Case Study – Pick TWO ONE

Review the information given to determine and identify the areas of need for the ONE student you have chosen to succeed in your classroom.  You will write up one case study as if it were an assessment report.  There should be at least two sections (with headings).  The first section (General Information and Explanation of Findings) will provide general information about the student, the assessments given, the results and findings.  In the second section (Impact on Academics and Recommended Interventions and Technology) you will provide recommendations for classroom intervention for each student. Things to consider: Impact on Reading; Writing; Spelling; Math; Science; Art; Music; P.E.. Also consider the types of technology that may be useful and strategies you might implement for each student.

The Language Domains Curriculum Application Project Chart will be a great resource for this assignment.

A completed case study has been provided on Jeannine in the attachments, along with the case study used to complete it – so DO NOT use Jeannine as one of your assignments submissions.

special educationcase study

1

Case Study:

Jeannine

Student Sample

November 23, 2018

SPE 502: Language Development and Challenges in Children and Adolescents

National Louis University

Fall 2018

2

Jeannine

General Information:

This student’s name is Jeannine. She is 13 years and 8 months old. She has received speech and
language therapy since she was two years old. Her difficulties include articulation, sentence
structure, semantics and pragmatics. Jeannine was assessed through informal observation and
language sampling. She was also assessed using standardized instruments including the Clinical
Evaluation of Language Fundamentals- Revised (CELF-3), and The Adolescent WORD Test.
These tests were used to assess Jeannine’s articulation, voice, fluency, pragmatic and receptive
and expressive language skills. Jeannine appeared to be doing the best she could on the exams.
The standard scores for her CELF-3 test are as follows:

Receptive Language: 50
Expressive Language: 59
Total Language: 50

Jeannine’s Adolescent WORD Test standard score resulted in a 61. Jeannine’s articulation and
oral motor skills were found to be age appropriate. Fluency of speech and voice levels were
found to be appropriate for her age and gender. Jeannine is able to answer simple comprehension
questions, but has difficulty following step-by-step directions. Jeannine is able to construct
sentences, but has some difficulty in expressive language such as defining words, giving multiple
meanings of words, choosing synonyms and using appropriate vocabulary. Her syntax skills are
appropriate. Jeannine can initiate and maintain a conversation with her therapist, whom she
knows well, but she cannot initiate and maintain a conversation with anyone whom she is
unfamiliar with. Her pragmatic skills are lower in the areas of volume control, attending to
listener needs and following general rules of conversation.

Impact on Academics & Recommended Interventions and Technology

Jeannine’s scores indicated that she may have an intellectual impairment. She seems to have the
most difficulty with semantics and pragmatics.

The impacts that semantics difficulties have on her reading ability are: difficulty differentiating
between words with similar meaning, difficulty classifying words into categories and
subcategories, difficulty using known words in new ways, difficulty understanding figurative
language, difficulty identifying main points in a reading, difficulty defining vocabulary,
difficulty with comprehension, inability to describe narratives.

The impacts on writing include: difficulty separating and using subject and object pronouns,
difficulty using new words, difficulty using figurative language in writing, difficulty with written
expression, and narrative writing capabilities are limited.

The impacts on spelling include: difficulty with homophones or spelling words with similar
meanings.

3

The impacts on math include: difficulty following verbal or written directions, difficulty
understanding math vocabulary/terms, and delayed computation and expression.
The impacts Jeannine’s difficulties have on science are: difficulty following verbal or written
directions, difficulty understanding science vocabulary, difficulty using descriptive words,
difficulty participating in class or group discussions, and difficulty memorizing science facts.

The impacts on social studies include: difficulty following verbal or written directions, difficulty
understanding social studies vocabulary, difficulty participating in class or group discussions.

The impacts on art include: difficulty following verbal or written directions, difficulty
understanding art vocabulary, difficulty with spatial terms, and difficulty using descriptive
words.

The impacts on music include: difficulty following verbal or written directions, difficulty
understanding music vocabulary, and difficulty understanding the order of music notes.

The impacts on PE include: difficulty with spatial terms, difficulty communicating effectively
with a partner or team, and difficulty following verbal directions.

