Reading Fluency: Red Herring or Red Flag?

Reading aloud is an enjoyable and enriching way to spend time with others.  It’s also a way to practice more fluent speech. Children’s books, magazines and websites offer entertaining literacy activities for every interest and age group.  Game playing cards, museum and amusement park brochures, and written conversations between characters of video games are opportunities to practice ‘speech tools’ even for just a few minutes.  Stickers, nickels, smiles, hugs, thumbs-up, shared reading and other small rewards reinforce the notion that easier speech is meant for more situations than just the speech therapy office.

Reading testing is not quite as fun. Reading tests measure accuracy, fluency, words-per-minute, and basic comprehension. Reading fluency in particular, figures prominently in our data driven educational system.  While this data point may be a well - intentioned way to assess reading ability, I’m concerned about how it affects my students who stutter. The National Stuttering Association has a free brochure Stuttering and Reading Fluency (1) which states, “A child should not be penalized for moments of stuttering when assessing reading fluency. Fluency of speech is not the same as fluency of decoding.” We need to inform teachers of this.

 Every student I have ever met has a need for speed when reading aloud. Since reading tests are timed and reading fast is rewarded, it’s important to know that reading rate affects stuttering. (2)  When does reading dysfluency represent a stuttering problem and when does it represent a reading problem? In preparing this article, I came to the conclusion that this question is nearly irrelevant.  The more important question is whether or not a child’s depressed reading scores are warning signs of a more serious problem with grade level literacy.

The definition of reading is a matter of some debate.  A recent proposal, called the “narrow view of reading,” offered this perspective.  “The essence of the proposal [the narrow view] was to change the way in which reading is assessed. If high-stakes assessments differentiated among word recognition, domain-general reading comprehension, and specific subject knowledge, the reading crisis would be over because the focus would change to the true crisis in American education – knowledge deficiencies in the sciences, history, math, literature, and other content domains that are important for success in the 21^st century.” (3) Here we have decoding (word recognition) relegated to one small part of reading while the complexity of comprehension is given greater attention.

Misconceptions about reading include:

a)   “word recognition and reading comprehension are related skills that can be accurately reduced to one measurable score or level,

b)   improvements in word recognition will always lead to improvements in reading comprehension, and

c)    measures of reading comprehension assess the same thing.” (4)

Turns out, a problem with the narrow view of reading lies in its implementation. If reading is defined only in terms of word recognition (decoding), students who decode single words adequately may be dismissed from reading programs, even if they continue to struggle with the deep reading comprehension necessary to perform well at grade level. General education teachers are not trained to teach language skills and comprehension strategies; they are responsible for subject content. “Given the present climate of accountability to curriculum standards, they [teachers] are reluctant to do anything they view as distracting from the teaching of content that will appear on high stakes tests.” (5) Given the narrow view of reading, that means no one is designated to help students with reading comprehension strategies. That is, unless school based speech-language pathologists (SLP) are allowed to provide services that focus “on the language underpinnings of comprehension.” (6)

“Adolescent literacy professionals are trying to counter the popular and oft-quoted ideas that before fourth grade, children are learning to read and after that they are reading to learn…we know there is much to learn about reading past the fourth grade…” (7)

Reading is hard work for some children. Besides problems with decoding, language processing problems may prevent them from fully comprehending increasingly complex material. Some processing problems arise from a lack of background (world) knowledge, unfamiliar vocabulary, complex syntax, and information that is implied but not explicitly stated. Poor readers tend to read less than skilled readers. Children who find reading easy  and fun like to read more. Consequently they can spend hours and hours of time decoding unfamiliar vocabulary, deciphering complex sentences, linking information from one part of a text to another, talking with others about what they have read, and anticipating information in later pages and even later volumes of a story series. All the while, they are absorbing more world knowledge as well.

