Reading and Auditory Processing collaborative project.

Abstract

This article describes year one of an ongoing project initiated to encourage collaboration among university and public school educators to improve instruction in reading and auditory processing. The Reading and Auditory Processing Project (RAP) focuses on helping general educators, special educators, and speech-language pathologists work together to integrate their separate knowledge bases to benefit all students. Positive outcomes and continuing challenges are discussed.

**********

General education teachers, special education teachers, and speech-language pathologists bring different perspectives to teaching. An important responsibility of K-5 general educators is to plan, implement, and evaluate instruction that will help students grow as readers, writers, and users of language. Reading instruction is a daily activity for these teachers. The goal for students in the elementary grades is to become independent and strategic users of printed language so they will experience success in school and in life. Special educators in public schools modify instruction to address the individual needs of students with disabilities as outlined by their individual education plans (IEPs). Reading instruction may or may not be a daily activity for special education teachers, depending on the individual needs of their students. Speech-language pathologists provide therapy for students who have been identified with hearing or speech problems. They focus on receptive and expressive language to help students articulate clearly and use language to communicate accurately. The focus is on oral language.

All three educators work with some of the same students on auditory skills; however, they teach the skills in isolated settings, from three different perspectives. There is often little communication among the educators about how their goals for learners could be integrated to reinforce the skills they are teaching. For example, the reading teacher works with student A on phonemic awareness. Then the speech-language pathologist works with the same child on articulation. When student A goes to the resource room, the special educator works on listening and following directions. Phonemic awareness, articulation, listening, and following directions are interrelated auditory skills; development in one skill area enhances development in the other areas (Bradham, 2001; Smith, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1995).

In the sample case just described, the teachers may be providing effective instruction, but at the same time, may be confusing the child. The child may not see any connection to what is learned in the reading classroom, the speech classroom, and the special education resource classroom. The child doesn't see the connection because, in many cases, the teachers have not realized fully the kinds of connections that are possible. Also, the educators may be using different language to describe similar auditory skills. Through professional development and collaborative teaching, these educators may be able to integrate their separate knowledge bases to serve the language and literacy needs of their struggling learners. As noted by Ham, Bradshaw, and Ogletree (1999) collaborative service delivery models are replacing 'pull-out' approaches for special education and speech-language pathology. Some of the challenges for educators trying such new approaches include making sure special education and speech-language pathology interventions are tied closely to the general education curriculum. The relationship between reading, language, and central auditory processing is well documented (Bradham, 2001; Chermak & Musiek, 1997; Hull, 2001; Schow & Nerbonne, 2001). Reading is described as a secondary, linguistic function based on auditory-verbal language development (Collins & Cheek, 1999; Flexer, 1999). The National Reading Panel reported that the ability to manipulate the sounds in language is a strong predictor of later reading success (NICHD, 2000). Central auditory processing disorders (CAPD) often result in both receptive and expressive language disorders, and children with language impairments exhibit a five times greater chance of developing reading problems (Gillon, 2001). Some of the children who later develop reading problems may be identified to receive extra help in special education.

Project Description

The purpose of the Reading and Auditory Processing (RAP) Collaborative Project was to develop a university and public school partnership to assist the general education teacher, special education teacher, and the speech-language pathologist work and learn together to improve language and literacy instruction for all students. Two faculty members from the Department of Special Education and Speech-Language Pathology, and two reading faculty members from the Department of Curriculum and Instruction from the State University of West Georgia (UWG) formed the University Team. The University Team worked in partnership with the Haralson Team, which included administrators, general education teachers, special education teachers, and speech-language pathologists. During the Fall 2001 semester, the University Team contacted Haralson County administrators to determine if they were interested in participating in a project to promote university and school collaboration as well as address students' literacy needs. The school administrators indicated their interest in pursuing this project and worked with the University Team to prepare a grant proposal for a State Improvement Grant (SIG). In March 2002, the University and Haralson Teams were notified that their two-year grant was funded. For Year 1 of the grant (2002-2003), the Teams decided to focus on the primary school (i.e., K-2). The Haralson Special Education Director and the School Principal worked together to identify a general education teacher, a special education teacher, and a speech-language pathologist interested in participating in the project.

