Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this study, our purpose was to establish a shared definition of collaboration for use by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and educators during literacy instruction for school-age students. To help build our definition, we conducted a principle-based concept analysis of peer reviewed publications in the context of school-based SLP-educator literacy instruction. Using a systematic search strategy and article selection process, we identified 13 articles for analysis to inform our definition. Our analysis identified several characteristics of SLP and educator collaboration for literacy instruction. However, authors were quite varied in how they defined, described, and used the term collaboration. Joint planning and delivery of literacy instruction and attributing actions to a specific professional were the only consistently reported characteristics. The only regularly reported precondition for collaboration to occur was having discipline-specific knowledge to contribute. Outcomes primarily focused on student benefits. The most prominent feature differentiating collaboration from bordering concepts was that collaboration involves the joint actions of two or more professionals working together. Given this variability, our analysis indicates that collaboration is an emerging concept in the education and speech-language pathology literature. We offer a definition of collaboration that reflects a shared disciplinary understanding of the concept by making all the characteristics of collaboration explicit. Our definition will support application of collaboration by SLPs and educators for literacy instruction in their unique settings. Our definition will support researchers’ systematic investigation of collaboration to strengthen the knowledge base that informs practice and serve to advance concept maturity.

Keywords

collaboration education literacy principle-based concept analysis speech-language pathology

Literacy and academic achievement among students with diverse language abilities is supported through evidence-based literacy instruction (Botting, 2020; Moats, 2020). Such instruction is informed by the Reading Rope framework, which highlights that skilled reading emerges from the development and use of strong language comprehension and word recognition skills (Moats, 2020; Scarborough, 2001). To support literacy achievement, all components of the Reading Rope must be considered for integration into a comprehensive instructional program (Moats, 2020; Scarborough, 2001). For this reason, the delivery of evidence-based literacy instruction obliges school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and educators to combine their expertise and collaborate to address the literacy needs of all students (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA, 2010); Ontario College of Teachers (OCT, 2025); Speech-Language & Audiology Canada (SAC, 2021)). Collaboration is identified as an element of best practice for both SLPs (ASHA, 2010; SAC, 2021) and educators (OCT, 2025). Yet, within and across the disciplines of speech-language pathology and education, the concept of collaboration is labeled (Mathers et al., 2024), defined (Evans et al., 2025; Jeremy et al., 2024), and operationalized differently (Evans et al., 2025). Further, authors have indicated that the literature tends to report on collaborative processes, practices, or investigate barriers and facilitators to professionals working together rather than investigating whether enacting collaboration achieves its intended outcomes (Jeremy et al., 2024; Mathers et al., 2024).

Rationale

Consistency in how a concept is understood and used enables its systematic investigation and application, thereby bridging the gap between research and practice (Morse et al., 1996). To advance research and practice in the fields of speech-language pathology and education, we propose that a shared definition of collaboration is needed that enables its consistent use and systematic investigation (Evans et al., 2025; Mathers et al., 2024; Morse et al., 1996). Therefore, in this study, we analyzed the concept of collaboration in the context of school-based SLP-educator collaboration for literacy instruction in general education classrooms. We aimed to identify the concept's structural features and develop a shared definition of collaboration.

Research question

How does the literature in speech-language pathology and education conceptualize and define the concept of collaboration for school-based SLPs and educators in the context of literacy instruction in general education?

Method

We conducted a principle-based concept analysis (Morse et al., 1996; Penrod and Hupcey, 2005) to evaluate the concept of collaboration within the context of SLPs and educators delivering literacy instruction in general education classrooms. The purpose of a principle-based concept analysis is to determine the existing state and level of maturity of a concept, within a specified context, and develop a comprehensive definition that integrates the features and disciplinary understanding of the concept grounded within the literature (Morse et al., 1996; Penrod and Hupcey, 2005). Our research team was comprised of two school-based SLPs (BP and AS), and one researcher with expertise in the field of education (TG), and two researchers with expertise in the field of speech-language pathology (LT and WC).

Database search and source selection

We applied the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020). The first author designed the search strategy in consultation with a university research librarian, following the Population (educators and school-based SLPs), Concept (collaboration and literacy instruction), and Context (kindergarten¹ to Grade 12 general education) framework (Peters et al., 2020) (Supplemental Material 1). The first author executed the search on 23 July 2024, in Education Resources Information Center, PsychInfo, and Web of Science. No date limitations were applied. Retrieved references were imported into Covidence review software (Veritas Health Innovation, 2025) and de-duplicated. Potential sources were examined against eligibility criteria (Supplemental Material 2) by two independent reviewers (BP and AS) in two stages, title and abstract screening and full text review. To be included, data sources had to be published in a peer-reviewed journal in English, situated in general education settings, discuss literacy instruction (i.e. for the whole class, small group, and/or individual student) involving both school-based SLPs and educators, and provide a definition or description of the concept of collaboration. The reference lists of included sources were hand-searched for additional titles following the same process to determine eligibility. The kappa statistic (k) and percent agreement were applied as measures of interrater reliability with a minimum kappa of 0.61 set as the criterion (O’Connor and Joffe, 2020). Discrepancies were resolved through consensus.

Data charting and analysis

Data relevant to the characteristics of included sources were charted using Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, 2025). This included author names, publication year, country in which the study was situated, study aim, study design, service delivery model, grade(s), focus of literacy instruction, and educators collaborating with SLPs (Supplementary Material 3). Characteristics were charted independently by the first and second authors and verified through consensus. The first author deductively synthesized the focus of literacy instruction according to Scarborough’s (2001) Reading Rope.

Data relevant to the concept of collaboration were charted and analyzed using NVivo software Version 15.1.2 (Lumivero, 2025). The first author developed a codebook using the five structural features of a concept (Morse et al., 1996; Table 1). Initially, the first author applied the codebook deductively to identify the structural features of the concept. Then, the first author inductively generated sub-codes relevant to each of the five structural features of the concept. Once developed, first and second authors independently trialed the codebook on three source articles. Following the trial, coders established consensus for code and sub-code definitions. The codebook was updated as additional sub-codes were inductively identified. The finalized codebook (Supplemental Material 4) was applied to all data sources through iterative review by the first author.

Table 1.
Structural features of a concept (Morse et al., 1996).

Structural feature Definition

Characteristics Attributes, components, actions and/or behaviors that constitute collaboration that are always present

Preconditions Antecedents for collaboration to occur

Outcomes Consequences of enacting collaboration

Conceptual boundaries Features described in the stated context that delineate collaboration from bordering/related concepts

Definition/Description Definition or description of collaboration that serves as a label for the associated actions/behaviors that make the concept identifiable

The first author examined and synthesized the coded data according to the four principles of concept analysis to evaluate concept maturity. The principles of concept analysis (Penrod and Hupcey, 2005) were applied as follows:
Linguistic principle: assessed the consistency of the use and meaning of the concept within our specified context based on identified characteristics

Pragmatic principle: evaluated the degree to which the concept can be operationalized based on identified preconditions and outcomes

Logical principle: determined whether conceptual boundaries were clearly delineated

Epistemological principle: evaluated the consistency with which the concept is defined and differentiated from other concepts within the source literature.