An emphasis on improving word recognition assumes that “by improving the reader’s overall word knowledge and decoding abilities, comprehension will simultaneously improve.” (8)  Decoding instruction for unfamiliar words can include reading them aloud for the child, reviewing phonetics, rereading, looking-up definitions, and word practice drills. While these teaching strategies have proven useful, research suggests that meaning-based feedback may be even more effective with respect to reading comprehension, oral language, and expressive vocabulary. With meaning-based feedback, “The teacher acts as a mediator who assists in establishing the content of the author’s message before reading, setting the scene, simplifying complex sentences, establishing relationships between and across text units, and discussing or expanding upon unfamiliar vocabulary or concepts in context. The teacher constantly monitors the oral reading for indications that the author’s message is not being understood.” (9)

The larger implications of reading comprehension become apparent when we look ahead to the literacy skills required of the next generation. “Adolescents entering the adult world in the 21^st century will read and write more than at any other time in human history. They will need advanced levels of literacy to perform their jobs, run their households, act as citizens, and conduct their personal lives. They will need literacy to cope with the flood of information they will find everywhere they turn. They will need literacy to feed their imaginations so they can create the world of the future.” (10)

Our journey from word recognition to reading comprehension makes its next stop at “high literacy”. High literacy “includes the ability to use language, content, and reasoning in ways that are appropriate for particular situations and disciplines, involving students’ abilities to engage in thoughtful reading, writing, and discussion about content.” (11) SLPs are well prepared to collaborate with others on this road. They are knowledgeable about the phonological, semantic, grammatic, and pragmatic complexities of communication in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. The Common Core Standards (12) released in June 2010 include language as a unique category, inviting SLPs to address the “underlying language requirements of rigorous curricula and intervene with students directly or work with other professionals to provide differentiated instruction and intervention.” (13)

          At this point, the relevance of reading fluency, and even stuttering, feels like a distant memory. I do not wish trivialize the ability to read or speak fluently at any grade level. But, let’s find some additional meaning in reading test scores. When a child who stutters performs poorly on a reading test, we need to ask questions. What kind of dysfluency was evident: decoding, stuttering, or both? Was the child penalized for stuttering? Was the child given the option to deliberately reduce speaking rate as a fluency strategy? How did the child perform on each comprehension test question and why? How well does the child read,comprehend, and talk about curriculum texts?  Does the child enjoy reading? Does the child seek reading opportunities at home? School districts are surviving shrinking budgets by cutting personnel and services.  When a child is denied services, I wish it was more trasparent whether the decision was truly based on the child’s need or the availability of funded programs.

Reading Resources

·         All about Adolescent Literacy http://www.adlit.org/

·         Boy’s Life: the Official Publication of the Boys Scouts of America 

·         Cobblestone & Cricket: 14 Award Winning Magazines http://www.cricketmag.com/home.asp

·         Highlights: Fun with Purpose http://www.highlights.com/

·         National Geographic Kids http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/kids/?source=NavKidsHome

·         Public Television for Kids  http://pbskids.org/

·         Reading is Fundamental http://www.rif.org/

·         Reading Rockets http://www.readingrockets.org/

References

(1)  broken link

(2)  Vanryckeghem, M. et. al. (1999) The Main and Interactive Effect of Oral Reading Rate on the Frequency of Stuttering, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 164-170.

(3)  Alan G. Kamhi (2009) Solving the Reading Crisis – Take 2: The Case for Differentiated Assessment, Language, Speech, and Hearing in Schools, 40, p. 213.

(4)  Ibid. p. 214

(5)  Barbara J. Ehren (2009) Looking Through an Adolescent Literacy Lens at the Narrow View of  Reading, Language, Speech, Hearing Services in Schools, 40, p. 193.

(6)  Ibid. p. 193

(7)  Ibid. p. 193

(8)  L. K. Crowe (2003) Comparison of Two Reading Feedback Strategies in Improving the Oral and Written Language Performance of Children with Language-Learning Disabilities, American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 12, p. 17.

(9)  Ibid. p. 18

(10)       B.J. Ehren & K. Murza (October, 2010) The Urgent Need to Address Workforce Readiness in Adolescent Literacy Intervention, Perspectives on Language Learning and Education,3, p.93 (a publication of ASHA SIG 1) with a reference to Moore, D. W. et. al. (1999) Adolescent literacy: A position statement Newark, DE: International Reading Association broken link

(11)       Ibid. p. 93.