My recommendations for intervention ideas to better help Jeannine include:

• Tests should be read aloud
• Directions should be rephrased and broken down, repeated if necessary
• Visuals should be named and classified into categories
• Sentence completion activities
• Use manipulatives for spatial/tactile learning
• Use word retrieval cues
• Practice symbolic play activities
• Ask student to show example of what a word means, find a picture to show the word’s

meaning, or demonstrate the meaning with materials

Types of technology that would be beneficial for Jeannine include:

• Use of graphic organizers and charts will help students to categorize words and ideas
• Use of online dictionary and thesaurus

The impacts that pragmatic difficulties have on Jeannine’s reading ability are: inadequate
reading comprehension, reduced ability to follow discourse in a story, difficulty following
storylines, difficulty with volume control when reading in groups, reduced comprehension of
figurative language/slang used in texts, and difficulty with predicting and making inferences
based upon background knowledge and evidence in the text.

Impacts on writing include: difficulty writing using figurative language forms, failure to provide
context to thoughts, difficulty writing dialogue, difficulty constructing grammatically correct
sentences, and difficulties with use of symbolism, figurative language, and theme.

4

Impacts on spelling include: difficulty spelling words and pattern of difficulty in letter
formation, sequencing and spelling.

Impacts on math include: difficulty comprehending word/story problems.

Impacts on science include: difficulty following written or oral instruction, and difficulty
inferring based upon evidence and prior knowledge.

Impacts on social studies include: reduced reading comprehension, difficulty explaining an
event/providing context for an event, and difficulty understanding perspective from another time
period.

Impacts on art include: difficulty following oral directions, difficulty following step-by-step
directions, difficulty describing artist’s intentions and/or meaning behind artwork, difficulties
interpreting works of art based on their meanings and symbolism, and disrupting creative
environment

Impacts on music include: reduced comprehension of lyric meaning, difficulty following oral
instructions, difficulty with volume control when singing, difficulties recognizing the tone,
mood, or voice in a musical piece, and challenges with incorporating own emotions/expression
when given freedom to explore in music.

Impacts on PE include: may have trouble comprehending indirect requests from teacher,
difficulty following oral instructions, and difficulty communicating and working in teams.

My recommendations for intervention ideas to better help Jeannine include:

• Structured therapy sessions that teach skills to communicate with others in appropriate
ways

• ABA- Applied Behavior Analysis
• Visual reminders of appropriate ways to interact, respond and communicate in specific

settings
• Social work activities
• Speech therapy
• Turn-taking activities
• Modeling
• Positive conversation incentive charts

Types of technology that would be beneficial for Jeannine include:

• Visual conversation cards
• Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC)- devices that provide

pictures/visuals/words to an individual to help communicate

5

• Video- based instruction or modeling- the student can record themselves doing certain
skills and then watch the video later for reinforcement of appropriate behaviors

• Visual volume control app that measures volume levels

Case Study

Student: Michelle Age: 7 years, 2 months

Assessment Techniques:
Michelle was evaluated in English and in Korean through an interpreter. Informal
observation and language sampling as well as standardized instruments were
used to assess articulation, voice, fluency, pragmatic, receptive and expressive
language skills. Michelle appeared to be cooperating to the best of her ability
during the testing session. The results of this evaluation are therefore judged to
be valid.

Test Standard Score
PPVT-3 English 41
Korean 65

EOWPVT: English 71
Korean bn

Articulation/Oral Motor Skills:
An informal articulation assessment indicated age appropriate developmental
articulation errors.
A cursory oral – peripheral examination revealed that structure of the oral
mechanism was intact and symmetrical. Function appeared within normal limits
for development of verbal communication skills.

Fluency/Voice:
Fluency of conversational speech and vocal quality, pitch, loudness were
observed to be appropriate for age and gender.

Receptive Language:
The Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT), which assesses
reception of vocabulary at the single word level, was administered. Michelle
received a raw score of 34 with a standard score of 71 and an age equivalent of
3 years, 4 months in English indicating a delay of 22 months in relation to her
chronological age. When the same test was translated into Korean Michelle
received a raw score of 22 with a standard score of >55 and an age equivalent of
2 years, 4 months indicating a delay of 34 months in relation to her chronological
age.

