Environmental, Instructional, and Structural Features of Classrooms: What These Mean for SLPs

For the 1.1 million school-age children receiving speech and language therapy from their school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs), the public schools are not only an environment for learning but the context through which their communication disorders are addressed.[1] Indeed, the charge for SLPs is not simply to boost the oral language proficiency of these students but rather to support children's short- and long-term academic success.[2] As such, effective speech-language therapy must consider not just the child's needs but also the environment in which the child finds him/herself.

This is indeed a complicated task. As discussed by Schmitt and Justice,[3] schools are complex host environments in which the quality of the academic environment both proximally (individual classrooms) and distally (school administration, public policy) impacts children's learning.[4] [5] Children who experience high-quality learning environments not only show increased short- and long-term academic gains but also experience a protective buffer from negative home environments.[6]

Classroom contexts may be best understood with consideration of environmental, instructional, and structural features. Environmental features are most commonly defined as the quality of interactions within the classroom. Interactions could include teacher–child interactions, child–child interactions, SLP–child interactions, as well as interactions with the general academic content/curricula. Educational researchers have studied environmental features extensively, concluding that the more positive and high quality the multitude of interactions in a child's classroom context, the better the academic outcomes.[7] Interestingly, similar analysis of high-quality interactions within speech-language therapy have not shown significant associations with children's outcomes; however, this may be due to lack of variability. A study of the quality between 75 SLPs and their clients showed an overwhelmingly high level of interactions, especially with regard to emotional support.[8] This finding may not be surprising—SLPs tend to be quite proficient at showing care and concern for the students. However, these same children may or may not experience the same level of warmth and acceptance in their general classrooms. As a result, peer interactions and interactions with educators are important considerations for SLPs when planning and implementing academically-relevant and contextualized intervention.

Instructional features include the curricula and quality of instructional practices used by classroom teachers and SLPs. Research suggests that for children with low academic abilities, direct and high-quality instruction corresponds to greater outcomes at the end of the year than classrooms with more child-directed learning and less-quality input.[9] Additionally, children situated in classrooms where the interaction with the teacher and course content is high quality make more gains in literacy, language, and math than peers in lower quality instructional contexts. These findings were demonstrated from preschool through early elementary and underscore the need for direct instruction in matters of curricular content. Said differently, for children with communication disorders who struggle with language, literacy, and math, the content and access to direct instruction is a significant predictor of outcomes.

Structural features are defined as the conditions or organization of a particular environment through which instruction or intervention is delivered. From an empirical standpoint, researchers have investigated specific structural features such as the role of class size, teacher:child ratio, and the overall cleanliness or organization of the environment. Within the scope of speech-language pathology, structural features also include components such as treatment intensity, a particular service delivery model, and location of the intervention itself. Educational research suggests that, in the elementary years, structural features are less predictive of children's outcomes than environmental and instructional features.[10] However, the speech pathology literature is less conclusive. Recent studies by Schmitt and colleagues[11] suggest treatment intensity—particularly the interplay between dose and frequency—is predictive of language gain for early elementary children with language impairment (LI). A review by Cirrin et al[12] found that inclusive contexts may have benefit for generalization of language skills than more traditional structures of intervention. Structural features are most commonly described within a child's individualized education plan, making the individualized education program (IEP) an added contextual element of education for children with communication disorders.

For school-based SLPs, research on classroom contexts and the link with academic outcomes is critical to consider when planning and implementing effective treatment practices for children with communication disorders. Farquharson and colleagues[13] from a longitudinal study of 294 children with LI in the public schools nested within 75 SLPs found that SLPs (the group variable) explained 8% to 13% of the variance in children's outcomes after controlling for fall scores and grade. These data highlight a critical truth of speech-language pathology: Who a child has as an SLP matters. The knowledge of each SLP and the decisions they make for their students carry significant influence on the ultimate outcomes for children with LI. This issue is dedicated to exploring some of the complex factors related to outcomes for children with communication disorders in the public schools and empowering SLPs with specific strategies to add to their existing toolbox of supports for children in this complex learning environment.

