Linking Speech and Language Disorders and Identified Reading Difficulties in Students JESSICA D. WILLIS (STEVENS) Submitted to

Transcription

1 1 By JESSICA D. WILLIS (STEVENS) Submitted to The Educational Leadership Faculty Northwest Missouri State University Missouri Department of Educational Leadership College of Education and Human Services Maryville, MO Submitted in Fulfillment for the Requirements for Research Paper Summer 2011 August 11, 2012

2 2 ABSTRACT This study shows evidence of the descriptive relationship between students who receive speech or language therapy and reading services in Title I or Special Education. This study shows that students who receive speech and language therapy are likely to also receive reading services in Title I or Special Education. This study uses grades one through four to exhibit the relationship in those students by using tables and graphs in comparing students with speech or language therapy and reading services in Title I or Special Education. As a whole group, there was a 54.4% relationship between the two groups of students, showing a strong relationship. The descriptive relationship will help South Harrison identify students earlier in their education and be able to help them with reading if they are in speech or language therapy. Early identification allows teachers to work with students to help them reach success before they feel the effects of failure.

3 3 INTRODUCTION Background, Issues and Concerns As a Special Education teacher at the elementary school in South Harrison R II School District, most of the students are referred because of an initial struggle in reading which often leads to struggles in other academic areas. It seems that the majority of my students also have speech or language impairments which they receive services for. There is a significant relationship between students with reading struggles and speech or language disabilities. The school s resources will be used to determine the students who are or were in speech at any time during their first through fourth grade career and also those who currently or previously received services in Title I Reading or Special Education for Reading. There are two groups of students all who are or have received extra reading help and those who are or have received speech or language therapy. South Harrison is a rural and low income community with a predominately white student population and a 63% free/reduced lunch. Practice under investigation. This study investigated if there is a descriptive relationship between students who receive speech or language therapy and those who receive reading services in Title I or Special Education.

4 4 School Policy to be Informed by Study. South Harrison will benefit from the study by using these cues to help identify students who could be at risk for reading difficulties through their education. Conceptual Underpinning. Teachers are not able to service students for Title I or Special Education reading unless they qualify under the administrator s supervision and testing. If teachers were able to determine that speech and language students are at risk for a reading impairment, they could teach and tutor accordingly to help the student succeed before they fail. Catts (1999) research on students in kindergarten, who were followed through elementary, determine that students who have speech or language disabilities that are identified are likely to still have lower reading abilities in fourth grade than those who do not have. Those children who were identified and given early intervention showed signs of great improvement without the need of reading services. Statement of the problem. There is no district research to determine if there is a descriptive relationship between speech and language disabilities and reading services given to students in grades one through four at South Harrison Elementary.

5 5 Purpose of the study. This study will demonstrate the descriptive relationship between speech and language disabilities and reading services in students grades one through four at South Harrison Elementary. Research questions. The following questions will guide the comparisons between speech and language disabilities and reading services. RQ1. Is there is a significant relationship between students who receive speech and language therapy and students who receive reading services in Title I or Special Education? Null Hypothesis. There is no significant relationship between students who receive speech and language therapy and reading services in Title I or Special Education. Anticipated Benefits of the Study. The school will benefit from the study by being able to look at students who receive speech and language services and determine if they should be looked at for reading difficulties at an

6 6 early age. This will help identify students who need early intervention to become proficient readers at an early age to increase success. Definition of Terms. Identified Reading Difficulty: Students have been referred and accepted into Title I Reading or Special Education for reading. Title I: A program that is funded by the state in which students receive 20 minutes per day of extra intervention using reading strategies outside of the classroom, they are accepted into the program after looking over grades, test scores, and reading level. Special Education: Students who receive reading services are identified by a 22 point deficit between their IQ score and reading intelligence score, which is determined as a reading disability. These students receive pull out services, often on a lower grade level than they are currently in. Speech and Language Services: Are provided to students who are identified by a speech and language pathologist after looking at scores from testing and a low score is obtained.