Expressive Language:
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) was utilized to assess
expressive vocabulary at the single word level. In English, Michelle received a
raw score of 13 with a standard score of 41 and an age equivalent of 2 years, 5
months indicating a delay of 33 months in relation to her chronological age. In

Korean, Michelle received a raw score of 29 with a standard score of 65 and an
age equivalent of 3 years, 3 months indicating a delay of 23 months in relation to
her chronological age.
A language sample analysis revealed that in both English and Korean Michelle
spoke in two to three word utterances consistently using only present tense. Her
connected speech was usually disorganized, off topic and out of sequence.
Semantically, Michelle named objects and pictures, used action words and used
words to describe objects and people.

Pragmatics:
In the functional use of language Michelle was able to initiate and but had
difficulty in maintaining a conversational appropriately. She did not attend to
listener needs or generally follow the rules of conversational exchange.

Note:

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – 3, (CELF-3)

Mean 100, σ 15
Test of Auditory Processing, (TAPS)
Subtest – mean 10, σ 3
Total test – mean 100, σ 15
Assessing Semantic Skills Through Everyday Themes, (ASSET)
Mean 100, σ 15
Adolescent Word Test

Mean 100, σ 15
The Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT)

Mean 100, σ 15
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R)

Mean 100, σ 15

Case Study

Student: Jim Age: 11 years, 6 months

Assessment Techniques:
Assessment Techniques: Informal observation and language sampling as well as
standardized instruments were used to assess articulation, voice, fluency and
pragmatic and receptive and expressive language skills. Standardized
instruments used included the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – 3
(CELF-3), The Test Of Problem Solving (TOPS), and The Adolescent WORD
Test. Jim appeared to be cooperating to the best of his ability during the testing
session.

Test Standard Score
CELF-R Receptive Language 87
Expressive Language 95
Total Language 90

TOPS: 43

Adolescent WORD Test: 61

Interview with Student/Teachers:
Jim is a friendly young man who is very outgoing. He felt that he was having
problems with his schoolwork and needs extra help. He finds listening and
remembering what he hears to sometimes be difficult. His teachers reported that
Jim has difficulty in following classroom directions, recalling information he has
heard, understanding inferences, staying on topic. They also stated that he has
a tendency to stay concrete and has difficulty in understanding figurative
language and words with multiple meanings.

Articulation/Oral Motor Skills:
A cursory oral-peripheral examination revealed that structure of the oral
mechanism was intact and symmetrical. Function appeared within normal limits
for development of verbal communication skills. Jim demonstrated age
appropriate articulation skills.

Fluency/Voice:
Fluency of conversational speech and vocal quality, pitch, and loudness were
observed to be appropriate for Jim’s age and gender.

Receptive Language:
Jim’s ability to process and understand oral communication were assessed
utilizing the receptive portion of the CELF-3. Jim demonstrated strength in
determining word classes. Jim experienced difficulty in the ability to interpret,

recall and execute oral directions of increasing length and complexity, and in
interpreting temporal, passive, and spatial relationships.

Expressive Language:
Jim’s ability to express needs and desires was assessed utilizing the expressive
portion of the CELF-3. Jim was able to assemble sentences from fragments and
to recall sentences. He had difficulty in producing sentences containing given
words.
In the use of specific vocabulary Jim was able to give definitions of words in his
vocabulary, but had difficulty in explaining brand names, meanings of signs and
synonyms.
In explaining the causes and solutions of problem situations, Jim demonstrated
age appropriate abilities.

Pragmatics:
In the functional use of language Jim was able to initiate conversation
appropriately but had difficulty in maintaining the topic and did not signal topic
change. He found it somewhat difficult to attend to listener needs but was
generally able to follow other rules of conversational exchange.

Note:

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – 3, (CELF-3)

Mean 100, σ 15
Test of Auditory Processing, (TAPS)
Subtest – mean 10, σ 3
Total test – mean 100, σ 15
Assessing Semantic Skills Through Everyday Themes, (ASSET)
Mean 100, σ 15
Adolescent Word Test

Mean 100, σ 15

Case Study

Student: Jeannine Age: 13 years, 8 months

Review of Previous Assessments:
Jeannine has been receiving speech and language therapy since she was two
years old. Speech and language difficulties have included articulation, sentence
structure, semantics and pragmatics. Most recently, therapy has concentrated
on semantics and pragmatic skills.

