Fa.-

1.5

A STUDY OF A GROUP EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM ON SPEECH

CORRECTION FOR PARENTS OF CHILDREN WITH ARTICULATORY PROBLEMS

By

(«q-u

AN’ABSTRACT
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial flufillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Speech

19Sh

Approved fl“ 04; m

THE-281's

 

Ruth Mary Voorhees
WTRACT
A Study of a Group Educational Program on Speech
Correction for Parents of Children with Articulatory Problems

The Problem

It was the purpose of this study (1) to organize a group educa-
tional program on speech correction for parents of children with arti-
culatory problem; (2) to study this method of organizing and administering
an educational program on speech correction for parents; and (3) to
determine, by subjective evaluations, the effectiveness of this program
as one means of aiding parents in understanding and in assisting in the

therapy of the child with an articulatory problem.
Procedure

After the initial interviews an educational program on speech cor-
rection was begun with nineteen parents who had children with articulatory
problems enrolled in the Saturday Clinic at Michigan State College for
the Winter Term of 1951;. Three groups of parents met each Saturday
morning for eight consecutive weeks. Five lessons for each group were
spent in lectures and discussion on the nature and therapy for articula-
tory problems and the final three meetings for each group were observations
of clinical lessons. Each lesson and the discussions of observation ses-
sions were transcribed by a tape recorder and analyzed by the program

director. The program was evaluated on the basis of the interest and

3:. 8 C: H 1-

Ruth Mary Voorhees

and value it held for the parents. The participating parents assisted in

the evaluation by a final interview and.completing an evaluation question-

naire.

As
1.

2.

3.

h.

S.

6.

7.

8.

Conclusions

a result of this study the following conclusions may be made:

The parents were interested in understanding their children's
speech.problems and in learning ways in which they could
assist in the children's speech therapy.

A program.of this type can help participating parents to
understand the nature and causes of their children's speech
problems and to learn techniques which the clinic uses in
correcting the children's speech.

The group structure in this program was desirable and valuable
for parents in that it offered a situation for an interchange
of ideas and common problems.

In addition to group meetings, individual conferences are
necessary to most satisfactorily meet the specific needs and
problems encountered by parents.

In order to give adequate advice on speech work to be done
at home, the program director must maintain a close contact
with the speech clinicians to determine the therapy which
the child is receiving in the clinic and the child's Speech
progress.

The program.director must be aware of the abilities of the
parents and the attitudinal relationships between the parents
and the children before advising specialized activities to
be carried.out in the home.

The program.director must be able to vary the planned lesson
material to fit the interests and needs of the group members.

The majority of the parents in.this study reported that they
were better able to carry on.speech'work at home after attend-
ing the group meetings. However, there is insufficient evi-
dence to determine the effectiveness of their work and to
draw valid conclusions as to the merits of teaching parents
by this method to do speech work at home.

A STUDY OF A GROUP EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM ON SPEECH CORRECTION

FOR PARENTS OF CHILDREN WITH ARTICULATCRY PROBLEMS

BY
Ruth Mary Voorhees

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Speech
19Sh

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author expresses her sincere thanks to Dr. Max Nelson for his
constant interest and guidance in the supervision of this study, and to
Dr. Charles Pedrey and Dr. Hugo David for their understanding advice and
assistance.

Special acknowledgement is also given for the coOperation and in-

terest shown by the parents who participated in this study.

CHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE PROBLEM, BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND DEFINITIONS OF

TERmUSEDOOOOOOOOOOO.

The problem 0 e e e e 0
Background material . .

Importance of the study

Definition of terms used. .

Study 0 e e e e e e e

Group 0 e e e e e e e

Educational program on speech

Parents e e e e e e e e e e e

Articulatory problems . . . .

mGANIZATION OF THE PROGRAM UNDER

correction.

STUDY

Selection of subjects . . . . . .

The interview 0 e e e e e e e e e

The initial questionnaire . . . .

Scheduling of group meetings. . .

Physical setting for group meetings

Method of recording material in

THE GROUP MEETINGS. . . .
lessonone. . . . . . .
Lessontwo. . . . . . .
Lessonthree. . . . . .

LBSSOH four e e e e e 0

group

meetings.

PAGE

11
ll

12
12

17
22
2h
25
27
29
35
ha
ha

CHAPTER PAGE

IBssonfive..................... 5h
Lessons six, seven and eight. . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Iv. EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM FOR PARENTS. . . . . . . . . 7h
Indications of interest in the program. . . . . . . . 76
Indications of the value of the program. . . . . . . 8?
Suggestions for improving the program . . . . . . . . 9h

V. SUW’YARYAMJCONCLUSIOIB...........o.... 98
BIELImRAPHI.......................... 100

APPENDIXeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 103

TABLE

I.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

LIST OF TABLES

Educational Background of the Subjects . . . . . .
NUmber of Children.in.Families Under'Study . . . .
Parents' Listings of Causes for Speech Problems. .
Attendance Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of Voluntary Verbal Responses in Each Group

meeting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Group Attendance and Voluntary Responses . . . . .

Individual Attendance and Voluntary Responses. . .

PAGE
18
19
21
77

81
82
8h

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM, BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED

Workers in the field of speech correction have found that the
cooperation and understanding of parents play an integral part in or-
ganizing an effective program of therapy for the child with a speech
handicap. As early as 1938 Bender had voiced this feeling by the fol-
lowing statement:

Because the student spends a great part of the twenty-
four hours under his parents' influence, especially in
early childhood, parents have a profound responsibility
in the supervision of the speech correction program. If
parents assume this responsibility and evince an active
c00peration the young student's chance of success in the
speech correction program will be enhanced immeasurably.
Hence, parents are often called upon to supplement the
teacher's work under his advice and guidance.1

The "advice and guidance" mentioned by Bender has developed into
various types of parent educational programs sponsored by college and
public school speech clinics. Imin2 shows this recent growth by noting

several of the city and state speech and hearing programs for parent

 

1 James F. Bender, Victor Kleinfeld, Principles and Practices of
Spgec ch Correction (New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1933).
13.

 

 

2 Ruth Becky Irwin Speech and Hearing There-gay (New York:
Prentice“Hal]-, 1110., 1953‘, Pp. 190-191.

2
education. VanRiper3 and Chapinl‘ are among those who report the existence
of parent programs in their college speech clinics.

The literature establishes the existence of and the necessity for
programs of parent education in speech correction. However, differences
of opinion can be noted as to the type of programs advisable. In ad-
dition, this literature also gives indications that little has been done
to describe and study the organization and adndnistration of these pro-

grams and the reactions of participating parents to them.
The Problem

It was the purpose of this study (1) to organize a grOUp educational
program on speech correction for parents of children with articulatory
problems; (2) to study this method of organizing and administering an
educational program on speech correction for parents; and (3) to determine,
by subjective evaluations, the effectiveness of this program as one means
of aiding parents in understanding and in assisting in the therapy of the

child with an articulatory problem.

 

3 C. VanRiper, A.“ Case Book in Speech Therapy (New York: Prentice-
Hall, InC., 1953), P. 710

 

h m Bishop Chapin, "Parent Education for Pre-School Speech
Defective Children," Jo__u__r_n____al of Exceptional Children, 15:75-80,

 

Background Material

The need for parent education in Speech correction. Kenneth Scott WoodS

 

 

who has investigated the area of parental influence on the speech of
children has voiced the opinion of marw speech clinicians in indicating
the necessity of dealing with parents as part of my speech correction
program. Wood Mther states his belief that:
Classes should be held for both mothers and fathers

to explain how parents are involved in the cause of

speech defects in their children and how they must

necessarily be deeply involved in treatment.

Backus7, Chapine, and VanRiper9 are among other authorities in the
area of speech correction who have similarly indicated the need for edu-
cating parents as a part of the therapeutic program for the child. Irwin
specifies a need for formal parent education in public school speech and
hearing programs. She states that:

The need for formal parent-education meetings has

been expressed by many workers in the public-school
speech and hearing field.10

 

5 Kenneth Scott Wood, "The Parents‘ Role in the Clinical Program,"
Journal 31; Speech 5515.1. Hearing Disorders, 13:209, September, 19148.

6 WOOd, Ibide, P. 2090

7 Ollie Backus, Speech .13 Education (New York: Longmans, Green
and 00., 19,-1.5), Po l97e

8 Chapin, 93. 933., p. 76.
9 VanRiper, 22. 22-153, Po 1.13.

1'0 mu, 22o Silo, P. 190.

The type 91‘. educational gograms advised. While most authorities who

 

have expressed ideas on this topic seem to agree upon the need for ed-
ucating parents as a part of the speech correction program, a difference
of opinion can be noted on the type and the purpose of the education.

A general agreement can be found among VanRipern, Chapinlz,

Irwin13, Andersonlh, Benderls, and Wood16

on the need to instruct parents
on the nature and causes of the child's speech problem. These authorities
also agree upon the need to instruct parents on the part they must play
in the child's program of speech therapy. It is in the latter area that
two schools of thought can be noted.

Wood is foremost among those who feel that parents can be most

helpful in the speech program by not trying speech correction procedures

 

11 VanRiper, 1.22, {3—12.
12 Chapin, 1.92. 933,.
13 IMn, 92. 21-20, P0 1860

1A Virgil Anderson, rovi the Child's Speech (New York:
Mord University Press, 19 3 .9 P. 11:.

 

15 Bender, log. git.
16 WOOd, 22o £2.20, Pp. 209-210.

at home. Wood states his feelings in this way:

It is recommended that the parent be dissuaded from
trying speech correction procedures with the child in
the home, and that instead the mother and father be
encouraged to play the role of a better parent in
constructing a happier home where the child will want
to listen to what is said and Will have a chance to
respond to parents he loves.17

The program advised by Wood includes information on the etiology and
nature of speech defects, but the emphasis is placed on alleviating
family problems and in promoting a satisfactory speech environment.

The other writers mentioned in this area seem to agree that it is
necessary and advisable in certain cases to instruct parents on methods
and techniques of speech correction which can be used in the home.
VenRiper, in describing a course for mothers of children with speech
problems, states that:

We have found that these mothers' meetings are in-
valuable. They help the parents to understand what we
are doing. They help us to utilize the home situation
in our treatment. They enable the parents to do an intel-

ligent job in carrying on the therapy at home and to learn
how to assist the child in solving his emotional problems.13

 

17 Kenneth Scott Wood, "Parental Maladjustment and Functional
Articulatory mfects in Children," Journal p_i_‘ Speech p.93 Hearing Disorderg,
113273, December, l9h6.

13 VanRiper, 2.32. gig.

6
The following statement by Chapin shows her feelings on the neces-
sity of teaching parents to be speech therapists at home:
Since the parent of the pre-school child with faulty
articulation must also act as a therapist at home, the
bulk of time in this program may well be spent in show-
ing parents how a combination of auditory, visual and
kinesthetic approaches may be used in articulation
cases. 9
Statements made by Andersonzo, Irwin21, and Bender22 indicate a
similar Opinion on the necessity of teaching parents how to do speech cor-
rection at home. Backus23 limits this opinion to apply only in cases of
reinforcing the sounds already learned in the speech clinic.

Organization p_f_‘_ programs 33 parent education. In the actual organization

 

of these programs of parent education in the area of speech correction
VanRiperah, Irwin25, and Chapin26 seem to be in agreement that both group
meetings and individual conferences are desirable. Chapin, in describing

19 Chapin, pp. 323., p. 78.

20 Anderson, 3:93. 93;.

21 Irwin, pp. 913., p. 19h.

22 Bender, 2.33. 21.3.

23 Backus, m. 923., p. 11]..

2h VanRiper, pp. 333., pp. 71, 113.
25 IrWin,‘22, 2223, pp. 188-1900

26 Chapin, pp. 931., pp. 176-177.

the program for parents at the speech clinic at Western Reserve Uni-
versity states:
Through group discussion it becomes apparent that

these problems are not as unusual as parents once

thought ..... The handling of individual problems

can be discussed later in the individual conferences

which follow the general discussion program.”
Irwin28 and Chapin29 both indicate the necessity for supplementing dis-
cussion and demonstration lessons with clinical observation sessions.

Plimgg information pp the existence and organization 9;; programs g_i_‘_

 

 

 

parent education in Spgech correction. In reviewing the literature a

 

 

definite limitation was found in the number of studies showing the or-
ganization of parent educational programs and the type of information
given in the individual and group meetings. \In order to obtain more back-
ground material for this study, a questionnaire was sent to fifteen col-
lege speech clinics including those in the Western Conference schools
and five other colleges in various parts of the United States.

Data were requested on the existence and organization of the pro-
grams and on the information given in the meetings with parents. Replies
were received from thirteen speech clinics, and the information from

these will be discussed briefly in the succeeding paragraphs. A list of

27 3233,, pp. 176-177.
28 Irwin, pp. 333-1., p. 191.
29 Chapin, 920 91120, PO 780

8
sources contacted and a review of the information given by each answering
person can be found on pages 1011-111 in the Appendix of this study.

Existencg and organizatiop 9_f_ programs. Out of the thirteen re-

 

plies received all indicated that their speech clinics conducted parent
programs on both an individual and on a group basis. (he reply indicated
that the program was not always constant, and another stated that these
existed only in the summer. Among the reasons given for including both
individual and group meetings were "group meetings were efficient and
helpful to the parents ," and individual conferences were often necessary
and desirable for discussing specific problems.

Schedulipg 9__f_ parent meetingg. Out of thirteen replies, four in-

 

dicated that the parent program was usually conducted while the child was
receiving speech therapy. Seven people mentioned that at times the
scheduling was done in this mamler. One reply indicated that the parents
never met while the child was working and another writer mentioned that
both the parents and the children were contacted simultaneously during
the entire day.

Three people mentioned in addition that other meetings were sched-
uled when the occasion arose. Two replies mentioned that individual
conferences were arranged at the convenience of the parents and clinicians.
(me reply indicated that group meetings were scheduled so that parents
could observe clinical lessons. 1

Information given 1.2 the educational program. Thirteen people re-

 

 

plied to the questionnaire and each person indicated that information was

9
given on the therapy the child eiqieriences in the speech clinic. Nelve
indicated that information was given on speech activities which could be
done in the home. One person stated that in his clinic information was
given on "what" could be done in the home rather than giving specific
speech activities. This person cemented further that speech correction
done in the home is often harmful. Eleven people indicated that informa-
tion was given on the nature and causes of speech defects. One person
mentioned that this information was "usually" given, and another writer
stated that this information did not always apply to working with parents
of deaf children.

The author of this study requested that any additional information
given to parents be listed on the questionnaire. This additional material
was supplied by ten individuals. Observation lessons and sources for
additional help and treatment were each mentioned three times while books
and other printed material were mentioned as being given by four respondents.
Among the other types of information given were: guidance for psychological
and behavior problems; films; notebooks and worksheets 3 and specific as-
signments for home activities.

\ Mortance 23 the guestiormaire i3 _t_1_1_e_ m. The material ob-

 

 

tained from the questionnaire served as additional background information
for the organization of the parent educational program in this study.

Since the program to be studied was organized on a group basis with ad-
ditional individual conferences, it was desirable to determine whether other

programs of this type were in operation in other speech clinics. As has

10
been indicated, it was found that all of those replying to the question-
naire had organized programs of this type in their speech clinics.

“The questionnaire was of additional value in indicating the type
of information given in parent meetings and conferences. In this program
under study, the author had intended to include information on the nature
and causes of articulatory problems and methods for home speech therapy.
The answers to the questionnaire indicated that this information was
given in at least eleven programs. The additional suggestions of dis-
tributing printed material and scheduling observations of clinical lessons

were also incorporated in this project.
Importance of the Study

A recent study by Rays and Hays concluded that, "Vast areas are
yet to be explored in relating counseling of parents to specific dis-
orders."-‘30 The author hopes that this stuchr may serve as a contribution
in this area since it gives detailed information on organizing this one
program as well as on the reactions of the participating parents to in-
dividual lessons and to the program as a whole. As more and more pro-
grams are studied in detail, it should become possible to determine

factors and methods for improving parent education in speech correction.

30 Ellis R. Hays, Rosemary R. Hays, "A Selected and Annotated
List of Materials Available for Use in the Counseling and Education of
Parents of Children With Speech and Hearing Disorders," (unpublished
Master's thesis, The University of Denver, 1951), p. 611.

Definitions of Terms Used

m. The term "study" was used to indicate a careful investigation of
the organization and administration of a program of education on speech cor-
rection for parents of children with articulatory disorders. For this
investigation the term also includes a subjective evaluation of the pro-
gram based on the reactions and judgments of the participating parents

and the program director.

Q3223. The term "group" indicated that the main emphasis of the program
was on the meetings in which several parents were present. There were

three groups of parents consisting of four to seven members meeting each
week.