Based on a review of the structural features of collaboration identified across all source articles, and guided by the four principles for analysis, the first author constructed an initial draft of the definition of collaboration using language relevant to the context of school-based SLP-educator delivery of literacy instruction in general education settings. Following a review with research team members, the definition of collaboration was finalized.

Throughout the research process, the first author maintained an audit trail of decision-making for coding and data analysis and engaged in peer debriefing with researchers with expertise in education (TG) and speech-language pathology (LT and WC) (Krefting, 1991).

Results

Source selection

The systematic database search yielded 3034 potential sources. Following deduplication, title/abstract screening, and full-text review, 13 articles were identified for inclusion (Figure 1). Interrater reliability for screening at the title and abstract stage was k = 0.76 and 96% agreement; for full text review, interrater reliability was k = 0.81 and 93% agreement. Citations for source articles are in the reference list and numbered with a superscript notation.

Figure 1.
Search and selection of information sources.

Description of data sources

Included articles were published between 1997 and 2023, with seven (54%) of 13 published since 2017. Twelve (92%) data sources were situated in the United States, and one (8%) in Australia. Only one included source was an empirical article, a qualitative study employing focus groups and content analysis. Supplemental Material 5 reports the study design, model of service delivery, instructional format, and grades of instruction represented in the 13 source articles.

Supplemental Material 6 presents the aspects of literacy addressed in source articles. With respect to the language comprehension strand of Scarborough’s (2001) Reading Rope, vocabulary skills (n = 11; 85%) and language structures (n = 7; 54%) were most often addressed. In the word recognition strand, instruction most often focused on decoding (n = 11; 85%) and phonological awareness (n = 8, 62%).

All source articles (N = 13; 100%) reported that both school-based SLPs and classroom teachers were engaged in the literacy instruction. Eight (62%) articles reported that one or more additional personnel were involved in instruction in addition to the classroom teacher and SLP. Supplemental Material 7 lists the specific education professionals involved in literacy instruction for each source article.

Principle-based concept analysis

A definition for each structural feature of the concept of collaboration is presented in Table 1. The structural features were synthesized and are presented in Table 2. Application of the four principles for analysis is described below. Our proposed definition is presented following the results and interpretation of the analysis.

Table 2.
Structural features of collaboration synthesized.

**Article number

Principle of concept analysis and corresponding structural feature(s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Linguistic principle

Characteristics

Joint actions

Plan instruction and materials X* X X X X X X X X* X X* X X

Deliver instruction X* X X X* X X X X X X X* X* X

Attribute actions to professionals X X X X X X X X X* X X X X

Share expertise/resources/materials X* X X X X* X* X X X X* X* X*

Student assessment/Progress monitoring /documentation X X X X X X X X X* X X

Share decision-making and responsibility X X* X X X X X X X* X X

Shared goals/expectations X* X* X X* X* X X X* X X

Communication among professionals X X * X X * X X X* *

Share knowledge of student abilities/needs X X X X X X X

Receive/utilize input from other professionals X X X

Relationship among professionals X X* X X* X X X X

Time to engage in actions that constitute collaboration X X X X X X X

Professional development X X X X

Pragmatic principle

Preconditions

Have discipline specific knowledge X* X X X* X* X X* X X X* X* X*

Establish professional relationships X X X X X X X X X

Shared goals for collaboration X X X X X X X X X

Shared knowledge base/skills X X X X X X X

Professionals know/understand respective roles X X X X* X X* X

Shared values and mutual respect X X X X* X X

Professional development X X X X* X X

Communication systems among professionals X X X X X

Time reserved X X X X X

Opportunities for professionals to interact X X X X

Shared terminology X X X X

School philosophy support collaboration X X X

Professionals recognize different perspectives X X X

Opportunities to discuss/address challenges X X X

Knowledge of student abilities/needs X X

Classroom-based model of service delivery X X

Outcomes

For students X X X X X X X X X X X X* X*

For delivery of instruction X X X X X X X X X

For professionals X X X X X X X X

For educators X X X X X X X X

For speech-language pathologists X X

Logical principle

Conceptual boundaries * X* X X* X* X * * X X* X*

Bordering concepts X X

Epistemological principle

Definition/description of the concept X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Note: **Citations for source articles are in the reference list and numbered with corresponding superscript notations.

X Denotes the structural feature is presented in the body of the article.

* Denotes the structural feature is presented in the definition/description of the concept of collaboration.

X* Denotes the structural feature is presented in the definition/description of the concept and in the body of the article.

Linguistic principle: characteristics

Four characteristics of collaboration were identified in the source literature (Table 2).

Joint actions by the SLP and educator

All 13 sources described joint actions performed by the SLPs and educators. We identified 10 joint actions (see Table 2), three of which were reported in all articles: (a) planning instruction and materials, (b) negotiating and/or attributing actions to a specific professional, and (c) delivering instruction. A fourth joint action, sharing expertise/resources/materials, was described in 12 of 13 sources (92%). Additional joint actions were observed less frequently across data sources.

Regarding the joint action of attributing actions to a specific professional, all 13 articles discussed actions attributed to the SLP; and 11 (85%) sources discussed actions attributed to the educator. Actions attributed to SLPs included: (a) delivering individual intervention (n = 8; 62%), (b) sharing expertise (n = 7; 54%), (c) monitoring progress (n = 6; 46%), (d) conducting assessment (n = 6; 46%), (e) providing professional development to educators (n = 5; 38%), and (f) helping families implement interventions at home (n = 1; 8%). Actions attributed to educators included: (a) delivering instruction (n = 9; 69%), (b) assessing and monitoring progress (n = 2; 15%), (c) developing instructional materials (n = 1; 8%), (d) sharing expertise (n = 1; 8%), and (e) providing professional development to SLPs (n = 1; 8%).

Our analysis also revealed six joint actions that were consistently presented in the source literature as only occurring jointly by SLPs and educators: (a) planning instruction and materials (n = 13; 100%), (b) sharing decision-making and responsibility (n = 11; 85%), (c) communicating among professionals (n = 10; 77%), (d) sharing instructional goals (n = 10; 77%), (e) sharing knowledge of student abilities and needs (n = 7; 54%), and (f) receiving and using input from other professionals (n = 3; 23%).

Relationship among professionals

A relationship among professionals was observed in eight (62%) sources (Table 2). We identified four traits describing the relationship among SLPs and educators in the context of delivering literacy instruction: (a) the relationship is based on trust, mutual respect, and support (n = 6; 46%), (b) the relationship is non-hierarchical (n = 4; 31%), (c) engagement occurs based on student needs (n = 4; 31%), and (d) all individuals willing to work together are included (n = 3; 23%).