Assessment Techniques:
Informal observation and language sampling, as well as standardized
instruments were used to assess articulation, voice, fluency, pragmatic and
receptive and expressive language skills. Standardized instruments used
included the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Revised (CELF-3),
and The Adolescent WORD Test . Jeannine appeared to be cooperating to the
best of her ability during the testing session. The results of this evaluation are
therefore judged to be valid.

Test Standard Score
CELF-3 Receptive Language 50
Expressive Language 59
Total Language 50

Adolescent WORD Test: 61

Articulation/Oral Motor Skills:
An informal observation of articulation skills indicated age appropriate articulation
skills.
A cursory oral – peripheral examination revealed that structure of the oral
mechanism was intact and symmetrical. Function appeared within normal limits
for development of verbal communication skills.

Fluency/Voice:
Fluency of conversational speech and vocal quality, pitch, and loudness were
observed to be appropriate for age and gender.

Receptive Language:
In the understanding of language, Jeannine was able to answer simple questions
recalling details about a story she had heard. She had difficulty in following
complex, three step directions, especially those involving serial and left-right
orientation. She also experienced difficulty in understanding comparative,
temporal, spatial and passive relationships.

Expressive Language:
Jeannine was able to construct sentences from segments. She had difficulty in
defining words, giving multiple meanings of words, stating synonyms and using
specific vocabulary in sentences. Syntax skills are appropriate.

Pragmatics:
In the functional use of language, Jeannine was able to initiate and maintain a
conversation appropriately with the therapist. However, she continues to
demonstrate difficulty in initiating and maintaining a conversation with those
unfamiliar to her, maintaining appropriate volume, attending to listener needs and
generally following the rules of conversational exchange.

Note:

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – 3, (CELF-3)

Mean 100, σ 15
Test of Auditory Processing, (TAPS)
Subtest – mean 10, σ 3
Total test – mean 100, σ 15
Assessing Semantic Skills Through Everyday Themes, (ASSET)
Mean 100, σ 15
Adolescent Word Test

Mean 100, σ 15

Case Study

Student: Cody Age: 5 years, 6 months

Assessment Techniques:
Cody was evaluated in October. Informal observation, student interview, and
language sampling as well as standardized instruments were used to assess
language form, content and use skills. Cody appeared to be cooperating to the
best of his ability during the testing session. The results of this evaluation are
therefore judged to be valid.

Form:
Articulation/Phonology:
The Assessment of Phonological Processes was administered to measure
development of phonological skills. Cody received an average phonological
process score of 27, with a phonological deviancy score of 37 and a severity
interval of moderate. Areas of concern included consonant sequences, velars,
liquid /l/, and liquid /r/.

Oral Motor Skills:
A cursory oral – peripheral examination including the teeth, tongue, and the hard
and soft palates revealed that structure of the oral mechanism was intact and
symmetrical. Function of the oropharyngeal mechanism appeared within normal
limits for development of verbal communication skills.

Morphology/Syntax:
Morphology and syntax skills were assessed informally. An analysis of the
language sample indicated that Cody’s language included a variety of linguistic
structures, indicating adequate development of syntax and morphology.

Fluency/Voice:
Fluency of conversational speech and vocal quality, pitch, loudness were
observed to be appropriate for age and gender.

Content:
Semantics:
Understanding and use of words and word relationships was assessed
informally. An analysis of the language sample indicated that Cody’s language
included appropriate vocabulary, indicating adequate development of semantic
skills.

Use:
Pragmatics:
In the functional use of language, Cody was able to initiate and maintain a
conversation appropriately, attend to listener needs and generally follow the rules
of conversational exchange

Note:

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – 3, (CELF-3)

Mean 100, σ 15
Test of Auditory Processing, (TAPS)
Subtest – mean 10, σ 3
Total test – mean 100, σ 15
Assessing Semantic Skills Through Everyday Themes, (ASSET)
Mean 100, σ 15

Case Study

Student: Ashley Age: 7 years, 4 months

Review of Previous Assessments:
Ashley was previously assessed in when she was 5. The results of that
evaluation indicated a moderate to severe delay in the areas of receptive
language, expressive language, oral-motor control, and articulation. She has
been receiving speech and language therapy for these deficits.