Educational program pp speech correction. In this study the term "ed-

 

ucational program on speech correction" was used to describe a system

of relating to parents information on the nature, causes and therapy for
articulatory problems. The program included eight group meetings and two
individual conferences for each parent.

Parents. In this study the term "parents" indicates either parent or

both parents of a child with an articulatory problem enrolled in the
Saturday Speech Clinic at Michigan State College for the Winter Term of 1951:.

Articulatory problems. VanRiper describes disorders of articulation as,

 

". . . disorders characterized by substitution, omission, addition, and
distortion of speech sounds."31 In this study the term "articulatory pro-

blems" will be synonomous with Van Riper's description.

 

31 C. VanRiper, eech Correction Principles and Methods (New York:
Prentice'Hall, IHCe, l9 7 ’ p. 200

 

CHAPTER II
ORGANIZATION OF THE PRmRAM UNDER STUDY

"r- The program under study was the first group educational program
for parents in the Speech Clinic at Michigan State Collegef‘ Previously
parents had conferred with the director of the clinic when the child was
first brought for speech work, and usually several informal conferences
were held during the time the child was enrolled in the clinic. Each
week the speech clinicians had given those parents who were available
an informal resume of the work done during the lesson and occasionally
the clinicians offered suggestions for home speech work.

This group program for parents was organized and administered by

the author of this study under the guidance of the speech clinic staff.
Selection of Subjects

The subjects for this study were the parents of children with arti-
culatory problems who were enrolled in the Saturday Speech Clinic at
Michigan State College for the Winter Term of 19511.

The purpose of these limitations in selection of subjects was two-
fold. First, the Children's Clinic was in operation on Saturday morning
and thus, the largest group of parents were available during that time.
Although several parents brought children for speech therapy at other
times during the week, there were never enough parents at any one time to
form even a small group. Because of the lack of transportation for new

parents, it was impractical to have group meetings at any time other than

p 13
during the child's period of speech therapy. Second, the author felt
that parents could gain the greatest amount of assistance if they were
arranged in groups so that the parents in each group were representing
children With the same type of speech problem. With this arrangement
parents would have common problems on which they could concentrate with-
out being distracted by discussion of speech deviations in which they
had no personal interest.

Of the twenty-seven children enrolled in the Saturday Clinic at
the beginning of the term in which the parent program was organized there
were twenty-one children with articulatory problems, one child with de-
layed speech, one hard-of-hearing child with no speech, one child with a
repaired cleft palate and two stutterers?"Therefore, it was possible to
organize groups on a specific disorder only in the case of parents re-
presenting children with articulatory problems who were enrolled in the
Saturday Clinic.

The Speech Clinic operated concurrently with the college term
system. The parent meetings were scheduled to begin during the second
week of the college Winter Term in January 1951:. The selection of sub-
jects began during the last two weeks of the preceding term. Parents who
had children with articulatory problems already enrolled in the Saturday
Clinic and those who were enrolling children for the Winter Term were
contacted for interviews. During the last week of clinic during the Fall
Term contacts were made with parents either in person or by mail or tele-

phone.

The Interview

“Pippose 93 the interview. The purposesof the interview were to: (l)

 

explain the program to the parents; (2 ) determine whether the parents
wished to attend the group meetings 3 (3 ) obtain questionnaire information
on the family, the attitude of the parents toward the child's speech and
what speech work was being done in the home; ()4) find out which time
would be most convenient for the parents to come to the group meetings;
and (5) determine special subjects which the parents would like to dis-
cuss during the group meetings.

Scheduling for the interviews. Out of a total of eighteen interviews

 

fourteen were held during the last week of the term preceding the one in
which the parent meetings were to begin. (he interview was held a week
previous to the group meetings. Two parents were contacted by telephone
because they lived a considerable distance from the college. The program
was explained briefly and a questionnaire was sent to these two mothers
for them to complete. A third mother had no telephone, and a letter ex-
plaining the program and a questionnaire were sent to her. These latter
three parents were seen during the first day of speech clinic a week pre-
vious to the group meetings. Such questions as they had pertaining to the
program were answered during that time.

Attendance £93 interviews. Eighteen families were contacted for parent

 

interviews. Each one of these families were represented by at least one
parent. One father came alone for an interview, fifteen mothers came

alone and in two instances both parents came for the interview.

15
m the first day of the parent meetings two mothers enrolled
children for the first time. Both of these children had articulatory
problems. The proposed program for parents was explained briefly to the
mothers and each of them attended the first group meeting and took a
questionnaire home for completion. A regular interview was not held for
these mothers.

Material discussed i_r_i_ the interview. The eighteen interviews were con-

 

 

ducted informally in the Speech Clinic by the author of this study. The

interviewer explained to the parents that the clinic was organizing group
meetings for parents to discuss their children's speech problems and ways
in which parents could assist in the children's speech therapy. The par-
cuts were told that since this was the first program of this type to be

organized in this speech clinic we were anxious to keep close account of

the meetings for evaluation purposes. mien though a tape recorder would

be used, only the program director would listen to the recordings and

no names would be used in a written evaluation of the program.

Both parents in each family were invited to attend the group
meetings and to indicate an hour which would be preferable to them and
am special topics which they would like to discuss. It was clearly
stated that the program was purely voluntary and that a decision not to
join the parent groups had no bearing on the child's admittance into the
clinic.

The interviewer noted the parents' response concerning attendance
for the group meetings and topics which they would like to discuss. The

parents were encouraged to ask such questions as they might have had

16
concerning the program and the questionnaire which was given to them to
complete in the clinic. A capy of the check sheet used during the inter-
view is included on page 112 in the Appendix.

Information obtained from the interview. Each of the eighteen families

 

 

represented indicated that at least one of the parents would like to at-
tend the group meetings. Seventeen families felt that at least one parent
'would be able to attend. One mother explained that the father was work-
ing and that she had to stay'with the other children. One father ex-
plained that only he could attend, twelve mothers said they could attend
alone, and four families felt that both parents might be able to attend
together.

Both of the mothers who brought children on the first day of the
group meetings indicated a desire to attend the program. One felt that '
only she could come to the meetings and the other felt that her husband
might be able to attend "occasionally." Each parent interviewed indicated
a specific time which would be most convenient to attend the group meetings.

During the interviews nine parents mentioned that they would like
~to discuss how they could best help their children in speech. The re-
maining ten parents did not indicate a topic which would have been of
special interest to them.

As a result of the interviews the program was organized with

twenty-four parents representing nineteen different families.

17

The Initial Questionnaire

Zurpose 2f_the Questionnaire. The purpose of the initial questionnaire

 

'was to obtain information on: (1) the size of the family; (2) the
parents' knowledge of the nature and causes of the child's speech pro-
blem; (3) the speech work being done at home; (h) the occupations of the
parents; and (S) the education of the parents.

The information on education, the previous knowledge of the child's
speech problem and the speech work being done at home was helpful in de-
termining the type and extent of information.which should be given in
group meetings. The information on the family members and.the occupations
of the parents was important in determining the amount of time which could
be given to the child and the possible problems which might occur in doing
speech work at home. It was also necessary to have this type of informa-
tion before any specific suggestions could be made in group meetings.

Completion.g£:the questionnaire. In fourteen cases the questionnaire was

 

 

completed in the speech clinic on the day of the interview. ‘When both
parents attended the interview the questionnaire was completed jointly.
In three cases the questionnaire was sent to the home and returned the
day of the interview. The two mothers who enrolled their children on the
day of the first group meeting completed their questionnaires at home and
returned.them to the clinic on the day of the second group meeting.

In two instances the interviewer read the questions to the parents
and recorded their answers. One mother explained that she had forgotten
her glasses and in the other cases both parents commented that they

"couldn't‘write well enough to do it."

18
The following paragraphs include a summary of the questionnaire
material to aid in understanding the subjects of the study. A more com-
plete compilation.of’background material on each of the parents is in-
cluded on pages lZS-lhB in the Appendix. A copy of the initial questionnaire
given to the parents is included on page 112 in the Appendix.

Educational background of the subjects. The following Table shows the

 

 

educational backgrounds of the twenty-four parents who indicated.that they

'would attend the group meetings.

TABLE I

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF THE SUBJECTS

 

 

 

Educational Backgrounds Mothers Fathers
College Graduates 6 h
Attended College 2

High School Graduates h 1
Some High School Training 5

Grade School Training 1 1

 

 

It can be seen that exactly half of the parents who planned to at-
tend the group meetings had college training. Three of the fathers who
‘were college graduates and one who was a high school graduate did not
attend the group meetings.

No attempt has been made to evaluate the program on the basis of
the educational level of the parents. Rather, this information was used
to help the author adapt and select material for parents with varied

backgrounds of formal education.

l9

Occqaational information. The occupational information indicated that

 

only twa mothers who planned to attend the program were working outside
the home. One was employed as a high school teacher and the other was
working in an alteration shop. In each of the families the father was
working.

Of the six fathers who were possible members of the program, two
were teachers, two were factory workers, one was an accountant, and one
was a factory purchasing director. In the family where the father planned
to attend the program alone the mother was also working as a teacher.

Family information. There were from one to seven children in each of the

 

nineteen families in this study. In each instance the whole family was
living at home. The following Table indicates the number of children in

the families included in this study.

TABLE II

NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN THE FAMILIES UNDER STUDY

 

Number of Children Number of
in the Family Families

 

NGU'UTWMH
I-‘Ol-‘U'lO‘P‘M

 

 

20

Out of the nineteen families in this study thirteen.had.more than
three children. In two cases the child in the clinic was an only child,
in eight cases he was the youngest Child, in four cases he was a middle
child, and in two cases he was the oldest child. In the families where
more than one child attended the clinic, one family had twins who were
the youngest, another had enrolled the youngest child and a middle child,
and the third family had enrolled a middle child and the oldest child.
From the size of the families it can be seen that the amount of time
which could be given to one child might easily present a problem in work-
ing at home in speech.

The ages of the parents included in the organization of the pro-
gram ranged from twenty-six to sixty. Two parents were between the ages
of twenty and thirty, eleven parents between the ages of thirty and
forty, nine parents between forty and fifty, and one parent was sixty
years old.

Information from parents 931 the nature g the child's speech problem.

 

 

The nature of the child's speech problem was indicated by all of the
parents answering the questionnaire. Fourteen mentioned either a dif-
ficulty with sounds or used the word "articulation." One parent felt

it was "mispronunciation," one that it was speech "shut off by adenoids,"
one that it was "trying to hurry," and a feurth that it was inability

to "say words plain." This information indicated that fourteen parents
had some realization of the specific nature of the child's speech pro-

blem.

21

Information from.parents gn_the causes gglthe child's speech problem.

 

 

The following Table shows the variety of possible causes for the child's
speech problem according to the listings made by the parents and the

number of times these causes were listed in the nineteen questionnaires.

TABLE III

PARENTS' LISTINGS OF CAUSES FOR SPEECH PROBLEMS

 

Number of
Causes for Speech Problems Times Listed
Illnesses 2
Injuries 1
Learning words too fast 1
Slowness in talking 1
Slow development of coordination l
Imitation 3 .
Adenoids 1
Talking through nose 1
Talking too fast to sound.words 1
No need for better speech 2

Seven parents did not know any possible causes for their children's
speech difficulty and, from the vagueness of the majority of answers, it
‘was evident that material on the etiology of articulatory disorders
should be included in the group meetings.

Heme speech work. Fourteen families were doing speech work at home pre-

 

vious to the group meetings. The other five families mentioned that they
‘were correcting the child occasionally in conversation and one of them

mentioned that she "didn't know what to do."

22

The work of eight families consisted mainly of’having the child
repeat words in conversation and drills. One child was making a scrap
book, two were doing oral reading and learning poems, one was counting,
one was repeating the alphabet and another was listening for sounds and
doing tongue exercises. Nine of the nineteen parents mentioned that they
were having problems in doing speech work at home in trying to get the
child's interest and cooperation.

"wThiS information indicated a need for material on methods of work-
ing with children in speech and for specific activities which could be
carried out at home.

‘vxThe information from the questionnaire indicated the necessity for
organizing an educational program to assist parents with a wide variety
of educational backgrounds and personal needs. The only certain common
factor for all of these parents seemed to be the fact that each of them
had at least one child with an articulatory problem enrolled in the

speech clinic.
Scheduling of Group Meetings

The Saturday Clinic is in operation for three consecutive hours.
Each child receives one hour of speech therapy. It was necessary to divide
the parents into three groups according to the time their children were
scheduled for clinical work. The groupsnmt for a period of fifty minutes
'with the first group meeting at 9 A.H., the second at 10 A.M; and the third
at 11 AfM. The meetings extended for eight consecutive weeks with five

group lessons and three observations of clinical lessons for each group.

23

At the last meeting each parent in attendance was given a
questionnaire to evaluate the program as a whole. Questionnaires with
letters of explanation were sent to those parents who did not attend the
final group meeting but had attended at least four of the previous meet-
ings. In order to review the questionnaire and discuss individual pro-
blems, conferences were scheduled during the week following the last
group meeting. The final conferences and the evaluation questionnaire
will be discussed in Chapter Four of this study.

An effort was made to arrange the clinical schedule so that children
within a designated age group were receiving therapy at the same time.
In that way the parents of children of similar ages would have been
grouped together. Parents of pre-school children would have been in the
first group. Parents of six to nine-year—olds would have been in the
second group, and parents of children aged ten and above would have met
in the third group. This arrangement would have made it easier to give
information on home activities that would interest a specific age group.

It was impossible to completely follow this arrangement after con-
sidering the number of clinicians available during any one hour, the times
which were convenient for the parents to bring the children, and that
three families had more than one child of different age groups enrolled
in the clinic.

In actual organization the 9 A.M. group included five mothers and
one father representing six different families. The age range of the

children represented was from four to five years. The 10 A.M. group

2h

included seven mothers and three fathers from seven different families.
The ages of the children represented ranged from seven to nine years.
The 1.1 A.M. group included six mothers and two fathers representing six
different families. The age range of the children represented was from
four to ten years.

As the program progressed it was necessary to change this schedule.
Che mother from the first group found it necessary to bring the child at
10 A.M. and she transferred into the second group. One father in the first
group found it impossible to meet regularly, and arrangements were made
for him to attend when it was possible and to come to the clinic at another
time to discuss the material presented in the regular group meetings.

The size of each group was smaller than anticipated because only
one of the fathers who had indicated that he might attend with his wife

ever came to a group meeting.

Physical Setting for Group Meetings

The first five meetings were held in a classroom in the building
where the children were doing speech work. Desk chairs were arranged in
a send-circle with the group leader sitting in front of the parents. With
this arrangement, demonstrations were seen clearly by all of the group and
a feeling of informality could be maintained. The blackboard in the front
of the room was used frequently for demonstration and illustration.

The last three meetings were observations of clinical lessons and
were held in another room designed for that purpose. A one-way window
separated the room in which the child was working from the one in which

the parents were observing.

25
Because the acoustical arrangement during observation was not com-
pletely satisfactory, it was necessary to open the doors to both rooms
in order to hear the child‘s conversation. Even then it was sometimes
impossible to hear either the child or the clinician unless they were
talking in a normal conversational level. This arrangement limited much
of the discussion among the parents which might have taken place during

the observation.

Method of Recording Material in.Group meetings

-..For the purpose of efficient recording of the parents' responses
in individual lessons, a tape recordeeras used in each group meeting.
The parents were always aware of the recording equipment, but there were
no indications that it in any way inhibited the discussion. During the
three observation lessons only the final discussion was recorded.

An effort was made to keep the recording equipment in working
order, but in several instances mechanical difficulties made it possible
to record only portions of lessons. Therefore, it was necessary in some
instances to rely on recall for the general content of comments and
questions. In these instances particularly,note8'were made as early after
the meetings as possible.

The program director listened to the recordings of the lessons
after the last group meeting of each week. Questions and comments were
transcribed on an outline form which can be found on page 122 of the
Appendix. Notations were made as to: (l) the number of questions and

comments made by each parent; and (2) the type of comments and questions,

26
including spontaneous remarks and indications of comprehension of mater-
ial. The parents' exact words were noted when they would give a clearer
picture of the responses. The information obtained from these recordings

will be discussed in the next chapter of this study.

CHAPTER III
THE GROUP HEETIES

The pmpose of this chapter is threefold: (l) to give the pro-
posed outlines for the material given in the group meetings and the points
for discussion in the observation lessons; (2) to give a brief review of
the actual content of each lesson for each group of parents; and (3) to
point out the similarities and differences in the content of each lesson
' as it was presented to the three different groups of parents.