Time

Seven sources described time allocated to SLP and educator collaboration for literacy instruction (54%) (Table 2). Authors discussed time as a characteristic of the concept that is or should be dedicated to engaging in joint actions that constitute collaboration.

Professional development

Professional development that contributed to the delivery of literacy instruction was described in four (31%) articles (Table 2), with all four describing the SLP as delivering training to educators. There was no instance of the educator delivering training to the SLP. One article (see Meaux et al., 2020) recommended resources the SLP could independently seek out for information regarding instruction and how to train educators to implement that instruction.

Applying the linguistic principle

According to the linguistic principle, our findings demonstrated inconsistent use and meaning of the concept of collaboration across the source literature. In our context of kindergarten to Grade 12 general education, only three characteristics of SLP and educator collaboration were consistently present, specifically, jointly planning instruction and materials, negotiating/attributing specific actions to specific professionals, and delivering literacy instruction. The joint action of sharing expertise, resources, and/or instructional materials was also present in most sources. The additional three characteristics of a relationship among professionals, time, and professional development were represented inconsistently across source articles.

Pragmatic principle: preconditions and outcomes

Preconditions

Although all 13 articles described one or more preconditions for collaboration to occur, no single precondition was common across all data sources (Table 2). Most articles (n = 12; 92%) described professionals having discipline-specific knowledge that contributed to the delivery of literacy instruction as a precondition. Nine sources (69%) discussed establishing a professional relationship for engaging in actions that constitute collaboration. Having shared goals and expectations for collaboration was observed in nine (69%) sources. Additional preconditions were reported less frequently across data sources (Table 2).

Outcomes

Most source articles were descriptive in nature; therefore, outcomes anticipated from enacting collaboration are the opinions of the authors. Nine (69%) sources reported outcomes relevant to instruction (Table 2). The most commonly reported anticipated outcome was efficient planning and effective literacy instruction (n = 9; 100%). Additional anticipated outcomes included: (a) development of appropriate education plans (n = 4; 44%), (b) application of evidence-based strategies and best practice (n = 3; 33%), and (c) increased service coordination (n = 2; 22%).

All 13 sources discussed outcomes anticipated for students when SLP and educator collaboration for literacy instruction is enacted (Table 2). The most common anticipated student outcome discussed in data sources was achievement of literacy and language goals (n = 10; 77%), followed by student access to high quality instruction and special education services to meet identified needs (n = 9; 69%). Additional anticipated outcomes included integration of students with communication disorders into the classroom (n = 8; 62%), academic achievement (n = 8; 62%), and family involvement in students’ education (n = 1; 8%).

For professionals, anticipated outcomes were described in eight (62%) data sources (Table 2). A positive relationship among professionals characterized by mutual trust and respect was presented as an anticipated outcome in four (50%) of these sources. Additional anticipated outcomes included: (a) improved communication among professionals (n = 3; 38%), (b) blending of expertise (n = 3; 38%), (c) developing an appreciation of the roles, responsibilities, skills and expertise of the other discipline (n = 2; 25%), and (d) professional development (n = 2; 25%). One (13%) article also indicated satisfaction among team members and strengthened team outcomes resulting from collaboration.

Eight (62%) data sources discussed anticipated outcomes specific to teachers. Most commonly, authors discussed how collaboration may lead to building educator capacity for literacy/language instruction (n = 5; 63%). Additional educator outcomes included: (a) enabling teachers to scaffold for diverse groups of students (n = 2; 25%), (b) developing educator morale, self-efficacy, and confidence for the delivery of literacy/language instruction (n = 2; 25%), and (c) supporting teachers’ understanding of the impact of communication impairments on learning (n = 1; 13%). Two articles (14%) suggested anticipated outcomes for SLPs. Both articles discussed how SLPs may gain an understanding of classroom expectations, dynamics, and challenges. One source described the outcome of SLPs gaining an understanding of curriculum.

Applying the pragmatic principle

Although several preconditions for collaboration were observed in the source literature, there was no agreement across all data sources on any one antecedent for collaboration to occur within our stated context. As the source literature was largely non-empirical, the outcomes discussed are those anticipated from enacting collaboration rather than outcomes derived from empirical investigation.

Logical principle: delineation of conceptual boundaries and bordering concepts

Eleven (85%) source articles discussed conceptual boundaries that delineated collaboration from bordering concepts. The most frequently observed feature was that collaboration involves joint actions of the SLP, educator and/or additional educators and/or other professionals working together (n = 6; 55%). Additional features that distinguished collaboration from bordering concepts included: (a) crossing traditional disciplinary boundaries (n = 4; 36%), (b) shared decision-making, responsibility, and ownership of jointly established instructional goals (n = 2; 18%), and (c) sharing information to target mutually identified learning objectives (n = 1; 9%).

Bordering Concepts

Two bordering concepts were defined in the source literature: (a) community of practice (Paul et al., 2006), and (b) collaborative consultation (Elksnin, 1997). Paul et al. (2006) described several features of a community of practice, including that professionals engage in equal participation, support and learning, have a shared knowledge base and skill set, jointly establish goals and share resources, share accountability and responsibility, and deliver classroom-based services. No other source articles discussed the concept of a community of practice.

Elksnin (1997) defined the concept of collaborative consultation as a co-equal partnership between professionals with diverse areas of expertise and a process for identifying solutions to shared problems. Elksnin (1997) positioned this concept along a continuum of related constructs like co-activity, cooperation, and coordination with collaboration “at the highest level” (p. 415). The term “consultation” and other derivatives (e.g. consult, consulting, consultants) were observed in seven (54%) additional source articles, usually without an explicit definition or description of the term as a concept. One article, Roth and Troia (2006), described consultation as a “model of collaboration” and used the phrase “collaborative consultation” with the authors appearing to use “collaborative” as an adjective modifying “consultation.”

Applying the logical principle

The source literature provided a rudimentary description of conceptual boundaries, with no consensus on features that delineate collaboration from bordering concepts. Sources did not provide explicit discussion on how a given conceptual boundary is important for understanding and distinguishing the concept of collaboration from bordering concepts in the context of SLPs and educators delivering literacy instruction in general education classrooms.

Features describing the two bordering concepts, collaborative consultation (see Elksnin, 1997), and a community of practice (see Paul et al., 2006), overlapped with those identified in the source literature for collaboration. This overlap made it difficult to differentiate collaboration from these concepts suggesting they are competing to describe the same phenomenon.

Epistemological principle: definition/description

Table 3 summarizes the definition/description of the concept of collaboration as stated in each source article. The label used to represent the concept of collaboration varied across and within data sources. The term “collaboration” was stated as the label for the concept in eight (62%) data sources. Several derivatives of the term “collaboration” were also used. For example, Erickson (2017) used the label “interprofessional collaborative practice” (IPCP), citing the World Health Organization (WHO, 2010). Meaux et al. (2020) used the term “Interprofessional Practice” also drawing from the WHO (2010) definition. Linan-Thompson and Ortiz (2009) used several terms, including “collaboration,” “collaborative model,” and “collaborative process” within the same section of text describing the concept. Both Paul et al. (2006) and Roth and Troia (2006) used the term “literacy partnership.”

