SchoolBased SLPs' Collaborative Practices in Literacy

1
School-Based SLPs' Collaborative Practices in
Literacy

• Lauren A. Katz, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
• Bowling Green State University
• Karen A. Fallon, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
• Towson University
• Abby Maag, B.S.
• Bowling Green State University
• ASHA 2008 Convention Chicago, IL

2
Acknowledgements

• We are grateful for the extraordinary number of
  school-based SLPs from across the country who
  participated in this study. There would be no
  story to tell without their generous
  contributions.
• We are also grateful for the recruiting efforts
  made by graduate students from Bowling Green
  State University
• Katie Blenkarn
• Jeeva John
• Krista Olszewski
• Megan Smith

3
To collaborate or not to collaborateThat is our
question

• Tone of Todays discussion
• Discussion about Collaboration
• No judgment on current practice
• Sharing our findings on what SLPs across the
  country feel about collaboration and literacy
  service provision
• Tell us what you think
• Open forum discussion at the end of the talk

4
The SLP Written Language

• Expanded Roles
• SLPs expected to have written language expertise
  (ASHA 2001)
• Collaborative partnerships recommended for the
  provision written language services
• Literacy teams
• Classroom teachers
• Reading specialists
• Speech-language pathologists
• Special education teachers

5
The Role of the SLP in Literacy

• SLPs are responsible for providing written
  language services (ASHA 2001)
• ASHA Certified graduate programs are now required
  to provide coursework and clinical experience in
  the area of written language
• Phonemic awareness
• Phonetic skills
• Reading fluency
• Reading comprehension
• Vocabulary knowledge

6
Why collaborate?

• It takes a team
• Struggling readers and writers require the help
  of many to succeed
• Critical for team members to be aware of what
  each other is doing
• Integrated services yield better student outcomes
  
• (Butler, Nelson, Roth, Paul, 2006 Ehren
  Ehren, 2001).

7
In theory.

• SLPs are experts in language, including written
  language (Catts Kamhi, 2005)
• The literature supports collaboration for written
  language service provision.
• (Butler, Nelson, Roth, Paul, 2006 Ehren
  Ehren, 2001).
• Recommended that SLPs become productive members
  of literacy teams
• (Ehren Ehren, 2001 Staskowski, 2003)

8
In practice.

• SLPs struggle to fit written language into their
  growing list of duties (Janota, 2004)
• SLPs often fail to forge successful partnerships
  for written language service provision
• (Ehren Ehren, 2001, Katz Fallon, 2006)

9
So whats the problem?

• Time, Time, Time
• Teachers often dont understand SLPs role
• Teachers may not want to collaborate
• Administrators may not support collaborative
  practice or even recognize the SLP as a
  literacy service provider
• Many SLPs feel unprepared to handle the literacy
  needs of students
• (Ehren Ehren, 2001, Fallon Katz, 2007 Katz
  et al., 2007).

10
A Complex Issue

• So, whats the answer??
• Lets answer the question with some more
  questions.

11
Research Questions

• To what extent are school-based SLPs
  collaborating with teachers?
• Does collaboration seem to be a positive practice
  for service provision?
• How do school-based SLPs feel about working
  collaboratively with teachers in the area of
  literacy?
• What factors predict a greater likelihood of
  being a high collaborator?

12
Methodology
13
Recruitment

• Special education director for each state
• If not, accessible counties or districts
  identified
• 2 urban, 2 suburban, and 2 rural counties chosen
  randomly
• District coordinators asked to provide email
  addresses
• If not provided, districts and schools were
  searched (on-line)
• If not found, district was abandoned and new one
  pursued

14
The Survey

• Electronic, web-based survey
• Emailed to school-based SLPs between April and
  May 2007
• One reminder after one week
• Estimated time to complete was 15-20 minutes
• Question formats
• 1) choices presented in drop-down boxes
• 2) Likert-type questions
• 3) check-list items
• 4) yes/no response items
• No open-ended questions

15
WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND THE SCHOOL-BASED
SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST
16
WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND THE SCHOOL-BASED
SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST
17
WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND THE SCHOOL-BASED
SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST
18
WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND THE SCHOOL-BASED
SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST
19
WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND THE SCHOOL-BASED
SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST
20
Who are the participants?

• Original n 717 (38 response rate)
• preschools only excluded ? n 693 SLPs
• 95 female
• 73 with CCCs
• Mean age 45 (range 23-68, sd 11.0)
• Years experience ( range 0-30) 71 at least 10
  years

21
Where are the participants?

• 49 states (no returns from Hawaii)
• Rural (44), suburban (35), and urban (21)
• Variety of age levels
• 65 working with more than one age level
• 47 in preschools
• 91 in elementary schools
• 38 in middle schools
• 18 in junior high schools
• 30 in high schools
• 41 in one school, 30 in 2 schools, 29 in 3 or
  more schools

22
What are the participants caseload
characteristics?

• Mean caseload size for full-time 49
• (range 3-100 sd 17.6)
• Serving 2 to 10 disability groups (e.g., AAC,
  ASD, SLI, etc.).
• Greatest numbers language-learning disabilities
  and articulation disorders

23
Results

• The SLPs weigh in

24
Research Question 1

• To what extent are school- based SLPs
  collaborating with teachers?