(12)       www.corestandards.org

(13)       Ehren & Murza,  p. 97      

Alan Badmington: Voice of Hope

Alan’s story appears in every  International Stuttering Awareness Day (ISAD) online conference from  2002-2011. It’s a story that deserves repeating.  Alan applies concepts of change with remarkable results. He is a living, breathing example of a person who began stuttering at age 3, reached a time in his life when he committed to change, and then engineered his own total transformation. “I had achieved increased fluency in a controlled environment,” writes Alan,”...[next] I had to deal with personal issues involving communication with others...I drew up a plan of action...I needed to do certain things over and over again until the behaviors became familiar ....” (2003) Alan is a voice of hope for our children.

All  of Alan’s ISAD papers, his poem (9), and his comic book story for children. Have a consistent message:

           

            “If you are in a comfort zone, afraid to venture out

            Remember, every stutterer was once consumed with doubt

            So don’t hold back - just take that step and seek those pastures new

Embrace your future with a smile, success is there for YOU.” (2003)

“Changing the Words Around” (2004) is a masterful children’s story written by Alan Badmington and illustrated by Chris Badgett-Richards. (8)  The main character is a hedgehog who copes with stuttering by avoiding sounds that are too difficult to say. Alan himself recalls avoiding half the alphabet. “I could not use words commencing with the letters ‘b’, ‘c’, ‘d’, ‘f’, ‘g’, ‘j’, ‘k’, ‘m’, ‘n’, ‘p’, ‘s’, ‘t’, and ‘v’... and “became a ‘walking Thesaurus’”. (2005) Alan used word substitution, replacing  words that were easier to say for the more difficult ones. “I did not appreciate the harmful implications of such behavior. No-one had ever explained that each time I avoided a word or letter, the fear level increased.” (2006) Alan’s hedgehog orders slightly burnt toast to avoid saying the /m/ in muffin, despite lots of mental rehearsal and the best intentions. He betrays a friend and delays emergency home repair help because of sound fears that escalate into automatic, uncontrollable, word avoidance. The effect this avoidance has upon others leaves him feeling guilty and creates a limited image of himself and his potential.

“As someone who commenced stuttering in early childhood, I developed many negative beliefs about my speech behavior. As I experienced continuing difficulties throughout my life, these beliefs became engrained...I learned avoidance techniques in relation to words, sounds and situations. I perceived anything that challenged my limited self-image as a threat to my well being.” (2003) See  “How I Changed My Stuttering Mindset” (2005) for a lengthy list.

Recognizing and then challenging avoidance is a central message in Alan’s writings. “Each time we avoid something, we strengthen its influence over us. We can evade for so long, but the time will come when the situation demands that we have to say a specific word, or speak in a particular situation. When that happened, I found that my fear level had increased so much that I stuttered more severely.” (2007) Alan applied “new techniques to the physical side” of speech to improve fluency. (2009) Then, “[I] adopted a holistic approach, and working on different areas of my life, my speech improved as a by-product.” (2009)  

I wondered what science might underlie Alan’s story. Stuttering is “a condition that is heterogeneous in its symptoms and behavioral patterns.” (1)  The onset and development of stuttering is different from person to person  “with respect to predominant disfluencies (e.g., prolongations vs. repetitions), onset characteristics (e.g., sudden vs. gradual), language skills (e.g., precocious vs. delayed), and relative profiles of strength/weakness (e.g., weak phonology/weak language skills vs. weak phonology/strong language skills)…” (2)  Could it be that Mr. Badmington had a stuttering subtype that was particularly responsive to his treatment approach?

Alan’s belief that stuttering is a multifaceted disorder (3) may be consistent with the scientific  theory that language is “a learned skill, based on a functional language system (FLS) that is distributed over many parts of the human brain.” (4) If successful communication requires many areas of the brain to work “in parallel, redundantly, in different anatomical sites” (5), then treatment addressing multiple aspects would seem to make sense. I may need to throw away my colorful plastic model of the brain highlighting how different parts affect behavior. It is outdated, akin to the ancient theory of phrenology. (6) “Neophrenological theories do not claim that a bump on a person’s skull can tell you that he is honest. However, they claim that activity confined to a particular part of the brain regulates a complex aspect of behavior.” (7) I view this as good news. It means our children can work to overcome stuttering in multiple ways.

