LSHSS

Clinical Exchange

Classroom-Based Assessment
of a Collaborative Intervention
Program With Kindergarten
and First-Grade Students
Judith G. Farber
Juv-Ed, Inc., Erdenheim, PA
Evelyn R. Klein
Temple University Center for Research in Human Development
and Education, Philadelphia, PA

T here have been numerous articles over the

past 10 years illustrating various collaborative
models involving speech-language pathologists
ABSTRACT: The Maximizing Academic Growth by
Improving Communication (MAGIC) comprehensive
classroom teacher and speech-language pathologist
collaborative intervention program was developed and
initially implemented in 12 kindergarten and first-grade
classes to determine whether children receiving this
language-enriched program performed significantly better
than control peers on a curriculum-based test and on
teacher reports of classroom communication. Results
indicated that weekly classroom intervention resulted in
significantly higher scores on the subtests of listening and
writing for the children involved in the MAGIC program.
Students in the treatment groups demonstrated signifi-
cantly higher abilities in understanding vocabulary and
cognitive-linguistic concepts in addition to increased
writing skill development for producing relevant sen-
tences with correct mechanics and spelling.
KEY WORDS: teacher-speech-language pathologist
collaboration, integrated service delivery model, class-
room intervention, curriculum-based assessment, kinder-
garten, first grade.
working in the classroom (Christensen & Luckett, 1990;
Farber, Denenberg, Klyman, & Lachman, 1992; Gerber,
1987; Miller, 1989; Norris, 1989; Norris & Hoffman,
1990). Speech-language pathologists have been advised to
integrate therapy with academic skills and to expand their
role into the classroom. The American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association (ASHA, 1993) issued a position
statement recognizing integrated therapy as an appropriate
model. Documentation regarding the effectiveness of
integrated models, however, is just beginning to appear in
journals (Ellis, Schlaudecker, & Regimbal, 1995; Kaufman,
Prelock, Weiler, Creaghead, & Donnelly, 1994; Roberts,
Prizant, & McWilliams, 1995; Wilcox, Kouri, & Caswell,
1991) and at seminars. As we reach the end of the 20th
century, there is still no real consensus as to the efficacy of
integrated treatment plans.
Perceptions of educators regarding best methods, best
times, and best locations for providing speech-language
services to students yielded divergent views in a study that
was recently conducted by Sanger, Hux, & Griess (1995). In
this survey of 628 educators (including teachers, principals,
and psychologists), educators held positive views regarding
the services of the speech-language pathologist but were
ambiguous regarding the best methods to employ in the
delivery of these services. Classroom teachers held the least
favorable view of the role of the speech-language pathologist

LANGUAGE, SPEECH , AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 30 • 83–91 • January 1999 © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 83
0161–1461/99/3001–0083
in the classroom. These results, however, were more
favorable than those found in a comparable study that was
conducted in 1986 (Tomes & Sanger).
Perceptions of 31 speech-language pathologists regarding
the integrated delivery of speech-language services indi-
cated that this professional group is divided on the issue of
classroom collaboration. Some speech-language pathologists
saw the more obvious advantages of classroom intervention,
but also experienced many barriers to establishing this
service delivery model. These barriers included scheduling
and planning difficulties, the perception of providing less
individualized instruction, and the need for in-service
training to enable them to work effectively in a classroom
(Elksnin & Capilouto, 1994).
It is of interest that in both of the above articles
(Elksnin & Capilouto, 1994; Sanger et al., 1995), it was
suggested that a lack of collaborative experience and
empirical data supporting the efficacy of classroom inter-
ventions may contribute to the lack of agreement among
educators and speech-language pathologists. Speech-
language pathologists also listed “difficult to incorporate
IEP (individualized educational plan) goals” (Elksnin &
Capilouto, p. 263) as a barrier to classroom collaboration.
Educators and speech-language pathologists tended to focus
more on the typical, individual disorders of students
(articulation, specific language skills, fluency, etc.) than on
the broader goal of achieving communicative competence,
which in turn affects academic success. Although speech-
language pathologists in our urban setting tend to use
traditional service delivery of individual and/or small group
pullout therapy, we see a trend toward speech-language
pathologists working directly with children and the teacher
in the classroom. Approximately 40% of speech-language
pathologists in the School District of Philadelphia are
providing classroom services in addition to the traditional
service delivery model.
Studies comparing integrated services to pullout therapy
have shown positive results when classroom intervention is
adopted. Wilcox et al. (1991) investigated the effectiveness
of in-class and out-of-class individual sessions for pre-
school children with language delays. The goal for all
children in this study was “to establish productive use of at
least 10 core words that were individually identified for
each participating child” (p. 51). An interactive modeling
technique was used in both formats.
