A comparison of inter-professional education programs in preparing prospective teachers and speech and language pathologists for collaborative language–literacy instruction

• Published in: Reading & writing Vol. 29; no. 6; pp. 1179 - 1201
• Main Authors: Wilson, Leanne, McNeill, Brigid, Gillon, Gail T.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.06.2016; Springer; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Case Method (Teaching Technique); Comparative Analysis; Control Groups; Cooperative Learning; Early literacy; Early Reading; Education; Elementary School Teachers; Experimental Groups; Interdisciplinary Approach; Intervention; Language; Language Acquisition; Language and Literature; Language Skills; Linguistics; Literacy; Neurology; Pathology; Preservice Teachers; Professional Education; Psycholinguistics; Reading Achievement; Social Sciences; Speech; Speech Language Pathology; Speech-language pathologists; Student teachers; Teacher education; Teachers; Speech and language pathology; Teacher education; Reading and writing instruction; Inter-professional education
• ISSN: 0922-4777; 1573-0905
• DOI: 10.1007/s11145-016-9631-2

Ensuring teacher and speech and language pathology graduates are prepared to work collaboratively together to meet the diverse language literacy learning needs of children is an important goal. This study investigated the efficacy of a 3-h inter-professional education program focused on explicit instruction in the language skills that underpin early reading and spelling acquisition. The combined program incorporated student teachers and student speech and language pathologists (SLPs) working together on case-based instructional planning supplemented with structured opportunities for the groups to share their respective expertise in curriculum and linguistic knowledge. Student teachers (n = 18) and student SLPs (n = 27) were randomly assigned to this combined intervention or a comparison intervention that replaced the structured opportunities to share curriculum and linguistic knowledge with spending time together focused on non-language/literacy based activities. Before-and-after comparisons indicated that only the students in the combined condition increased their linguistic/curricular knowledge ( p  < 0.05). However, neither of the interventions improved students’ case-based instructional planning for children’s literacy learning over and above what they could achieve working individually. Implications for the pre-service preparation of teachers and SLPs are discussed.