Table 3.
Definition/description of collaboration in source articles.

Article number Definition/Description of collaboration

1 “Interdisciplinary collaboration between professionals, like special and general educators, art specialists, and teaching artists, contributes to the success of arts integration programs (Alter-Muri, 2017; Cunnington et al., 2014; Malley, 2017). Educators, art specialists, and teaching artists who work with children with LI can share resources, identify objectives aligned with an individualized education program (IEP), and engage in co-planning and co-teaching. To promote reading and writing success in children with LI, researchers also recommend that speech language pathologists and reading specialists coordinate efforts (Gosse et al., 2012; Pavelko et al., 2017; Squires et al., 2013). When educators coordinate efforts and form interdisciplinary collaborations, each “makes unique contributions to reading outcomes through the services they provide and their particular areas of expertise” (Gosse et al., 2012, p. 77).” (p. 167)

2 “Interprofessional collaboration occurs when two or more professionals work together to achieve common goals and is frequently used as a means for solving a variety of problems and complex issues (World Health Organization, 2010).” (p. 782)

3 “At the highest level, collaboration, the LDS, classroom teacher, and SLP engage in informal networking and develop a high degree of trust in one another. Responsibility for students is shared by all individuals.” (p. 415)

4 “The connection between literacy and communication highlights the need for interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) in addressing the literacy learning needs of students with severe disabilities. The World Health Organization (2010) suggests that IPCP is characterized by professionals from different backgrounds working together with clients, families, and caregivers to deliver the highest quality of care.” (p. 194)

5 “In this article, collaboration is defined as individuals working together on mutual goals. These goals are developed together and shared while simultaneously highlighting team members’ individual strengths, understandings, and expertise which should strengthen team outcomes (Winchester, 2013).” (p.54)

6 “Collaboration in early years oral language programs involves educators, allied health professionals, and other professionals sharing knowledge and information, validating each other's roles, and providing input around which strategies promote positive outcomes for all children (Jackson et al., 2009).” (p. 16)

7 “Effective schools for ELLs incorporate ongoing opportunities for collaboration across programs and personnel. In a collaborative model, each person has a role and makes a unique contribution. Just as collaboration among classroom teachers is essential to the success of second language learners, so is collaboration among teachers and professionals in specialized roles (e.g. SLPs, educational psychologists and diagnosticians, content-area specialists, etc.). The exact role of each professional in a collaborative process will be determined by his or her training and expertise. In an ideal situation, all the professionals on a campus have knowledge regarding working with ELLs. Additionally, there would be bilingual professionals on those campuses providing bilingual programs or ESL support. However, if this is not the case, then communication and sharing of expertise becomes more important as professionals work together to ensure students are adequately served prior to referral and if necessary after they have been identified for special education services.” (p. 110)

8 “Adapted from the World Health Organization, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA, n.d.) defines interprofessional practice (IPP) as two or more professionals working together to achieve common goals and is frequently used as a means for solving a variety of problems and complex issues.” (p. 518)

9 “Collaboration can take many forms, but the scenario described in this article involves (a) the teacher and SLP planning together, (b) the teacher conducting shared book reading with the whole class, and (c) the SLP providing targeted, individualized intervention for the children with or at risk for learning disabilities, many of whom would likely be on the SLP caseload for speech-language impairment.” (p. 157)

10 “Members of collaborative teams often represent not only diverse areas of expertise but different philosophical and theoretical orientations as well. These differences may lead to confusion and conflict if not addressed in a respectful and direct manner. Three elements can support professionals to build collaborative relationships: (a) open discussion of values, philosophies, ideas, and strategies; (b) learning together through continuing education and action research; and (c) negotiating partner roles explicitly Although negotiating differences in knowledge, experience, perspective, and interactive style is challenging, it can be done. It is easier when partners share a value and passion for fostering language and literacy growth and when they agree that there is much to learn…and a shared mission provides a foundation for conducting small action research projects to evaluate components.” (p. 62–63)

11 “A transdisciplinary approach is considered to be more collaborative because it eases and blends professional boundaries (ASHA, 1991). This approach is characterized by flexibility in the roles of team members; release of some responsibilities traditionally associated with a specific discipline (i.e. “role release”); sharing of information and skills for planning and implementation; consistent interaction, communication, and coordination among team members during assessment and during implementation of common, jointly determined intervention goals; and shared responsibility for documenting student outcomes (ASHA, 1991; Thomas et al., 2001). The literacy partnership presented in this article is most closely aligned with the transdisciplinary approach to service delivery.” (p. 8)

12 “Literacy partnerships offer an opportunity for these professionals to (a) engage in focused and frequent exchanges about effective language and literacy instruction; (b) share their expertise; (c) alter their traditional roles and responsibilities to encompass direct and indirect methods of service delivery; and (d) leverage their combined knowledge and skills for implementing strong oral and written language practices and improving literacy outcomes for diverse students.” (p. 25–26)

13 “Collaboration to foster language and literacy development is an ideal context for SLPs and teachers to share their expertise and knowledge and create quality discourse communities for students in all instructional tiers. It also affords a potentially powerful means to intertwine oral language into the literacy curriculum and encourage the integration of students with communication disorders and other learning problems into the social dynamics of the classroom.” (p. 77)

Note: Citations for source articles are in the reference list and numbered with corresponding superscript notations.

Although all source articles included at least one structural feature in the definition/description of collaboration (see Table 2), no single feature appeared consistently across all definitions/descriptions. Structural features observed in the definition/description of collaboration included characteristics (n = 12; 92%), conceptual boundaries (n = 8; 62%), and preconditions (n = 7; 54%) (Table 2).

Applying the epistemological principle

While each article offered a definition or description of collaboration, sources varied in the specific structural features used to explicate the concept. The inconsistent use of terms to label the concept of collaboration posed a challenge in establishing text intended to define and describe the concept in the source literature. Our analysis demonstrated that the included literature does not offer consistent language for defining the concept of collaboration in our stated context.

Evaluation of concept maturity

Only three characteristics were common to all 13 sources: jointly planning instruction and materials; negotiating/attributing actions to a specific professional; and delivering instruction. There was no consensus regarding preconditions, outcomes, or conceptual boundaries. Poorly delineated conceptual boundaries made it challenging to understand how school-based SLP and educator collaboration for literacy instruction could be operationalized, leaving intended outcomes unclear. Only two sources provided similar definitions, both derived from the World Health Organization (WHO) definition for IPCP (WHO, 2010). Therefore, based on our principle-based concept analysis, grounded in the source literature retrieved from the fields of speech-language pathology and education, the concept of collaboration in our stated context is in an emerging state.