Results indicated that the classroom intervention method
yielded greater productive use of the target words in the
home. The authors found that the classroom method
fostered an increase in the generalization of target words;
more natural, diverse opportunities for interaction and
practice; and more communication partners. These factors
probably contributed to the increased use of the target
vocabulary. The differences between the two settings were
more significant when treatment data for both home and
school were analyzed.
Roberts et al. (1995) compared in-class and out-of-class
service delivery to determine the effects of differing service
delivery models on the communication interactions of
young children. Results indicated that there were no
significant differences in the number or types of turns or
84 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 30 • 83–91 • January 1999
language functions of children receiving in-class or out-of-
class sessions. Although the speech-language pathologist
did take more turns and used more acknowledgments during
out-of-class sessions, opportunities for child interaction did
not differ. This was an important finding because the
potential for reduced interactions in classroom-based
intervention is a concern for speech-language pathologists.
The authors of this study caution against widespread
generalization of these findings because the sample was
small and the study was exploratory in nature; however, the
findings were encouraging.
Efficacy studies comparing classroom intervention with
control classes have also shown positive results using the
integrated model. Kaufman et al. (1994) compared two
third-grade classrooms to determine whether in-class
collaboration among a classroom teacher, speech-language
pathologist, and student speech-language pathologist would
improve students’ abilities to rate and justify the adequacy
of explanations. A collaborative classroom-based language
program using the school’s mathematics curriculum was
offered to children without communication disorders for a
period of 3 weeks. Pre- and post-program testing of both
experimental and control classes revealed that children
receiving these collaboratively taught lessons improved
their understanding of what constitutes an adequate
explanation and were able to differentiate among various
response types. The control class peers did not improve in
this area. Additionally, the teacher of the third-grade class
participating in this study felt that students’ questioning and
problem-solving skills also improved.
A different type of collaborative study, involving the
speech-language pathologist as a consultant and resource
person, was reported by Ellis et al. (1995). Building on the
results of the study of basic concept instruction by Seifert
and Schwartz (1991), Ellis et al. compared two kindergar-
ten classes: One class received an 8-week basic concept
intervention program that was designed by the speech-
language pathologist and implemented by the classroom and
physical education teachers; the control class received the
regular education curriculum. The teachers and speech-
language pathologist collaborated initially and weekly to
select, revise, and review the concepts that were taught and
the way these concepts would be presented. The speech-
language pathologist provided handouts, teaching sugges-
tions, and materials to be used. At the completion of the
study, a comparison of pre- and post-test scores indicated
that the experimental class showed higher performance than
the control class.
Recognizing that there is no one perfect service delivery
model, the authors believe that the public school speech-
language pathologist should become involved in improving
the language competencies of students so that all children
have a greater opportunity to succeed with the curriculum.
A belief that “early language disruptions are predictive of
and are principal determinants of later academic difficulty”
(Bashir, 1989, p. 181) served as the impetus behind this
project and led to our involvement in a classroom, curricu-
lum-based intervention model in elementary schools.
This study adds to the current information on integrated
speech-language services for children entering school
(kindergarten and first grade). The purpose of this study Table 1. Sample characteristics.
(Maximizing Academic Growth by Improving
Communication—MAGIC) was to identify kindergarten and
first-grade students with language-learning difficulties and Group breakdown Sample size Percent of total sample
develop a series of support programs to increase teacher-
therapist collaborative intervention, increase parental Gradea
support, and improve students’ performances using cross- Kindergarten 287 52
age peer tutors. First grade 265 48
Students’ abilities in the communication areas of
Gender
speaking, listening, reading, and writing were evaluated Female 282 51
within an experimental model. The information contained Male 270 49
within this study offers needed information concerning how
to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative Ethnicity
African American 282 51
intervention in the first years of formal education. It also
Caucasian 176 32
looks at the broader issues of the effect of language Latino 83 15
competency on academic success in the major subject areas. Other 11 2

Language spoken in home

English 497 90
Spanish 39 7
METHOD Indian 5 1
Asian 5 1
Subjects Other 5 1

The sample consisted of 552 children from 12 class- a

Mean age = 6.4 years; Standard deviation = 8 months.
rooms in six elementary schools. Each school was selected
from a different region of the School District of Philadel-
confounding variable within this stratified random sampling
phia. All students participating in this study passed vision
procedure, the T2 group was formed. These children took
and hearing screenings that were performed by the school
part in the three weekly teacher-therapist collaborative
nurse and were not identified as special education students.
intervention lessons (2.25 hours per week) along with the
Schools were selected by regional superintendents, based in
T1 children. During the intervention lessons, T2 children
part on the needs of the school and the following criteria:
left their control classes to participate with T1 children. No
• at least two classes of each grade to facilitate the other part of the training was offered to the T2 students. In
experimental model, total, there were 46 students who participated in this group.