7 7 Summary. This study will determine if there is a relationship between South Harrison R II students in grades one through four who receive speech or language therapy and of them, the number of students who receive reading services in Title I or Special Education to determine if there is a significant relationship between the two groups. Data was collected using student s permanent records at the school to determine if they are or have received speech, language, Title I, or Special Education services. Catt s (1999) research shows the benefits of students who are identified early for speech and language deficits and those who are identified as having a possible reading deficit and receive early intervention. If this can be found at South Harrison, teachers will be able to give students early intervention and lower the risk of reading disabilities and difficulties.

8 8 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Catts and Hogan (1999) wrote the article Language Basics of Reading Disabilities and Implications for Early Identification and Remediation in the Reading Psychology journal. Catts and Hogan reported that approximately 10% have significant difficulty acquiring proficient reading skills. (p.223) It used to be believed that reading delays were because of visual perception deficits, because reading was deemed as only done with the eyes. After much of Catts notes that research has determined that the transient system is one of two systems that cause visual confusion while reading. (Lovegrove et al., 1986) It can also be linked with sensory processing or cerebellar function that can be found in some students with poor reading skills. (Stein, 2001) Catts and Hogan (1999) note that a large body of research supports language deficits as a proximal cause of reading disabilities. (p.225) Our English writing system works hand in hand with our oral communication. They note that to learn to read the reader must decode words that are written into units of speech and then comprehended, which is also described by Gough and his colleagues (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990). While looking at students who struggle in reading they often have problems decoding words, which mean they do not have the phonological awareness necessary to be successful readers. Phonological awareness allows children to match sounds with letters and use this knowledge to phonetically decode words. (p.226) They noted that Bradley and Bryant (1983) studied students who were diagnosed with a reading disability and were ten years old to those who were developing on target at six and one half years old on phonological tests and

9 9 determined that although the RD (Reading Disabled) group was three and one half years older they scored significantly less well. Catts, Fey, Zhang, and Tomblin (1999) studied RD students from kindergarten to second grade and determined that they often had the same deficits in second grade that they began with in kindergarten. There are many strategies that successful readers use to be able to read, one of those is also language comprehension. Poor readers often have difficulties in other aspects of language. Research has shown that these children have deficits in vocabulary (p. 231) (Fry, Johnson, & Muehl, 1970), morphology and syntax (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994), and text level processing (Stothard & Hulme, 1992). A limited vocabulary can decrease the number of known words that students can recognize and may lead to low sight word reading. Although it has been hard to determine if language deficits are the cause or the results of reading problems, Catts (1999) studied 604 children from kindergarten to second grade were assessed on language abilities and reading achievement in The tests identified 183 students who were reading at least 1 SD below the mean. (p.232) The results determined that the poor readers results were significantly less well than kindergarteners that were considered good readers. Approximately 60% of the students considered poor readers, had a language score at least 1 SD below the mean in kindergarten, compared to only 10% in good readers. These results indicated that problems in vocabulary, grammar, and/or narration may often precede and influence reading achievement. (p.232) If language problems do play a role in reading disabilities, children should be looked at for a chance of reading disabilities. It has generally

10 10 been proven that 50% or more of children with language impairments go on to have reading disabilities in the primary or secondary grades. (p.233) Catts, Fey, Tomblin, and Zhang (2002) did a follow up study of those 200 kindergarten students with language disabilities previously tested. The students were tested for language in kindergarten and tested for reading comprehension in fourth grade. The results showed that 52.9% of those labeled as language impaired performed 1 or more SD below the average for reading comprehension. In the control group, the results were only 8.6% of students who were 1 or more SD below the average for reading comprehension. Students who had improved or mastered their language skills by fourth grade had the greatest outcomes for reading. Catts (2003) notes research completed by Dale, Notari, Crain Thoreson, & Cole in 1993 which also indicates that the earlier problems with language or speech can be identified and provided with early intervention can prevent or limit reading disabilities. While these efforts have sometimes been carried out with future literacy needs in mind, much more attention needs to be given to the link between early language impairments and reading disabilities, as well as the type and intensity of intervention that is necessary to reduce language impaired children s risk for reading disabilities. (pg.234) Remediation should give attention to language comprehension and word recognition.