Discussion

We identified 13 source articles from literature in the fields of education and speech-language pathology published over a 26-year period, that discussed collaboration in the context of school-based SLPs and educators delivering literacy instruction in general education classrooms. This context was integral to determining structural features of the concept of collaboration, our interpretation of the concept, our understanding of how structural features could be operationalized, and our evaluation of concept maturity (Morse et al., 1996; Penrod and Hupcey, 2005). Both fields view collaboration as essential and recognize that combining their expertise can strengthen literacy instruction. Our analysis demonstrated that in the context of SLP-educator collaboration for literacy instruction in general education settings, there is a lack of consistency in how the concept is defined and how the structural features of collaboration are presented in the source literature. Our principle-based concept analysis revealed that in our stated context, the concept of collaboration has not yet reached conceptual maturity.

Structural features of the concept of collaboration

Our analysis made explicit the characteristics, preconditions, outcomes, and conceptual boundaries of the concept of collaboration as reported across all data sources, in our stated context. We found three actions were consistently observed as characteristics of collaboration, specifically, jointly planning instruction, negotiating or jointly determining who would take specific actions, and jointly delivering instruction. Recent research in school-based contexts has also reported that collaboration included components such as a relationship among professionals, communication among professionals, and sharing information about student abilities and needs (Armstrong et al., 2023). Our analysis showed these characteristics were not always described in the source literature as components of collaboration across all included articles. Per the linguistic principle, a consistent description of characteristics that constitute collaboration is required to distinguish collaboration from related concepts, and to apply the concept within the stated context (Morse et al., 1996; Penrod and Hupcey, 2005).

As with recent research, the precondition that professionals have discipline-specific knowledge to contribute to instruction was usually present (Jeremy et al., 2024). Discipline-specific knowledge is the expertise that professionals share with one another, that may lead to the anticipated outcomes discussed in the source literature, such as building educator capacity for the delivery of language and literacy instruction (Collins and Wolter, 2019), and the SLP acquiring knowledge of the curriculum (Paul et al., 2006). In turn, these outcomes could contribute to building a shared knowledge base and skills for language and literacy instruction.

In addition to having discipline-specific knowledge, professional development also was observed as a precondition and characteristic of collaboration, however without consistency across source articles. Professional development almost always was presented as an action attributed to the SLP for the purpose of building the educator's knowledge base and skills (Armstrong et al., 2023). There was no discussion of educators providing formal or informal professional development to build the knowledge base and skills of the SLP. While authors presented the opinion that collaboration gave SLPs an enhanced understanding of the curriculum (Paul et al., 2006) and of classroom dynamics and expectations (Meaux et al., 2020), there was no explicit description of how these anticipated outcomes were to be achieved. In addition, none of the sources discussed building professional capacity for collaborative practice, an area identified as a need in recent research (Evans et al., 2025). Our analysis showed gaps in the source literature for professional development provided by educators to develop the knowledge and skills of SLPs for classroom-based instruction, and for developing skills of both educators and SLPs for collaborative practice.

With only one empirical article included in the study, outcomes of SLP-educator collaboration in our analysis represent anticipated outcomes as described by authors of source articles. Outcomes should connect the concept to the context, and the evidence must show change in students’ literacy skills that is measurable for collaboration to be considered effective (Jeremy et al., 2024). Although a prior systematic review (Archibald, 2017) indicated school-based SLP-educator collaboration results in benefits for students, our observation of a limited number of articles employing qualitative or quantitative research designs that includes both a definition of SLP and educator collaboration and a focus on student outcomes suggests further investigation is required (Jeremy et al., 2024). Based on the pragmatic principle, our observations highlight the need for consensus on the prerequisites for collaboration to occur, and the expected outcomes of collaboration, if the concept is to be useful in our given context (Penrod and Hupcey, 2005).

A mature concept is described by characteristics that are always present and can be clearly differentiated from bordering concepts (Morse et al., 1996). Our analysis found a gap in the source literature regarding the description of characteristics that serve as conceptual boundaries for the concept of collaboration in our stated context. Based on the logical principle, a clear understanding of what constitutes a concept and differentiates it from bordering concepts, including preconditions and outcomes, is essential for application by practitioners in a given context (Morse et al., 1996).

Researchers may be investigating collaboration in our stated context using empirical designs; however, the definition/description and use of the concept are inconsistently reported in this body of literature (Evans et al., 2025; Mathers et al., 2024). Our findings indicate that the non-empirical education and speech-language pathology literature provides more detailed definitions/descriptions of collaboration within our stated context. Consistent with other recent research, we found that although authors included some common features of collaboration in the definition (Jeremy et al., 2024), they used various terms to label and/or refer to the concept (Mathers et al., 2024), making it challenging to recognize the concept in the literature. Finally, considering the epistemological principle, the definitions/descriptions provided in the source literature did not consistently reference structural features that distinguish and illustrate the importance of the concept of collaboration in our stated context. This added to the challenge of identifying the concept in source articles (Morse et al., 1996; Penrod and Hupcey, 2005).

A shared definition of collaboration for literacy instruction

Effective collaborative practice requires the concept of collaboration be jointly understood by educators and SLPs (Jeremy et al., 2024). The results of our analysis, which synthesized and analyzed the reported structural features of collaboration, revealed the concept of collaboration in our stated context to be emerging, affirming the need for a shared definition. To achieve a common understanding of the concept and enable application in the context of school-based SLPs and educators delivering literacy instruction in general education settings, we offer the following definition of collaboration:
Collaboration is the joint planning and delivery of literacy instruction through non-hierarchical decision-making by school-based speech-language pathologists, general and special education teachers, and other specialized professionals, having equal responsibility for students by: (1) sharing expertise, resources, and materials for addressing mutually established goals; (2) determining outcomes of instruction through assessment and progress monitoring, in which responsibility for collecting and interpreting student data and for differentiated instruction is shared; and (3) building respective professionals’ capacity by blending disciplinary expertise and roles for efficient planning and delivery of instruction that addresses shared goals.
Based on our analysis grounded in the literature, our definition incorporates perspectives from the disciplines of speech-language pathology and education, providing a common language and understanding that clarifies the meaning of the concept of collaboration in the context of school-based SLPs and educators working together to deliver literacy instruction for all students. Our shared definition can promote consistency for the operationalization of collaboration among professionals for literacy instruction in general education settings, and within the research community. Future research could validate our definition for collaboration in our stated context by asking practitioners if it reflects current practice.

Limitations

Our decision to restrict inclusion to peer-reviewed, English-language articles in general education settings may have excluded relevant non-peer reviewed or non-English sources that could have informed our analysis and definition of collaboration. Although we searched three databases selected for their coverage of education and speech-language pathology literature, expanding the search to additional databases may have identified more empirical studies. These additional studies might have offered further insights into tested outcomes of school-based SLP and educator collaboration for literacy instruction and impacted our evaluation of concept maturity. Terms for labelling/referring to the concept of collaboration varied across the source literature (Mathers et al., 2024). As we intended to include sources that purposefully reported on the concept of collaboration, it is possible that our search terms resulted in the exclusion of articles that may have contributed to our findings.

