we talked through the agenda of the meeting and reconfirmed 93 our roles for the meeting. While she checked the tape recorder to be sure it was working, I assembled the food. I deliberately chose a fruit snack as I knew the teachers were going to be arriving tired and hungry after a working day. I wanted to be sure there were suitable choices for the people with a sweet tooth and for people watching their weight. I wanted to show them I valued their time by making the effort to make some things myself. I hoped the vase of chocolate covered strawberries, and platters full of strawberry tarts, watermelon, and cantaloupe created an inviting, welcoming atmosphere. Once everyone was settled and reacquainted, I started the meeting by making sure everyone had the handout. Then I stated the purpose of the meeting and delivered a brief update of where we were in the process. My purpose for the introduction was to build cohesiveness in the group by establishing our shared common knowledge. I made sure I had a copy of A Sourcebook of Pragmatic Activities (Johnston, Weinrich & Johnson, 1984), the original source of the checklist, to show the teachers. I credited the speechlanguage pathologist with giving me this resource as I wanted the teachers to see I had been working in concert with her. I briefly 94 reviewed the procedure the teachers went through with the first checklist, and then continued on to present the summary of their comments (Appendix C). I made sure I mentioned that their comments would remain anonymous as speakers were only identified by different fonts. I went through each of the questions briefly explaining what the teachers said (see Appendix C). Next, I moved on to the new checklist itself and described the changes the academic consultant and I had made and why (see Appendix 1). In the preamble of the presentation one teacher asked "who has decided ... what instrument was used to decide when these skills should develop and were cultural differences taken into account when those were formulated?" The academic consultant and I explained this project was an attempt to put normative language behaviour down on paper. It was not an attempt to account for what is normative behaviour for different cultural groups. It was an attempt to capture the expectations teachers typically mainstream children, although notably also have of of non-mainstream children. We also emphasized that this was a working document and that over time and with other people having input into this, the checklist will be refined. 95 With the understanding that this is a work in progress, again the stakeholders were asked for their recommendations and opinions. Being aware of the time and wanting to be sure the stakeholders, not me, did the talking, I moved on quickly to the following questions: 1) Were there any surprises for you with the re-designed checklist? 2) Do you see any potential problems with using the re-designed checklist? 3) Do you think this re-designed checklist will be helpful to you for planning oral development activities? If so, please explain further. 4) What comment can you make about the collaborative nature of this project? 5) Do you have any ideas about the ways the collaboration could have been improved? 6) Any further comments? In response to " were there any surprises for you with the r edesigned checklist?" one teacher asked, "how are we are going to use it?" It was suggested that people could use the checklist to assess particular deficiencies in children's oral language 96 development, and then remedy these deficiencies. It was also suggested we could go through this list and attach strategies to each skill. However, one person noted that a lot of the pragmatic skills were similar to the Project Achieve skills that we already use, for instance, requesting help, thanking people and apologizing. He stated that we already use specific strategies and steps to teach children and it would not be a huge job to teach some of these using the Project Achieve method which is, "You model, you explain, you discuss." When asked the second question, the stakeholders made comments about being able to think about what they could use now that the skills were written down and finally having a place to start. One teacher said that she might try to find the place where the child had the "biggest holes" and start there. Another teacher said that this checklist gives a "snap shot" of where the child is at and a place for teachers to begin to improve their practice. When asked " Do you think this re-designed checklist will be helpful to you for planning oral development activities? If so, please explain further" the teachers responded that it was user friendly and it would provide a focus for oral language development. They 97 said that the checklist would give them more of a comprehensive reference and skills would not be coming from just one area. One teacher said that the checklist would make things easier because the skills weren't "coming from your brain." Another stakeholder said that the checklist gives legitimacy to things she knew were important: "A lot of the things that I had kind of done intuitively, but never really knew if they were important or not, . .. now it comes from a formalized process. It makes me think this is an important part of their education and I should be spending time on it... it's accountability to yourself as a teacher." The final comment was "you can get so curriculum-blinded that you forget how important the oral part of language is... This really is important. " I then asked "What comment can you make about the collaborative nature of this project?" Teachers made comments like, "we started this several years ago and now I think we are finally flying with this," and "we all had identified the common problem and we all have a common