Let’s make Alan’s achievements more than a testimonial. Let’s think about Alan’s story in light of the idea that there is no single disorder called “stuttering” but rather different subtypes.First, we do not know exactly the type, frequency, or severity of Alan’s disfluency. Would that have made difference? Second we do not know details about the onset of his stuttering other than it began at age 3 and he received early therapy but  “did not recall any major difficulties until…11 years” of age. (2005) Was early intervention somewhat effective, perhaps establishing early neural foundations for fluency? Third, how might Alan’s exceptional language skills have contributed to his stuttering and to his recovery?. He “edited several magazines; held secretaryship of numerous organizations; [was] advisor to a fictional crime series on British television…written humorous verse and other poetry…[wrote slogans] to win hundreds of prizes…[and wrote] speeches/poems for use by other people.” (2008) These questions might reveal important information; perhaps the subtype of stuttering Alan experienced might have predicted the kind of stuttering treatment he found effective.

We could consider the role of temperament as well. So as not to make a long article even longer, I will simply wonder aloud if Alan was gifted with an outgoing personality. Maybe this  amplified the devastating effect that stuttering had upon his quality of life. For example, he deplored being demoted to a desk job. Also, his role model was a public speaker. “…April 1, 2000 when I witnessed a PWS recounting how he had won several speaking trophies in formal competition…was such a defining moment that the date is indelibly imprinted on my memory.” (2011) I mean really - how many of us want to be a public speaker! Embracing a new vision of himself as a public speaker, drawing upon years of challenges he must have overcome as a police officer, and embarking on a rigorous action plan, Alan “discovered incredible opportunities for growth.” (2011)

I am truly grateful to Alan Badmington for being a voice of hope. I was thrilled to read that his ideas were preserved in a series of video-recordings at Arkansas State University. (2010) Yet, testimonials are not enough for speech language pathologists (SLPs) who now must work in a climate of Evidence Based Practice. There must be some science supporting treatment decisions. I recently read, once again, that an SLP practicing fluency therapy must know all of the current treatment options and for whom they will be most effective. I find this professorial advice intimidating and unrealistic. Until research clarifies stuttering subtypes and then prescribes corresponding treatments, how do clinicians know for sure ‘what works’ for any given individual? In addition, it seems to me humanly impossible to implement every possible treatment adequately. It seems more appropriate that I explain my bias’ about stuttering, support that bias with research articles, and outline my preferred therapy methods. Referring to other SLPs as needed demonstrates my respect for their specialized competence.

At the end of “Changing the Words Around”,  the main character buys muffins at a 2-for-1 sale, one for himself and one for his best friend.   The time had come: a decision to change, a vision of success, a rigorous processes of challenging fear, creative and persistent follow through, and just perhaps, a stuttering subtype responsive to this plan of action.

“One day, I decided, enough was enough

I made myself promise, (although it was tough)

To say what I wanted, whatever the letter

At times, I still struggled, but I felt so much better. “ (8)

(1)  Carol Hubbard Seery et. al., (2007)  Subtyping Stuttering II : Contributions from Language and Temperament,  NIH Public Access p. 14 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082140/

(2)  Ibid. p. 2

(3)  John Harrison (2002) ”How I Recovered from Stuttering”  http://www.masteringstuttering.com/recovery-stuttering.htm

(4)  Philip Lieberman (2002) Human Language and Our Reptilian Brain, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 1

(5)  Ibid. p. 6

(6)  Phrenology: “The study of the shape and protuberances of the skull, based on the now discredited belief that they reveal character and mental capacity.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/phrenology  

(7)  Lieberman, P.  p. 23

(8)  Alan Badmington (2004) “Changing the Words Around” http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad7/papers/badmington7/badmington17.html

(9)  “EVERYONE'S DIFFERENT” http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad7/papers/badmington7/badmington27.html

Alan Badmington’s International Stuttering Awareness Day articles

2002: “For Better - For Worse” http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad5/papers/weddingvows.html

2003:  “STEP OUTSIDE: Why expanding comfort zones can improve our stuttering and lead to more fulfilling lives” http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad6/papers/badmington6.html

2004: “ IT'S GOOD TO TALK ABOUT IT” http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad7/papers/bridgebuilders7/alan7.html

2005: “How I changed My Stuttering Mindset” http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad8/papers/badmington8.html

2006: “Technology: A friend or foe of someone who stutters?” http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad9/papers/badmington9.html

