|
Earlier (The ASHA Leader, May 28, 2002) I wrote that generalization of learning should be the prime factor when SLPs write annual IEP goals. Goal mastery step-by-step is not an index of true learning. John Muma (The ASHA Leader, July 23, 2002) followed up: "...the cognitive socialization literature has indicated that frequency [of behavior] does not correlate with language acquisition." The President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) noted that mastery of short-term objectives "bears no relationship to the non-linear reality of a child's development." Generalization accounts for nonlinear learning effects and is a productive outcome.
Educators write IEP goals to show compliance and lose sight of true learning. The President's Commission recommended changes and Congress is responding. For reauthorization of IDEA '97, IEP goals should be flexible and produce annual progress. They should be integrated and designed by team members. Instruction in any area should support the general plan. The team can decide on how to assess progress, but No Child Left Behind provides an independent evaluation of improvement in the general curriculum. Less paperwork is anticipated in counting and reporting benchmarks.
Now, school SLPs have an opportunity to redesign IEP learning tasks to promote generalization of learning collaboratively. Teaching phonological awareness to improve both reading and articulation is an example. Oral reading tasks could be used to probe for generalization of phonological intervention.
Striving for true learning is evidence-based practice at its best.
John M. Panagos
Sierra Vista, AZ
jpanagos@aol.com
|