The University Team, Haralson Team, and SIG administrators met in April 2002 to finalize plans for the project. The project components included university coursework and a field-based practicum, both of which focused on assessments and interventions. The grant funded three university courses for the three Haralson educators. During the Summer 2002 semester, these educators took 2 university classes: SPED 7722 Collaboration: Families, Professionals, and Students; and READ 7271 Reading Theory, Development, and Practices. The collaboration course prepared educators to work together by respecting and supporting the various roles of individuals involved in educating all students, particularly those with disabilities. This course focused on collaborative teaching strategies. The summer reading course introduced teachers to skills, approaches, methods, and philosophies for teaching reading. Also, in the reading course, the Haralson educators developed a plan for collaborating to teach phonemic awareness, a necessary auditory skill that must be developed for reading success (NICHD, 2000).

A new university course, READ 7285 Clinical Assessment and Instruction, was developed and co-taught by the University Team to focus on the assessment and treatment of CAPD and reading problems. The course topics included: (a) reading and auditory processing development, (b) informal assessment and diagnosis of reading and auditory processing disorders, and (c) teaching strategies for identified reading and auditory processing problems. Each graduate student/teacher in the course was required to select a struggling reader, administer assessments, analyze assessment data, plan and implement instruction, and practice ongoing evaluation of student reading and auditory processing progress for that reader. A new field-based, practicum for the university graduate students in reading, special education, and speech-language pathology was also developed as a part of the grant. The three Haralson educators were enrolled in a field-based practicum at their school and began teaching in the same classroom whenever possible. These educators implemented their collaborative plan for teaching phonemic awareness developed in the summer reading course. Although the practicum was tied to the fall reading course, the Haralson educators continued to revise and refine their collaborative teaching plan throughout the 2002-2003 school year. Two members of the University Team (i.e., a reading faculty member and a special education faculty member) made school visits to work with the Haralson educators as needed.

The University Team is collecting graduate student performance data in the following ways: (a) a University System of Georgia Reading Consortium (1999) pre and post survey (i.e., knowledge and skill of literacy instruction and technology use); (b) a Power of 2 Best Practices in Reading Survey; (c) observation of site visits; and (d) collaborative conferences with the Haralson educators. A focus group semi-structured interview will be held with the Haralson educators at the end of the school year to determine strengths and weaknesses of the project. These data will be used to improve collaboration, reading, and auditory processing practices for year two of the grant. Year two will consist of continued collaboration with the Haralson Primary School educators and extend to a new team of Haralson Elementary School (i.e., 3-5) educators (i.e., general education teacher, special education teacher, speech-language pathologist). Both the University Team and the Haralson Team are in the process of collecting K-2 student data through reading and auditory processing scores from a variety of formal and informal instruments.

Reflections

Positive outcomes of year one of the collaborative RAP project have been the collaboration within the University Team, within the Haralson Team, and the partnership between both teams. During discussion and planning, university faculty from three different disciplines gained knowledge about the similarities of reading, special education, and speech-language pathology. They shared information on how to integrate the content from their respective disciplines and make connections explicit for the educators enrolled in one university course (i.e., READ 7285, Clinical Assessment and Instruction). A positive outcome within the Haralson Team was the development of a collaborative teaching effort among the three primary school educators. Friend and Cook (2003) state that educators involved in collaborative teaching learn from each other and all become more effective with their students. The three Haralson educators previously had not been involved in collaborative planning or teaching. As the year progressed, their collaborative efforts improved. At the beginning of the school year, they described their planning as "hit or miss" in the hallways of the school. By the end of the year, the three found time before or after school to plan together. In September, the initial collaborative instruction involved the speech-language pathologist providing small group instruction in the general education classroom or in the special education classroom. In April, all three educators taught specific concepts at the same time in the same classroom.

The benefit of the University Team--Haralson Team partnership was the opportunity for communication of educators at different levels. The University Team gained important insights for how to improve the RAP collaborative project for year two of the grant. Other benefits of the partnership from the Haralson Team's perspective will be identified during the focus group to be held at the end of the 2002-03 school year. In addition to positive outcomes, both teams encountered several challenges. The greatest challenges for the University Team were required faculty teaching loads and time constraints. Each University Team member was required to teach seven classes per academic year. During the Fall 2002 semester, when the Clinical Assessment and Instruction course was taught, only one reading faculty member was assigned to teach the course. The other three faculty members volunteered to collaborate to the extent possible considering their faculty responsibilities. For example, two faculty members taught other classes the same evening as the Clinical Assessment and Instruction course. They had to make special arrangements for co-teaching this new university course. Because of faculty teaching assignments and other duties, finding time when all team members were available for discussion and planning proved to be problematic. The University Team had difficulty finding time to model collaboration and instructional strategies for the Haralson Team.

