Effectiveness of Speech Language
Pathologists Co-Teaching
in the Regular Education Classroom
Michelle H. Mullinax
Valdosta State University
An action research project submitted in partial
Fulfillment of the requirements of the Education Specialist Degree
in Exemplary Teaching at Valdosta State University.
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of
Speech Language Pathologists (SLP) co-teaching in the regular education
classroom in improving student performance in the area of reading. During the
study, 16 kindergarten students received supplemental whole group and small
group instruction in phonemic awareness by the SLP. Data were collected at the
beginning and end of the study and compared to the control class in which
supplemental instruction was not provided. Results were determined using pre
and post test scores from the Initial Sound Fluency and Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency subtests of the DIBELS, pre and post test score from a curriculum-based
measure assessing syllable and phoneme segmentation skills, and an attitudinal
survey. Results indicated that there was a statistically significant increase in
students’ skills in segmenting phonemes and syllables. Students’ attitudes were
very positive about the activities in which they participated during the
intervention.
As part of the 2009-2010 SACS Continuous Improvement Plan for the research site, one
of the goals identified is to attain high academic achievement and success for all students. The
plan includes performance objectives which targets increasing the percentage of students
meeting/exceeding required performance levels on the Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests
(CRCT). During the 2007-2008 school year, 19% of Students with Disabilities (SWD) in first
grade scored in the Did Not Meet category in the area of Reading compared to only 4% of
students without disabilities. During the same school year, 10% of students who were
economically disadvantaged in first grade scored in the Did Not Meet category in the area of
reading compared to 4% of students not economically disadvantaged (Georgia Department of
Education, 2008).
The National Early Literacy Panel (2009) reported that evidence supports that the ability
to manipulate sounds in words (phonemic awareness) is a strong indicator of later developing
literacy skills. Some children have difficulty and can be identified as at risk for developing
phonemic awareness and literacy acquisition. Students who often fall into this group include
those with speech and/or language impairments, English Language Learners, children from low
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
socio-economic families, and children with limited literacy experiences prior to attending school
(Hagans, 2008; Justice & Kaderqavek, 2004; Koutsoftas et al., 2009, & Schuele, Justice, Cabell,
Knighton, Kingery, & Lee, (2008).
Menzies, Mahdavi, and Lewis (2008) studied the effects of using research based
strategies to improve the reading skills of first-grade students. Their study combined explicit
phonemic awareness instruction, lower teacher-student ratio, the use of ongoing assessment, and
differentiated instruction. The researchers reported that 90% of the students were reading at
grade level at the end of the year. Similar results were reported by Koutsoftas et al. (2009) in
their study of phonemic awareness intervention in a low-income preschool class, which resulted
in positive growth of 71% of the participants who received small group instruction in phonemic
awareness.
With the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
Response to Intervention (RTI) is now being implemented in which students are identified as
being at-risk early in their academic learning before experiencing long periods of failure. With
the implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI), SLPs have taken on the role of
interventionist within the school setting. Contributions of the school-based SLP toward literacy
include sharing their content knowledge, participating on assessment teams, collaborating with
teachers to develop activities rich in phonological awareness, and providing small group
intervention to students identified as at-risk (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008; Justice, 2006;
Kaderavek & Justice, 2004).
In addition, SLPs are co-teaching in the regular education. Although most of the research
on co-teaching has focused on the logistics or satisfaction of teachers and students involved in
this service delivery model, determining the effectiveness of co-teaching has been more difficult
(Kloo & Zigmond, 2008). The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of SLPs
co-teaching in the regular education kindergarten classroom in improving student performance in
the area of reading.
Research Questions
Research question 1. Will supplemental instruction in phonemic awareness increase students’
ISF achievement?
Research question 2. Will supplemental instruction in phonemic awareness increase students’
PSF achievement?
Research question 3. Will supplemental instruction in phonemic awareness increase students’
SPS achievement?
Research question 4. Will students have a positive perception of the supplemental whole group
and small group instruction provided by the SLP?
Definitions of Variables
Phonemic Awareness Instruction. Instruction provided by the SLP and classroom teacher
which targets the specific skills such as rhyming, awareness of syllables and phonemes in words, and
letters and spelling which are critical to learning to read.
ISF achievement. ISF achievement indicates a student’s ability to identify initial sounds in
words as measured by the ISF subtest of the DIBELS.
PSF achievement. PSF achievement indicates a student’s ability to produce individual sounds
(phonemes) in words as measured by the PSF subtest of the DIBELS.
SPS achievement. SPS achievement indicates a student’s ability to produce words remaining
after deleting the initial syllable or phoneme as measured by the results of a curriculum-based test
provided by the Sounds Abound program.