goal." Another teacher said "we have all these people here saying this is important. I like working this way. It's very valuable." The speech-language pathologist admitted she felt frustrated at times because her language is 98 different from the teachers and saw this checklist as "common ground" to talk about oral language development. Another teacher suggested using this checklist in kindergarten and sending it along with a child so the next teacher could track his/her continued progress. Also, one teacher said "we all feel a bit of ownership in it as we have all had input into it." Closing this point, the administrator stated, "There is nothing like experiencing using something too, that will lead to modifications and refinements. You will find categories that will blend and categories that need splitting." At this point the academic consultant posed th'e question, "What do you think the difference is if you have a feeling of ownership over a piece of curriculum as opposed to if you don't?" The stakeholders agreed that ownership is a huge issue and that people have more of a commitment because the work "meets our needs" and "is worthwhile to us." When asked the fifth question, a few teachers commented that ideally they would have liked to have had more whole group sessions to ask questions and clarify things. And finally when asked if they had any further comments, the teachers commented that they would 99 like to see links built among all aspects of language programs in the school. It was agreed that the issue of the different contexts, that is, child-to-child etc. still needs to be addressed. The academic consultant pointed out that with use, ideas would come out and could be shared. She said "A good way to handle it will emerge as you work with it." At the end everyone thanked me for choosing a topic that would benefit all of us. In summary, from the beginning I saw my role as a facilitator among willing and enthusiastic participants. In order to establish and maintain a collaborative process I addressed the need to be sensitive to teachers' needs by ensuring the anonymity of participants, by respecting the need for their busy lives and keeping the amount of time to a minimum and by ensuring the materials used were "teacher friendly." To respect the need to keep people fully informed I ensured they had the timeline, information updates, and materials for the focus group meeting. I attempted to be approachable by using pretty notepaper, informal conversations, using teachers' boxes, and attempting to create a welcoming atmosphere for the focus group meeting. My role as a responsive facilitator was evident in the fact that the original problem was 100 identified by them and as we began to develop the checklist we ensured that their requests and their concerns were all integrated into it. Some of the ways trust was promoted were not making unrealistic demands and always trying to build group cohesiveness, such as at the focus group meeting. I ensured that the process was provided with necessary resources by involving a number of stakeholders with various types of expertise and my theoretical knowledge and continuing to refer back to them. The contributions of the participants were respected through protecting anonymity, and including teachers' contributions to the final draft. Enabling the participants in the contribution process was ensured by giving stakeholders ample time to prepare for and express their opinions, by asking open-ended questions and by providing material that fuelled thinking. Being sensitive to my own credibility with colleagues meant being prepared, organized, and efficient throughout the entire collaborative process. The following examples are offered as evidence that the collaborative process worked. At one early morning meeting when the batteries died in the tape recorder during a teacher interview the teacher and I shared a laugh and the teacher willingly agreed to 101 repeat the interview the next day at another early morning meeting. Despite being very busy with year end activities and moving an entire school back to a newly renovated building, all stakeholders were accommodating when asked to reschedule the focus group meeting from September to June. Another example is the revised checklist itself. It is evidence of collaboration as it includes teachers' comments and ideas such as the background information section and the comment section for each element. Also, the language used in the checklist is "teacher friendly." Further evidence of collaboration was the discussion at the focus group meeting. When someone posed a question, all offered suggestions and added to the discussion as equal partners. In addition at this meeting, all stakeholders commented about having· a sense of ownership, having a common goal, and the value of working in a collaborative way. And finally, although all stakeholders agreed the checklist was worthwhile and currently meets our needs, further evidence that the collaborative process worked would be further development of this tool. 102 Appendix K Summary of Available Curriculum Materials Summary of Available Curriculum Materials .J • ~ e • oreet people. • promise. • offer help. • state what they would like. • give orders? e.g. "You be the mommy". • request information etc.. • request clarification. • request help. The child can: Skills ..J ..J Barton, Lanza, & Wilson Gr K-12 ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J Huisingh, Barrett, Zachman, Orman, &Blagden Age 3- 18 ..J ..J ..J ..J Robertson, Johnston & Salter Weinrich & Age 5-8 Johnson Pre K-6 Richard & Hanner Pre K-6 ..J ..J Burnaby, Guebert Izatt, Upper, Mcinnes, Moore & Speares Gr K-1 The presence and appropriateness of each element below can be considered at the following levels: teacher-child (T-Ch); child-child (Ch-Ch), Small