The challenges encountered by the Haralson Team included lack of time for collaboration and team planning and minimal support from the University Team. Raywid (1993) notes that finding time to collaborate can be a problem and that educators have to be creative in their use of time for collaboration to be successful. The Haralson Team struggled with finding time for collaboration even after completing a university class called Collaboration: Families, Professionals, and Students. The realities of a new school year included beginning the school year late due to district building construction, adjusting to a new principal, and working with an existing school schedule that did not facilitate the Haralson Team's collaboration. Although the new principal was supportive, the existing school schedule did not include a common planning time for the three educators. The Haralson Team had difficulty applying what they had learned in their university courses in their public school setting. These educators reported that more support from the University Team at the beginning of the year was needed. The challenges for the University Team-Haralson Team partnership included finding time for the teams to meet together and no established procedures for regular communication. As noted earlier for each team, finding time to meet was problematic. Therefore, arranging times for the four University Team members and the three Haralson Team members provided an even greater challenge. Although phone numbers and e-mail addresses were exchanged among all members of both teams, it was assumed that team members would contact each other as needed.

Conclusions

As the second year of this grant's funding begins, the University Team will continue to formalize procedures for developing more effective collaboration between both teams. Time constraints were the biggest challenge to collaboration within and between teams. Both teams need to continue to explore creative ways for finding time to collaborate (Raywid, 1993). Planning time for collaboration will be essential to the success of the partnership and the project. University Team members will work with Haralson Team members to schedule regular collaborative meetings. A request by the Haralson Team for additional University Team Support indicated that more modeling of instructional procedures, assessments, and collaboration needs to take place in both the university classes and in the public school setting. Making connections between theories and concepts discussed in courses and classroom practices need to become more evident. A focus group interview will be designed to obtain detailed information from the Haralson Team about how the University Team can be more effective in supporting collaboration and literacy instruction. As the experience of collaborating between the University Team and the Haralson School Team solidifies, developing partnerships, establishing mutual goals, and sharing responsibility for decision-making will become a priority.

References

Bradham, T. S. (2001). Auditory processing disorders in children. Paper presented at the ASHA Convention, New Orleans, LA.

Chermak, G. D., & Musiek, F. E. (1997). Central auditory processing disorders: New perspectives. San Diego: Singular.

Collins, M. D., & Cheek, Jr., E. H. (1999). Assessing and guiding reading instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Flexer, C. (1999). Facilitating hearing and listening in young children (2nd ed.). San Diego: Singular.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gillon, G. (2001). Causal & correlative links between spoken and written language difficulties in children. Paper presented at the ASHA Convention, New Orleans, LA.

Harn, W. E., Bradshaw, M. L., & Ogletree, B. T. (1999). The speech-language pathologist in the schools: Changing roles. Intervention in School & Clinic, 34(3), 163-169.

Hull, R. H. (2001). Aural rehabilitation: Serving children and adults (4th ed.) San Diego: Singular.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Power of 2. Best practices in reading survey. (n.d.) Retrieved August 15, 2002, from http://www.powerof2.org/ modules/best_practices/reading/index.php3?

Raywid, M. A. (1993). Finding time for collaboration. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 30-34.

Schow, R. L., & Nerbonne, M. A. (2001). Introduction to audiologic rehabilitation (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Smith, S. B., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995). Synthesis of research on phonological awareness: Principles and implications for reading acquisition (Technical Report no. 21, National Center to Improve the Tools of Education). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

University System of Georgia Reading Consortium. (1999). Survey Retrieved August 15, 2002. from http://msit.gsu.edu/standards/index.htm

Martha J. Larkin, State University of West Georgia

Cathleen Doheny, State University of West Georgia

Donna M. Harkins, State University of West Georgia

Daniel H. Sisterhen, State University of West Georgia

Lark& is an assistant professor of special education. Doheny is an associate professor of reading. Harkins is assistant professor of reading and director of the Developmental and Diagnostic Reading Clinic. Sisterhen is an assistant professor of speech-language pathology.