Three group meetings for parents were held each Saturday morning
for eight consecutive weeks. he first group of parents not at 9 AJI.
each Satan-day, the second group set at 10 1.1!. and the third group at
11 AJI. The first group was organised to include the following parents:
Mrs. A, Hrs. B, fire. c, lbs. 1), Hr. E, and Mrs. K. The second group was
organzed to include: Mr. and Mrs. F, Mr. and Mrs. G, Hrs. H, Hrs. J,
Hrs. 0, fir. and Hrs. R, and Mrs. S. The third group was organized to
include: Hrs. 1., In. 1!, fire. 1!, Kr. and Mrs. P, Hrs. Q, and Mr. and Hrs.
T.

During the first five of these meetings for each group, material
was discussed on the nature and causes of articulatory problems, methods
for auditory training activities, and the production of speech sounds.
The material from each of the five lesson outlines was presented three
tines, once for each group of parents.

An effort was made in the grow meetings to present material which
could be applied by each parent in understanding and working with his

28
individual child. This made it necessary to check the individual clini-
csl files of each child represented in this stuck to determine back-
ground material concerning his speech problem and what speech therapy was
being used in the clinical sessions. m this leans and by consulting
individual speech clinicians as specific problems arose, it was possible
to give nore specific suggestions to parents dm-ing the group meetings.

During the last three weeks each group of parents observed three
clinical lessons. A week previous to each observation period three
clinicians were notified to prepare denoustration lessons to last be-
tween twenty and thirty ninutes. Each clinician was assigned to give a
demonstration lesson during the first portion of the hour in which they
were regularly working with the child. Three other clinicians were noti-
fiedeach Saturday to act as alternates in case of the absence of the
regularly scheduled child or clinician.

Each clinician doing a denonstration lesson gave a tentative les-
son outline to the progran director previous to the observation session.
This asterial was used to suggest to the parents specific item which should
be noted during the lesson.

The first five meetings for each group of parents were recorded
by leans of a tape recorder in order to note the actual content of each
lesson and the verbal responses of the parents. During the last three
neetings only the discussion following the clinical observation was re-
corded.

The verbal responses of the parents were divided into three cats-

gories, spontaneous coments, questions, and were to direct questions

29
asked by the grow leader. The nunber and content of these responses had
a brofold iwortance in this study. (1) The verbal responses inevitably
determined, in part, the actual content of each grow nesting. is par-
ents indicated specific interests and needs, the planned material was
varied accordingly. (2) The number and content of these responses were
iwortant in the evaluation of the program in that they were one objective
name for detemning the interest and knowledge of the participating par-
cuts.

The renaiuder of this chapter includes the proposed outline for
each lesson, a brief discussion of each grow nesting, and the responses
of parents in each grow neeting. Swflenentary naterial distributed in
lessons one, two, three, four and seven is included on pages 115-121
in the Appendix of this study.

Lesson (he
Nature and Diagnosis of Articulatory Problems

2532233. The purpose of this lesson was to help parents understand the
nature of their children's speech problems.
Outline. The following is the proposed lesson outline for the first

grow nesting:

I. mtline for the grow neetings
1. Organization of the grow neefings
1. Two neetings on the nature and causes of articulatory
problem
2. Seven neetings on nethode and activities for hone
speech correction

IV.

V.

I)

B. Objectives of the grow neetings
1. Understanding of the child' a speech problem
2. Understanding of the possible causes for articulatory
problems
3. Knowledge of nethods for hone speech correction
C. Iwortance of the grow seatings
1. The need for carry-over from clinical speech work
2. The need for understanding problems before correcting
then
3. The need for knowing what speech work can be done at
hone

Introductions
1. The progran director
B. The parents

The nature of a speech problen
A. Description of individual speech differences
1e 3‘“

2. Quality
3. Pitch
he Fluency
Se Pronunciation
B. Deterline parents' feelings as to the nature of their
children's speech problews
C. Characteristics of a speech problems

1. Inability to be easily understood by others
2. Pear of speech situations

Types of speech problems
A. Illustrations of speech problens caused by physical
factors
1. Cleft palate
2e mm injuries
a. Cerebral palsy
b. Mental retardation
3. Baring loss
B. Description of speech problems caused by non-physical
factors
2. Certain cases of delayed speech
C. neution possibilities of both plwsical andmn-physical
factors in articulatory disorders

lature of articulatory problems

A. Definition of articulation
l. Literal neanim of articulation
2. Speech learning of articulation

B. Description of speech sounds in words
1. Differences between letter names and speech sounds
2. Illustrations of separate sounds in several worth
C. Description of articulatory errors
1. Substitutions
2e “.8810”
Be Additions
h. Distortions
D. Illustration of articulatory errors
1. Individual words
2. Sentences

VI. Diagnosis of articulatory problem
1. Description of word and sentence tests
B. Picture tests
1. Demonstration and explanation of a picture test
2. Illustration of articulatory errors in several
pictures

VII. Smary and assignnent
A. Smary of types of articulatory problem
B. Assignment for parents
1. Listen for articulatory errors in the child's speech
a. Conversation
b. Oral reading
0. Pictures
2. Determine the type of articulatory problen
3. Deter-line specific sound errors
C. Distribute sumaries of the lesson waterial for bone revial
m a. Five parents attended the first nesting. The lesson natarial
was covered as planned in the outline.

The nain discussion was centered around the leader's direct question
concerning the reasons why the parents felt that their children had speech
problems. The content of these counts were as follows: Hrs. A thought
her child talked too fast and 'didn't nake so. sounds“; Hrs. B nentioned
that her daughter did not talk at all, but now she was siwly 'hard to
understand"; Mrs. C thought that her son "had defective consonant sounds“
and that her daughter was 'not using speech"; Hrs. D thought 'everythirg's

wrong with his“; and Mrs. I! said her child didn't “connect words in sentences

32
and lake sons sounds." The grow indicated that the main reason for
worryirg about their children was that they were hard to understand.
Parents A, B, and C, counted that other children often interpret their
children's speech. Bone of the nothers were sure of the specific sounds
which were difficult for their children.

During the discussion on other speech disorders, Parents A, B, and
D nentioned people they not who stuttsred or had cleft palates. Mrs. C
told the group of an earlier diagnosis of her son's speech and that she
was told to 'pay no attention" because be light start stuttering. Hrs. B
stated that her child stuttsrsd and wondered if all children do this when
they start talking. This question prompted a brief discussion on the
nature and causes of stuttering and the possibilities of a false diagnosis
of non-fluency as stuttering.

The group.” a whole showed interest in the naterial discussed.
There were no observable indications of disinterest or lack of understand-
ing. me parent indicated a desire to carry out the assign-ant whenshe
asked her child to help her find a set of cards with pictures. She en-
plainedthat shewantsdto helphinbyfindingoutwhat sounds werehard
for him to lake.
m 22. Six parents attended this first grow nesting. The material
was covered as planned in the lesson outline with one exception. lbre
leuttw discussions of stuttering and retardations accowanying speech
problens were substituted for the demonstration of the diagnostic picture
test.

33

The sain portion of the discussion centered around the one question
asked of each parent as to why he believed his child had a speech probles.
Hr. and Mrs. G reported that their child "did not talk right," and Hrs. J
indicated that her child 'didn' t sake sounds right." lire. P sentionsd that
her daughter was 'slow in deve10ping' and that they had thought her sen-
tally retarded. Mrs. I thought that her son was copying his older sister's
speech. Mrs. B stated that her son had “aruculation troubled. Hrs. 8
stated that her daughter's trouble was that "she cares sore about her
school work than about her speech." None of the parents were able to give
an specific examples of their children's speech problems, or sention any
specific sound difficulties.

Br. G stated that his son had been "held back" in school because
the teacher could not understand his. The other grow sesbsrs indicated
that their children were also slow in school. These contents initiated
a discussion on the scholastic retardation which often accowanies speech
problem.

During the discussion on various types of speech disorders, Br. 0
consented that his son stuttered and that he felt he was siwly talking
too fast. He wondered wig the child did that. The problem of non-fluency
versus stuttering was then discussed were fully.

During the discussion on individual differences in speech llr. G
illustrated various dialects he had heard in the am and pointed out that
though this speech sounded different it was not a speech handicap.

With the emwtion of Mr. G the grow was reticent unless called
upon directly. Interest in the mterial was shown sainly by facial ex-
pressions and node in agreasent with various points in the discussion.

3h
m m. 81: sothers attended this first seating. The lesson satsr-
ial was covered as planned in the outline except that the tine for dis-
cussion did not pernt a demonstration of the diagnostic picture test.

The greatest portion of the discussion evolved around the leader's
question concerning the parents' reasons for believing that their children
had speech problem. Dash of the sothers nsntioned specific sound dif-
ficultiss for their children. The discussion sovsd naturally into dif-
ferent types of articulatory problem. Again, each parent illustrated
several words which his child said incorrectly. These conents indicated
that each of the sothers had sose realisation of the specific nature of
her child's speech difficulty.

During the section of the lesson in which words were broken down
into their cowonent sounds, Mrs. L asked if "InI as in "use' was a canon
probles. Ber son had not been able to sastsr this sound. Hrs. I asked
if the 'i' in city was a separate sound or whether vowels siwly "went
with“ consonants.

lire. P consented on her twins' lack of interest in isprovirg their
speech. Parents 1! and I! had sisilar problese, and a discussion began on
how to interest these older children. The grow agreed with the cements
of Parents 11 and I. that correcting the child in conversation did nothing
sore than sake his angry. lire. P thought that one mat wait until the
children are reach and interested before trying to help then.

The discussion loved freely during the lesson and one con-ant
sessed to provoke thought and response fros another parent. The free

35
discussion indicated an interest in the material. Hrs. ll stayed after the
seating to ask advice on the problem of her younger child isitating the
speech of a playsats.

Cowarison £13539}! 2-33 _t_hg three 33923. As has been indicated, the

 

greatest spontaneous participation was shown by the parents in Group
Three and the least anount was shown by the parents in Grow Two.

A The parents in Grows (he and Two showed special interest in the
problss of stuttering. They discussed that topic longer than did the
parents in Grow Three. Grow mree seassd especially interested in the
saterial on the individual sound content in words and in the probles of
notivating children to isprova their speech.

The parents in Grow Three shasd the greatest asount of knowledge
on the nature of their children's speech problsss. The senbsrs of the
other taro grows indicated a definite lack of knowledge on this subject.

The saterial planned in the outline was covered in all of the
grows except that the desonstration of the diagnostic picture test was
ositted in Grows Two and Three.

lesson Two
Causes of Articulatory Problems
m. ms purpose of this lesson was to give the parents an understand-
ing of the possible causes of articulatory problem.
Catlin. The following is the proposed outline for lesson two.

I.

II.

36

Review of the Previous Lesson

A.
B.

Reports on assignsent
Cowarison of parents' findings to reports from clinical
diagnostic tests

Develwnent of speech

A.

B.

C.

B.

Preparation for speech

1. Sucking

2e Swallowing

3e Crying

Comnication through crying

1. Indications of pain

2. Indications of hunger

3. Attention seeking

hperisental use of speech sounds

Is 6001“

Use of words in speech

1. Begins sosarhers near the eighteenth south
2. Encouragement and reward for isitation are necessary

Possible Causes for articulatory problsss

A.

B.

O.

Explanation of possible pm‘sical causes

1e Birth injuries
a. Brain damage
(1) lhntal retardation
(2) Problems of suscls coordination
b. Damage to the hearing mechanic!
3. Injuries or illness during speech developssnt
a. Damage to the speech sschamsn
be Dosage t0 the brain
c. Lack of plwsical energy for speech production
d. Illness or imury causing over-protection for the
child
Explanation of frequent mn-plvsical causes
1. Lack of incentive to use speech
a. Over-protection
b. Lack of attention
2. Lack of auditory discrisination
3. Poor speech models to isitate
Two classes of causal factors for articulatory probless
1. Classes of causal factors
a. Pastors which allow the speech problem to
originate
b. Factors which allow the speech problem to continue
2. Illustrations of these causal factors

37
IV. Recommendation for parents
A. Look for possible factors which allow the articulatory
problem to continue
1. Poor speech models
2. Over-protection
3. Lack of attention
h. Physical factors
B. Alleviation of these factors
1. lladical help for physical causes
2. Setting good speech exanplas
a. Moderate rats
A b. Good articulation
3. ”being praise for effort and iwrovensnt rather
than correction for mistakes
1:. Creation of opportunities for unintsn'wted speech
0. Distribution of summary of the lesson for hose review
Crow 93. Five parents were present at this second nesting. Mr. E was
able to stay for .h, the first half of the meeting. 11:. saterial was
covered as planned in the lesson outline except that the report of the
clinical diagnostic test for each child was omitted. This saterial could
not be obtained for each child at the tins of the second nesting.
Parents A, B, C, and D gave reports on the previous assignsant and
sentionsd specific sound difficulties present in their children's speech.
Each of these consents showed a cowrehension of satsrial fros the previous
lesson. Br. I was also able to give inforsation on the nature of his
child's speech problem although he had not attended the first grow seet-
irg. The consensus of opinion on the assignsent was that this had been
a difficult Job because the children's speech showed an inconsistency in
sound errors from word to word.
Host of the spontaneous consents were sade during the presentation
of the lesson saterial. During the discussion of how illness and acci-

dents sight be a cause of articulatory problass, Parents A, B, and D stated

38
that this sight have been a cause for their children's problem. Mrs. B
stated that her child had stopped talking after a head injury in an auto
accident. Parents B and D reported illnesses during the children's first
year which seemed to have retarded their speech developsent. Hrs. C
thought that illness or injury sight easily retard development of both
the large and small suscles and that it was necessary to gain control over
the large moles before using the ssnll speech msclss.

Parents A, C, and D reported that imitation of poor speech night
he a cause for their children's speech difficulties. Hrs. D had found
herself using 'baby talk" with her sisdyear-old son and she added that
“it's no wonder that C—- doesn't try to talk better." Mrs. A con-
cluded that her child night talk fast because she herself did.

Over-protection of the child ceased to be a contributing factor to
the child's speech difficulty in the cases of Parents A, B, and D. All
of then agreed that the faslly was interpreting the children's speech.
Mrs. B had noticed that her daughter spoke sore clearly when staying with
other people because 'she has to sake thes understand." Hrs. D felt that
she eiwly was doing too such for C-- rather than letting his do thins
for hissslf. lira. C told the grow of an unsuccessful experience which
she had had in trying to lake the children ask for what they wanted.
lire. B advised sisply ignoring the child's wants until she was williu to
ask for it.

A great interest was shown in discussing the necessity for giving
childrsnopportunitiss to use speechandlisteningwillingly. Hrs. B

39
pointed out, 'It wasn't that we wouldn't listen. I think we listened too
hard. we didn't know how important 1+. was to help her learn to talk.“
Mrs. A told the group of the experience she was having when her son put
his hand no to talk at the table. She had Just realized that he pro-
bably felt he wasn't getting a chance to talk and perhaps that was wry
he spoke more clearly and slowly when he was alone with only one nelber
of the family.

The grow showed an active interest in the material and needed no
special encouragement to respond. Mrs. A mentioned after the meeting
that she enJoyed these neetings and that they were very helpful and in-
teresting.

M .1120 Seven parents were present during this second nesting. The
naterial was covered as planned except that the information free the
clinical diagnostic tests was not available for each child and emitted
fron this lesson.

Parents r, G, B, and J reported on the specific sound errors pre-
sent. in their children's speech. Bach parent nentioned that these errors
were not consistent. All of the reports showed a comprehension of aster-
ial fro: the previous lesson. Hrs. 0 gave several sounds which her child
nade incorrectly even though she was absent during the first group meet-
1ng. Mrs. S lentioned the word 'excellent' which she had noticed her
child “depronouncingu' Hrs. 8 also lispronounced the word leaving out
the “s.” She seened unaware of this and it was not brought to her at-

tention during the group nesting.

he

1 discussion developed around the possible physical causes for
articulatory problems. Hrs. F discussed her child's dental problem.
Mrs. C asked if a high palatal arch fight cause a speech problea. fire. 0
spoke of the fact that she had been tongue-tied and had had a speech pro-
blen. However the doctor could find nothing wrong with her child's ton-
gm. Hrs. J wondered if the fact that a child did not cry or babble
during an illmss could lead to a speech problen. This latter consent
led to a more complete discussion of the imartance of the major stages
of speech deve10pnent.

Hrs. G thought that over-protection fight be a contributing cause
to her son's speech problem. the fafily often gave his things without
his asking for thu because they so seldon understood his speech. The
nggestion was nade by the leader that the pmnts fight have the child
point to what he wants and repeat the word with his each tine. Hrs"!
counted on the danger of letting the child point, for this had become
a habit with her child.

fire. 1' decided ifitation played an imortant factor in the develop-
nent of speech defects in both of her children. She also noted that she
saw her own fistakes show up on her children. This included speech errors
as well as several habits and sauna-ism.
m grog Four parents attended this second nesting. The material
was given as planned in the outline except that the reports on the clinical
diagnostic tests could not be obtained for this meeting.