• full-day kindergarten classes, The C group consisted of one kindergarten and one first-
• an interest in participating in this collaborative study, grade class in each of the same six participating schools
and who received their regular education program with no
additional support services from this project. The 233
• a willingness to adhere to the experimental design.
children in this group were matched to students in the
In addition, all schools were chosen to be representative treatment classes by age, school, socioeconomic status, and
of the ethnic and socioeconomic school populations in heterogeneous class tracking. Table 2 provides an overview
Philadelphia (Table 1). of students in the treatment and control groups.
The sample of 552 kindergarten and first-grade students, The 16 speech-language pathologists who participated in
listed in Table 1, was divided into three groups. There were this project were all employed as speech-language patholo-
two treatment groups and one control group. gists in the School District of Philadelphia. All possessed a
Treatment group 1 (T1 group) consisted of one kinder-
garten class and one first-grade class in each of the six
participating schools. The T1 group received direct, Table 2. Number of students in treatment and control groups
collaborative intervention by the speech-language patholo- by grade level.
gist with the classroom teacher at a schedule of three times
per week (2.25 hours) for the entire school year. Follow-up
materials and resources for classroom use were also Kindergarten n First grade n
provided to teachers and parents. Support was provided Group Total n (% of total) (% of total)
through a 5-hour teacher/therapist collaborative workshop
(prior to the start of the program) and a 5-hour parent Treatment 1 (T1) 273 141 132
education workshop that was conducted during the spring. Treatment 2 (T2)a 46 20 26
There were 273 children who took part in these classes. Control (C) 253 126 107
Treatment group 2 (T2 group) consisted of students Total 552 287 (52%) 265 (48%)
who were randomly selected from each control class. The
T1 and Control (C) groups were intact classes, each with a
These students were from the control class and participated in the
one consistent teacher. To help reduce teacher bias as a intervention lessons (3x/week).

Farber • Klein 85
master’s degree in speech pathology and an instructional
certificate from the State of Pennsylvania. They also had
at least 10 years of professional experience. Access to
this project was made available to all employees holding
these qualifications, and participation was on a strictly
voluntary basis.
Procedures
Kindergarten and first-grade teachers in the designated
schools were given the opportunity to participate in the
project. The criteria stipulated that the classes be full-day
with heterogeneous grouping of students. The classes
selected for the study were randomly assigned to either the
treatment or control condition by the principal of the
school.
The experimental measures were the subtests of the
MAGIC Language Test, an instrument that was developed
and normed within the School District of Philadelphia
(School District of Philadelphia, 1994a) (Appendix A) and
the Teacher Questionnaire of Student Language Abilities
(School District of Philadelphia, 1994b) (Appendix B).
The MAGIC Test was developed by a committee of 16
school-certified speech-language pathologists using the
following sources:
• kindergarten through second-grade curriculum guide-
lines (School District of Philadelphia, 1992);
• cognitive-linguistic categories relating to the language
demands of the curriculum for the major academic
subjects. These categories were: quantity, negation,
temporal-spatial concepts, sequencing, comparison,
attributes/functions, and associations;
• the hierarchy of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1986);
• downward extensions of writing assessments (Kress,
1994; Spandel & Stiggins, 1990) and information from
primary grade teachers in the School District of
Philadelphia;
• narrative development (Wolf & Gearhart, 1994) and
story grammar (Merritt & Liles, 1987);
• basal reading words using a context-bound format
(Murray, 1995; Scott-Foresman, 1989); and
Table 3. MAGIC language subtest components with raw score total points (pts).
Writing (11 pts) Listening (25 pts)
write across line understand vocabulary
space letters understand concepts:
spell inventively quantity
write words association
spell correctly negation
write sentences attributes-function
use sentence mechanics comparison
write relevant sentences temporal-spatial
sequence
86 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 30 • 83–91 • January 1999
• information obtained from a curriculum components
checklist surveying 30 randomly selected kindergarten
and first-grade teachers whose evaluations assisted
with rank ordering 75 curricular items. The most
valued items, rated on a four-point Likert scale, were
included in the MAGIC Test (Appendix C). All 75
items on this checklist were ranked by all 30 teachers.