Implications

Our study advances the concept of collaboration for literacy instruction delivered by educators and SLPs in general education settings by offering a shared definition that can guide practice and research. Educators and SLPs have the disciplinary expertise for the delivery of literacy instruction and are expected to collaborate as part of best practice (ASHA, 2010; OCT, 2025; SAC, 2021). By making explicit the structural features of collaboration, we have made known the constructs that professionals can advocate for and implement in their own general education settings to meet practice expectations.

Given that empirical research was largely excluded from our analysis because authors did not describe actions that constituted collaboration and/or did not define the concept, we suggest that researchers state the definition of collaboration and the context for the inquiry to enable consistency across investigations and disciplines, and support application of findings to practice (Morse et al., 1996). Researchers investigating collaboration also need to specify the focus of their inquiry, whether it is student achievement (e.g. whole class, small group, or individuals) or the process of collaboration itself and ensure the use of appropriate measures to assess success (Jeremy et al., 2024). If outcomes are measured, findings could serve to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of school-based SLP and educator collaboration for literacy instruction.

Conclusion

“A scientific concept is not a static entity – it is dynamic, with the state of the science representing the most current state of scientific understanding” (Penrod and Hupcey, 2005: 414). The concept of collaboration in the context of SLPs and educators delivering literacy instruction in general education classrooms is currently in an emergent state in the literature. Our proposed definition provides a common language and shared understanding of the concept that will enable school-based SLPs and educators to apply collaboration for literacy instruction and achieve the mutual goal of every student reading. By making explicit the structural features that constitute collaboration, including the preconditions for collaboration to occur, our definition of collaboration can support researchers’ efforts to systematically investigate outcomes of SLP and educator collaboration for literacy instruction. In turn, future research could strengthen the evidence base that informs professional practice across the disciplines of speech-language pathology and education and advance concept maturity.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 - Supplemental material for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis by Basiliki Passaretti, Allison Sexton, Tiffany Gallagher, Lyn S Turkstra and Wenonah Campbell in Child Language Teaching and Therapy

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 - Supplemental material for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis by Basiliki Passaretti, Allison Sexton, Tiffany Gallagher, Lyn S Turkstra and Wenonah Campbell in Child Language Teaching and Therapy

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 - Supplemental material for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis by Basiliki Passaretti, Allison Sexton, Tiffany Gallagher, Lyn S Turkstra and Wenonah Campbell in Child Language Teaching and Therapy

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-4-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 - Supplemental material for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis by Basiliki Passaretti, Allison Sexton, Tiffany Gallagher, Lyn S Turkstra and Wenonah Campbell in Child Language Teaching and Therapy

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-5-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 - Supplemental material for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-5-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis by Basiliki Passaretti, Allison Sexton, Tiffany Gallagher, Lyn S Turkstra and Wenonah Campbell in Child Language Teaching and Therapy

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-6-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 - Supplemental material for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-6-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis by Basiliki Passaretti, Allison Sexton, Tiffany Gallagher, Lyn S Turkstra and Wenonah Campbell in Child Language Teaching and Therapy

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-7-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 - Supplemental material for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-7-clt-10.1177_02656590261433347 for Speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration in literacy instruction: Establishing a shared definition through principle-based concept analysis by Basiliki Passaretti, Allison Sexton, Tiffany Gallagher, Lyn S Turkstra and Wenonah Campbell in Child Language Teaching and Therapy

Structural feature	Definition
Characteristics	Attributes, components, actions and/or behaviors that constitute collaboration that are always present
Preconditions	Antecedents for collaboration to occur
Outcomes	Consequences of enacting collaboration
Conceptual boundaries	Features described in the stated context that delineate collaboration from bordering/related concepts
Definition/Description	Definition or description of collaboration that serves as a label for the associated actions/behaviors that make the concept identifiable

	**Article number
Linguistic principle
Characteristics
Joint actions
Plan instruction and materials	X*	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X*	X	X*	X	X
Deliver instruction	X*	X	X	X*	X	X	X	X	X	X	X*	X*	X
Attribute actions to professionals	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X*	X	X	X	X
Share expertise/resources/materials	X*	X	X		X	X*	X*	X	X	X	X*	X*	X*
Student assessment/Progress monitoring /documentation		X	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	X*	X	X
Share decision-making and responsibility		X	X*	X	X		X	X	X	X	X*	X	X
Shared goals/expectations	X*	X*	X		X*			X*	X	X	X*	X	X
Communication among professionals	X	X	*		X	X	*		X	X	X*	*
Share knowledge of student abilities/needs	X	X			X				X	X	X	X
Receive/utilize input from other professionals				X	X		X
Relationship among professionals		X	X*		X	X*			X	X	X		X
Time to engage in actions that constitute collaboration		X		X	X	X			X	X	X
Professional development						X		X			X		X
Pragmatic principle
Preconditions
Have discipline specific knowledge	X*	X	X	X*	X*	X	X*	X	X	X*		X*	X*
Establish professional relationships	X	X	X		X	X			X	X	X	X
Shared goals for collaboration		X	X		X	X			X	X	X	X	X
Shared knowledge base/skills	X		X		X	X	X				X	X
Professionals know/understand respective roles		X	X			X	X*	X		X*	X
Shared values and mutual respect		X			X			X		X*	X	X
Professional development			X				X	X		X*	X	X
Communication systems among professionals		X			X	X				X	X
Time reserved		X			X	X				X	X
Opportunities for professionals to interact			X			X	X				X
Shared terminology					X			X		X	X
School philosophy support collaboration							X			X	X
Professionals recognize different perspectives						X				X	X
Opportunities to discuss/address challenges		X									X	X
Knowledge of student abilities/needs				X							X
Classroom-based model of service delivery		X									X
Outcomes
For students	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X*	X*
For delivery of instruction			X	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	X
For professionals		X			X	X		X	X	X	X	X
For educators		X			X	X		X	X	X	X	X
For speech-language pathologists								X			X
Logical principle
Conceptual boundaries	*	X*	X	X*	X*	X	*	*		X	X*	X*
Bordering concepts			X								X
Epistemological principle
Definition/description of the concept	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X