In discussing the previous assigment every nether aade specific
reference to the sound errors in her child's speech. Each report indicated

h].
a ceqprehension of previous material. fire. I asked what "double consonants"
were. Ber child's teacher had said that this was his difficulty. Hrs. P
answered her by emlaining that they were blmds such as 'bl' in I'blaek."

During the discussion on possible physical causes for articulatory
problems, m. P told the group of the illness of her twins following
birth, their "tongue--tiedness,'I and their hearing loss.

Hrs. Q volunteered information on how her adopted son had ifi-
tated the speech in his former hone. She noticed that at present he
talked too fast and wondered if he could now be ifitating her own rapid
speech. fire. I stated that her elder daughter was ifitating the younger
child's speech. lire. I. wondered if that fight be done for attention.
These latter cements brought forth a nere detailed discussion of the
enetional causes for speech problels.

The Iain portion of the discussion centered around the ignorance
of taking tine to listen to children when they talk. It‘s. I asked for
help on the problem of her daughter's continual interruption of the
younger child. Parents L, P and Q had faced sifilar difficulties and
offered suggestions. Mrs. I further indicated that her son becase ag-
mesivewhenhewas not allowedtotalkfreelyandran uchmthe
fafily. Ire. I. nentdoned the necessity for having a tile and place
where you could be alone with each child without the other neabers of
the fafily present. Hrs. Q discussed her systen of asking each child to
report to her on different things each day. In this way she was pro-
viding opportunities for speech and was giving each child a chance to
have sonething iapertant which only he could tell.

he

The group members were anxious to participate in the discussion.
Interest was shown in the enotienal aspects of speech problems.
Miflmfiflm. The lesson plan was fol-
lowed in each of the three groups except for the mission of the material
on the clinical diagnostic tests. Groups this and Three showed the great-
est aneunt of interest in the emotional causes for articulatory problem.
In Group he no special section of the naterial seen to be of nere in-
terest than the others.

Group (he showed the greatest verbal response to the material,
and Grow Two showed the least. his comments made on the previous assign-
ment indicated in all cases except Mrs. S that the material in the past
lesson had been understood and the assignment had been carried out.
Parents in each of the groups commuted on the difficulty of trying to
determine the type of articulatory problen and the exact somd diffi-
culties.

Lesson fires

The Nature and Importance of Auditory Discrifination

m. The purpose of this unit was to give parents an understanding
of the nature of auditory discrinination and techniques for its deve10pnent.
Outline. The following is the proposed outline of material for lesson
three:
I. Review of previous lesson
A. Counts or questions from parents on previous material

B. (beervations node as to possible causal factors for
the speech probleas of individual children

III.

IV.

V.

1:3

C. Reports on the clinical diagnostic tests of the children
D. Infomation on special sounds on which the children are
receiving clinical help

Nature and inortance of auditory discrimination
A. The necessity for an awareness of speech sounds before
using then
B. Illustrations of separate sounds in several words
C. Illustration of sifilarities between sounds
D. Demonstration of the position of sounds in words
1. Illustration of the arramenent of pictures in the
diagnostic test
2. fishing the common sound and its position in the
pictures

Techniques for developing and testing auditory diserinination
A. Gross Discrimination
1. The necessity to distinguish gross differences before
finer ones
2. Denomtration of techniques for developing and test-
ing gross discrifination
a. Tapping on different materials
b. Clapping and tappirg at different rhythns
c. Ringing bells
d. Playing different notes on wusical instrunents

Piur discrininatien for speech sounds
A. Choice of specific sounds for listening
B. Designation of the child's response when sound is heard
0. Parents' production of the sound in isolation
D. Child's recognition of the sound
Is In 1.013151011
2. In words

Activities for developing auditory diserifination
A. General suggested activities
1. Sorting pictures and objects
2. Finding specific hidden objects
3. Guessing games involving sounds in words
h. Canes requiring recognition of sounds before taking
turns
5. Perforfing sens ptwsical activity when the sound is
heard
B. Parent's indications of the type of activity especially
enjoyed by their children
0. Specific suggestions for specific children
D. General suggestions for working

1. Short activities

2. Activities centered around the child's interest

3. Satisfactory time to work

It. Participation of the whole family in some activities

5. Ewphasis on listening rather than production of the
sound

VI. Susi-y and Assignment
A. Sumary ef the inortance of auditory discrifination
B. Assignment for parents
1. Testing the child's ability for gross and fine dis-
crimination
2. Try suggested activities for auditory discrinination
C. Distribution of summary of the lesson for hone review
9.122.922: Five parents attended this third nesting. Mrs. E was taking
her husband's place. The material was given as planned in the outlim
except that the demonstration of the diagnostic test was omitted. This
test had been demonstrated for this group in the first mating, and the
lack of discussion tine did not permit a review of the test.

mrrors were used to demonstrate the eifilarity between the place-
nents for several sounds. The group participated freely during this
portion of the lesson. Parents I and E cemented on the various ways in
which the sound could be made. 'me group showed surprise at their dif-
ficulty in distinguishing sounds when they could not watch the leader's
face.

During the reports on diagnostic tests for the clinical records,
Parents B and C were surprised that their children were not working on
individual sounds. A discussion followed stressing the necessity to
establish rapport and gain free speech before sound drills are initiated.
During this discussion Parents A, B and D reported their children's re-

sentnent toward correction. These consents led directly into a discussion

1:5
of children's interests. Activities which fight be fun and interesting
for the child were suggested as substitutes for continual correction
during conversation.

The major portion of the discussion followed the demonstration of
techniques for deve10ping and testing gross discrimination. Each parent
nentioned at least one activity which her child particularly enjoyed.
These included reading, looking at pictures, draing and games involving
physical activity such as running, juspim, boxing and sports. Suggestions
were nade by both the leader and the parents as to how these activities
could be used as a nucleus for auditory training.

The Iain interest of the group was in the denonstration of the
differences between speech sounds and in the activities for gross audi-
tory discrinination. There were no questions or consents on the material
given in previous lessons. Hrs. B remained after the seating to say that
she had enjoyed coming and wished that she fight attend more often.
9323. _ng. Seven parents atth this third nesting. The naterial was
covered as planned in the outline.

With the exception of Hrs. R, each parent participated in the fir-
rer work but seened rather hesitant to nake audible sounds. Bach parent
showed surprise at his inability to distinguish sounds easily when the
face of the speaker was not visible. All of the group except Hrs. B
participated in counting the amber of sounds in words.

Host of the tin for discussion was spent in deterfining individual
children's interests. Reading, drawing, coloring, television and gases
involving physical activity were mentioned. The leader nade suggestions
on methods of incorporating these activities with auditory training.

to

Mrs. G had found it difficult to keep her child's interest while
working with his alone. Activities in which the other children could
participate were suggested. Hrs. I" mentioned that auditory activities
fightbeuseful for heryoungerchildsince hewas abletoaake soundsiu
isolation but did not use then correctly in words.

Host of the period was spent in lecture and daonstration by the
leader. The tine allotted for discussion was lifited. However, when ep-
portufities for responses arose, this group needed constant encouragement
and leading questions were asked frequently. The greatest ascent of in-
terest was shown in the denomtration of gross auditory discrifination
activities and in the reports 11‘s- the clinical diagnostic tests. Each
of the parents nade note of the specific sounds with which the child was
receiving clinical help.

m _th_r_e_e_. Four sothers attended this third noting. The eaterial was
given as planned in the outline.

During the reports onclifical diagnostic tests, Hrs. llwas sur-
prised that 'r' was not nentiened for her son. She felt that perhaps
this was not noticed because he nde it “alsost right.“ She had noticed
that his difficulty seemed to be in saying the name of the letter rather
thaninlaldmthe sound. Shehadbeenteachinghintodothis before she
realised that there was a difference between sounds and letter name.
Hrs. P suggested that most children would he very conscious of their

speechduingadiagnostic test, andthatnmyofthewordsthatthey
said incorrectly in conversation would not show during the test.

h?

All of the parents participated freely in the firror work and
were surprised at their difficulty in distinguishing sounds even after
they realised how they were made.

Each of the parents supplied infernation on specific activities
which their children especially enjoyed. Television was the activity nest
frequently sentioned. The whole group participated in suggesting ways in
which television could be incorporated in auditory discrimination activi-
ties. Guessing ganes, detecting different voices and listening for speci-
fic sounds were suggested during the discussion.

fire. I initiated a discussion on her problen of gaining the child's
cooperation in hose speech work. She wondered if she should force the
child to work. Mrs. P answered her by sayirg that if she would only be
patient and wait for the opportunity the child would be ready to work.

In addition Hrs. P sentioned that she sust use activities which the child
mama.

Special interest was shown in the gross discrifination activities
and in the ascrifinaflon of speech sounds. Even though the najor por-
tion of the lesson was spent in lecture and demonstration w the leader,
theresponseswhenaadewere spontaneous and shewedinterestinand a
celprehension of the naterial.
Wfimgsflnmm- the was m or in-
terest in each of the grows was shown in the denomtration of activities
for gross discrifination. The parents in each of the three groups were
surprised that children with nornal hearing had difficulty in distinguishing

h8
differences between gross sounds and speech sounds. They were further
snared at their own inability to distinguish these differences readily.

While the parents in each of the groups were interested in the re-
sults the clinical diagnostic tests and the report on the sounds on which
the child was receiving help, only the nenbers of Group Three sane note
of these sounds.

The greatest nunber of verbal contributions were nude in Group on
and the least nunber in Group Three. The responses in Grotzp he were
nest frequently initiated by questions fro: the leader.

The naterial was given in each of the groups as planed in the out-
line except that the denomtration of the dagnostic picture test was efit-
ted in Group me.

Lesson Four

Activities for Auditory Discrifination

M. The purpose of this lesson was to give parents further sug-
gestions fer carrying on activities for auditory diserifination. If tine
pee-fitted, voice recordings of the parents were to have been aade so that
they could have an added understanding of their an speech.

mtline. The followim is the proposed outline of material for lesson Four:

I. Review of the previous lessen
A. Reports on Auditory discrinmation activities tried at he.
1. Discussion of the activities used
2. Discussion of the problems encountered
3. Suggestions for specific parents
a. Techniques for carrying on activities
b. Suggestions on material which fight he med

139

B. Review of the general techniques in worldng with the child
in auditory discrillnation
1. Find a satisfactory tine to work
2. Hakim sure the child understands the activity
3. Finding activities which interest the child
h. Emphasis on listening for the sound rather than the
child's production of the sound

II. Discussion of sore difficult auditory discrifination
A. Finding the placement of the sound in words
1. Illustrations by the use of several sounds in words
2. Suggested activities
a. Using boxes to represent the begimdng, fiddle and
ends of words and place pictures in the appreci-
nate be:
b. Using a train to represent the various positions
of the sound in words ~
B. Discrifination betwaen the correct and incorrect sound in
words
1. Illustrations by the use of several sounds in words
2. Explain the use of the activities suggested for general
auditory discrifination for this finer discrimination

III. Voice recordings

A. Explain recording procedure

B. Give material to be read

0. Recording the reading of volunteers

D. Listening to recordings

E. Discussion of the recordings
9m 2. Four sothers attended this fourth nesting. The naterial was
covered as planned in the outline except that the voice recordings were
uitted.

During the reportsonthe previous assign-entice. Brepertedthat
she hadwerked with her child in counting conch and listuixg for sounds
duringthecounting. Hrs. Khadworkedbyflnfingpicmreeinaagasines
with special sounds and both she and the child had enjoyed the activity.
Hrs. A had not worked because of the child's illness and Hrs. C was not

present at the last meeting.

50

Since only Mrs. K had had success with the activity and two in the
group had not tried activities, the renainder of the tins was spent in
discussing I'listening" activities that could be done at hem. The voice
recordims were onitted and the sections on suggestions for hone activities
were expanded to give more specific suggestions to each parent.

Anon the suggestions node by the leader was the use of sec]: pup-
pets in speech training and auditory decrinination. A length discussion
arose on how these puppets were made and used. Each of the parents nan-
tioned sons specific activity which they wanted to try and asked for
suggestions on its use.

Mrs. I wondered if it would be advisable to correct her child when
she was talking. She said that the child wanted the fanny to do this
often since "she wanted to talk so that everyone could understand her."
The discussion noved on to enhasise the advisability of having a special
tine to work on speech rather than usim content correction during
conversation. Parents A and B felt that they could not set a special
tin for this work and that they lost work |'Irhen the occasion arises.‘
The leatbr encouraged this type of work but cautioned then to be alert
for suitable occasions and to be mare of what they can do when the
occasion arises.

The group needed none direct qmstions before respondim than
during the previous neetims. The main interest of the group was in the
leader's suggestions on specific activities which could be used at hole

inauditory trainixg.

51
m 23. Five parents were present during this nsetim. The lesson was
conducted as planned in the outline except that the voice recordings were
omitted.

Each of the parents had tried auditory discrimination activities
except Mrs. 8 who had not attended the previous meetings. Mrs. G had had
the fully play guessing games involving certain sounds and had found it
helpful to have the other children work with the child. She reported,
"He's trying more now" and mentioned the advice of the Director of the
Clinic that patience was necessary in working with the child. Mrs. H
had used checkers as a game to try listening for words. She found that
the child picked it up quickly. fire. 0 had used gross discrinination and
indicated that it worked "pretty well." Hrs. J told the group of her
success in trying both gross and fine discrinination activities. She
spoke freely of how discouraged she had been when the child did not talk
and how enbarrassing it was when the neighbors considered him "dunbfl

The rain portion of the discussion centered around simle dis-
crinination activities which could be done at house. The group, with the
exception of Hrs. H and Mrs. S participated in suggesting activities such
as narble genes, store and guessing genes. The group's interest centered
around nethods for utflim the child's interest in doing speech work.
9m Q3. Five parents were present during this nesting. The lesson
outline was not followed for this group.

Parents H, l and P reported on auditory training activities which
they had tried at hone. Mrs. L had tried none and Mrs. Q had not attended
the last nsetim. Hrs. L had tried both gross and fine discrimination

52
activities and had found that the child had little success with then.
Hrs. P wondered whether the child's failure could be caused by his lack
of understanding of what he was to do. She had tried both types of
activities. She had used 'Twanty Questions“ for finer discrimination and
had found the twins enjoyed it and didn't want to stop.

Both It's. )1 and Mrs. P were having problem in trying to work with
one child without the criticism of some henber of the family. Mrs. P
cemented that the speech defective child should not comets with usual
speaking people. The discussion following this statuent pointed out
that the child would first be listening in these activities and light
easily excel above the other nanbers of the family became of his train-
ing on sounds.

Hrs. I reported her fear that her child was beginning to stutter.
a long discussion began on the topic of stuttering. The group members
participated freely in questioning the nother on the nature of the
child's speech. The leader advised Mrs. N to refrain from correcting
the childandto stop speech genes unless the childwaswilling toplay
then.

Hrs. ll initiated another discussion by satin whether a child who
“lacked responsibilities" night simly be clinging to baby habits and .
have no incentive to improve. She reported that because her son refused
to do things for hisself the faulyusuallywaited onhin. Each of tin
other parute had had silllar problem and offered suggestions to her.
R‘s. 1'. indicated the imortance of prdse for being a 'big boy." Hrs. Q

 

53
told the group of solving a similar preblen by taking away privileges of
watching television. Mrs. P and Mrs. 1! reported similar experiences and
various disciplinary netheds by which they solved then.

The Inner interest of the group appeared to be in how to work with
children rather than in what speech activities could be done. The parent's
easiness to discuss their problems node it necessary to lay aside the
planned material and to make spontaneous suggestions to specific parents
as the occasion arose. tire. I. renained after the seating to ask what a
I'laa‘teral lisp" was and how it fitted into the categories for articulatory
defects. The clinician had nentioned that her son had this problen.
Cannon 3; M £25 th_e_ m m. The naterial given in
Groups (he and he was essentially the sane and centered mainly around
suggestions for specific activities which could be used in auditory train-
im at hon. In contrast, Group Three desired inforlatien on how to work
with children and centered their interest around problem in child de-
velopsunt and in stuttering.

In Groups we and Two the naterial follared the planned lesson
outline, except that the voice recordings were euitted. In Group Three
the discussion of specific problens in child nan-genent made it imosnlble
to follow the prepared lessen outline.

The response of Group Three was larger than in the other two groups,
and was lore spontaneous. Group (he ends the snallest response, however,
Group Two mdsd nore direct questions to bring about contribution than

did the other two groups. The reports given on assignments in Groups Two

5!:

and Three indicated the possibility of a greater comprehension of naterial

from the previous lesson than did the cements fros Group me.

gens:-

Lesson Five

Production of Speech Sounds

The purpose of this unit was to give parents an understanding

of how speech sounds are made.