The MAGIC Test assesses speaking, listening, reading,
and writing in four separate subtests, two of which (Writ-
ing and Listening) are group administered and two of
which are individually administered (Speaking and Read-
ing). Prior to taking the test, students listened to a story
that was an adaptation of “The Tortoise and the Hare.” This
provided a framework for many of the test questions.
The norms for the MAGIC Test were based on more
than 1,100 students in kindergarten and first grade. The
MAGIC Test included curriculum-based items for math-
ematics, social studies, science, and reading-English-
language arts, as identified in Table 3.
Reliability and validity measures indicated that this tool
is a highly reliable valid measure. Interrater reliability for
the subjectively scored subtests, Writing and Speaking, was
.92 and .96, respectively. Test-retest reliability was .90 and
internal consistency coefficients ranged from .77 to .98,
indicating a reliable measure. Content validity was, in part,
established using the school district curriculum guides and
was further supported via classical item analysis. Correla-
tions with other measures, the Wechsler Preschool and
Primary Scales of Intelligence–Revised (WPPSI–R,
Wechsler, 1989) and the Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals–Revised (CELF–R, Semel, Wiig, & Secord,
1989) were moderately high (.69 and .65).
Performance on the MAGIC Test classified students into
high- and low-classroom achievement groups (top and
bottom quartiles) with 85% accuracy based on end-of-year
reports from the Teacher Questionnaire of Student Lan-
guage Abilities (School District of Philadelphia, 1994b).
The Teacher Questionnaire of Student Language Abilities
was developed by surveying teachers and therapists
regarding key factors that influence communication and
academic success. Students were rated by their teachers as
superior, above average, average, below average, or poor on
the following 10 areas:
Speaking (24 pts) Reading (30 pts)
recall information correspond letters/sounds
retell a story decode words in context
use new vocabulary read words from pre-
make inferences primer 1 to 2nd grade
synthesize information
 • attention to instruction,
• time on task,
• response to questions,
• response with complete sentences as requested,
• ability to retell story or events,
• original thinking,
• problem solving,
• application of learned concepts to new situations,
• reading with comprehension, and
• ability to express thoughts in written or pictorial form.
The 16 speech-language pathologists and two administra-
tors (also speech-language pathologists) involved in the
MAGIC program functioned in a collaborative teacher
capacity on a part-time basis. Each speech-language patholo-
gist in the MAGIC program provided teacher-therapist
intervention in 12 kindergarten and first-grade classrooms
three times per week for a total of 2.25 hours. Weekly
planning meetings among two classroom teachers and three
therapists (kindergarten with first grade) were conducted
either before or after school hours or during lunch time
(approximately 1 hour per week). Participants were compen-
sated for this extra time at the school district’s hourly
extracurricular rate of pay. The speech-language pathologists
involved with this program also continued with the responsi-
bilities of their traditional school-based caseloads.
During teacher-therapist co-teaching sessions, seven
areas of language instruction were incorporated in order to
influence how children learn in the classroom (Wiig &
Secord, 1994):
• teacher questions for learning and thinking,
• teacher responses to student responses,
• reactions to student questions/comments,
• linguistic-conceptual complexity,
• repetition-redundancy-revision,
• classroom comprehension and feedback, and
• nonverbal communication.
Within this project, we attempted to meet three goals.
First, we wanted to improve literacy by facilitating in-
creased oral language, vocabulary development, and
appropriate syntax and semantics. Second, we wanted to
encourage higher levels of thinking. Third, we wanted to
improve communication skills within the classroom
curriculum. To meet these ends, classroom sessions were
curriculum-based and content was dictated by the classroom
teacher. Lessons were developed thematically, integrating
all aspects of the curriculum, using a literature-based
context within a whole language philosophy. See Appendix
D for a sample lesson.
Teachers from the treatment classes and speech-language
pathologists met for a 2-day workshop prior to the school
year of collaboration to share information on the collabora-
tive process, the language of instruction, Bloom’s Tax-
onomy of Higher Levels of Thinking, cooperative learning,
and classroom management. This workshop also afforded
time for teams from each school to actually meet together
to schedule days and times for collaborative instruction,
review curriculum, and begin to plan lessons. Various co-
teaching strategies were analyzed. We believe that these 2
days were invaluable in building confidence and rapport
between teachers and speech-language pathologists.
The speech-language pathologist and classroom teacher
taught together, generally using a split-class or whole-class
format. In the split-class format, the class was divided, with
the teacher leading one group and the speech-language
pathologist leading the other. The teacher and speech-
language pathologist would often switch groups; at the
conclusion, the class would be brought together for review
and wrap-up and to set the groundwork for subsequent
lessons. In the whole-class format, both teacher and speech-
language pathologist led discussions, charting and providing
individual help as needed while alternating roles and duties.