Learning attitude. Learning attitude is the students’ perception of the supplemental whole group
and small instruction provided by the SLP as measured by an attitude survey.
2
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 3
Methods
Participants
A total of 31 kindergarten students from a rural elementary school in South Georgia
participated in this study. The treatment class consisted of 17 students and the comparison class
consisted of 14 students. Demographic information for each class is summarized in Table 1.
The school is designated as a Title I school with 73% of the 633 students enrolled in 2009-2010
qualifying for free or reduced priced meals.
Table 1
Demographics for Treatment Class and Comparison Class
Demographic
Race
Treatment Class
8
6
3
2
Hispanic
6
6
Boys
11
8
Girls
6
6
Students with Disabilities
Receiving Early Intervention
Services (EIP)
English Language
Learners (ELL)
5
1
8
4
5
5
Retained
4
4
Gender
White
African
American
Comparison Class
The treatment class was served by a team of three professionals: the Speech Language
Pathologist, the classroom teacher, and the paraprofessional. The classroom teacher and SLP
were responsible for administering assessments used during the study (i.e. DIBELS, pre and post
tests on syllable/phoneme segmentation) in addition to providing whole group and small group
phonemic awareness instruction. The paraprofessional provided additional small group support
during the study. The teacher in the comparison class was responsible for administering
assessments needed to compare student achievement of the treatment class and comparison class.
Intervention
The action research covered a 10 week period. The first and last weeks of the study were
used to administer the Syllable Phoneme Segmentation (SPS) pre-test to students in the treatment
class and the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests Initial Sound
Fluency (ISF) and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) to students in both the treatment and
control classrooms. The last week of the study was used to administer the SPS post-test to
students in the treatment class, the DIBELS subtests (ISF and PSF) to students in both the
treatment and control classes, and the student survey in the treatment class. The intervention
phase of the study, which lasted 8 weeks, consisted of whole group and small group instruction
in phonemic awareness to the treatment class utilizing a co-teaching model with the kindergarten
teacher and SLP. Lessons were provided four times per week for 30-40 minutes and included
both whole group and small group instruction.
Data Collection
Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS). The Initial Sound
Fluency (ISF) and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) subtests from the DIBELS were
individually administered by the classroom teachers to all participants of the study at the
3
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 3
beginning and the end of the treatment. Results were used to determine the effectiveness of
whole group and small group supplemental instruction in phonemic awareness. Results were
analyzed using descriptive statistics and a paired two-tailed t-test.
Syllable/phoneme segmentation pre and post tests (see Appendices A and B). The pre
and posts tests taken from Sounds Abound Listening, Rhyming, and Reading (Catts &
Williamson, 1993) were curriculum-based measures in which students were asked to provide the
word remaining after deleting the first syllable or phoneme. The SPS tests were individually
administered by the researcher to the participants in the treatment class at the beginning and end
of the treatment. Scores for the pre and post tests were reported as percentage of correct
answers. Results from the pretest and posttest were analyzed using Cohen’s d to determine
effect size.
Student survey (see Appendix C). A student survey was developed by the researcher to
determine the perceptions of the students in the treatment class of the activities in which they
participated. The survey consisted of eight statements in which the students were asked to
respond “yes” or “no” (as indicated by the use of pictures – “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”).
Results of the survey were analyzed by identifying the percentage of students indicating positive
perceptions (thumbs up) and negative perceptions (thumbs down) for each of the activities.
Results
The DIBELS was used to determine if there was a significant difference in initial sound
fluency (ISF) achievement and phoneme segmentation fluency (PSF) achievement between the
treatment class and the comparison class. Scores from the ISF subtest for the treatment and
comparison classes are provided in Table 2. Students in the classroom where the SLP was coteaching earned a mean increase of 34.23 (SD = 32.79) on the ISF subtest. Students from the
classroom in which no co-teaching was provided earned a mean increase of 25.18 (SD = 26.26)
on the ISF subtest. The mean increase was not significantly different (t(29) = 0.83, p = 0.21).
Table 2
DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency Results
Pretest
Mean
SD
Posttest
Mean
SD
Mean Increase
t-value
p
0.83
0.21
Treatment Class
(N=17)
21.59
10.11
55.83
30.67
34.23
Comparison
Class (N=14)
21.83
9.71
47.01
29.69
25.18
*p < .05
Scores from the PSF subtest for the treatment and comparison classes are provided in
Table 3. Students from the treatment class where the SLP was co-teaching earned a mean
increase of 1.24 (SD = 13.38) on the PSF subtest. Students from the classroom in which no coteaching was provided received a mean increase of 2.86 (SD = 9.99) on the PSF subtest. The
mean increase was not significantly different (t(29) = -0.38, p = 0.36).