11 11 RESEARCH METHODS Research design. Information was found using student s records to determine if they have ever received special education, title reading, speech, or language therapy during their education at South Harrison Elementary. Students who have been served for speech or language are used as the dependent variable and students who have received reading services in title or special education are used as the independent variable. Study Group Description. The three types of services were selected to compare to one another and find a significant relationship between the services needed for students. Information from students permanent files were reviewed to determine if they had ever received speech, language, title reading, or special education reading services in grades one through four. South Harrison is a rural and low income community with a predominately white student population and a 63% free/reduced lunch.

12 12 Data Collection Methods and Instrumentation. The information that was compared was collected from files at South Harrison Elementary in students permanent files. Academic reports and IEPs were used to determine if students have ever received language or speech services or reading services in Title I or Special Education. Statistical Analysis Methods. Data and graphs were manipulated and created in the Microsoft Excel program. The information gathered was put into this program where it then could be used to create graphs and determine if a descriptive relationship existed between students who have or are receiving speech/language therapy and those who have or are receiving reading services in Title I or Special Education.

13 13 FINDINGS Table 1: Descriptive Study Speech/Language Services vs Reading Services. N N Received % Received All Students 17 Speech/Language % Services Reading Services % First Grade. As shown in Table 1, the first grade has a 64.7% descriptive relationship between students who receive speech or language services and of those, who receive reading services in title or special education. This shows a strong relationship between students who receive both language/speech and reading services in first grade, proving the hypothesis.

14 14 Figure 1: Descriptive Study Speech/Language Services vs Reading Services Speech/Language Students Receiving Reading Services Number of Students Total Number of Students Students in Speech Students in Reading 0 Grade 1 First Grade. As shown in Figure 1, the first grade has 17 students in speech/language therapy and of those, 11 are also receiving Title I or Special Education Reading, resulting in a 64.7% descriptive relationship between students who receive speech or language services and of those, who receive reading services in title or special education. This shows a strong relationship between students who receive both language/speech and reading services in first grade, proving the hypothesis.

15 15 Table 2: Descriptive Study Speech/Language Services vs Reading Services. N N Received % Received All Students 18 Speech/Language % Services Reading Services % Second Grade. As shown in Table 2, the second grade has a 33.3% descriptive relationship between students who receive speech or language services and of those, who receive reading services in title or special education. This shows a strong relationship between students who receive both language/speech and reading services in second grade, proving the hypothesis.

16 16 Figure 2: Descriptive Study Speech/Language Services vs Reading Services Speech/Language Students Receiving Reading Services Number of Students Total Number of Students Students in Speech/Language Students in Reading 0 Grade 2 Second Grade. As shown in Figure 2, the second grade has 18 students in speech/language therapy and of those, 6 are also receiving Title I or Special Education Reading, resulting in a 33.3% descriptive relationship between students who receive speech or language services and of those, who receive reading services in title or special education. This shows a strong relationship between students who receive both language/speech and reading services in second grade, proving the hypothesis.

17 17 Table 3: Descriptive Study Speech/Language Services vs Reading Services. N N Received % Received All Students 9 Speech/Language 9 100% Services Reading Services % Third Grade. As shown in Table 3, the third grade has a 66.7% descriptive relationship between students who receive speech or language services and of those, who receive reading services in title or special education. This shows a strong relationship between students who receive both language/speech and reading services in third grade, proving the hypothesis.

18 18 Figure 3: Descriptive Study Speech/Language Services vs Reading Services Speech/Language Students Receiving Reading Services Number of Students Total Number of Students Students in Speech/Language Students in Reading 0 Grade 3 Third Grade. As shown in Figure 3, the third grade has 9 students in speech/language therapy and of those, 6 are also receiving Title I or Special Education Reading, resulting in a 66.7% descriptive relationship between students who receive speech or language services and of those, who receive reading services in title or special education. This shows a strong relationship between students who receive both language/speech and reading services in third grade, proving the hypothesis.

19 19 Table 4: Descriptive Study Speech/Language Services vs Reading Services. N N Received % Received All Students 13 Speech/Language % Services Reading Services % Fourth Grade. As shown in Table 4, the fourth grade has a 61.5% descriptive relationship between students who receive speech or language services and of those, who receive reading services in title or special education. This shows a strong relationship between students who receive both language/speech and reading services in fourth grade proving the hypothesis.