2007: “TWO THINGS I WISH I'D KNOWN ABOUT STUTTERING WHEN I WAS YOUNGER” http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad10/papers/messages10/badmington10.html

2008: “Thanks To My Stutter, I'm Never Lost For Words” http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad11/papers/gift11/badmington11.html

2009: “How Beliefs and Self-image Can Influence Stuttering” http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad12/papers/badmington12.html

2010: “Helping tomorrow's therapists gain a greater insight into stuttering” http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad13/papers/tales13/badmington13.html

 2011: “Sporting Milestone Helps To Set My Stutter On Right Track” http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad15/papers/turning15/badmington15.html

A Parent Group: Unity, Acceptance, Trust

The inaugural parent group meeting in January was very promising. Three of us chatted over tea and hot chocolate at a local restaurant. (Next time we'll have cookies!) The 7:30 pm start time was after the dinner crowd had gone home, leaving the dining area with few distractions and greater privacy. When the meeting ended, I was genuinely grateful for our time together.

There was no agenda or informative handouts. Instead, I trusted the moment. This was mildly frightening for me, a person professionally trained to write lesson plans. Fortunately, the two mothers who attended immediately warmed to one another and easily found areas of mutual concern. Each wanted to nurture their children's communication skills for assertive self-expression, classroom participation, social interaction, family support, personal growth, and increased fluency. They did most of the talking, just as I'd hoped.

 I've been a part of many small groups for a variety of reasons. I've volunteered for religious and secular committees, educational organizations, and recreational clubs. I've been a leader and a follower, always acting within a superimposed framework to achieve short term goals. As I wondered about a format for this parent group, I discovered two completely different approaches.

One was a parent program called the MAGIC Project (2). MAGIC stands for Maximizing Academic Growth by Improving Communication and was organized by speech language pathologists in a large urban school district. The 5-hour, 1-day format was tightly controlled and included instructional goals. Parents were taught concepts of child development, how good communication skills improved academic performance, and how to follow through at home in ways that were consistent with school expectations. While the format did include group discussion, the feeling of parents-as-students didn't resonate well with me.

Since I didn't want to instruct  a parent group, I picked up a book on how to facilitate one. (1) "The main belief behind group facilitation is that full cooperation between all people is both possible and desirable--values of equality, shared decision-making, equal opportunity, power sharing and personal responsibility are basic to full cooperation." (p.2) I liked the sound of that. A facilitator is present and flexible, honoring both the individuals and the group. A facilitator does not add content to discussions, but rather fosters a safe, creative space for group members to find "unity, acceptance and trust." (p. 44)  Purpose, vision, and learning emerge from member interaction.

Ground rules are required regardless of what form my parent group may take. Members need to be responsible for choosing how much personal information as they wish to share. My role as speech language pathologist demands that I respect confidentiality and will not divulge any personal information about group members. Mutual respect is paramount. Everyone's situation is a unique conglomeration of experiences, values, personal qualities, education, personal history and more. Sometimes advice is welcome but not usually.  People generally prefer to talk about what's on their minds and know that others are truly listening. Everyone learns a little something from one another this way.

I'm looking forward to finding a balance between teaching and facilitating. I will share what I know about communication and fluency when it seems appropriate, certainly not in the form of a syllabus or agenda. I expect the parents will be the real teachers. They say 'When the student is ready the teacher will appear.' I'm ready.


p.s. Visit the National Stuttering Association Family Radio Show for world-wide support at broken link

1.       Hunter, D., Bailey, A., Tayor, B. (1995) The Art of Facilitation: How to Create Group Synergy. Fisher Books.

 2.       Farber, J.G. & Goldstein, M.K. (1998) “Parents Working With Speech-

Language Pathologists to Foster Partnerships in Education,”  Language, Speech, Hearing Services in Schools, 29, 24-34.

Orton Gillingham: Ideas for Speech Therapy

I just learned another way to blend literacy with speech/language therapy. I just completed a 30-hour training course to become Certified in Orton Gillingham (O-G) (1). I was looking forward to learning this popular alternative to teaching reading and writing.  What I didn’t expect, was to come away from this O-G course with the realization that private speech therapy has become an alternative rather than a supplement to public education.