Table 3
DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Results
Pretest
Mean
4
SD
Posttest
Mean
Mean Increase
t-value
p
SD
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 3
Treatment Class
(N=17)
45.24
19.76
47.76
15.22
1.24
Comparison
Class (N=14)
40.43
26.58
43.29
10.45
2.86
-0.38
0.36
*p < .05
Students in the treatment class were given the Syllable/Phoneme Blending Test (SPB) at
the beginning and end of the study to determine if supplemental phonemic awareness instruction
had an effect on the students’ ability to blend syllables and phonemes. Means and standard
deviations for syllable/phoneme segmentation before and after the intervention are provided in
Table 4. Cohen’s d was used to calculate the effect size of the supplemental phonemic awareness
instruction provided by the SLP on the SPB test scores. Pre-treatment mean scores for the class
(N = 17) was 34.10% (SD = 24.36). Post-treatment mean score for the class (N = 17) was 76.08%
(SD = 21.22). Students’ scores were increased by 123%. The use of supplemental phonemic
instruction provided by the SLP had a huge effect (d = 1.89).
Table 4
Syllable/Phoneme Blending Score Comparison for Treatment Class
Group Contrasts
N
M
SD
d
Pre Intervention
Scores
17
34.10
24.36
1.89
Post Intervention
Scores
17
76.08
21.22
The perceptions of the students in the treatment class of the activities in which they
participated were assessed using an eight statement survey. Results of the survey are provided in
Table 5. Ten of the 14 students indicated that they enjoyed all of the activities presented in the
survey. One student indicated that he only enjoyed one of the activities (listening to rhyming
storied).
Table 5
Student Perceptions Questionnaire Results
Statement
Yes
No
I like playing the Whisper Game.
93%
7%
I like playing Hide the Alarm Clock.
87%
13%
I like hearing the Rhyme Stories.
67%
33%
I like making the Rhyming Books.
93%
7%
I like clapping out words.
87%
13%
I like playing Guess Who?
93%
7%
I like playing The Deciders.
80%
20%
I like playing Thinking Things.
87%
13%
5
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 3
Discussion
Did supplemental instruction in phonemic awareness increase students’ ISF
achievement? Students in the classroom where the SLP was co-teaching earned a mean increase
of 34.23 (SD = 32.79) on the ISF subtest. Students from the classroom in which no co-teaching
was provided earned a mean increase of 25.18 (SD = 26.26) on the ISF subtest. However, the
mean increase was not significantly different (t(29) = 0.83, p = 0.21).
Did supplemental instruction in phonemic awareness increase students’ PSF
achievement? Students from the treatment class where the SLP was co-teaching earned a mean
increase of 1.24 (SD = 13.38) on the PSF subtest. Students from the classroom in which no coteaching was provided received a mean increase of 2.86 (SD = 9.99) on the PSF subtest.
However, the mean increase was not significantly different (t(29) = -0.38, p = 0.36).
Did supplemental instruction in phonemic awareness increase students’ SPS
achievement? The use of supplemental phonemic instruction provided by the SLP had a huge
effect (d = 1.89) on phonemic awareness skills as measured by the pretest and posttest scores
from curriculum based SPS test. The pre-treatment mean score for the class (N = 17) was
34.10% (SD = 24.36), and the post-treatment mean score was 76.08% (SD = 21.22). Students’
scores were increased by 123%.
Did students have a positive perception of the supplemental whole group and small group
instruction provided by the SLP? Ten of the 14 students indicated that they enjoyed all of the
activities presented in the survey. Students’ enjoyment of learning activities can reflect their
level of engagement and cooperation during the activity.
Students at risk in the area of reading can benefit from supplemental, small and whole
group, explicit intervention in phonemic awareness which can be provided by a school’s SLP.
The use of supplemental phonemic instruction provided by the SLP had a huge effect (d = 1.89)
on phonemic awareness skills as measured by the pretest and posttest scores from curriculum
based SPS test. Also, the activities were viewed as favorable by most students, with 10 of the 14
students indicating that they enjoyed all of the activities presented in the Student Perceptions
Questionnaire.
There were several factors that influenced the implementation of the intervention. During
the intervention period, several classes were cancelled due to SLP absence, a field trip, and
school activities. In addition, one of the students in the treatment class withdrew, then re-enrolled
after being absent for a 2-week period which limited that student’s access to the instruction
provided by the SLP. There were two students in the comparison class who were not assessed
due to absences during the testing periods.
Students taught in a co-teaching environment are benefitted by the presence of two highly
qualified professionals. Small group learning opportunities are provided which can allow for
more frequent student responses, more frequent and timely teacher feedback and the opportunity
for teachers to track student progress more carefully. As initial results appear to support the use
of SLPs co-teaching in the kindergarten classroom, this will continue to be the instructional
model used by the researcher.