According to teacher surveys, participants found this to be
the most valuable method of collaboration.
The speech-language pathologist brought his or her
knowledge and expertise in language to the classroom and
attempted to provide an environment that was interactive,
integrating language into reading and writing activities. In
an attempt to maximize the literate environment of the
classroom and to further develop functional social commu-
nication with the classroom context, the speech-language
pathologist in collaboration with the teacher:
• implemented listening and writing centers, using
books, tapes, charts, etc.;
• involved children in authentic speaking and literacy
events such as developing written daily work sched-
ules, engaging in problem-solving discussions, and
developing language experience stories;
• integrated language into reading and writing activities,
promoting discussion and an exchange of ideas;
• expanded levels of critical thinking by eliciting
discussions via knowledge, comprehension, analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation questions; and
• provided summary and follow-up activities for
teachers.
Teachers involved in this collaborative experience spent
more time verbally interacting with the students and
became more aware of various methods of eliciting higher
levels of critical thinking. These teachers asked students
fewer questions requiring simple factual recall and more
questions requiring analytical thinking.
Use of the instructional techniques was evaluated in the
classroom during the collaborative lessons. The program
evaluator critiqued the speech-language pathologist’s
performance for each of the seven instructional techniques,
the modeling of appropriate language use by the speech-
language pathologist and teacher, and the interaction
between teacher and student. This evaluation was conducted
during the last month of the program (June), in each of the
project’s six elementary schools.
At the end of the program, using a post-test design, all
children in each group were given the MAGIC Test and
teachers completed the Teacher Questionnaire of Student
Language Abilities for each child. Scores from the MAGIC
Farber • Klein 87
Test were used to determine if a significant difference
existed between T1, T2 and C. Results from the Teacher
Questionnaire of Student Language Abilities were used to
support quantitative data. Children were matched for
socioeconomic status, age, and geographic region at the
start of the program. All classes contained equivalent
heterogeneous groupings.
RESULTS
Results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for
the main effects of the independent variable (treatment) on
the five dependent variables (scores on the MAGIC subtests
of Speaking, Listening, Reading, Writing, and the MAGIC
Total) yielded significant difference on the Listening subtest
(F(2, 551) = 8.95 (p < .001), the Writing subtest (F(2, 551)
= 3.35 (p < .05), and Total test (F(2, 551) = 4.87 (p <
.001). Differences in Reading ability among the groups
reached near significance (p = .068).
Post hoc analyses using the Tukey-B Test for multiple
comparisons with unequal sample sizes (Tukey-B range =
3.07 to 3.34) indicated that the T2 group (n = 46) performed
significantly better than the C group (n = 233) on the
Writing and Listening subtests and the MAGIC Total score.
The students in the T2 and C groups were from the same
classes, but the T2 group participated in the experimental
MAGIC program three times per week, whereas their peers
in the control class did not. In addition, the T1 group also
(n = 273) performed significantly better than the C group
(n = 233) on the Listening subtest. The means (M) and
standard deviations (SD) of the MAGIC scores are summa-
rized in Table 4 along with the results of the ANOVA. Table
4 also indicates that students in the T1 and T2 groups
exhibited higher scores than the students in the C group on
all five dependent variables (MAGIC Test scores).
Differences in reading ability among the groups reached
near significance (p = .068), with treatment groups perform-
ing at higher levels than the C group. However, in kindergar-
ten and first grade, literacy skills are emerging and profi-
ciency levels vary greatly, as indicated by the SDs of reading
scores. On the MAGIC Language Test, children who were
Table 4. Analysis of variance of differences between experimental and control groups for kindergarten and first-grade students with
MAGIC Language Test means ( M) and standard deviations (SD).
MAGIC subtest Treatment 1 M (SD) Treatment 2 M (SD)
n 273 46
Writing 6.7 (3.1) 7.5 (2.6)
Listening 18.5 (4.8) 19.1 (4.8)
Speaking 13.5 (4.8) 14.4 (5.1)
Reading 10.0 (11.0) 11.3 (11.5)
Total Test 48.7 (19.9) 52.3 (20.2)
* Significant at p < 0.05; ** Significant at p < 0.01; ns = not significant.
88 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 30 • 83–91 • January 1999
beginning kindergarten improved reading ability from an
average of less than one word (M = .7; SD = 4) to reading
19 words (M = 19; SD = 10) by the end of first grade.