The O-G course was a week long, thoroughly pragmatic description of how to teach reading. Ten of the 12 participants were classroom teachers. One was a parent home-schooling her child and the other was me. The instructor was enthusiastic, patient and knew the material inside and out. There were frequent conversations about how lessons could be adapted for specific children and settings. I was completely satisfied with the class.

It seems to me that O-G has a step-by-step linguistic hierarchy that could be applied to learning fluency tools. Easy onset, reduced speaking rate, resisting time pressure, voluntary stuttering, and stuttering modifications could be taught in conjunction with a review of the rules of English reading and writing.  Speaking, reading, writing, listening, and literature would become a part of every speech therapy session right from the get-go at appropriate skill levels.  Literacy concepts could also be taught in combination with sessions on acceptance of stuttering, non-avoidance, desensitization, and self-expression. Multisensory experiences and practice drills could find a place in every lesson plan.

The practice drill has become more common in public education because of a teaching protocol called Response to Intervention (RTI). I attended a day-long workshop on RTI in 2008 (2). RTI protocol emphasizes drill and data collection.  The emergence of RTI foreshadowed the demise of special education. It permits children to qualify for extra help without undergoing lengthy and expensive team evaluations. Using an RTI intervention model, school districts can economize by assigning volunteers and assistants to complete practice drills with students who need help in small groups within the classroom. My O-G course instructor said the “beauty of O-G is that anyone can do it.” Highly structured programs such as O-G fit well into an RTI model.

I have concerns about RTI. I don’t understand how a child with an undiagnosed language or hearing impairment benefits from the RTI more-of-the-same approach. Does such a child need to fail at all three RTI levels before someone suggests an alternative? At the same time, I do wonder if my own speech therapy practice should place greater emphasis on simple speech practice drills. I provide guidelines for speech carryover practice and I grew up in a house where homework was top priority. But O-G class discussions made it clear that some students have limited opportunity for and assistance doing homework. “Race to Nowhere” (3) even suggests that homework can be harmful. Maybe simple speech drills that “anyone can do” deserve more respect.

How does O-G, reading, and writing fit with speech language pathology? The term “orthography” refers to the writing system of a language. A recent article published in an American Speech Language Hearing Association (ASHA) journal says that "Orthographic knowledge represents the information that is stored in memory that tells us how to represent spoken language in written form..." (4)  Two important concepts in this article seem especially relevant for any reading/writing program:

1.        Mental Graphemic Representations (MGR): This is "the stored mental representations of specific written words or word parts...when one has a clear mental image of a word, then ‘correct writing’(and reading) of that word should occur." (5)

2.        Orthographic Patterns: This refers to the letters representing speech sounds, how letters can be combined, and where letters may appear (positional and contextual constraints).

"MGR knowledge reflects memories of specific words, whereas orthographic pattern knowledge connotes an understanding of the patterns governing the symbol system. It is not word specific. "(6) O-G teaches non-phonetic “red words” in a different way than words which can be decoded phonetically.  Red words must be memorized, become mental representations. On the other hand, “green words” can be sounded out using rules of phonetics. Eventually, both “red” and “green” words must be memorized for fluent reading. More fluent reading enhances comprehension. Similarly, it has been speculated that fluent speech may also have a mental representation in the brain. (7)

 Some researchers feel that developmental stuttering is tangled up in language. "For more than half a century, language has been defined in part by Its components: phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics ... This thinking however ignores a now well established principle that reading and writing are language skills...orthography must be included as one of the six, rather than five, components of language.” (8) Orthography and literacy are within the scope of practice of the SLP. I will be blending the acquisition of fluency enhancing techniques with the linguistic hierarchy provided by Orton-Gillingham for some students. I’ll be blending literacy into all of my lessons. My hope is that new fluency skills will become associated with literacy skills for the child and that better carryover will be one result.

Visit Blue Ribbon Readers at (broken link) or some fun literacy games.

A recent comprehensive text on dyslexia is Overcoming Dyslexia by Sally Shaywitz, M.D. broken link

(1)    Institute for Multi-Sensory Education, December 5-9, http://orton-gillingham.com/

(2)    Implementing a Response to Interventions Model, Dedham, MA, March 2008

(3)    broken link

(4)     Kenn Apel (2011) What is Orthographic Knowledge? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, p. 592.