25
23
36
47
33
3
26
23
7
26
37
30
46
6
28
10
19
At Least Weekly 1-2 x/month Rarely
Never
26
Research Question 2

• Does collaboration seem to be a positive practice
  or service provision?

27
Levels of Collaboration

• Mean responses for the preceding 4 questions used
  to create 3 groups of SLPs
• 1 High Collaborators (at least weekly)
• (n137)
• 2 Moderate Collaborators (bimonthly to 8x/year)
• (n193)
• 3 Low Collaborators (few times/year to never)
• (n363)

28
The Service of Students with WL Needs by Level of
Collaboration
Percent Students Served
F (2, 665) 15.09, p lt .001
29
Levels of Collaboration in Relation to Knowledge
Percent Agreement
Percent agreement
30
Levels of Collaboration in Relation to Attitudes
Percent Agreement
31
Research Question 3

• How do school-based SLPs feel about working
  collaboratively with teachers in the area of
  literacy?

32
Percent Agreement
33
Research Question 4

• What factors predict a greater likelihood of
  being a high collaborator?

34
Logistic Regression

• To identify the variables that significantly
  predict the likelihood of being a high
  collaborator
• Entered the following 10 variables
• Years experience
• Number of schools
• Number of disability groups
• Caseload size
• Caseload manageability (SA to SD)
• WL training in masters program (Yes/No)
• Knowledge and expertise in literacy (SA to SD)
• Belief that literacy should be included in scope
  of practice (SA to SD)
• Belief that teachers in my school are
  interested in collaborating (SA to SD)
• Percent of students with WL needs served

35
The Significant Variables

• Years experience
• Number of schools
• Number of disability groups
• Caseload size
• Caseload manageability
• WL training in masters program
• Knowledge and expertise in literacy
• Belief that literacy should be included in scope
  of practice
• Belief that teachers are interested in
  collaborating
• Percent of students with WL needs served

36
The Odds of Being a High Collaborator
For every additional school an SLP works in, the
odds of being a high collaborator go down
20. With each higher rating of knowledge and
expertise, the odds of being a high collaborator
go up 64. In relation to teacher interest, the
odds of being a high collaborator more than
double with each step along the Likert scale. In
relation to students needing service in WL, for
every increase of 10 percentage points of
students served, the odds of being a high
collaborator increase by 6.
37
So, the survey says.
38

• Collaboration seems to be a positive practice
• High levels of collaboration are related to
• high levels of expertise
• positive attitudes
• greater numbers of students receiving written
  language services

39

• But, there is a twist

40
Collaboration and Caseload Manageability

• Another logistic regression
• Examined variables predicting the likelihood of
  feeling that ones caseload size is manageable.
• Entered
• CA
• Years experience
• CCC
• District
• of schools
• of age groups
• of disability groups
• students with WL needs
• students with WL needs being served
• Caseload size
• Knowledge and expertise in WL
• Level of collaboration

41
Logistic Regression Findings

• Among those SLPs with caseloads gt 47, there were
  3 significant variables
• Caseload size ? The larger his/her caseload, the
  less likely the SLP found it manageable
• Years experience ? The more years of experience,
  the less likely the SLP found his/her caseload
  manageable
• AND hold on
• 3. Level of collaboration ? Low collaborators
  were almost 3 times more likely to report their
  caseloads as manageable compared to high
  collaborators

42
Ahhhh!!!

• While this last finding seems out of sync with
  the others,
• lets try to make sense of this.

43

• The more schools an SLP is placed in, the less
  likely she/he is to collaborate
• The more knowledge and expertise an SLP has about
  literacy, the more likely she/he is to
  collaborate
• When SLPs believe that teachers want to
  collaborate with them, it is more likely that
  SLPs will pursue a collaborative partnership
• The greater the percentage of students receiving
  written language services, the more likely
  collaborations are taking place

44
Factors that Did Not Impact Collaboration

• Experience
• Caseload size
• Manageability of caseload
• Written language training in graduate program
• Attitudes about written language in scope of
  practice
• Variety of students on caseload

45
On the flip side

• Compared to high collaborators, low collaborators
  reported caseloads to be significantly more
  manageable
• Hypothesis Working alone is often easierno
  team management issues, one has more control, and
  spends less time coordinating services.

46
However.

• Low collaboration was associated with
• Less knowledge and preparedness to provide
  written language services
• A lower frequency of written language service
  provision.
• Poorer attitudes about providing literacy
  services

47
Where do we go from here?

• Is it a No pain no gain situation??
• Is it better to be less stressed and find your
  day more manageable, but be less effective? Or-
• Do SLPs have to be stressed out and unhappy to do
  a good job?
• Is there some happy medium, another way??

48
Future Directions

• Survey pairs of SLPs and teachers
• Get teachers perspectives
• Evaluate the factors that make collaborative
  practices between SLPs and teachers successful
• Evaluate the effectiveness of pre-service
  training programs addressing collaboration in
  literacy for SLPs and teachers