Furthermore, a group of 41 first-grade students were
tested with the MAGIC Test during a pilot study prior to
the start of the MAGIC program. These students were
randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups
during the upcoming school year. When the MAGIC
intervention program concluded at the end of the school
year, these 41 students were again tested with the MAGIC
Test, permitting a comparison of pre-post scores.
Students in each of the three groups were classified
based on their standing in their group, (before and after the
MAGIC program) either as “below the mean” (which was
41.5 at the beginning of the first grade and 64 at the end
of first grade) or “above the mean.” Table 5 provides a
summary of the χ2 analysis, which was significant for both
the treatment groups but not significant for the C group. In
fact, 60% of the students in the T1 group and 29% of the
students in the T2 group changed from “below the mean”
to “above the mean” over the course of the program,
compared with only 22% of the students in the C group.
Furthermore, no students in the T1 group changed from
“above the mean” to “below the mean.” In contrast, 17% of
the students in the T2 group and 13% of the students in the
C group changed from above to below the mean.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness
of collaborative intervention during the first years of formal
education. In this program, the speech-language pathologist
and classroom teacher worked together, providing direct
instruction to children. The speech-language pathologist
modeled an interactive teaching style, combining listening,
speaking, reading, and writing activities in each lesson.
Results of the analyses indicated that the MAGIC program
has been, and continues to be, a worthwhile educational
practice for students in the early years of school.
Conclusions regarding the effects of the MAGIC
program are based on the differences in the scores of the
Post hoc group
Control M (SD) F p value differences
233 — —
6.3 (3.1) 3.35 0.036* T2 > C
16.9 (4.9) 8.95 0.0003** T2 > C, T1 > C
13.0 (4.6) 1.89 0.151 ns
8.2 (10.3) 2.69 0.068 near significance
44.4 (18.9) 4.87 0.008** T2 > C
Table 5. Summary of χ 2 analyses evaluating changes from
“above the mean” to “below the mean” for treatment and
control groups on the MAGIC Language Test.
Group n % up % down χ2
Treatment 1 18 60% 0% 4.11a
Treatment 2 13 29% 17% 3.90 a
Control 10 22% 13% .28
a
p < .05.
three groups of children at the end of the program. Pretest
and post-test scores were not compared, nor were the
pretest scores of the three groups tested to determine
possible differences among the three groups. Random group
assignment and the pretest post-test results of the smaller
group of 41 children provide support for the conclusions
regarding differences due to treatment, but results should be
interpreted with this information in mind.
The higher scores on the Listening subtest observed for
the two treatment groups suggest improvement in language
comprehension. The authors believe that significant changes
were made in language comprehension because the speech-
language pathologist helped to focus the teacher to enhance
listening skills instead of assuming that children would
“tune in” to directions or pick up cues from other class-
mates. The authors believe that this did not occur as readily
in the control classes because the C group teachers did not
receive collaborative training and functioned as the sole
teacher in those classes.
Although both treatment groups performed better than
the C group in the Speaking subtest, results were not
significant. The authors attribute this to the lack of
consistent, ongoing speaking opportunities in the classroom
during the week. Children were usually taught in a teacher-
directed style. Teachers and speech-language pathologists
reported that children engaged in the MAGIC program were
more attentive to the language of the teacher and speech-
language pathologist. According to teachers’ feedback on a
qualitative teacher response form that was completed at the
end of the program, teachers stated, “The students who
received the treatment had more opportunities to speak,
were more sophisticated in oral expression, spoke in more
complete sentences, were less shy to speak, asked more
questions in class and followed rules better. They also
demonstrated greater success at learning to read.” This
difficult-to-measure phenomena occurred as students
verbally discussed their projects, compared and contrasted
books that were read in class, and engaged in cooperative
problem solving. The students also improved their ability to
write words and sentences, understand syntactic relation-
ships, follow directions with new concepts, retell stories,
and display heightened phonemic awareness.
It is assumed that communication skills improved in the
classroom because children were given more opportunities
and subjects to discuss. Using thematic units, students
worked together to create projects. This hands-on approach
was responsible for additional verbal interaction. Addition-
ally, teachers involved in the MAGIC program became
more proficient at asking inferential questions as opposed
to the general factual-type questions. This trend was
observed during the in-class monitoring. Observation of
half-hour collaborative sessions within the six experimental
classes by the program coordinator revealed that teachers in
the MAGIC program increased from asking an average of
three inferential-type questions at the beginning of the
school year to seven by the end of the program in June.
The significant difference between MAGIC Test total
scores of children in the T2 and C groups (students in the
same class) indicates a program effect. The lack of signifi-
cant differences in mean scores of the T1 and C groups
could be explained by the variability of teachers and
teaching styles across these two groups; however, a signifi-
cant difference was observed in the Listening scores for
these two groups—one that may be attributed to the collabo-
rative training provided for the treatment group teachers.