(5)    Ibid, p. 593

(6)    Ibid., p. 594

(7)    DIVA, http://www.butlerspeechtherapy.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2011-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=11

(8)    Kenn Apel, p. 599-600

Fluency Enhancing Techniques: Phrasing

Within each child, there may be unique cognitive demands driving his/her verbal expression and complicating our assumptions about the amount of linguistic challenge he/she is experiencing.  If we know that language complexity affects stuttering, then we need to alert students to this issue explicitly. I think we need to tell children that language is a deliciously complicated code that could be affecting their efforts to carryover new speech skills. This idea evolved as I learned more about teaching literacy.  We can integrate our knowledge of fluency and literacy in our lesson plans. Early literacy lessons nowadays include explicit instruction in phonological and phonemic awareness.  School age children are routinely taught the rules of grammar and composition in native and foreign language classes. So perhaps it will be simple to include a more detailed understanding of linguistics as part of a child’s fluency treatment program.

Children learn fluency enhancing skills by playing speech/language games which gradually become more difficult. “For most children, fluency can be produced more easily when semantic and syntactic demands are lower... numerous activities can be implemented to first establish fluency at a simple level before increasing linguistic demands and expecting higher levels of fluency.” (1) This is familiar territory for speech language pathologists (SLP). These games are fun ways to control language complexity across single word-, phrase-, single- and multi-sentence, story-, and conversational- levels of linguistic challenge. In this blog entry, I’d like to suggest that paying closer attention to each child’s expressive language – rather than the structure of the speech game per se - may be one more way to help them move beyond the speech games into real life communication.

 For example, if reduced speaking rate could be more explicitly connected to language complexity, would it also be easier to use? A child can slow down his speech rate in several ways. For example, he can slow overall oral motor movement and use more frequent pauses. (2)  At a two-week Stuttering Foundation of America workshop I attended in 1992, pauses were combined with phrasing and Easy Relaxed Approach-Smooth Movement (ERA-SM) (3).  An example of phrasing can be found in the Parent Practice for Easy Talking handout on the website of the Stuttering Center of Western Pennsylvania (4). I’m going to refer to this collection of behaviors as “phrasing” since this blog is about paying attention to linguistics in stuttering.

My students have difficulty with phrasing because it interferes with powerful suprasegmental aspects of expressive language. Children’s words are woven together with intonation and emotion to become large parcels of ideas.  My students’ eyes glaze over when I explain that phrasing allows more time for speech-motor planning, word retrieval, and sentence formulation. To them, the mechanics of phrasing is a distraction and a challenge to working memory.

                So let’s say we approach his goal from a different perspective. What if we disguise the mechanics of phrasing with a costume of linguistic relevance? If phrasing could be made more explicitly meaningful, would it be easier to use. It’s time to remember our school language lessons!  Sentences are constructed to express “relationships among propositions or chunks of content.” (5) How?  By combining ideas in the form of several kinds of subordinate and coordinate clauses. And it turns out that SLPs familiar with literacy have a way to measure this. They measure children’s language complexity by counting these clauses.

I won’t go into detail here, but, a “T-unit” is a single independent clause “plus whatever other subordinate clauses or nonclauses are attached to, or embedded within, that one main clause.” (6)  Hypothetically speaking, if two children recalled the same story book with the same amount of information, the child using fewer T-units is likely to have done so with more complex language. She has communicated the information in fewer sentences by embedding it in more complex grammar.

I am becoming especially sensitive to the complexity of children’s spontaneous expressive language as they attempt activities beyond the speech games. The child using more complex language in his/her independent attempts to own the process of carryover, may be more dysfluent than the child who uses simpler language. Children who naturally use more complex language – or who have complex thoughts and reduced language skills – could be alerted to this possibility. As an SLP, there are times when I do not feel it best to simplify expressive language for the sake of fluency. There are times when I would want to nurture the interaction between complex thought and complex language, taking this time to observe rather than manage stuttering. Perhaps this could also be a child’s explicit personal goal as well.