There are, however, limitations to this study which must be addressed. As students at the
school tend to be transient, several student changes were made during the intervention that
affected the sampling. The intervention period of the study was only 8 weeks, which may have
affected the validity of the results. Further research would be warranted to examine the
effectiveness of SLPs co-teaching in the regular education classroom.
6
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 3
References
Adams, M., Foorman, B., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic awareness in young
children: A Classroom Curriculum. Baltimore, MA: Brookes Publishing.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Roles and responsibilities of speechlanguage pathologists with respect to reading and writing in children and adolescents
[Technical Report]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
Catts, H. & Williamson,T. (1993). Sounds abound listening, rhyming, and reading. East Moline,
IL: LinguiSystems, Inc.
Hagans, K. (2008). A response-to-intervention approach to decreasing early literacy differences
in first graders from different socioeconomic background: Evidence for the intervention
validity of the DIBELS. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 24, 35-42.
Justice, L. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response to intervention, and the prevention of
reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 284-297.
Justice, L., & Kaderavek, J. (2004). Embedded-explicit emergent literacy intervention I:
Background and description of approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 35, 201-211.
Kaderavek, J. & Justice, L. (2004). Embedded-explicit emergent literacy intervention II: Goal
selection and implementation in the early childhood classroom. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 212-228.
Kloo, A., & Zigmond, N. (2008). Coteaching revisitied: Redrawing the blueprint. Preventing
School Failure, 52, 12-20.
Koutsoftas, A., Harmon, M., & Gray, S., (2009). The effect of tier 2 intervention for phonemic
awareness in a response-to-intervention model in low-income preschool classrooms.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 116-130.
Menzies, H., Mahdavi, J., & Lewis, J. (2008). Early intervention in reading, from research to
practice. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 67-77.
Murawski, W., & Hughes, C. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and coteaching: A
logical combination for successful systemic change. Prevention School Failure, 53, 267277.
Schuele, C., & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: Beyond the basics.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 3-20.
Schuele, C., Justice, L., Cabell, S., Knighton, K., Kingery, B., & Lee, M. (2008). Field-based
evaluation of two-tiered instruction for enhancing kindergarten phonological awareness.
Early Education & Development, 19, 726-752.
Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A
metasynthesis of qualitative research. Council for Exceptional Children, 73, 392-416.
Spencer, E., Schuele, C., Guillot, K., & Lee, M., (2008). Phonemic awareness skills of speechlanguage pathologists and other educators. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 39, 512-520.
Volonino, V., & Zigmond, N. (2007). Promoting research-based practices through inclusion?
Theory Into Practice, 46, 291-300.
7
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 3
Appendix A
Syllable/Phoneme Segmentation Pretest
This pretest uses the deletion format. Using this format, say the targeted word, then ask the child to say
the word that remains after deleting the first syllable or phoneme.
There are three training items. Correct answers should only be given on the training items.
Training Items
1. Sailboat
2. Railroad
3. Sometime
Test Items
Syllables
1. Football
2. Hairbrush
3. Sandwich
4. Motel
5. Baby
Phonemes
1. Fat
2. Sit
3. Chin
4. Jar
5. Meat
8
6. Ball
7. Tie
8. Snow
9. Flip
10. pro
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 3
Appendix B
Syllable/Phoneme Segmentation Posttest
This pretest uses the deletion format. Using this format, say the target work, then ask the child to say the
word that remains after deleting the first syllable or phoneme.
There are three training items. Correct answers should only be given on the training items.
Training Items
1. mushroom
2. playground
3. horseshoe
Test Items
Syllables
1. popcorn
2. coughdrop
3. helpful
4. fancy
5. person
Phonemes
1. sat
2. fear
3. shin
4. chair
5. mice
9
6. band
7. told
8. snail
9. thread
10. prime
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 3
Appendix C
I understand that my parents (mom and dad) have given permission (said it’s okay) for me to take part in
a project about what we do in our classroom under the direction of my teacher. I am taking part because I
want to. I have been told that I can stop at any time I want to and nothing will happen to me if I want to
stop. I understand that part of the project will be answering some questions about what activities I like to
do in my classroom.
Please circle the picture that tells if you like the following activities:
1. I like playing the Whisper game.
2. I like playing Hide the Alarm Clock.
3. I like hearing the Rhyme Stories.
4. I like making our Rhyming Books.
5. I like clapping out words.
6. I like playing Guess Who?
7. I like playing The Deciders.
10
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 3
8. I like playing Thinking Things.
11
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 3