The significant difference between the T2 and C group
(students in the same class) on writing skills was expected
because writing was integrated into the collaborative
lessons. There was extensive use of printed charts, experi-
ence stories, and opportunities to practice writing, which
may have enhanced writing skills for the T2 group. The
fact that the T1 group did not perform significantly better
than the C group on the Writing subtest may have been due
to the fact that T1 teachers worked collaboratively with the
speech-language pathologist on developing listening and
speaking skills with less focus on writing skills.
The excitement expressed by children in the experimen-
tal classes when the speech-language pathologist entered
the classroom for MAGIC lessons was extremely gratifying.
Children requested that the speech-language pathologists
return to the classroom daily. Parents of children in the
experimental classes reported that their children shared
information about the lessons with them. Teachers reported
that children who were previously reluctant to participate in
class became more involved in communicating.
Another positive outcome from this study were reports by
teachers and speech-language pathologists that they felt
energized by the weekly collaboration, sharing of resources
and work load, and co-teaching model. All 36 teachers
involved in this program expressed a desire to continue with
the model and reacted favorably toward the speech-language
pathologist in the classroom. Teachers were especially
appreciative of the clinical expertise brought to their
classrooms. The speech-language pathologist also gained a
greater appreciation of the considerable skills necessary to
maintain an effective instructional program with a large
group and gained improved classroom management.
There were, however, concerns expressed by participants
about the program. It was important for the teachers and
speech-language pathologists to structure the lessons
together and to work collaboratively. Class lessons that
were less structured, allowing young children to pace
themselves toward task completion, tended to be more
chaotic. The children who were not directed to answer
questions were more likely to remain quiet and less likely
to be drawn into the interactive process. Those students
seated at their desks in the back rows were more unfocused
Farber • Klein 89
when only one teacher was instructing the lesson in the
front of the room. It seemed important to circulate around
the room. Generally, children did not initiate questions for
clarification or to gain more information. Factual questions
were used with much greater frequency than inferential
questions—approximately three times as often during the
initial phases of the program.
Contrary to the teachers involved in the Tomes and
Sanger (1986) study, the classroom teachers involved in
the MAGIC program held a favorable view of collabora-
tion and in-class lessons with the speech-language
pathologists. At an end-of-year program meeting, teachers
reported how energized they felt with the involvement of
another professional in the classroom. New teachers were
excited to learn about the success of the program from
their colleagues and requested to be a part of the MAGIC
program from their school principal. The enthusiasm was
contagious from 1 year to the next. Planning was the key
that overcame obstacles of establishing the collaborative
service delivery model. As with Elksnin and Capilouto
(1994), we found the in-service training essential to
enabling the speech-language pathologist and classroom
teacher to work effectively. As Wilcox, Kouri, and Caswell
(1991) found, there was an increase in generalization of
learning. Teachers reported carry-over of increased verbal
skills within the curricular areas. Students became more
proficient at using language to answer questions and to
synthesize information.
Implications for Speech-Language Pathologists
in Schools
This study suggests that the speech-language pathologist
working in an educational setting can bring his or her
clinical skills into the classroom as well as the therapy
room. Although there is a place in schools for traditional
therapy, the language needs of students necessitate collabo-
ration in the classroom.
In 1 school year, we have seen growth in students’
communication skills in kindergarten and first-grade
classrooms. Teachers were excited about working with
speech-language pathologists and speech-language patholo-
gists improved their knowledge and ability to work
effectively in the classroom. The gains made by the
children and the positive feelings and mutual respect
generated among professionals on this project have helped
us to replicate this model in other schools. The authors
envision this model becoming pervasive in the Philadelphia
School District as more speech-language pathologists,
teachers, and principals become aware of it and mecha-
nisms for training and replication are enacted.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was funded in part by a grant award from the U.S
Department of Education, Federal Grant #S201A20007.
Our thanks are extended to Thomas A. Hutchinson for his
invaluable suggestions with the editing of this manuscript. Thanks
90 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 30 • 83–91 • January 1999
also to Wayne A. Secord and Nancy A. Creaghead for their
thorough review and assistance with this manuscript.
The authors wish to acknowledge and thank Judith Boyd,
Beverly Cohen, Barbara Cutler, Susan Cutler, Ruth Furman,
Marilyn Goldstein, Monica Goss, Bonny Hohenberger, Earl Levit,
Sonia Loigman, Patricia Mueller, Lillian Ponzo, Vicki Pressley,
Shirley Silverman, Linda Weiner, and Arleen Weinstein, who are
the members of the MAGIC committee, for their dedication and
involvement with this project. We also extend our appreciation to
the Offices of Categorical Programs and Assessment of the School
District of Philadelphia, and Drexel University, Division of
Psychology for assistance with this program.