  What if we could now teach phrasing as a strategy for expressing complex thoughts?  If phrasing was a  communication tool to assist listeners in comprehending complex syntax and to add power to the message perhaps it would feel more natural and easier to use. Phrasing allows listeners more time to digest complex language. It highlights the most important concepts being conveyed. Listen to any well-trained public speaker and you will hear this happening. Perhaps this is how the mechanics of speech production, [reduced rate + pausing + ERA-SM (or easy onset) + phrasing] might be disguised as simple communication competence. Maybe this would make fluency enhancing skills more relevant and accessible.

I had the privilege of coaching a student for the English portion of her Bat Mitzvah this month. [Pausing + phrasing + rate reduction+ easy onset] were particularly effective for this bright, energetic and charming young woman. One practice strategy was to select two sentences from anywhere in her presentation and record how long it took her to read them. She read the same two sentences several times over, changing how long it took to say them. The goal was flexibility, discovering the feeling of modifying speech rate at will.  She repeated this exercise several times with different pairs of sentences. But it seemed that an even more effective coaching tip was for her to think about what part of each sentence she wanted her audience to really get. She’d spent many hours thinking about her message, putting it into words, and editing it to her satisfaction.  It was critical that she consider how her delivery might convey that message most effectively. The mechanics of speech now had linguistic relevance. It was the message that mattered.

“Later language development is characterized by growth in the ability to communicate in flexible ways for diverse purposes.” (7) Our language is dependent upon the speaking situation. The language used to give a Bat Mitzvah speech or an oral report in science class is not the same as the language of conversation. Expository language is generally more complex than conversational language.  Research indicates that, in general, our conversational language becomes more complex as we get older. However, not expository language. “…even young school age children were able to use subordination [e.g., subordinate clauses] as frequently as middle aged adults, but young children require a task that is cognitively challenging to reveal their syntactic competence.” (8). This implies that when children who stutter present oral reports in class, participate in class discussions, or recall the events of an exciting day, they are challenged not only by the speaking situation (e.g., emotion, time pressure, listener reaction), but by more complex language demands as well.

Most children seem to acquire basic language skills in a magical sort of way. There is a developmental progression guiding the infant’s babbling to the first grader’s adult-like language. But studies suggest that “…later syntactic development is not primarily a matter of acquiring new grammatical structures. Rather, it seems to be more a process of learning how to use existing structures with greater efficiency and dexterity to communicate complex thoughts in a way that is clear and informative.” (9) This brings to mind the children I’ve met who appeared to be high potential learners.  These bright, gifted, and talented children are driven by an intellect beyond age and grade level expectations. (10) They have big ideas but lack the speech motor planning/execution skills and sentence formulation abilities to respond with the speed, precision, and efficiency required to reveal what they are thinking.

I’ve come to the end of another blog that, upon reflection, seems to state the obvious. Show children how the grammar lessons they tolerate in school may actually be relevant to their attempts at carryover of greater fluency. I listened to a radio interview couple weeks ago with an author who said that he writes stories to answer questions he has about the world. This is my new mantra. Perhaps this blog was my first experience walking my way through the question, “Why have I been attracted to literacy issues in my work as a fluency specialist?” The answer may only be new to me!

(1)      Peter R. Ramig & Darrel M. Dodge (2010) The Child and Adolescent Stuttering Treatment and Activity Resource Guide, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning, p. 147

(2)      Peter Reitzes, (2009) “Pausing and Stuttering”, http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad12/papers/therapy12/reitzes12.html

(3)      Kristen Chmela  (2008) “Using a Reading Bucket Activity in School Age Stuttering Therapy”. Kristen refers to both ERA-SM and pausing/phrasing in this article. ERA-SM is somewhat similar to what others refer to as easy onset.

(4)     broken link

(5)      Cheryl M. Scott & Nickola Wolf Nelson (2009) Sentence Combining: Assessment and Intervention Applications, in Written Language Assessment and Intervention, American Speech Language Hearing Association Self-Study 8190.  P. 12

(6)      Ibid p. 14

(7)      Marilyn A. Nippold et. al. (2005) Conversational vs. Expository Discourse: A Study of Syntactic Development in Children, Adolescents, and Adults, Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 48, p. 1048

(8)      Ibid. p. 1057

(9)      Ibid. p. 1058

(10)   www.nagc.org, www.hoagiesgifted.org , www.davidsongifted.org