1. Use of Facilitative Vocabulary Techniques in Teachers with Differing Views of Collaboration Danielle LaPrairie Eastern Illinois University

2. Introduction Teachers focus on vocabulary instruction for curriculum content areas including reading comprehension. Although there is consensus among educators that vocabulary skills are important, there is less consensus on how vocabulary should be taught (McKeown & Beck et al, 1985). Researchers have investigated techniques for effective vocabulary instruction (Ukraninetz, 2006)

3. Introduction Ukraninetz (2006) suggests facilitation techniques for vocabulary instruction Response Facilitations Provide support or structure to encourage students responses. Linguistic Facilitations Teacher responses that are contingent, or directly related, to the content or form of the students prior utterance. Regulatory Facilitations Raise students awareness of the targeted language skill as the purpose for completing the activity. Aide students in knowing the importance of activity, to make links from old to new learning, to inhibit impulsive responding, and to evaluate their own performances

4. Introduction Classroom teachers and SLPs share many goal areas such as vocabulary learning which should be conducive to collaborative services. Limited classroom-based services (Elksin & Capilouto, 1994; Beck & Dennis, 1997; & ASHA, 2000) Adopters of collaborative services report advantages of collaboration: increased knowledge of relationship between language and academics, and increase in modeling and aiding language skills (Elksin & Capilouto, 1994)

5. Purpose Disciplines minimally work together to serve the vocabulary needs of all children in the regular classroom environment. Hypothesis of the study: Teachers who have more positive views of collaboration will use more explicit and facilitative vocabulary instruction techniques.

6. Research Question Is there a difference in the use of facilitative vocabulary instruction techniques between teachers with a more positive view of collaborating with a SLP and teachers with a less positive view of collaborating with a SLP?

7. Subject Selection 3 third grade and 3 second grade teachers from a central Illinois elementary school All subjects were given a 32 item questionnaire. Specific items were selected to evaluate across the subjects to determine views on collaboration. 3 subjects more positive view, 3 subjects less positive view.

8. Subject Selection It is difficult to target goals for children in collaborative lesson. SLPs have (how much) knowledge in these nine areas: Speech Sound, fluency, vocabulary instruction, reading, writing, voice, grammar, listening skills, and social use of language. Teacher A (less positive view) Agree0 areas of little knowledge 3 areas of some knowledge 6 areas of extensive knowledge Teacher B (positive view) Disagree0 areas of little knowledge 4 areas of some knowledge 5 areas of extensive knowledge Teacher C (less positive view) Strongly Agree2 areas of little knowledge 2 areas of some knowledge 5 areas of extensive knowledge Teacher D (positive view) Disagree0 areas of little knowledge 0 areas of some knowledge 9 areas of extensive knowledge Teacher E (less positive view) Neutral0 areas of little knowledge 3 areas of some knowledge 6 areas of extensive knowledge Teacher F (positive view) Disagree0 areas of little knowledge 0 areas of some knowledge 9 areas of extensive knowledge

9. Methodology 5 observations of all 6 teachers. A licensed SLP observed the subjects to count the number of facilitative techniques during large group language arts instruction. The SLP was blind to the subject groups. Observation times varied. Therefore, use of the facilitative techniques were calculated into a ratio per 15 minutes. An agreement index was used to calculate inter-judge reliability with over 95% agreement during pilot study.

10. Methodology The observer tallied each of the facilitating scaffolding vocabulary techniques. Researcher defined each of the facilitations and provided examples. Response Facilitations Repeat and emphasize Cue through physical signals Provide part of the answer Model the response Pause before providing part of the answer Question to elicit a new utterance Linguistic Facilitations Model (provide in advance) Expansion/ Extension Vertical structuring Focused contrast Regulatory Facilitations Relate content to past knowledge Comment on students performance

11. Results Teacher Groups Positive View Response facilitations Linguistic facilitations Regulatory facilitations Total facilitations Teacher B6.05 (1.78) 6.40 (2.24) 2.75 (1.07) 15.20 (3.97) Teacher D6.25 (3.76) 3.15 (2.23) 2.15 (1.45) 11.55 (6.09) Teacher F8.43 (2.95) 4.09 (2.70) 1.39 (0.38) 13.93 (5.34) Positive Group Mean6.91 (2.95) 4.54 (2.63) 2.09 (1.14) 13.56 (5.07) Less Positive View Teacher A8.66 (4.58) 5.39 (2.68) 4.28 (1.81) 18.33 (8.71) Teacher C4.37 (1.30) 4.24 (1.72) 2.20 (1.33) 10.82 (3.50) Teacher E9.27 (3.53) 5.08 (4.28) 1.93 (0.64) 16.28 (7.04) Less Positive Group Mean 7.43 (3.89) 4.90 (2.90) 2.80 (1.65) 15.14 (7.08)

12. Results

13. Conclusions Similar amounts of facilitative vocabulary techniques were used between the more positive and less positive groups. The type and frequency of these techniques were similar. Both the less positive teachers and positive teachers used response facilitations the most, followed by linguistic facilitations and regulatory facilitations were used least. Differences found the in the amount of facilitations between 2 nd and 3 rd grade teachers. Third grade teachers ranked 1 st, 2 nd, & 3 rd in using the most facilitations out of the six teachers.

14. Strengths and Limitations of the Research Strengths Inter-judge reliability ensured accuracy of data collection Researcher bias was controlled through use of licensed SLP who was blind to teachers views of collaboration. Well defined variables Limitations Larger sample is needed to generalize results Amount and type of vocabulary targeted per observation Variability in academic level in each classroom Sensitivity of questionnaire.

15. Need for Future Research Expand study to include more teachers and a range of grade levels Compare how teachers target vocabulary in different grade levels Compare use of facilitative vocabulary techniques pre and post collaboration Explore use of facilitative scaffolding techniques in regards to the number of children in the classroom receiving special education services Investigate types of facilitations used and which contributed more in the area of vocabulary