It is my pleasure to introduce readers to the wealth of information and supports in the pages that follow from our slate of experts. From an organizational standpoint, the articles are ordered by the primary classroom feature addressed, beginning with environmental factors (see “The Role of Preschool Peers in Children's Language Development” by Dr. Kelly Purtell and colleagues), then moving to instructional factors (see “Feasible and Effective Language Intervention Strategies that Accelerate Students' Academic Achievement” by Drs. Elizabeth Kelley and Trina Spencer, as well as “The Communication Benefits of Participation in Camp Dream. Speak. Live.: An Extension and Replication” by Dr. Courtney Byrd and colleagues), and finally structural factors (see “A Comprehensive Treatment Approach to Address Speech Production and Literacy Skills in School-Age Children with Speech Sound Disorders” by Dr. Loudermill and colleagues, “Enhancing Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Features of IEPs for SLPs” by Dr. Tran and colleagues, and “The Five W's Meet the Three R's: The Who, What, When, Where, and Why of Telepractice Service Delivery for School-Based Speech-Language Therapy Services” by Dr. Grogan-Johnson). Readers will quickly notice that each article includes elements of one or more classroom features, as might be expected. Although research attempts to isolate and investigate each nuanced element of children's academic environments, the reality is that all features (environmental, instructional, and structural) interact in important ways for children with communication disorders—hence the complexity of the school context. In every article, the authors provide current research in accessible language plus specific suggestions and strategies SLPs can use immediately in their practice, including where applicable, sample goals, and suggestions for treatment implementation.

Schools are indeed complex environments, and for children with communication disorders, effective intervention requires consideration of the interplay between a child's individual needs and the academic environment itself. Each article in this issue addresses one of many ways in which the academic environment impacts outcomes for children with communication disorders and how SLPs can intervene to promote success for children on their caseloads. It is our hope that SLPs will utilize this information to advance their practice and outcomes for children with communication disorders.

Publication History

Article published online:
16 March 2021

• References

• 1 US Department of Education. . Accessed January 5, 2021 at: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/static-tables/index.html 2019
• 2 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). 2010 Roles and responsibilities of speech–language pathologists in schools. Accessed January 5, 2021 at: https://www.asha.org/SLP/schools/prof-consult/guidelines
• 3 Schmitt MB, Justice L. Schools as complex host environments: Understanding aspects of schools that may influence clinical practice and research. ASHA Lead 2011; 16: 8-11
• 4 Pianta RC, La Paro KM, Payne C, Cox MJ, Bradley R. The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. Elem Sch J 2002; 102: 225-238
• 5 McGinty AS, Justice L, Rimm-Kaufman SE. Sense of school community for preschool teachers serving at-risk children. Early Educ Dev 2008; 19: 361-384
• 6 Schmeer KK, Yoon AJ. Home sweet home? Home physical environment and inflammation in children. Soc Sci Res 2016; 60: 236-248
• 7 LoCasale-Crouch J, Konold T, Pianta R. et al. Observed classroom quality profiles in state-funded pre-kindergarten programs and associations with teacher, program, and classroom characteristics. Early Child Res Q 2007; 22: 3-17
• 8 Biancone TL, Schussler KF, Justice LM, Schmitt MB, Logan JAR. Quality of language intervention provided to primary students: descriptive findings and predictors. J Commun Disord 2014; 49: 13-24
• 9 Connor CM, Morrison FJ, Fishman B. et al. Testing the impact of child characteristics× instruction interactions on third graders' reading comprehension by differentiating literacy instruction. Read Res Q 2011; 46 (03) 189-221
• 10 Pianta R, Downer J, Hamre B. Quality in early education classrooms: definitions, gaps, and systems. Future Child 2016; 26: 119-137
• 11 Schmitt MB, Justice LM, Logan JAR. Intensity of language treatment: contribution to children's language outcomes. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2017; 52 (02) 155-167
• 12 Cirrin FM, Schooling TL, Nelson NW. et al. Evidence-based systematic review: effects of different service delivery models on communication outcomes for elementary school-age children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2010; 41 (03) 233-264
• 13 Farquharson K, Tambyraja SR, Logan J, Justice LM, Schmitt MB. Using hierarchical linear modeling to examine how individual SLPs differentially contribute to children's language and literacy gains in public schools. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2015; 24 (03) 504-516