20 20 Figure 4: Descriptive Study Speech/Language Services vs Reading Services. 14 Speech/Language Students Receiving Reading Services 12 Number of Students Total Number of Students Students in Speech/Language Students in Reading 2 0 Grade 4 Fourth Grade. As shown in Figure 4, the fourth grade has 13 students in speech/language therapy and of those, 9 are also receiving Title I or Special Education Reading, resulting in a 61.5% descriptive relationship between students who receive speech or language services and of those, who receive reading services in title or special education. This shows a strong relationship between students who receive both language/speech and reading services in fourth grade, proving the hypothesis.

21 21 Table 5: Descriptive Study Speech/Language Services vs Reading Services. N N Received % Received All Students 57 Speech/Language % Services Reading Services % Grades One Through Four. As shown in Table 5, when grades one through four are combined they had a 54.4% descriptive relationship between students who receive speech or language services and of those, who receive reading services in title or special education. This shows a strong relationship between students who receive both language/speech and reading services in all grades, proving the hypothesis.

22 22 Figure 5: Descriptive Study Speech/Language Services vs Reading Services. 60 Speech/Language Students Receiving Reading Services 50 Number of Students Total Number of Students Students in Speech/Language Students in Reading 10 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grades 1 4 Grades One Through Four. As shown in Figure 5, when grades one through four are combined they had a 54.4% descriptive relationship between students who receive speech or language services and of those, who receive reading services in title or special education. This shows a strong relationship between students who receive both language/speech and reading services in all grades, proving the hypothesis.

23 23 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS After reviewing all of the data, there is a significant relationship between speech or language services and reading services for students. The areas that were examined were the number of students in speech or language therapy and of those students, how many have also received reading services in title or special education. There is however, a moderate relationship between the two, because the average of all speech or language students who also receive reading services is 54.4%. The largest percentage of speech students also receiving reading services was in first grade, with 64.7%. This shows that when students are put into speech, they should be examined closely to determine if they also have a delay in reading development. If this is done, more students can be given intervention at a younger age which will increase reading success. A further study should be completed after students with speech are given intervention for reading as soon as speech or language delays are found to determine if early intervention keeps students at the same reading level as their peers without speech or language delays.

24 24 REFERENCES Catts, H.W. & Hogan, T. (2003). Language Basis of Reading Disabilities and Implications for Early Identification and Remediation. Reading Psychology, 24, DOI: / Hazan, Alan Adlard Valarie (1998). Speech Perception in Children With Specific Reading Difficulties (Dyslexia). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 51, Kamhi, Alan G., Catts, Hugh W., Mauer, Daria (2009). Explaining Speech Production Deficits in Poor Readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23. McBride Chang, Catherine (1995). Phonological processing, speech perception, and reading disability: An integrative review. Educational Psychologist, 30, Peterson, Robin L., Pennington, Bruce F., Shriberg, Lawrence D., Boada, Richard (2009). What Influences Literacy Outcomes in Children With Speech Sound Disorder? Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 52, Rvachew, Susan (2007). Phonological Processing and Reading in Children with Speech Sound Disorders. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 16,

25 Schuele, C. Melanie (2004). The impact of developmental speech and language impairments on 25 the acquisition of literacy skills. Mental Retardation & Development Disabilities Research Reviews, 10, Smith, Allan B., Smith, Susan, Locke, John L., Bennett, Jane (2008). A Longitudinal Study of Speech Timing in Young Children Later Found to Have Reading Disability. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 51, Smith, Shelley D., Pennington, Bruce F., Boada, Richard, Shriberg, Lawrence D. (2005). Linkage of speech sound disorder to reading disability loci. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 46, Snellings, Patrick, VanDer, Leij, Aryan, Blok, Henk, dejong, Peter F. (2010). Reading Fluency and speech perception speed of beginning readers with persistent reading problems: the perception of initial stop consonant clusters. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, Steele, Sara C., Watkins, Ruth V. (2010). Learning work meanings during reading by children with language learning disability and typically developing peers. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 24, Vukovic, Rose K., Siegel, Linda S. (2006). The Double Deficit Hypothesis: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Evidence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39,