*Article number	Definition/Description of collaboration
1	“Interdisciplinary collaboration between professionals, like special and general educators, art specialists, and teaching artists, contributes to the success of arts integration programs (Alter-Muri, 2017; Cunnington et al., 2014; Malley, 2017). Educators, art specialists, and teaching artists who work with children with LI can share resources, identify objectives aligned with an individualized education program (IEP), and engage in co-planning and co-teaching. To promote reading and writing success in children with LI, researchers also recommend that speech language pathologists and reading specialists coordinate efforts (Gosse et al., 2012; Pavelko et al., 2017; Squires et al., 2013). When educators coordinate efforts and form interdisciplinary collaborations, each “makes unique contributions to reading outcomes through the services they provide and their particular areas of expertise” (Gosse et al., 2012, p. 77).” (p. 167)
2	“Interprofessional collaboration occurs when two or more professionals work together to achieve common goals and is frequently used as a means for solving a variety of problems and complex issues (World Health Organization, 2010).” (p. 782)
3	“At the highest level, collaboration, the LDS, classroom teacher, and SLP engage in informal networking and develop a high degree of trust in one another. Responsibility for students is shared by all individuals.” (p. 415)
4	“The connection between literacy and communication highlights the need for interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) in addressing the literacy learning needs of students with severe disabilities. The World Health Organization (2010) suggests that IPCP is characterized by professionals from different backgrounds working together with clients, families, and caregivers to deliver the highest quality of care.” (p. 194)
5	“In this article, collaboration is defined as individuals working together on mutual goals. These goals are developed together and shared while simultaneously highlighting team members’ individual strengths, understandings, and expertise which should strengthen team outcomes (Winchester, 2013).” (p.54)
6	“Collaboration in early years oral language programs involves educators, allied health professionals, and other professionals sharing knowledge and information, validating each other's roles, and providing input around which strategies promote positive outcomes for all children (Jackson et al., 2009).” (p. 16)
7	“Effective schools for ELLs incorporate ongoing opportunities for collaboration across programs and personnel. In a collaborative model, each person has a role and makes a unique contribution. Just as collaboration among classroom teachers is essential to the success of second language learners, so is collaboration among teachers and professionals in specialized roles (e.g. SLPs, educational psychologists and diagnosticians, content-area specialists, etc.). The exact role of each professional in a collaborative process will be determined by his or her training and expertise. In an ideal situation, all the professionals on a campus have knowledge regarding working with ELLs. Additionally, there would be bilingual professionals on those campuses providing bilingual programs or ESL support. However, if this is not the case, then communication and sharing of expertise becomes more important as professionals work together to ensure students are adequately served prior to referral and if necessary after they have been identified for special education services.” (p. 110)
8	“Adapted from the World Health Organization, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA, n.d.) defines interprofessional practice (IPP) as two or more professionals working together to achieve common goals and is frequently used as a means for solving a variety of problems and complex issues.” (p. 518)
9	“Collaboration can take many forms, but the scenario described in this article involves (a) the teacher and SLP planning together, (b) the teacher conducting shared book reading with the whole class, and (c) the SLP providing targeted, individualized intervention for the children with or at risk for learning disabilities, many of whom would likely be on the SLP caseload for speech-language impairment.” (p. 157)
10	“Members of collaborative teams often represent not only diverse areas of expertise but different philosophical and theoretical orientations as well. These differences may lead to confusion and conflict if not addressed in a respectful and direct manner. Three elements can support professionals to build collaborative relationships: (a) open discussion of values, philosophies, ideas, and strategies; (b) learning together through continuing education and action research; and (c) negotiating partner roles explicitly Although negotiating differences in knowledge, experience, perspective, and interactive style is challenging, it can be done. It is easier when partners share a value and passion for fostering language and literacy growth and when they agree that there is much to learn…and a shared mission provides a foundation for conducting small action research projects to evaluate components.” (p. 62–63)
11	“A transdisciplinary approach is considered to be more collaborative because it eases and blends professional boundaries (ASHA, 1991). This approach is characterized by flexibility in the roles of team members; release of some responsibilities traditionally associated with a specific discipline (i.e. “role release”); sharing of information and skills for planning and implementation; consistent interaction, communication, and coordination among team members during assessment and during implementation of common, jointly determined intervention goals; and shared responsibility for documenting student outcomes (ASHA, 1991; Thomas et al., 2001). The literacy partnership presented in this article is most closely aligned with the transdisciplinary approach to service delivery.” (p. 8)
12	“Literacy partnerships offer an opportunity for these professionals to (a) engage in focused and frequent exchanges about effective language and literacy instruction; (b) share their expertise; (c) alter their traditional roles and responsibilities to encompass direct and indirect methods of service delivery; and (d) leverage their combined knowledge and skills for implementing strong oral and written language practices and improving literacy outcomes for diverse students.” (p. 25–26)
13	“Collaboration to foster language and literacy development is an ideal context for SLPs and teachers to share their expertise and knowledge and create quality discourse communities for students in all instructional tiers. It also affords a potentially powerful means to intertwine oral language into the literacy curriculum and encourage the integration of students with communication disorders and other learning problems into the social dynamics of the classroom.” (p. 77)

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the McMaster University Health Sciences library staff for assistance provided in developing the search strategy.

ORCID iDs

Basiliki Passaretti

Allison Sexton

Tiffany Gallagher

Lyn S Turkstra

Wenonah Campbell

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the John and Margaret Lillie Chair in Childhood Disability Research. .

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

Inquiries regarding availability of the data analyzed during this study may be directed to the corresponding author.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Alter-Muri

(2017) Art education and art therapy strategies for autism spectrum disorder students. Art Education 70(5): 20–25.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (1991) A model for collaborative service delivery for students with language-learning disorders in the public schools. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 33(Suppl. 5): 44–50.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2010) Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools: Professional issues statement. Available at: https://www.asha.org/policy/pi2010-00317/#sec1.2

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (n.d.) Interprofessional education/interprofessional practice (IPE/IPP). Available at: www.asha.org/practice/ipeipp/ (accessed 3 September 2020).

Archibald

LMD

(2017) SLP-educator classroom collaboration: A review to inform reason-based practice. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments 2: 1–17.

Armstrong

Schimke

Mathew

and Scarinci N (2023) Interprofessional practice between speech-language pathologists and classroom teachers: A mixed-methods systematic review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 54(4): 1358–1376.

¹ Becker

(2020) Teaching language and literacy through the visual arts: an interdisciplinary, literature-based approach. TEACHING Exceptional Children 52(3): 166–179.

Botting

(2020) Language, literacy and cognitive skills of young adults with developmental language disorder (DLD). International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 55(2): 255–265.

² Collins

Wolter

(2019) Morphological awareness strategies to promote academic success at tier 1 through interprofessional collaboration. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups 4(5): 781–789.

10.

Cunnington

Kantrowitz

Harnett

Hill-Ries

(2014) Cultivating common ground: Integrating standards-based visual arts, math and literacy in high poverty urban classrooms. Journal for Learning Through the Arts: A Research Journal on Arts Integration in Schools and Communities 10(1): 1–24.

11.

³ Elksnin

(1997) Collaborative speech and language services for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 30(4): 414–426.

12.

⁴ Erickson

(2017) Comprehensive literacy instruction, interprofessional collaborative practice, and students with severe disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 26(2): 193–205.

13.

Evans

Spence

Rodgers

Scott

(2025) A systematic literature review on school-based speech-language pathology collaboration research. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 56(1): 234–251.

14.