Outline. The following outline indicates the proposed eateriel to be

covered in lesson Five:

I. Discussion of auditory. trainlng activities

II.

III.

A.
B.

0.

Reports on activities tried at hen

Discussion of the activities

1. Type of activity

2. Child's response

Specific suggestions which would apply to speech work
at hone for individual parents

Production of speech sounds

l.
B.

G.
D.

3e

Illustration of vowels, consonants and dime

Voicing for speech sounds

l. Canbedeternlnedbyfeeling the larynwhile producing
the sound in isolation

2. All vowels and dipthongs are voiced

3. Illustrate consonant pairs nade in the sale way except
for voicing

Explain the importame of parents understanding how sounds

are made before helping the child

Placement of the articulaters fer consonants

l. Predmtion of the sound or sound pair

2. Illustrate the sound in several worm

3. Illustrate the voicing of the sound

1:. Describe placeunt of the articulators

5. Group production of the sound
a. Mirror work
b. Feeling the larynx for voicing

Illustrate nova-ant of the articulators fros sound to

sound in several words

Race-endatiens for home work on sound production

A.

Choice of one sound

55

B. Use of lirrors
c. Parent's production of the sound
1. The child listens and watches
2. Child feels the parent's larynx to see whether it is
“noisy or quiet"
D. Production of the sound with the child
8. Sound nade w the child elem
F. Sound used in syllables
G. Use of sound in words
1. Use listening games first
2. Use the sane type of gene where children can produce
the sound rather than simply listen for it
B. General recemndations
1. Use sound placement work with children post first grade
2. Keep work periods short
3. Be sure you know how the sound is nde before working
with the child
h. Give the child plenty of praise for effort and inprove-
nent

2132913. Four parents attended this mtdng. Mr. E cans in when he brought
his child for clinical work and said that he would not be able to attend
the netings regularly because of a work schedule. Mrs. K transferred to
the second group.

Each of the parents reported on auditory discrininatien activities
which had been tried at base. Each contribution indicated an understand-
irg of naterial given in the previous lesson. Mrs. A had tried a sound
listening gene with cards and had had success with it. Mrs. A had used
syllables and words in listening for 'f' and had little success because
she had tried to get the child to produce the sound in words. me. 0 had
used sock puppets and had had sons success in gaining the attention of
both children for listening for sounds as the puppet spoke and in initating
sounds with their puppets. lire. D had entered into gross diacritination
activities with her child. She reported that these activities were nest

successful.

56

The group showed aninterest in the preduction of various consonants
and participated freely in preducing each one. Mrs. C was concerned as
to what should be done if the children refuse to cOOperate in making sounds
or saying words. She stated that often her children would rather go with-
out something than ask for it. Hrs. D connented that some children were
“Just stubborn enough to starve to death rather than ask for food,” but
she cemented that they could be deprived of things they didn't need if
they refused to ask for it.

A discussion began as to whether a child should be forced to speak
correctly. The leader advised against this and suggested play activities
centered around speech sounds. Mirror work was suggested if the child
enjoyed inltation activities, but as in an activity it should not be
forced on the child. Young children may not be able to profit fron de-
tailed instruction on how to make sounds.

As in the last lesson, this group was nainly interested in speci-
fic activities which could be used at here. This portion of the lesson
outline was expanded to include nore of these suggestions.

21:32 22. Six parents were present during this nesting. Mrs. K had
transferred to this group. The lesson was covered as planned in the
outline.

The naterial covered in the last lesson was reviewed after the
suggestion of Mrs. I" who had not attended the last meeting. Parents I
and 0 reported on activities which they had tried at hon. Hrs. I dis-
cussed her success at using picture doninees and looking for sounds and
meeting sentences about then. he. 0 had used valentines to find cer-
tain sounds and to give a time for speech.

57

The group was interested in the production of sounds and the mat--
erial was given as planned in the outline. Parents K and F made several
ce-ents during this portion of the naterial. Hrs. J noted a difference
between the placement for "r" and “or” and reported that her child could
not afferentiate these sounds.

Hrs. K and Hrs. G were concerned over their children's defensive-
ness toward correction. Their cements led into a discussion of the ad-
visability of having one tin for speech work during the day and elininate
correction during conversation throughout the rest of the day.

The group had less chance to participate verbally during this les-
son, but an interest in the naterial was shown durizg their participstion
en the production of each sound as it was discussed. The reports given
on assignments showed comprehension of material fron the last lesson.
Mrs. K stayed to nention her own feelings of retard in helping the child.
(Long _;_thre_e_. There were three parents present during this nesting. The
naterial in tin proposed outline was not given.

loch of the reports on auditory discrininatien activities tried
at hone indicated a comprehension of the naterial fren the previous les-
son. llrs. P had had the children look for various sounds contained in
the ms of articles used in cooking and in eating. Hrs. Q had used
various guessing games for "listening” and the children had nioyed then
so mch that they began playing then in school. Hrs. N had tried several
gross disorientation activities and mentioned that she realized "how hard
it is” when she tried to do then herself. She was worried ever the child's
repetitions of the syllable 'ah' betwan words and had decided that this

I” “We

58

A discussion of stuttering began and the danger of false diagnosis
was stressed. Hrs. P discussed a television program in which she had
seen contestants watch for the number of times panel nenbers hesitated in
speech. It was brought out clearly on the program that this hesitation
was not stutterim.

Hrs. N began the discussion which lasted for the renainder of the
period. She was worried over her child's disobedience. The other group
ushers lentioned sinilar problem and how they were solving then. Hrs. Q
lentioned that she felt it was often the parents who were at fault be-
cause they so often did not take tine to really enJoy their children.
Showentonto saythat I'¢.'.hild:.'enneedtotrythin‘gsbefcre theylearn."
Hrs. P expressed a fear that she would here the children psychological]:
if she pointed out too new faults.

The entire period was spent on the problem of nanaging and under.
standing children. None of the planned lesson naterial was used because
the parents exhibited a definite need to discuss naterial in other areas.
The discussion appeared stimlating for each or the parents.
muemgMEEMm. Groups (he andiwo indicated
an interest in specific activities which could be done at hole. In these
two groups the naterial was given as indicated in the outline except that
the individual suggestion for home work were lore nmerous than had been
planned. In Group (he the nirror work was notches.

In Group Three the planned naterial was odtted snare]: an! the
discussion tenured the parents' specialintereet in how to cope with the
problem of child development.

59

Bore cements were made in Group (be than in the other two groups.
This was not an adequate measure of the actual parent participation in
discussions because the counts reads in Group Three were such longer and
required no direct questions from the leader. In each of the groups the
reports eade by individual parents on activities tried at home indicated
a comrehension of naterial fros the previous lesson on auditory training.
3125-3 MEI m E. Since Hr. E missed the group neetings be-
cause of work, he requested a lake-up nesting to review the naterial he
had lleeed. The material on auditory training was reviewed with his.

Mr. I sentioned that his wife had discussed this with his and was working
at home with the child on "listening activities." Mr. B was interested
in the promotion of speech sounds and the material in Lesson Five was
covered with him as planned for the group meetings.

Hr. 2 was interested in the complexity of mining sounds fore words
and the various tongue novements involved. He felt that “if children had
tolearnthis theywouldneverlearnto talk." Hr. Ewantedtotryso.
of the Iirror activities at hone but he mntioned that his main problen

indoingepeechwork seenedtobein'findingtdneforit.‘

Lessons Six, Seven and Eight
Observations of Clinical Lessons

m. The purpose of these lessons was to help parents understand the
therapy the cldldren were receiving in the clinic and to give examples
of nethods which could be used in doing speech work with children.

60
mtline. The following is the proposed outline for the clinical obser-
vation lessons:

I. Information given preceding the observation
A. Name the child and the clinician to be observed
B. Discussion of the planned lesson fron the clinician's
outline
0. Discussion of special factors under observation
1. General goal of the lesson
a. Verbal response
b. Production of special sounds
c. Use of the learned sound in words
d. Auditory discrimination for the sound
e. Use of the learned sound in conversation
2. Material used in the lesson
3. Special sounds aphasized
h. Child's response to the naterial
5. Techniques used by the clinician
6. Similarities between the problen of the child
observed and your own child

II. Observation of the clinical lesson
III. Discussion of lesson
1. Discussion of factors under observation
2. Additional questions or contents
M 3;. All five of the parents enrolled in this group attended lesson
81:. The clinical lesson for Child 3 was observed. The lesson centered
around listening for and producing |'f." A box of omen objects con-
taining the '1" sound were used for finding the sound in words. The
child bounced a golf ball whenever he heard the clinician say a word with
'f' in it. Syllables were used to help the child produce the sound and
a gene was played with the objects to carry over the production of the
sound into actual words. I
m. B noted the advisability of including the activity of bouncing
the ball to give the child a chance to love around. She nentioned that

he had "caught on“ to the activities rapidly. fire. 0 liked the progression

61
of using the sounds first in syllables and then in words. Each of the
parents noted the use of auditory training activities. Hr. E contented
that it was "so such easier to see how to help a child when you see how
these things are done rather than sinply hear about then." Both Mr. I
and It's. B Med how many activities were needed to hold the child's
attention.

A discussion developed on the sililarities between the speech
problems of individual children and the child observed. Mrs. A noted
the difficulty of Child E in using the sound at the beginning of words
and in blends. Her child had this difficulty and he was not able to de-
ter-sine where the sound was placed in words as easily as Child E. lh‘s.D
noted that her child would not “stick to any one thing" as long as Child E.

Parents 1 and D reported successful activities which they had used
at hole. Hrs. A mentioned that her husband had been working on special
words wtdle he played with the child. Mrs. D had had success in using
the sock puppet for her child tomtate sounds. Hrs. B was worried about
her child's refusal to say words when asked. It was suggested that she
try to use activities in which the child could speak freely but was never
directly asked to say the words.

In this group the discussion loved swiftly from the obsa'vafions
ads on the lesson into problem with individual children.

M 29;. Five parents attended this sixth lesson. The clinical les-
son for Child J was observed. The lesson centered around both the die-
crinination and production of I'l." A story was used to listen for '1'

words, mirror work was done in repeating syllables, and a game with

62
letters was played as a carry-over activity. The child had a book which
he utilized in finding words and repeating them. Before the observation
the child discovered that there were people who could see through the
mirror in his room. The clinician allowed him to come into the observation
room and then he hogan the lesson inunediately catching the child's inter-
est to the extent that the observers were forgotten.

The group responded freely during the fifteen-admits discussion.
Mrs. K and F noted their surprise that all of the pictures used during
the letter game were of objects which you could find around the house
but which they had never thought of using. Mrs. F was surprised that the
child was willing to be corrected during reading because her child rebel-
led against this.

lh's. O mntioned that she was surprised that the clinician could
keep the child's attention since he knew that he was being observed.

Mrs. K commented on the similarity betwaen her child's speech problem
and that of Child J. Mrs. J was obviously pleased with her child's
demonstration of his ability and mentioned that now she understood why
children love to come to speech class because "they have so much fun
learning."

The group as a whole seemed to have gained a better understanding
of how to use "listening" activities and each of the parents commented
on how mm activities it took to keep the child's interest. Hrs. F
asked if the leader would prepare a list of sounds and but they were made
because she was anxious to see that she knew how to make all of then and
and knew which sounds were pairs.

63
m m. Four parents were present at this sixth seating. The ob-
servation was of the half-hour lesson for child N. The activities in-
cluded the use of pictures in discrimination for "f”, Mrror work for the
production of the sound and a guessing game including the child's nosing
of the pictures containing "1‘."

Before the observation Mrs. N asked the group to watch for the
child's stuttering because he had done more of it during the past week.
After the lesson she cemented that she did not hear his stutter and she
felt this was because he did not have a chance to use free conversation.
She related an incident in which she had talked to a severe stutterer and
(Ed not know how to react. The other ushers of the group had had similar
experiences and they discussed this problem at sons lemth.

Hrs. N mentioned that the child had been inattentive during the
lesson because she had noticed his restlessness and wigglim. Mrs. D
thought that the lesson did not have enough physical activity to interest
such ayoung childandthe othernenbers of the group agreed. Mrs. L
thought that the child had good speech and Mrs. N lentioned that she had
noted imrovenent in her child's production of 'l.‘

Mrs. H mntiomd that she saw in her child the same restlessness
that had been noted in Child N. Mrs. It felt that working at home was use-
less until the child was reach, and she nntioned several successful work-
ing tins when the child had initiated then.

The group consented freely after the observation. Again as in
previous matings lire. l! initiated the discussion on her problem concern-
ing her individual child. The other group members participated in offering

6h
suggestions to her. The observation seemed to be of interest to the whole
group, and as the parents left they were still discussing the lesson.
Comparison 9}: leggy; g; w _t_hg 213523. 5523533. The observations were
obviously interesting to the members of each group. The parents in Group
(he showed more interest in comparing their own children with the child
observed than did the parents in the other two groups. The parents in
Group (he were also sore interested in discussim activities which they
had tried at home than were the parents in the other two groups. Group
(he also noted more specific activities and clinical techniques during
the discussion of the observation than did the other two groups.

The members of Group (he gave more responses during the discussion
than did the other groups. However, the discussion session was longer
than in the other two groups because of the length of the clinical lesson
observed.

The discussion in Group Three soon saved into the problens of one
of its Ienbers and centered around stuttering. This subject was not len-
tioned in either of the other two groups. The discussions loved freely
in each group, an! the members needed few direct questions to initiate
cements.

93312 a. Five parents attentbd this seventh lesson. The clinical les-
son for llrs. C's younger child was observed. Even though her problem was
diagnosed as delayed speech, this child was chosen for observation because
the activities used in her therapy were good examples of how to develop
free speech. The developnent of free speech scared to have been a major

65
problem for the parents in this group. Several of the parents had an-
perienced failures in trying to do formal speech activities with their
children. The activities in the observation lesson were similar to those
advised for their children.

During the lesson the flannel board was used as a house. The child
and the clinician placed pictures of objects in the house on the board.
Pictures of nonbers of a family and the foods that they ate were used.

The child participated freely in initating the clinician as she named the
various pictures and objects. There was discussion during the observation
and all of the mothers, especially lbs. 0, showed surprise and pleasure at
the child's accomplishments.

The thirty-mute discussion following the observation. lbs. 0
noticed that the child responded much more readily in the clinic than at
hon. She noted the clinician's patience in working and remarked that
she did not correct the child when she said words incorrectly. The other
parents conented on how well the clinician had kept the child's attention
and how patient she had been with the child.

As in the previous observation session the discussion soon loved
to the work being done at hose with individual children. lbs. A noted
success in working on special words and that the child was now willim
to have the falily correct his occasionally. lbs. D and lbs. B were dis-
couraged fros working with their children. Both Child D and Child 3 grew
tired of activities quickly and did not respond well during then. Con-
sequently, sore activities were suggested, such as talkixg on the telephone,

6b
reaching into a bag of surprises and singing. Each of the parents felt
that these might be of help. Parent C suggested naming things while driving
in the car and lbs. B had also found that her child would respond readi-
ly in that situation.

The group responded freely during the discussion. The responses
mainly concerned individual problems in doing speech work at hone and were
initiated by watching the responses of the child umler observation. it the
end of the period material on the production of consonant sounds was dis-
tributed.

9.322 T12. Six parents were present during this seventh meeting. The
clinical lesson for Child G was observed. The lesson was delt with listen-
izg for and producing "sh.“ The activities included a fishing gain in
which each fish had a picture on its back. The child sorted the pictures
with the fish" in then and stated where the sound cone in words. Although
the child was not interested in naming words, he had little difficulty

and was able to make the I'sh" correctly in several words. The clinician
utilised the child's reading book to find words with the fish. sound.

A “hrenty-Iimlte discussion followed the observation. Parents G
and O noted the clinician's patience during the lesson and lbs. K noted
the child's lack of interest in working. lb. G conented that the child
did seem to like the fishing activity but resented having to say words
correctly. lb. G remarked, "he's even worse at hou.‘ lbs. G noted that
the child seened to have trouble knowing where to put his tongue and a
discussion began on the use of tongue exercises to learn better tongue
control.

67

The group remained reticent and although the leader did not ask
question of specific parents, it was difficult to gain the soaperation
of the group in giving comments on the lesson. When finally they were
asked whether they felt that the obscvations were worth while, each
parent stated that these sessions were interesting and helpful. After
the lesson Hrs. F Ien‘tioned that the naterial that was distributed on
the production of specific sounds was what she had wanted. She thought
it would be very helpful in classify-1m objects and pictures.
m @563. Three parents were present during this seventh neetixg. The
clinical lesson for Child H was observed. The lesson was on the use of
'r' and '1' in words. A gene was used in which the child could match a
word and a picture correctly and a light would flash on. These words
were mad as were a set of card pictures containing 'r' and '1' words.
The child received various amounts of play noney for words said correctly.