Group (SG), and Large Group (LG). What Can the Child Do With Language? Discourse Level " .J.. Q • imaaine. • speculate. • predict outcome. • tell iokes and play with lanauaae. • express needs and feelinas. • tell a storv. in seauence and usina story structure) • reoort an event. • aive directions. • insist. • suaaest. • make statements about events actions etc .. • excuse oneself. • console. • disaaree with another. • aooiOQize. Skills "' "' "' "' "' Barton, Lanza, & Wilson "' "' "' Huisingh, Barrett, Zachman, Orman, &Blagden Robertson, & Salter "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' Johnston Weinrich & Johnson Richard & Hanner 104 "' "' "' "' Burnaby, Guebert Izatt, Upper, Mcinnes, Moore & Speares I i I • listen when it's not his/her turn. • understand when to take turns. • chanQe topics appropriately. • establish a topic. • terminate conversation appropriately. conversation. • take responsibility for communicative break-downs in • continue a conversation by taking conversational turns. • respond to conversation. • initiate conversation. The child can: Skills Conversation-turn-Taking and Topic Development *to/ *to/ " " Barton , Lanza, & Wilson *to/ *to/ *to/ " Huisingh, Barrett, Zachman, Orman, &Blagden Robertson, & Salter *to/ ~ *to/ ~ " Burnaby, Guebert Izatt, Upper, Mcinnes, Moore & S_()_eares *to/ -- Richard & Hanner *to/ *to/ *to/ *to/ " " " Johnston Weinrich & Johnson 105 • adapt physical proximity_ and contact. • adapt pacinQ. • adapt intonation. • adapt voice level. (loud and soft voices) • speak articulately. The child can: Skills Use of Nonverbal Aspects of Language • adapt language use to different situations, playground, classroom. ovm etc.. • use lanauaae appropriately with adults. • use lanauaae aoorooriatelv with oeers. The child can: Skills Adapting Language to Context Barton, Lanza, & Wilson " " " Barton, Lanza, & Wilson " Huisingh, Barrett, Zachman, Orman, &Blagden " " Huisingh, Barrett, Zachman, Orman, &Blagden Robertson, & Salter Robertson, & Salter " " Johnston Weinrich & Johnson " " " Johnston Weinrich & Johnson Richard & Hanner Richard & Hanner 106 " Burnaby, Guebert Izatt, Upper, Mcinnes, Moore & Speares ----- " " . i I Burnaby, ~ Guebert Izatt, Upper, Mcinnes, Moore & Speares d~ use of gestures. • respect the pJace of silence. • use silence appropriately.( e.g. is silence used for _Q_assive resistance?) • make use of eye contact. • adapt facial expression. • The child can: Skills " " " Barton, Lanza, & Wilson Huisingh, Barrett, Zachman, Orman, &Blagden Robertson, Salter & I " Johnston Weinrich & Johnson Richard & Hanner 107 Burnaby Guebert Izatt, Upper, Mcinnes Moore & S_j)_eares ~ ~ Skills e i ~ (e.g. why, what,where, when,who)_ ii) adverbs • use grammatical structures. i) adjectives • complete a doze sentence. (e.g. "Once upon a---.... ") • ask • ask_y_eslno q_uestions. • construct negative sentence structures. (other than ones using the word "no". e.g. "No go up.") • construct commands. • construct complete sentences. • construct quasi-complete sentences. (e.g. to the store) • use one-word structures. The child can: Sentence Level $ " " ..J Barton, Lanza, & Wilson ..J " Huisingh, Barrett, Zachman, Orman, &Blagden Robertson, & Salter I " ..J " " ..J ..J Johnston Weinrich & Johnson Richard & Hanner 108 Upper, ..J ..J ..J " e~re I Mcinnes Moore Burnaby Guebert Izatt, rl u- -· Skills -- - - -- -- - - • say sentences to indicate/emphasize individual words. • construct categories of words. (20 questions, word collections) • repeat multisyllabic words. • recognize and produce rhyming words or patterns of alliteration. The child can: Word Level Lw_. prepositions__ v) correct oronouns (e.a. She aoes to the store) iv) pronouns for nouns aoorooriatelv and vice versa iii) clauses Skills -- -J - -J "' -J Barton, Lanza, & Wilson -· -J Barton, Lanza, & Wilson -- "' Huisingh, Barrett, Zachman, Orman, &Blagden -J Huisingh, Barrett, Zachman, Orman, &Blagden - ---- -J "' -J Robertson, & Salter ---- Robertson, & Salter - - -- Johnston Weinrich & Johnson - -- -J -J Johnston Weinrich & Johnson ---- ---- "' Richard & Hanner ------ Richard & Hanner 109 - "' Burnaby , Guebert Izatt, Upper , Mcinnes, Moore & Speares -- Burnaby Guebert Izatt, Upper, Mcinnes Moore & Speares ! I I i I , • give vocabulary for toys and equipment. (e.g. home, office. outside) • aive vocabulary for soorts. activities. actions and events. • aive vocabulary for seasons. weather, holidays, calendar. • aive vocabulary for animals, plants, and places. • aive vocabulary for food and food preparation. • aive vocabulary for personal aroomina. • give vocabulary for people and places in the home and neiahbourhood. • aive vocabulary for oersonal data. • aive vocabulary for directional concepts. • give vocabulary for quantitative concepts. (e.g. few/many) • aive vocabulary for colours. • aive vocabulary for body parts. • seament and construct compound words. Skills Barton, Lanza, c!r Wilson " " Huisingh, Barrett, Zachman, Orman, &Blagden " Robertson, c!r Salter I Johnston Weinrich c!r Johnson " " " " " " " " Richard c!r Hanner 110 " " " " " " " " " " " Burnaby, Guebert Izatt, Upper, Mcinnes, Moore c!r Speares Skills ~ rd~ e g sound. " " " " " Barton, Lanza, & Wilson v Huisingh, Barrett, Zachman, Orman, &Blagden v v Robertson, & Salter I Johnston Weinrich & Johnson * This checklist was adapted from A Sourcebook of Pragmatic Activities (Johnston, Weinrich, and Johnson, 1984). • identify whether words have the same end sound. • identify whether words have the same middle sound. • identify whether words have the same ~gi • oraiJy_ • say words to indicate/eiTIR_hasize different sounds. The child can: Sound Level • recognize words with multiple meanings. (e.g. bank, club. staiTIP et<:.) Richard & Hanner 111 Burnaby, Guebert Izatt, Upper, Mcinnes, Moore & S_Qeares