Gosse

Hoffman

Invernizzi

(2012) Overlap in speech-language and reading services for kindergartners and first graders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 43(1): 66–80.

15.

⁵ Gosselin

Sundeen

(2019) Supporting literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs in rural settings through collaboration: so much better when we work together!. Rural Special Education Quarterly 38(1): 53–64.

16.

Jackson

Pretti-Frontczak

Harjusola-Webb

Grisham-Brown

Romani

(2009) Response to intervention: Implications for early childhood professionals. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 40(4): 424–434.

17.

Jeremy

Spandagou

Hinitt

(2024) Teacher-therapist collaboration in inclusive primary schools: a scoping review. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 71(4): 593–611.

18.

Krefting

(1991) Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 45(3): 214–222.

19.

⁶ Lennox

Garvis

Westerveld

(2017) Listening to the voices of education professionals involved in implementing an oral language and early literacy program in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 42(8): 16–28.

20.

⁷ Linan-Thompson

Ortiz

(2009) Response to intervention and English-language learners: instructional and assessment considerations. Seminars in Speech and Language 30(2): 105–120.

21.

Lumivero (2025) NVivo, Version 15.1.2 [Computer software]. Lumivero. Available at: https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo/

22.

Malley

(2017) Collaboration between special education and arts education: Negotiating standards for teachers and students. In: Crockett

Malley

(eds) Handbook of Arts Education Special Education. New York: Routledge, pp.32–44.

23.

Mathers

Botting

Moss

Spicer-Cain

(2024) Collaborative working between speech and language therapists and teaching staff in mainstream UK primary schools: a scoping review. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 40(2): 120–138.

24.

⁸ Meaux

Diehm

Collins

(2020) Morphological knowledge: opportunities for collaboration through multitiered system of supports. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 51(3): 515–530.

25.

Moats

(2020) Teaching reading is rocket science, 2020: What expert teachers of Reading should know and be able to do. American Educator. 2020. USA: American Federation of Teachers.

26.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, Altman, DG and The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. British Medical Journal 339: 1–8.

27.

Morse

Mitcham

Hupcey

Cerdas

(1996) Criteria for concept evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 24: 385–390.

28.

⁹ Murphy

Pentimont

Chow

(2023) Supporting children's language and literacy through collaborative shared book reading. Intervention in School and Clinic 58(3): 155–163.

29.

¹⁰ Nelson

Van Meter

(2006) Partnerships for literacy in a writing lab approach. Topics in Langauge Disorders 26(1): 55–69.

30.

O’Connor

Joffe

(2020) Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19: 1–13.

31.

Ontario College of Teachers (2025) The standards of practice for the teaching profession. Available at: https://www.oct.ca/en-ca/public-protection/professional-standards/standards-of-practice

32.

¹¹ Paul

Blosser

Jakubowitz

(2006) Principles and challenges for forming successful literacy partnerships. Topics in Langauge Disorders 26(1): 5–23.

33.

Pavelko

Lieberman

Schwartz

Hahs-Vaughn

Nye

(2017) The development of writing skills in 4-year-old children with and without specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 31(7–9): 682–696.

34.

Penrod

Hupcey

(2005) Enhancing methodological clarity: principle-based concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50(4): 403–409.

35.

Peters

MDJ

Godfrey

McInerney

(2020) Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute.

36.

¹² Roth

Troia

(2006) Collaborative efforts to promote emergent literacy and efficient word recognition skills. Topics in Language Disorders 26(1): 24–41.

37.

¹³ Roth

Troia

(2009) Applications of responsiveness to intervention and the speech-language pathologist in elementary school settings. Seminars in Speech and Language 30(2): 75–89.

38.

Scarborough

(2001) Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In: Neuman

Dickinson

(eds) Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York: The Guildford Press, pp.97–110.

39.

Speech-Language & Audiology Canada (2021) Speech-language & audiology Canada official statement on evidence-based speech-language pathology practice in schools. Available at: https://www.sac-oac.ca/sac-work/position-papers-and-guidelines.

40.

Squires

Gillam

Reutzel

(2013) Characteristics of children who struggle with reading: Teachers and speech language pathologists collaborate to support young learners. Early Childhood Education 41: 401–411.

41.

Thomas

Correa

Morsink

(2001) Interactive teaming: Enhancing programs for students with special needs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

42.

Veritas Health Innovation (2025) Covidence systematic review software [Computer software]. Melbourne, Australia. Available at: www.covidence.org

43.

Winchester

(2013) Two meanings of collaboration in education. Interchange 44: 149–150.

44.

World Health Organization (2010) Framework for action on interprofessional education & collaborative practice. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

	**Article number
Principle of concept analysis and corresponding structural feature(s)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Linguistic principle
Characteristics
Joint actions
Plan instruction and materials	X*	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X*	X	X*	X	X
Deliver instruction	X*	X	X	X*	X	X	X	X	X	X	X*	X*	X
Attribute actions to professionals	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X*	X	X	X	X
Share expertise/resources/materials	X*	X	X		X	X*	X*	X	X	X	X*	X*	X*
Student assessment/Progress monitoring /documentation		X	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	X*	X	X
Share decision-making and responsibility		X	X*	X	X		X	X	X	X	X*	X	X
Shared goals/expectations	X*	X*	X		X*			X*	X	X	X*	X	X
Communication among professionals	X	X	*		X	X	*		X	X	X*	*
Share knowledge of student abilities/needs	X	X			X				X	X	X	X
Receive/utilize input from other professionals				X	X		X
Relationship among professionals		X	X*		X	X*			X	X	X		X
Time to engage in actions that constitute collaboration		X		X	X	X			X	X	X
Professional development						X		X			X		X
Pragmatic principle
Preconditions
Have discipline specific knowledge	X*	X	X	X*	X*	X	X*	X	X	X*		X*	X*
Establish professional relationships	X	X	X		X	X			X	X	X	X
Shared goals for collaboration		X	X		X	X			X	X	X	X	X
Shared knowledge base/skills	X		X		X	X	X				X	X
Professionals know/understand respective roles		X	X			X	X*	X		X*	X
Shared values and mutual respect		X			X			X		X*	X	X
Professional development			X				X	X		X*	X	X
Communication systems among professionals		X			X	X				X	X
Time reserved		X			X	X				X	X
Opportunities for professionals to interact			X			X	X				X
Shared terminology					X			X		X	X
School philosophy support collaboration							X			X	X
Professionals recognize different perspectives						X				X	X
Opportunities to discuss/address challenges		X									X	X
Knowledge of student abilities/needs				X							X
Classroom-based model of service delivery		X									X
Outcomes
For students	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X*	X*
For delivery of instruction			X	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	X
For professionals		X			X	X		X	X	X	X	X
For educators		X			X	X		X	X	X	X	X
For speech-language pathologists								X			X
Logical principle
Conceptual boundaries	*	X*	X	X*	X*	X	*	*		X	X*	X*
Bordering concepts			X								X
Epistemological principle
Definition/description of the concept	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X