The twenty-dnute discussion followed the observation. Hrs. H was
surprised at how well the child was progressing and how well he worked
with the clinician. Mrs. N noted that the use of the electric gene and
the play noney were good incentives and the child had been very coopera-
tive. Hrs. 14 was particularly pleased at her child's willingness to talk
and she nentioned that his work in the clinic had begun to carry-over into
school activities.

be. P nentioned that her boys were progressixg in this same wq
and she told the group of a past imth in which a parent had embarrassed
her sons by askitg then why they did not "talk plainer." The other child

68
with then had been furious at this statement. Mrs. P wondered why children
usually seemed to be wiser and more understanding than adults.

we. N was anxious to tell the group that her son's speech had been
more fluent during the past week. She had come to the conclusion that
his articulatory difficulty had been all her fault, because she had not
spent enough time with him when he was younger. The other mothers felt
that this lack of attention had been a maJor factor in the cause of their
children's speech problems. Mrs. N questioned whether "a nervous mother
can lake a child stutter.” A discussion of this question continued -
through the remainder of the period with various contributions from each
of the parents on the mistakes that they had realized they had been making
with their children. Mrs. P made several references to a cm~rent article
which she had read concerning stuttering. The leader cautioned the parents
that although it was important for then to see why their child's problen
might have occurred, these things were past and they must not blame then-
selves for something which they had done unintentionally. Rather, they
should focus on the present and see that these factors do not occur again
or continue.

The group needed no stimulation for discussion. Rather, they had
to be told several. times that it was time to stop the meeting. Mrs. P
stayed afterward to comment on the naterial on consonant sounds which
had been detributed. She remarked that this must have taken a long
time to comile and that it was worth while to make parents realize how
couple: speech really is.

69
Manson 25 lesson seven smog the three grows. The parents in Group
me made more responses during the discussion of the lesson than did the
manners of the other two grows. The members of Group Tim remained re-
ticent and made only a few spontaneous comments on the observation.
The comments of Group the were focused on how the speech work in
the observed lesson related to activities at home with their children.
In Group Three the parents became interested in the was in which they
felt that they were responsible for their children's speech problems.
The parents in Group Three were more willing to share problems with other
members of the group than were the parents in the other grows. In Grows
(he and Three the discussion of the observation lesson seemed to be main-
ly a starting point for discussing individual feelings and problems.
Additional outline £21; lesson eight. In addition to the observation and
discussion of the clinical lesson, meeting eight included an evaluational
ammry of the program. This was done during the discussion following
the clinical observation. The following additional outline was used for
lesson eight:
I. Sunnary of the program by a brief review of each lesson
A. Lesson me - Nature of Articulatory Problem
B. lesson Two - Causes of Articulatory Problems
1. Physical causes
2. Non-physical causes
3. Originating and continuating causes
C. Lassons Three and Four - Auditory Training
D. Lasson Five - Production of Speech Sounds
15. lessons Six, Seven and Eight - Observation of Clinical
Lessons
II. Important concepts from the program
A. Praise is better than constant correction

B. Center speech activities around a child's interests
C. Give children opportunities for speech without interrwtion

70
D. A specific time for speech is better than continual cor-
rection during conversation
E. Set good speech exawles
F. Speech work can be done by
1. Finding out the child's specific problem
2. Choosing a special sound to work on
3. Having the child listen for the sound
’4. If needed showing him how to make the sound
5. Helping him use the sound in functional words
III. Evaluation of the program
A. Distribute questionnaires to be completed at home
B. Explain conference schedules for the next clinical period
113 313. Two parents attended this last meeting. The clinical lesson
for Child A was observed. During the lesson the 's' sound was emphasized.
Activities included gross discrimination in listening to bells, listening
for the us.. in words and in a poem, and doing the action which the poem
indicated. The sound was made in isolation and in conversation betwaen
the child and a toy snake.
A titenty-minute discussion followed the observation. Mrs. A was
rather worried about her child's restlessness during the lesson. Mrs. B
mentioned that he was simply being a ”real boy." Mrs. A was surprised
at both his willingness and success in trying new words and at his
ability in telling where the sound was placed in words. She stated that
the family was having success in correcting him in conversation. The
leader cautioned her not to carry this correction to an extreme. Mrs. A
reported that whenever the family saw him reaching a point of resentment
the correction was stopped immediately. She said, “I feel so much better
about Nun's speech. I was very worried, but now I realize it is Just

a matter of time to help him work it out."

71

Hrs. B reported her success in working with her child when "B---
isn't were of what we are doing." Mrs. B commented that her child always
wanted to talk when she 'cofldn't take time to listen." Now she realized
hat inportant it was to 'make time."

The program as a whole was reviewed briefly. The final question-
naires were distributed and the interviews for the next meeting were
planned and explained.
9m .1193 Five parents attended this final meeting. The clinical les-
son for Child 0 was observed. The lesson had been regularly scheduled
for Child K who was absent because of illness. The clinician for Child O
was also absent and a substitute clinician conducted the lesson. This
Mei-n was the same one observed by this group in lesson six and he
used the same outline which he had previously used in working with Child G.
The lesson was on the production of "l."

The parents were interested in seeing the same lesson used with
another child and each of then thought that the lesson was successful be-
cause of the ways in which the clinician presented the material to the
child. Mrs. H stated that she believed boys usually responded better with
male clinicians. Hrs. F and Mrs. G both agreed that their children worked
better with their fathers than with them.

As a part of the program review Mrs. I" mentioned the problem of
fire. ‘3'. speech and asked it her child's problem could be caused by
initation of her mother's speech. This was the first time that an
umber of the group had consented on another member's speech. Tne grow
was surprised to learn that Mrs. S was very hard of hearing. The tine for

discussion was limited because of the review of previous meetings.

72

MM' All five of the parents attended this last meeting. A
grow clinical lesson was observed including the P twins, Child Q and
another child whose parents were not included in the grow meetings. No
sound drills were employed, but rather the lesson was aimed at practical
application of techniques learned in the clinic. 'me children had a list
of words to make up stories and a great deal of conversational correction
was employed.

hfore the observation the clinician of the additional child in
the group talked to the parents about this boy's problem. The child was
a severe stutterer and this was his first grow experience. During the
observation the parents talked freely to the leader and the visiting
clinician.

Hrs. Q and Mrs. P commented that the children seemed to take no
notice of each other's speech problems. Mrs. P felt that that might be a
suggestion for parents to note. Mrs. N and Mrs. If both mentioned the ad-
vantages of a group situation to hold interest and stimulate conversation.

Hrs. N comnted on how different the stutterer's speech was from
what her child had been doing. All of the parents except Hrs. L talked
freely during the observation and pointed out items of special interest
to them. Hrs. L appeared disgusted by the comments of the other parents.
Er only contributions delt with how well her boy was doing and what a
fine clinician he had. She commented also on the stutterer's stances.

Since the lesson began nearly fifteen minutes late, there was no
chance to review the program as a whole. However, the questionnaire was
distributed and arrangements were made for interviews during the next week.

73

Since there was no formal discussion, the tape recorder could not
be used and the exact number of conunents were not recorded. However, the
leader was able to record enough of the conversation to note that each
parent made at least one response.

Comarison 93 19.13.23 24.212 gong _t_hg _thr_e_e_ mpg. A summary of the pro-
gram was discussed as planned in Grows One and Two. Due to a delay in
beginning the observation lesson this material was omitted in Group Three.

No definite comparison of the amber of responses can be made among
the three grows because Grow Three had no formal discussion. It can be
noted however, that there was less discussion in Grow Tito than in either
of the other tI‘o groups. In Grow Three there was more discussion dur-
im the observation than in the other grows.

The. parents in Grows (he and Two responded mainly with cments
concerning work with their own children. The parents in Group Three con-
mented for the most part on the children's reactions and activities duh
ing the observed lesson.

This chapter has presented the proposed and actual content of each
of the eight meetings for each grow of parents, as well as the responses
of individual parents to the naterial presented. The responses of the
parents will be used in the next chapter as one basis for the evaluation

of the grow program for parent education.

CHAPTER IV

EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM FOR PARENTS

The educational program for parents studied in this project has
been evaluated according to the following item: (1) indications of in-
terest in the program on the part of the parents; (2) indications of the
value of the program for the participating parents; and (3) suggestions
made by the parents for improving the organization and content of the
program.

Information used for the evaluation of the program was obtained from
the following sources: (I) attendance records; (2) records concernlm the
umber and content of questions and comments made by parents during the
group matings; (3) answers given by the parents on the evaluation question-
naire; (1;) additional questions or comneuts made by parents during the final
individual conferences.

The author believed that the program for parents could best be
evaluated by both the program director and the participants. In this
study the participating parents were given a chance to evaluate the pro-
gram by both written and oral comments in completing the questioundre
at the end of the program and by individual conferences with the program
director. A copy of the evaluation questionnaire is included on pages
123-121; in the Appendix. The individual comments made on the questionnaire
and in the final conferences are noted in the background material for each
parent found on pages 125-]h8 in the Appendix.

75

The author of this study believed that no parent could effectively
evaluate the program unless he had attended at least half of the grow
meetings. According to this criterion fifteen mothers and one father were
qualified to assist in the evaluation of the program. Of these, twelve
attended the last grow meeting and questionnaires were given to them to
complete at home. Mr. and Mrs. G, included in the above twelve people,
were given one questionnaire to complete jointly. The program director
explained to these twelve parents that the next meeting was set aside
for individual conferences. During that time an personal problems per-
taining to working with their children in speech and the answers to the
questionnaire material would be discussed.

The four remaining mothers who were absent during the last meeting
but had attended more than half of the group meetings were sent question-
naires and a letter including information on the time, place, and pur-
pose for the individual conferences. In addition, a questionnaire and a
letter of explanation were sent to Family E in which the father had
attended two grow meetings and one make-w session for two other meetings.
His wife had attended one meeting. Together they had attended a total of
three regular meetings and one make-up session covering two additional
meetings. Therefore, this family was invited to participate in the
evaluation of the program by completing the questionnaire jointly and
by coming for a final conference. All sixteen of the questionnaires
which were distributed were completed and returned to the speech clinic.

The individual conferences were scheduled on the Saturday one week

after the day of the last grow meeting. Parents were not individually

76
for a period from ten to twenty minutes during the time their child was
doing speech work. Thirteen mothers and one father were seen dm'ing a
period of three hours. One mother came for a conference during the fol-
lowing week. In fazrdly G in which both parents were attending the group
meetings neither parent came for a conference and the questionnaire was
mailed to the speech clinic.

During the interview each parent was invited to ask whatever
questions he might have concerning information given in the grow meetings
and its application to his or her individual child's speech problem. W
special problem which was being encountered concerning the child's speech
was discussed and the questionnaire information was reviewed. If there
were any additional comments or questions concerning the questionnaire
material, these were answered during that time and the parent was re-
quested to add amr further comments he might have on the questionnaire
blank.

Indications of Interest in the Program

The author believed that interest in the program for parents

could be shown most objectively by the following factors: (1) attendance
of the parents at the grow meetings and the individual conferences;

(2) by the comments made during group meetings; and (3) by the answers
the parents gave to specific questions on the evaluation questionnaire.
Attendance records. Since participation in the group meetings and in-
dividual conferences was entirely on a voluntary basis, the attendance of
the parents was used as one mans of determining interest in the program

for parents.

77

The results of the initial interviews with twanty-two parents re-
presenting twenty different families showed that each of these parents
was interested in attending the grow meetings. Twenty of these people
thought that they could attend the program, and in five instances there
was a possibility that both parents could attend the program. The at-

tendance records for these twenty-five parents for the eight group meet-

ings show the following actual attendance:

TABIEIV

ATTENDANCE RECORDS

 

Number 0 f Group

 

Meetings Attended Mothers Fathers
8 h 0
7 h o
6 6 l
5 1 o
h 1 o
3 l 0
2 O l
l 3* O
o o h

 

 

* (he mother who had not indicated that
she could attend the meetings came to
one group meeting.

Fifteen out of the twanty-five parents who indicated that they

night attend the grow meetings were absent only trice or less during
the eight grow meetings. Out of the remaining ten parents, one mother

was absent three times, one mother was absent four times, one mother was

absent five times, one father was absent six times, two mothers were

78

absent seven times and four fathers attended none of the grow meetings.
m. father who had attended only two grow meetings came for a make-up
session and his wife came for one meeting although she had not previously
planned to attend the program.

It should be stated that the grow meetings were held chring the
time in which the child was receiving speech therapy and that in most
instances it was necessary for the parents to bring the child to the
clinic. Even though the parents were not required to remain in the clinic
while the child was working, the very fact that it was necessary for some-
one to bring the child indicated that attendance in the group meetings
could not be the sole basis for determining an interest in the program.
In no instance did a parent attend the grow meetings if his child was
not also attending his own clinical lesson. In three instances the par-
ents were absent but they had arranged for their children to attend the
clinic.

It is important also to note that the parents' absence from the
group meetings was not a definite indication of a lack of interest in
the program. Wenty-eight absences out of a total of forty-one during
the program were voluntarily reported to the program director by eleven
different parents. Six mothers mentioned that their total of twelve
absences were due to illness in the family. the mother reported that
she was absent ones because of illneSs and another time because of
guests. (he mother and her child were both absent twice on account of
icy roads. Another mother attended only the first meeting because
after that it was necessary for her to attend the clinical lessons with

79
her child. an father was absent six times because of work and one mother
missed one meeting because she could find no one to stay with the other
children.

The records show that sixteen out of the twanty-one participating
parents voluntarily attended five or more of the eight grow meetings.
or their total of twenty-one absences, fifteen were accounted for by
conditions such as work, illness and transportation. These sixteen par-
ants and Mr. and Mrs. E were invited to come to the speech clinic for
individual conferences at the end of the program. Fifteen out of these
eighteen parents came for the final conference. Since these parents
were absent only for reasons beyond their control and willingly reported
their reasons, it can be inferred that voluntary attendance can be one
basis for indicating an interest in the program for more than half of the
participating parents.

BPS}. responses du_r_i_n_g _t_hg m meetiggs. Voluntary questions or com-
ments made by parents during the grow meetings could be one indication
of interest in the program for parents. In the previous chapter it has
been indicated that the program director often asked direct questions of
individual parents or the group as a whole. The answers to questions
directed to specific parents will not be counted as indications of in-
terest in the program because these responses were not totally on a
voluntary basis.

A lack of verbal response cannot be a positive basis for de-

termining a lack of interest in the group matings or in the program

80
as a whole. The author realizes that it is possible for a person to be
interested in a subject without indicating that interest verbally. How-
ever, voluntary verbal responses can be an indication of interest because,
for some, considerable effort is needed to express thoughts or questions
verbally.

Table V indicates the number of voluntary verbal responses made by
parents in each of the three groups during the eight grow meetings.

Table V indicates that the parents in Grow Three made the largest
number of voluntary responses during the eight grow meetings even though
there was no final discussion period during the last meeting for that
group. The parents in Grow Two showed a smaller total of verbal res-
ponses for the eight meetings than did the members of the other two
grows. The Table also shows that in each meeting there were spontaneous
verbal responses and that no definite pattern was set within am group to-
ward more or less coments as the meetingsprogressed from number one to
number eight.

In order to regard the number of voluntary verbal responses made
during meetings as an indication of interest in the program, it would be
necessary to determine whether a grow with a smaller attendance con-
sistently had a smaller number of responses than did a larger group.
Table VI shows weekly attendance for each group and the number of volun-

tary responses made during each grow meeting.

81

 

m3 3 3 8 2 8 mm ma 8.5
3H m ma 3 a” 3 fl 8 u 2.9
ems 3” 8 S 8 as 8 8 2 .8
H38 45 at. as an as in e8 3
£35: 33.8 son-s: arose

‘H'rll “I! «IIIIIi‘

ggmomoaagggEQHgBE—Bu

bah

82
TABLE VI
GROUP ATTENDANCE AND VOLUNTARY RESPOlSES

 

 

 

 

 

Nmber of Number of
lbsting Voluntary Parents
Number Grow Responses Attending
m. lot 13 5

2nd 7 6
3rd 13 6
Two let 28 S
2nd 21 7
3rd 33 h
Three 1st 20 5
2nd 1!; 7
3rd 20 h
Four 1st 19 1;
2nd 17 5
3rd ha 5
Five let 21 S
2nd 1h 5
3rd 20 3
Six lst 17 h
2nd 16 5
3rd 16 h
Seven 1st 22 h
2nd 15 5
3rd 19 3
Eight 1st 10 2
2nd 5 5
3rd 5

 

 

The Table above indicates that there was no constant relationship
between the number of cements made and the number of parents attending

the grow meetings, either within the structure of one group's progress

83
through the eight meetings or among the three groups. Smaller attendance
did not consistently lower the number of spontaneous responses, nor was
the converse true. Thus, the number of spontaneous responses was not con-
sistently affected.by attendance and therefore could be one indication.of
interest shown by the participating parents in the group meetings.

