|
Research Support Integrated classroom-based speech language services have been shown to have positive outcomes for students with communication impairments or delays (Ellis et al., 1995; Throneburg et at., 2000; Wilcox et al., 1991). Wilcox et al. (1991) compared the vocabulary learning in young preschoolers using a pullout model versus classroom-based group instruction. Their data showed that the students with less mature cognitive abilities benefited more from classroom-based services and demonstrated an increased carryover of target words at home than those students served in the pullout model. Classroom-based speech language services of another type have been found to be evidence-based in classes that traditionally only targeted gross motor development. In a study conducted by Ellis et al. (1995), a SLP collaboratively consulted with kindergarten classroom and physical education teachers to develop specially-designed language lessons in order to teach basic concepts during gym class. At the close of the study, the researchers found statistically significant improvements in basic concept learning in the treatment group when compared to students in the control group. Ellis et al. (1995) concluded that large group instruction in basic concepts coupled with collaborative consultation was an effective service delivery option for young children. The researchers further stated that extending language goals into the classroom curriculum will enable students to learn language in a meaningful environment (Ellis et al., 1995, p. 72.). Throneburg et al. (2000) investigated three different service delivery models in an elementary school. Students who qualified for speech and language services were provided curricular vocabulary instruction using collaborative co-teaching with the teacher and SLP with some minimal pullout sessions, classroom-based services with either the SLP or teacher with some minimal pullout sessions or a traditional pullout model in a small group therapy room with the SLP. For students who qualified for speech and language services, the collaborative co-teaching model was found to be most effective for teaching curriculum relevant vocabulary words. The results were considered congruent with the theoretical advantages of the collaborative model reported in the literature and support the use of integrated service delivery models for intervention in the school setting (Throneburg et al., 2000, p. 10). One of the primary goals of speech language services has always been to ensure the effective carryover and generalization of newly learned communication skills across educational, extracurricular and nonacademic environments so that the student can become an effective communicator. Research has shown that students with disabilities do not always carryover or generalize newly learned skills when services are provided in an environment different from where the skills would normally be used (Anderson & Nelson, 1988; Leonard, 1981; Rogers-Warren & Warren, 1984). Speech language
services in a therapy room cannot effectively replicate the interactions and
activities commonly found in the classroom, which may in turn adversely affect
the carryover and generalization of newly learned skills. These services became
decontextualized, which in turn resulted in a struggle for the students to
make connections between what went on in the therapy room and what needed to
occur throughout the rest of the school day (Miller, 1989). Pullout therapy was
not the only effective option available to SLPs. The literature provided a host
of examples of integrated classroom-based services that have been implemented
successfully in schools across the nation (Achilles et al., 1991; Blosser &
Kratcoski, 1997; Christensen & Luckett, 1990; Dodge & Mallard, 1992;
Farber et al., 1992; Farber & Klein, 1999; Larson et al., 1993; Magnotta,
1991; Miller, 1989; Montgomery, 1992; Norris, 1989; Prelock, Miller & Reed,
1995; Russell & Kaderavek, 1993). |