REFERENCES
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1993,
October). Guidelines for caseload size and speech-language
service delivery in the schools. Asha, 35, 33–39.
Bashir, A. (1989). Language intervention and the curriculum.
Seminars in Speech and Language, 10(3), 181–191.
Bloom, B. S. (1986). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Book 1
Cognitive domain. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Christensen, S. S., & Luckett, C. H. (1990). Getting into the
classroom and making it work. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 21, 110–113.
Elksnin, L. K., & Capilouto, G. J. (1994). Speech-language
pathologist’s perceptions of integrated service delivery in school
settings. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
25, 258–267.
Ellis, L., Schlaudecker, C., & Regimbal, C. (1995). Effectiveness
of a collaborative consultation approach to basic concept
instruction with kindergarten children. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 26, 69–74.
Farber, J., Denenberg, M. E., Klyman, S., & Lachman, P.
(1992). Language resource room level of service: An urban
school district approach to integrative treatment. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 293–299.
Gerber, A. (1987). Collaboration between speech-language
pathologists and educators: A continuing education process.
Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 11(1), 107–123.
Kaufman, S., Prelock, P., Weiler, E., Creaghead, N., &
Donnelly, C. (1994). Metapragmatic awareness of explanation
adequacy: Developing skills for academic success from a
collaborative comunication skills unit. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 174–180.
Kress, G. (1994). Learning to write. London, England: Routledge
& Kegan.
Martin, B. (1991). Polar bear, polar bear, what do you hear? New
York: Henry Holt and Co.
Merritt, D. D., & Liles, B. Z. (1987). Story grammar ability in
children with and without language disorder: Story generation,
story retelling and story comprehension. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 30, 539–552.
Miller, L. (1989). Classroom-based language intervention.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 20,
153–170.
Murray, B. (1995, April). Merits of reading techniques debated.
American Psychological Association Monitor, 26(4), 44.
Norris, J. A. (1989). Providing language remediation in the
classroom: An integrated language-to-reading intervention
 method. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 20,
205–218.
Norris, J. A., & Hoffman, P. R. (1990). Language intervention
within naturalistic environments. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 21, 72–84.
Roberts, J. E., Prizant, B., & McWilliam, R. A. (1995). Out of
class versus in class service delivery in language intervention:
Effects on communication interactions with young children.
American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 4(2), 87–94.
Sanger, D. D., Hux, K., & Griess, K. (1995). Educators’ opinions
about speech language pathology services in schools. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 26, 75–86.
School District of Philadelphia. (1992). Instructional planning
guides. Philadelphia, PA: Office of Curriculum Support.
School District of Philadelphia. (1994a). MAGIC Language Test:
Examiner’s manual. Philadelphia, PA: Speech, Language,
Hearing Program.
School District of Philadelphia. (1994b). Teacher Questionnaire of
Student Language Abilities. Philadelphia, PA: Speech, Language,
Hearing Program.
Scott-Foresman. (1989). Reading: An American tradition.
Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman & Co.
Seifert, H., & Schwartz, I. (1991). Treatment effectiveness of
large group basic concept instruction with Head Start students.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 60–64.
Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (1989). Clinical Evaluation of
Language Fundamentals–Revised, San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corp.
Spandel, V., & Stiggins, R. J. (1990). Creating writers: Linking
assessment and writing instruction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Tomes, L., & Sanger, D. D. (1986). Attitude of interdisciplinary
team members toward speech language services in public
schools. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 17,
230–240.
Wechsler, D. (1989). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of
Intelligence–Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corp.
Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (1994). Classroom language assessment.
In W. Secord, E. Wiig, J. Damico, & G. Goodin (Eds.),
Classroom communication assessment: Evaluating performance
in context (p. 87). Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Wilcox, M. J., Kouri, T. A., & Caswell, S. B. (1991). Early
language intervention: A comparison of classroom and individual
treatment. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology,
1(1), 49–62.
Wolf, S., & Gearhart, M. (1994). Narrative assessment as a
learning event. Language Arts, 71, 425–444.
Appendices for this article are provided online at ASHA’s Web
site. To view them, please go to http://www.asha.org/professionals/
publications/farber.htm.
Received April 23, 1996
Accepted June 30, 1998
Contact author: Judith G. Farber, 21 Glenn Circle, Erdenheim,
PA 19038. Email: jfarber@juved.com
Farber • Klein 91