Since it is possible for one person to dominate a discussion.and
thus contribute almost the total number of responses for his group, it
is necessary to break down the preceding Table into the total number of
voluntary responses made by individual parents and the attendance for
each parent during the group meetings. In this way it is possible to
determine not only the individual indications of interest, but also to
determine whether the total number of spontaneous responses can be ins
dicative of interest for the group as a whole.

Table VII shows that there is a definite relationship within each
group between the total number of voluntary responses made by each.par~
ant and the number of meetings each parent attended. There was a narrow
range in the number of responses made by parents within.each group who
attended the same number of’meetings. For the two parents in.Group One
‘who had.perfect attendance, a difference of only six responses can be
seen, and between.the two parents in.Group Three with.perfect attendance
there was a difference of only four. Of the parents who had attended
seven meetings the difference between the highest and.lowest number of
responses was eight. This difference among parents attending six meet-
ings was three in Grow (be, four in Group Two and eight in Grow Three.
The responses of Mrs. K were not counted in this summary because she

transferred to another group at the mid-point of the program.

 

 

TABLE VII
INDIVIDUAL ATTENDANCE AND VOLUNTARY RESPONSES

 

 

Total Number Number of
of Voluntary He stings
Parents Responses Attended
First Grow
Mrs. A to 8
M‘Be B ’46 8
Mrs. 0 2h 6
Mrs. D 21 6
Mrs. E h 1
Mr. E 5 2
Mrs. K* 10. 3
Second Grow
Mrs. F 20 7
Mrs. G 18 7
Mr. G 11 6
lira. H 7 6
Mrs. J 27 7
Hrs. O 13 7
Mrs. R 0 1
Mrs. S 1 3
mac K* 12 3
Third Group
Mrs. L 19 6
m. H 21; 6
Mrs. N 53 8
Mrs. P M? 8
Hrs. Q 16 6
Mrs. T 1 1

 

 

 

 

* Mrs. K transferred from the First Grow to the
Second Group after the fourth meeting. While
in the First Group she made ten comments and
attended three meetings and while in the
Second Group she made titelve conanents and at-
tended three meetings.

8h

85

m the basis of the total number of voluntary responses for each
parent as compared to the number of meetings each attended, there are no
positive indications that any one parent definitely dominated his or her
group discussions. This information suggests that it is possible to de-
termine group interest in the program for parents, using as one basis
the number of voluntary verbal responses made during the eight meetings
for each group. The voluntary responses show that the parents in Group
Three indicated the greatest verbal interest and the parents in Group Two
indicated the least verbal interest. In each group meeting there were
voluntary oral responses indicating an interest in the meetings.

Comente from _t_h_e_ evaluation Questionnaire and final conference. During

 

the final individual conferences with fifteen different parents, seven
mothers and one father specifically mentioned their interest in the pro-
gram as a whole. me of these mothers indicated that the observations

of clinical lessons were "the most interesting part." One parent stated
that she had discussed the material with her husband who was also in-
terested in it. ally one mother gave any indication of a lack of interest
in the program when she said that she would have "gotten more from these
meetings a year ago.”

One item on the evaluation questionnaire can be used as an indication
of an interest in the program for parents. Question (8) asked, "If there
were more of these meetings would you like to attend?" This question as-
sumes that a parent who was not interested in the program would not wish
to attend further meetings and would state this on the questionnaire.

However, it must be noted that a negative answer is no definite indication

86
that there is a lack of interest in the program. Rather, it may simply
indicate that the parent believes that more meetings would be repetitious.

Eleven parents answering this question stated they would like to
attend more meetings. Three parents would like to attend "some" more
meetings. Two parents felt they would not like to attend more meetings
and one of these mothers qualified this statement by adding, "not if re-
petitious." One father mentioned that neither he nor his wife would be
able to come regularly in the future.

In comparing the attendance records with the answers to question
(8), it can be noted that all of the four mothers who had perfect at-
tendance would like to attend more meetings. Of the four mothers who had
missed only one meeting there were three who would like to attend more and
the other mother qualified her statement by saying she would like to come
if "they weren't repetitious.u Of the seven parents who had missed two
meetings one definitely stated that she would not like to attend fur-
ther meetings. This information then correlated with the attendance
records in indicating an interest in the program for parents.

at the eight parents who had made less than twenty voluntary
responses, seven indicated that they would like to attend future meetings.
All of the ten parents who had made more than twenty voluntary responses
indicated that they would be interested in attending more meetings.

A correlation appears betwaen the attendance records and the com-
ments made on the evaluation questionnaire to indicate that these two
factors suggest the parents' interest in the program. Since the range of
total voluntary responses of the sixteen parents who wanted to attend more

87
meetings was from four to fifty-three, there seems to be little correla-
tion between the number of voluntary responses and the comments made by
parents indicating an interest in the program.

In simmary, the information from the attendance records and the
final conference and questionnaire indicate that more than half of the
parents were interested in the program whether or not they made a large
number of voluntary responses during the group meetings. The responses

are additional indications of interest for each parent.
Indications of the Value of the Program

The cements made by the parents during the group meetings and the
information from the evaluation questionnaire and the final conferences
are used as a basis for indicating the value of the program for the
participating parents. No objective treasure was made of the previous
knowledge of the parents before attending the group meetings, nor was
an attempt made to check on the parents' utilization of knowledge which
my have been gained in working with their children at home. /The only
information used to evaluate the value of the program for the parents
were the indications made orally and on the questionnaire completed by
the parents themselves.

Coments 229.9. m parents gm m nee 3. Out of more than five
hundred oral responses made during the group meetings, forty-eight were
definite indications of an increase in the parents' knowledge concerning
their children's speech problems and the work which they were doing

with these children at home. The majority of these comnents concern

 

 

 

111.14%.

88
observations which they made at home relative to speech problem and
speech activities. Many of these activities had been suggested in the
grow meetings. The following are typical coments indicating an increase
in the parents knowledge and were made by Mrs. A, Mrs. N and Mrs. K
respectively:

We invented a card game and picked out different
sounds to listen for in the cards. How he can do it
easily and we'll have to invent something else. I
was surprised that he can say nearly every sound but
in words he puts extra letters in, like in'six' he
says 'stix.‘ We tried taking words apart and he can
do that.

We tried listening for big sounds using whistles,
rattling paper, and tapping on glass. I was sur-
prised that he couldn't do it easily and had to peek
to tell what it was. Then I tried it and I never
realized how hard it was.

We started on sounding out words and found that
V--- could do this but couldn't put the words to-
gether in sentences. I gave her words to listen to
with the "s," “m" and "w" sounds and we cut pic-
tures with these sounds in them. We both enjoyed
working a lot.

These comments are typical of the type which has been counted in
the forty-eight oral indications of knowledge gained from the program for
parents. Each parent participating in the evaluation of the program
made at least one consent of this type.

Comments from the final conferences and _th_e_ evaluation questionnaire.
During the conferences with fifteen parents at the close of the program,
six parents nantioned during the discussion that they had learned a
great deal from the program. Most of these comnents were a repetition of

the answers to the questions on the evaluation questionnaire. No parent

-.—-.---

89
during the interview gave any indication of a lack of comprehension of the
material given in the group meetings. .

The evaluation questionnaire was answered by eighteen parents. In
the two instances where both parents completed the questionnaire Jointly,
their amwers were counted as one. The answers to nine of the questions
were indications of the value of the program for the participating par-
ents and the knowledge they felt they had gained from it.

gecific indications 33 213 11122 o_f_ 1:113 program. Question (I)
asked the parents to rate the program according to its value for then.
The terms, "of some help, very helpful, of very little help," were sup-
plied for them to check.\- Fourteen parents rated the program "very help-
ful” and two rated it "of some help." Eleven parents commented on this
question. Eight of them said that they had gained a better understanding
of the child's speech problem and a better knowledge of ways to help the
child. (he parent stated that the program kept her interested when she
knew "what was being done in the clinic." Of the two parents who found
the program of "some help," one wrote that she did not need this material
because her child was working well with his clinician, and the other par-
ents mentioned that "the observations were the greatest single value."

(\All of the parents then, had found the program of some value.

Question (12) asked the parents if the program had given them any
new information. Eleven parents gave specific indications of new in—
formation gained from the program. The idea of auditory discrindnation
techniques was mentioned by two parents. THO people included "how to
make sounds." Home activities to interest the child were listed by four

 

 

 

90
people. An understanding of the child's speech problem was listed by one
person and another mother mentioned, ”a better under standing of the dif-
ficulties of correct speech for those to whom it doesn't com naturally.”
Tito parents thought that the discussions had been most valuable be-
cause they pointed out that others were having similar problems. the
parent noted, "I have felt the need of help in develOping techniques of
being able to carry-over lessons received in the clinic. These have
been supplied in these classes." All of the sixteen parents who answered
the questionnaire wrote that they had gained new information from the pro-
gram.

@3212 9_f_ requiring m meetings. Question (10) asked the
parents' opinions concerning the value of requiring grow meetings of all
parents who have children enrolled in the speech clinic. It was assumed
that if the parents had not found the meetings of some value they would
not wish to require them of all parents. halve parents stated that
meetings should be required of all parents who have children in the
clinic. (he mother thought that parents should not be required to con.
Two parents did not give a direct answer to the question. One of them
said that Icertain circumstances would exclude some parents," and the
other simply wrote that parents "are better able to work with their
children after these meetings." In adding other comments, five parents
stated that the meetings should be required because they were helpful in
gaining a better understanding of the child's problem and how to work with

him. One mother made a specific suggestion that one term should be required

91
of all parents. More than half of the parents indicated.that all parents
of children in the speech clinic should be required to attend group meet-
ings and thus suggested that they believed the program was of some value.

Egg m correction. (he of the aims of the program was to
help parent learn methods for carrying on home speech correction. To be
of'the utmost value, according to the aims set, the program.should have
made home speech correction‘work easier and of greater value to the child.
Question (3) asked the parents if home speech correction work'was
easier for them than it had.been before attending the group meetings.
‘tEleven parents stated that working with the child was 'mmch.easier' and
one parent thought that it was "about the same.n One mother wrote that
it was ”easier", perhaps because the boys had changed their attitude
about working since "mother was taking speech too.” Two of the mothers
who found the work "much easier" stated that they had a "better knowledge
of what to do." The mother who had found the work "about the same" said
that the clinician was doing such a good Job that the child did not need
home speech work. Here than.half of the parents had found that working
with their child was "much easier” than before attending the group meetings.
Question (h) asked if the parents were having any special problems
in doing speech work at home. Nine parents answered that they were, six
answered that they were having no problems sad one parent gave no answer.
Of the nine parents who were finding problems, two based these difficulties
on finding opportunities tO'work‘with the child.without distractions.

Four parents found it difficult to get the child to cooperate. One parent

92
could not find suitable equipment to work‘with the child. One mother
could not work with her child as often as she wanted to because of the
child's repeated illnesses.

Then, more than half of the pa rents who evaluated the program
'were having problems in working with their children after attending the
group meetings. Four of these nine parents had.mentioned difficulties
in working with their children at the time in which they completed the
first questionnaire. On the final questionnaire four additional parents
mentioned that they were having problems. On the basis of the infermation
obtained from the study, the author cannot verify the reasons for either
the continuation.or the increase of these problems in'working with children.

Question (5) was concerned with the regularity of working with the
child. Nine parents were working more regularly than before attending
the program and seven were working about the same amount of time. One of
these latter seven parents stated that she worked "whenever the opportunity
arose" and another mentioned that.previously she had only corrected the
child in conversation but now she knew "what he needed help in." fibre
than half of the parents were working more regularly with their children
than before attending the program.

Question (6) asked what activities were being carried on in the
home speech correction work. One parent did not answer this question.and
another said that she was doing nothing other than correcting the child
occasionally. In the listings given.mirror‘work, tongue placement for

sounds, drawing pictures of things with special sounds and finding pictures

93
for a scrapbook were each mentioned once. Finding sounds while counting,
word drills and using sock pwpets for imitation were each mentioned
twice. Finding sounds and repeating words correctly in reading were listed
three times. Games involving sounds were listed seven times. In com-
paring this information with the answers to this question on the initial
questionnaire, mirror work, tongue placement, drawing pictures with
special sounds and the use of sock puppets and sound games were new ac-
tivities being used.

Question (7) asked the parents' opinion about the value for the
child of doing speech work at home. Five parents stated that home speech
work was "very helpful." Eight stated that it was of "sore help" and
three thought that it was of "little help” because the children did not
cooperate well. More than half of the parents thought that working with
the child at home was of some value to the child.

In summary, from the information indicating the value of the pro-
gram the following can be soon: (1) each parent participating in the
evaluation of the program made at least one comment during the grow
meetings which indicated an increase of knowledge; (2) more than half of
the parents had found that speech work was easier and were working mom
regularly with their children; (3) more than half of the parents were
having problems in working with their children; (1;) every parent found
the program of some value and they each believed that they had gained

new information.

9h

Suggestions for Improving the Program

The third basis for evaluating the educational program for parents
was in noting the areas in which the parents themselves and the program
director saw need for improvement. The information for this section of
the evaluation is based mainly on the answers to the evaluation question-
naire because they were very similar to those answers given in the final
conference.

Question (2) concerned the number of meetirgs in the program.
Thirteen parents stated that there had been the "right" number of meet-
ings and one parent qualified this statement by adding "for a while."
Two mothers indicated that they would like more meetings and one parent
reported that his irregular attendance did not allow him to answer this
question.

Question (11) asked if the program should be continued throughout
the time the child was enrolled in the speech clinic. Seven parents re-
plied affirmatively. One mother thought that they should be continued
until the parent understands his child's speech problem. Four parents
felt that there should be periodic meetings and one mother thought that
one term was enough. One mother was "not sure" and another replied "not
necessarily."

Question (9) asked if the parents would have gained more if the
meetings had been conducted on an individual rather than on a group basis.
Fourteen parents answered "no", one parent answered "probably not", and

one mother answered "yes." In offering additional comments six parents

95
stated that the exchange of ideas in.the group made the group meetings
most beneficial. One mother explained that the group nmade you feel more
at ease." Two parents thought that both the group and individual cone
ferences would be beneficial.

Question (13) asked for suggestions for improving the program.
Eight parents had no suggestions and four stated that the progran.needed
no improvement. Four parents listed suggestions for improving the pro-
gram» One of these four mothers suggested that voice recordings would
have been helpful because parents often'become acareless in their own
speech." Another mother suggested that assignments from.the clinicians
would have been helpful. A third mother would have liked individual
meetings with the child's clinician, a special meeting for fathers and
more observation sessions. A fourth parent suggested that more time should
have been spent on an individual basis so that parents could have learned
more about their own children.

Although the answers to questions (2) and (11) seemed.contridictory
in several instances, it would.appear that the majority of parents did
see need for more meetings than were given and that they did believe that
the meetings should be on a group basis. More than half of the parents
gave no suggestions for improving the program.and.four of them stated
specifically that it was satisfactory. The suggestions for improvement
included.more individual conferences, a closer*contact with the child's
clinician, recordings of’the parents' voices, and.more periodic meetings

including one for fathers.

96

In summary, the evaluation of the group education program for par-
ents indicated that, on the basis of the oral and written comments and
the attendance of the parents, the program was of interest to the par-
ticipants. 0n the basis of the oral and written cements the program was
valuable to the parents and new infomation was gained from it. More
than half of the parents were satisfied with the program and would like
to attend more meetings.

After conducting the program, it appears to the author that the
group program was beneficial in helping the participating parents under-
stand their children's speech problems and learn some techniques for work-
ing with them at home. However, in the author's opinion the program was
too short to give enough information on problems of working with specific
children. ()1 the basis of the comments made on the questionnaire about
problems being encountered at home, it also appears that in some cases
the program did not contribute sufficient information to enable the
parents to conduct satisfactory home speech work.

The group situation seemed to be particularly successful in el-
lowing an interchange of ideas and in stimulating thought and interest on
the part of the parents concerning their children's speech problems.
Through the group situation encouragement was given to the participants
as they noted that their problems were not unique.

01 the basis of the parents'reactions to the observation sessions
it appears that this part of the program was particularly helpful in giving

a better understanding of the work that the child was doing in the clinic.

97
Hewever, it is likely that the understanding of the parents would have

increased if this portion of the program.had been expanded.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A group educational program on speech correction was conducted in
the speech clinic at Michigan State College for menty parents who had
children with articulatory problems enrolled in the speech clinic. There
were three groups of parents meeting each Saturday morning for eight
consecutive weeks. Instruction was given in each group on the nature
and causes of articulatory problems and suggestions were given on pro-
cedures and activities which could be used in doing speech work at home.