Assessment Techniques:
Informal observation and language sampling, as well as standardized
instruments, were used to assess articulation, voice, fluency, pragmatic,
receptive and expressive language skills. Standardized instruments used
included the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – 3, (CELF-3), the
Test of Auditory Processing, (TAPS), Assessing Semantic Skills Through
Everyday Themes, (ASSET), and The Assessment of Phonological Processes –
Revised, (APP-R). Ashley appeared to be cooperating to the best of her ability
during the testing session.

Test Standard Score
CELF-3 Receptive Language 74
Expressive Language 74
Total Language 74

TAPS Auditory Number Memory – Forward 4
Auditory Number Memory – Reversed 4
Auditory Sentence Memory 6
Auditory Word Memory 4
Auditory Interpretation Directions 8
Auditory Word Discrimination 4
Auditory Processing 4
Auditory Quotient 63

ASSET Receptive Total 92
Expressive Total 110
Total Test 102

Articulation/Oral Motor Skills:
The Assessment of Phonological Processes – Revised was administered to
assess development of phonological processes. Ashley demonstrated a
phonological deviancy score of 63 with a severity interval of profound. The
phonological analysis indicated pattern deviations of consonant sequences,
stridents, velars, liquid /l/ and liquid /r/.

A cursory oral-peripheral examination revealed that structure of the oral
mechanism was intact and symmetrical. Function appeared limited for
development of verbal communication skills. Ashley demonstrated difficulty in
executing volitional movements of tongue elevation, both within and when
protruding from the mouth, in moving the tongue up and down in the mouth, in
protruding the tongue and moving it from side to side, and in touching the tongue
to various locations on the hard and soft palate

Fluency/Voice:
Fluency of conversational speech and vocal quality, pitch, and loudness were
observed to be appropriate for age and gender.

Receptive Language:
The CELF-3 receptive portion was administered to determine Ashley’s ability at
understanding the language presented to her. Ashley achieved a standard score
of 74. She was able to demonstrate understanding of the linguistic concepts of
inclusion/exclusion (not, except, all), coordination (and) and conditional (instead
of, until, when). She had difficulty with the concepts that were temporal (after,
before) and quantitative (all, some, any one, all but one, first). She also
demonstrated adequate understanding of sentence structure with the exception
of indirect requests. In the area of following directions, Ashley had difficulty in
following two and three step simple directions.
The TAPS was administered to further measure auditory processing. Ashley
received an auditory quotient of 63 with an age equivalency of <4-0. Ashley had difficulty in recalling numbers she heard, both forward and reversed. She had difficulty in recalling sentences and word strings. She also had difficulty in hearing the difference in sounds in minimal word pairs. The one area of relative strength that Ashley demonstrated was in interpretation of directions, where she scored within the average range. In this subtest, Ashley was asked to tell what she would do when given a series of directions, rather than actually following the directions as she was asked to do in the CELF-R, indicating that while she was able to recall the information she had been given, she had difficulty in acting on it. The ASSET was given to assess understanding of words and word relationships. Ashley achieved a standard score of 92. She demonstrated age appropriate understanding of identifying labels, categories, attributes, functions, and definitions. Expressive Language: The CELF-3 expressive portion was administered to determine Ashley’s ability at using language to express herself. Ashley achieved a standard score of 74. She was able to use age appropriate syntax when given credit for morphological structures affected by her articulation deficit. She did demonstrate difficulty in recalling sentences presented to her and in using specific vocabulary items in sentences.

The ASSET was given to assess Ashley’s ability at using words and word
relationships. Ashley achieved a standard score of 110. She was able to state
labels, categories, attributes, functions, and definitions.

Pragmatics:
In the functional use of language, Ashley was able to initiate and maintain a
conversation appropriately, attend to listener needs by revising her statements
when the listener could not understand her, and generally follow the rules of
conversational exchange.

Note:

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – 3, (CELF-3)

Mean 100, σ 15
Test of Auditory Processing, (TAPS)
Subtest – mean 10, σ 3
Total test – mean 100, σ 15
Assessing Semantic Skills Through Everyday Themes, (ASSET)
Mean 100, σ 15