Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

As speech-language pathologists are moving toward more collaborative, curriculum-based models of service delivery, they require an understanding of the curriculum and the language demands of that curriculum on students with communication impairments. This article presents a systematic process for completing a language-based curriculum analysis to address a critical review of the curriculum expectations which may challenge students with communication impairments. This process requires a collaborative effort between the teacher and speech-language pathologist (SLP). Analysis of the vocabulary and the demands for comprehension, oral and written expression within a specific content area provides a framework by which the classroom teacher and SLP can evaluate and predict the language needs of students with communication impairments. This analysis leads to the development of strategies for making modifications in the presentation of curriculum material. Although initially a labor intensive process, the outcomes teacher-SLP teams report suggest their time and commitment to the process resulted in more successful management of the curriculum demands for all students.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brown, A.L. , Campione, J.C. , Weber, L.S. & McGilly, K. (1992). Interactive learning environments: A new look at assessment and instruction. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Commission on Testing and Public Policy .

Brown, A.L. & Ferrara, R.A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development: An alternative to standardized testing? In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 273-305). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press .

Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann .

Creaghead, N.A. (1990). Mutual empowerment through collaboration: A new script for an old problem. Best Practices in School SpeechLanguage Pathology, 1, 109-116.

Creaghead, N.A. (1991). Classroom interactional analysis/script analysis . Best Practices in School Speech-Language Pathology, 2, 65-72.

Hoskins, B. (1990). Collaborative consultation: Designing the role of the speech-language pathologist in a new educational context. Best Practices in School Speech-Language Pathology, 1, 29-36.

Lindfors, J.W. (1987). Children's language and learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Miller, L. (1989). Classroom-based language intervention. Language , Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 20, 153-169.

Nelson, N.W. (1985). Teacher talk and child listening-fostering a better match. In C. S. Simon (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success: Assessment of language-learning disabled students (pp. 65-104). San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.

10.

Nelson, N.W. (1989). Curriculum-based language assessment and intervention . Language, Speech and Services in Schools, 20, 170-184.

11.

Nelson, N.W. (1990). Only relevant practices can be best. Best Practices in School Speech-Language Pathology, 1, 15-27.

12.

Nelson, N.W. (1993). Childhood language disorders in context:lnfancy through adolescence. New York, NY: Merrill/MacMillan .

13.

Nelson, N.W. (1994). Curriculum-based language assessment and intervention across the grades. In G. P. Wallach & K. G. Butler (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents (pp. 104-131). New York, NY: Macmillan College Publishing Company .

14.

Ohio Department of Education (1983). Process model for course of study. Minimum standards implementation series (pp. 8-49). Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.

15.

Palincsar, A.S. , Brown, A.L. & Campione, J.C. (1994). Models and practices of dynamic assessment. In G. P. Wallach & K. G. Butler (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents (pp. 132-144). New York, NY: Macmillan College Publishing Company .

16.

Prelock, P.A. Miller, B. & Reed, N.L. (1993). Working with the classroom curriculum: A guide for analysis and use in speech therapy. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders.

17.

Prelock, P.A. , Miller, B.L. & Reed, N.L. (1995). Collaborative partnerships in a language in the classroom program. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 26, 286-292.

18.

Pugach, M.C. & Johnson, L.J. (1995). Collaborative practitioners collaborative schools . Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company .

19.

Short, E.C. (1991). Curriculum design: A wider perspective for today and tomorrow. NASSP Bulletin, February, 27-37.

20.

Sands, D.J. , Adams, L. & Stout, D.M. (1995). A statewide exploration of the nature and use of curriculum in special education. Exceptional Children, 62, 68-83.

21.

Silliman, E.R. & Wilkinson, L.C. (1994). Observation is more than looking. In G. P. Wallach & K. G. Butler (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents (pp. 145-173). New York, NY: Macmillan College Publishing Company .

22.

Tucker, J.A. (1985). Curriculum-based assessment: An introduction. Exceptional Children, 52, 199-204.

Language-Based Curriculum Analysis: A Collaborative Assessment and Intervention Process

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References