As a result of this study, the following conclusions seem to be
warranted:

l. The parents were interested in understanding their children's
speech problems and in learning ways in which they could
assist in the children's speech therapy.

2. A program of this type can help participatirg parents to
understand the nature and causes of their children's speech
problems and to learn techniques which the clinic uses in
correcting the children's speech.

3. The group structure in an educational program in speech
correction was desirable and valuable for parents in that
it offers a situation for an interchange of ideas and common
problems.

'4. In addition to group meetings, individual conferences are
necessary to most satisfactorily meet the specific needs and
problems encountered by parents.

5. In order to give adequate advice on speech work to be done
at home, the program director should maintain a close con-
tact with the speech clinicians to determine the therapy
which the child is receiving in the clinic and the child's
speech progress.

6.

7.

8.

9.

99

The program director must be aware of the abilities of
the parents and the attitudinal relationships between
the parents and the children before advising specialized
activities to be carried out in the home.

The program director must be able to vary the planned les-
son material to fit the interests and needs of the group
members.

Although there is insufficient evidence to verify this
conclusion, it is the opinion of this author that without
the consideration of the four preceding items a program
of this type might prove unsuccessful or even harmful in
instructing parents to do speech correction at home.

The majority of the parents in this study reported that

they were better able to carry on speech work at home after
attending the group meetings. However, there is insufficient
evidence to determine the effectiveness of their work and

to draw valid conclusions as to the merits of teaching par-
ents by this method to do speech correction at home.

BI mImRAPHY

A. BOOKS

Anderson, Virgil A., PInprovi% the Child's Speech. New York: Chiford
University Press, . 3WD.

Backus, Ollie, eech in Education. New York: Longmans, Green and
Comparv, 19 c BEE-pp.

Bender, James F., Victor Kleinfeld, Principles _a_n_d Practices of Speech
Correction. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, $938. 29 pp.

Irwin, Ruth Becky, Speech _a_n_c_1_ Hearing Therapy. New York: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1953. 2&3 pp-

Johnson, Wendell, and others, eech Handicapped School Children. New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1 . E514 PP.

 

editor, S eech Problems pi; Children. New York: Grune and

Parten, Mildred, Surveys, Polls _ap_d_ S lea: Practical Procedure.
New York: Harper 84: Brothers PubEa’sEers, 1930. 621; pp.

Rogers, Carl, The Clinical Treatment g_f_ £h_e_ Problem Child. New York:
Houghton mrmn Company, I939. 393 pp. " '

 

Van Riper, $1.5. _A_ Case Book .12. Speech Therapz, New York: Prentice-Hall,
1953. pp.

Speech Correction Principles and Methods, New York: Prentice-
Hall Inc., 19h7c 1‘70 pp.

B. PERIODICALS

Ainsworth, Stanley, "Lets humanize Against Speech Defects,‘l meia,
2533h8: May 19h7o

Chapin, Am Bishop, "Parent Education for Pro-School Speech Defective
Children," Journal 93 Exceptional Children, 15:75-80, January 19139.

"A Program for the Speech-Inhibited Child,” Journal 23 Speech
and Bearipg Disorders, 12:373-6, December 191:7.

101

Everhart, Rodney W., "The Relationship Between Articulation and Other
Developmental Factors in Children," Journal 2f. Speech and m
Disorders, 182332-38, Docember 1953.

Font, Marion McKenzie, "Some Exceptional Children Go Home to Enceptional
Parents,u Journal 9_1_' Excggional Children, 15:80-82, December 19118.

 

Greenberg, Harold A. , "Problems of Parents of Handicapped Children,"
Journal 23 Exceptional Children, 17:1-7, October 1950.

Laycock, S. R. , "Helping Parents to Accept Their Exceptional Children,"
Journal p_f_ Exceptional Children, 18:129-32, February 1952.

Smith, Abthena, "Parent Education and Group Therapy: An Episode,fl
Journal _9_f_ Clinical Pwholog, luau-17, April 191:8.

. Wood, Kenneth Scott, "Parental Maladjustment and Functional Articulatory

Defects in Children," Journal 23 Speech Disorders, 11:255-75,
December 191:6.

"The Parents' Role in the Clinical Program," Journal p_f_
Smash 29.51. Hearipg Disorders, 13:209-10, September 19113.
C. PAMPHIETS
Chapin, Am Bishop, Ruth Lundin, Your Child's S eech 222 5g _t_9_ grove
I1. The Press of Western Reserve Universi y, 9 9. 30 PP.

Gabbard, Hazel F., Worki With Parents. Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Prin ng Office, 19119. he pp.

Lessors, Deon, Fun and Plg With Sounds 13.1.1.9. Speech. San Francisco: Leon
Lassers, 1911.5".- '71- pp.

VanRiper, 0., Hel ' Children Talk Better. Chicago: Science Research
Associates, no., 1931. 118 pp.

D. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Hays, Ellis Robert, Rosemary Fackler Hays, "A Selected and Annotated List
of Materials Available for Use in the Counseling and Education of
Parents of Children With Speech and Hearing Disorders." Unpublished
Master's Thesis, University of Denver, 1951. 1439 pp.

102

Reed, Cervia 8., "The Attitudes of Parents Toward the Development of
Speech in Their Children." Research Report for Master's Degree,
Ball State Teachers College, 1950. 56 pp.

‘ Ropolo, Margaret, “An Investigation of Parental Influence on the Speech
Development of the Child." Unpublished Master's Thesis, College of
the Pacific, 1951. 9h pp.

CONTENTS

I.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

THE APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS ch THE APPENDIX

Primary Material on Programs of Parent Education.
A. List of persons from whom information was re-
quested s c o c o c e c o c e c o c o o e

B. Questionnaire form. 0 o c c c c c o c e o c c
C. letter accomparwing the questionnaire . . . .
D. Individual answers to the questionnaire . . .
Forms Used in the Initial Interview . . . . . . .
A. Check-sheet used by the interviewer . . . . .

Bo Initial questionnaire form. 0 c c c o e o c o 0

Material Distributed to Parents in Group Meetings

A. Recognizing your child's speech problem . . .
Bo Causes Of articulatory problems 0 c c o c c o
C. Hearing differences betwaen sounds. . . . . .
1D. Making SPBBCh sounds. o o c c c o o o c c o 0

Form for Recording Parents' Responses in Group
Meetings. 0 e c c o s c c c c c o c o c c o c o 0

Evaluation Questionnaire Form 0 s c c c s c c o a

Background Information on Subjects. . . . . . . .

PAGE
10h
101:
105
106
107
112
112
115
116
117
119
122
123

125

10h

Persons From Whom Information Was Requested
Regarding Programs of Parent Education

Dr. Ollie Backus, Director of the Speech Clinic, University of Alabama,
University, Alabama

Dr. Harlan Bloomer, Director of the Speech and Hearing Clinic, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Dr. Louis M. Dicarlo, Director of the Speech and Hearing Center, Syracuse
University, Syracuse, New York

Dr. Dorotlv Eckelmann, Assistant Director of the Speech Clinic, Illinois
State Normal University, Normal, Illinois

Dr. Warren H. Gardner, Professor of Hearing and Speech Therapy, Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, mic

Dr. Earnest H. Hendrikson, Director of the Speech and Hearing Clinic,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota

*Dr. J. Irwin, Director of the Speech and Hearing Clinic, University of
Nisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin

Dr. Ruth Becky Irwin, Speech and Hearing Clinic, (bio State Ulnversity,
Columbus, Chic

Dr. Wendell Johnson, Director of the Speech Clinic, State University of
Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Dr. Ivan P. Jordan, Director of the Speech and Hearing Clinic, Indiana
University, Blocnington, Indiana

Harriet Montague, John Tracy Clinic, University of Southern California,
has Angeles, California

Dr. Severina Nelson, Director of the Speech and Hearing Clinic, University
of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois

Dr. M. D. Steer, Director of the Speech and Hearing Clinic, Purdue Uni-
versity, West Lafayette, Indiana

Dr. Harold Nestlalce, Director of the Speech and Hearing Clinic, North-
western Umlversity, Evanston, Illinois

*Dr. Kenneth Scott Wood, Director of the Speech and Hearing Clinic, Uni-
versity of Oregon, Eugene, Ck-egon

* Persons from when information was not received.

105

For the purpose of conserving space and presenting the study in a

connect form, the questionnaires have been condensed to include only the
questions which were asked. On the original forms there was appropriate
space left after each question for more detailed answers.

 

QUESTIONNAIRE FORM QN_ PROGRAMS QB PARENT EDUCATION

Name Institution Date

1.
2.

3.

h.

5.

6.

 

Do you have a parent education program in your speech clinic?

Is your parent program conducted on an individual or on a group
basis?
Is there any special reason for organizing your program in this way?

 

Please check the following types of information which you give to par-
ents in your program:

1. Information on the therapy the child receives in the clinic

2. Information on speech activities which can be done in the hon

3. Information on the nature of speech defects

1:. Information on the causes of speech defects

5. Please list any other types of information which-is given in your

program:

Is the parent program scheduled for the same hour in which the child
is receiving clinical help? If not, please indicate when the

program is usually scheduled:

May I have permission to use this information in w thesis on parent
education?

Please add an additional comnents you may have on the organization
of your parent education program. Aw printed data which you might
have in this area would be greatly appreciated.

106

Letter Accompanying the Questionnaire Requesting
Information (11 Programs of Parent Education

December 16, 1953

 

 

 

 

Dear a

I am a graduate assistant in speech correction at Michigan State
College and a part of aw graduate program will include organizing and
conducting a program of speech education for parents who have children
em'olled in our speech clinic. Since there is little published informa-
tion covering this area, I am interested in knowing about an parent
program which may be organised in your clinic. Would you be kind enough
to help me by completing the enclosed for. and returning it to me at
your earliest convenience?

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Ruth Voorhees

107

Individual insure to the Questionnaire on
Programs of Parent Education

Dr. Ollie Backus, University of Alabama: Dr. Backus indicated that her
mnic Has a parent education program and conducts it on both an individ-
ual and group basis because they think it "is most productive." In-
formation is given on the following areas: information on the therapy

the child receives in the clinic, what can be done at home, and on the
nature and causes of speech defects. She states: "Most important is
therapeutic experience (feeling level) of parents regarding attitudes they
have toward the child, discipline, etc." The program is usually scheduled
for the first hour of each day. The clinic is arranged in a six week
block. The parents come with the child and attend four one hour group
meetings for six weeks. In addition, the parents observe clinical lessons.
Dr. Backus indicates, "The least important thing parents can do at hone

is work on speech - often harmful also I think."

Prudence Brown University of mchigan, for Harlan Bloomer: Miss Brown
Indicated a her clinic had a program of parent education conducted on
both an individual and group basis. The following information was given
in the program: therapy which the child receives in the clinic, speech
activities which can be done in the home, nature and causes of speech
defects. A counseling for parents was offered by a psychiatric social
worker. The program is usually conducted during the period in which the
child is working, but individual conferences are sometimes scheduled at
the parents' convenience. Miss Brown adds the following information:

Procedure varies somewhat according to the program
in which the child is enrolled. In six and eight week
intensive programs more individual work is done since
group meetings are often difficult to organize. In the
two weeks program for pro-school children, a child is
not accepted unless one parent can be present for a
group nesting each day. It is supplemented by individ-
ual counseling as it seems to be indicated.

Dr. Louis DiCarlo, Syracuse University: Dr. Dicarlo indicated that his

nic had a program of parent education organized on both an individual
and a group basis. He mentioned, "Our objectives include facilitating
and expediting transfer as early as possible. Where the parents can
actively participate we provide the Opportunity. Where the level of
skills is beyond the parents we attempt to promote insight into the
children's problems so that behavior is suggested that will arrest more
serious consequences.“ The following information is included in the
program: information on the therapy the child receives in the clinic,
information on speech activities which can be done in the home , nature
and causes of speech defects. The program for parents is conducted

108

during the time the child is in the clinic "if possible." In addition,
group meetings are held "in the evenings and at other times." Dr. DiCarlo
adds: “We also try where advisable to give parents an insight into their
own behavior with respect to their children. In addition we suggest a
number of sources they may look up to help them handle their own and
children's problems. We make ourselves available to them whenever they
feel a need and provide therapy when the necessity is indicated."

Frederic “1.1ng State University of Iowa, for Wendell Johnson: Mr. Darley
Eacated tha 5 clinic had organized a program of parent education on
both an individual and grow basis. He mentioned, ”Duperience has shown
that a blend of individual conferences and grow discussion (feasible with
us only in our Sumner Clinic) works best." The following information is
given in the program: information on therapy the child receives in the
clinic, information on speech activities which can be done in the home,
information on the nature and causes of speech defects and local re-
courses parents should draw upon in getting help for their children.

Mr. Darley indicated that the program was not conducted while the child
was in the clinic added:

Our parent program is fairly modest. The cases
(other than local children with whose parents we confer
frequently) are from all corners of the state - mostly
rural dwellers. We have not found it feasible to have
parents here for extended periods. We consult with
them at length at the close of a semester's therapy.

In the summer there is a highly organised parent con-
ference and we often ask parents to read further on the
subject concerned.

Mr. Darley inclosed information on the summer conference for parents and
the reading list given to them.

Doroth Eckelmann Illinois State Normal University: Dr. Eckelmann men-
Honec‘l Wc has a parent program which is ”not consistent and
highly informal." It is organized on both an individual and grow basis
since," it is more expedient to use individual conferences because of our
scheduling. However, in the summer when we have fair-sized grows par-
ticularly of pre-school children and stutters, the grow situation seems
most desirable.'1 The following information is given in this program:
the therapy which the child receives in the clinic, speech activities
which can be done at home, the nature and causes of speech problems, and
further sources of speech, medical and psychological therapy. In addi-
tion notebooks and worksheets are distributed and checked with the
parents. Printed and mimographed material is also available. The time
for the program varies and sometimes it is conducted during the child's
therapy and at other times it precedes or follows the child's lesson.

109

Parents are sometimes requested to ”sit in" on the child's lesson. Miss
Eckelmann states further:

With many parents, particularly those of children
regularly enrolled in our Special Education Building
we ask for conferences as the need arises or we arrange
for conferences at the time the classroom teacher holds
conferences with parents. with these we also make fre-
quent telephone conferences.

This area of parents education is one we always hope
to do more about. As our program has grown it had become
increasingly difficult to arrange for the frequent, brief
conferences which I feel are the most valuable after the
initial conferences.

Warren Gardner Western Reserve University: Dr. Gardner indicated that
his clinic had organized a program for parents on both an individual and
a grow basis. He mentioned the reason for this organization was, "for
practical reasons since some parents need individual orientation and ex-
planations. The grow is very helpful to establish objectivity.” As
part of the program, information is given on the following areas: therapy
which the child receives in the clinic; actiVities which can be done in
the home: the nature and causes of speech defects. In addition parents
may observe clinical lessons and booklets are distributed to them. The
program is "usually” conducted while the child receives therapy but other
meetings are also required. Dr. Gardner gave reference to m Chapin's
article which had information on parent education.

Dr. E. _H_. HendriksgpJ University of Minnesota: Dr. Hendrikson indicated
1that his clinic had a program of parent education organized on both an
individual and grow basis. The program contained information on the
following areas: therapy which the child receives in the clinic, speech
activities which can be done at home, and the nature and causes of speech
defects. He indicated that .'at times" the program was conducted while
the child was receiving therapy.

Dr. Ruth Bec Irwin, Chic State University: Dr. Irwin indicated that
Er clinic a a program of parent education organized on both an in-
dividual and a grow basis. The reason for this organization was,
“convenience - whenever possible regular grow sessions are held."
Regular grow meetings are held twice weekly for mothers of children on-
rolled in the clinic as part of the clinical practice classes. During
the program information was given on the following tapics: therapy the
child receives in the clinic; activities in speech which can be cbne at
home, nature and causes of speech defects, behavior disorders in relation

110

to speech, hearing testing, and films. Dr. Irwin indicates, "some tepics
grow out of the needs and interests of parents and vary from term to term."
The program is conducted while the child receives speech work. Dr. Irwin
gave reference to material from her book, Speech inf}. Hearing Therapy, and
mentioned that her clinical practice classes rotate in instructing par-
ents. Each student has at least two weeks with parent meetings. Some
therapists have the parents observe therapy and practice under observation.

9;. Ivan 1;. Jordan, Indiana University:. Dr. Jordan mentioned that his
clinic had a parent program organized on both an individual and a group
basis. He stated the following:

We conduct a year-round resident clinic for speech
and/ or hearing handicapped children. The final
week of the Spring and Summer terms is devoted to
parent education. me or both parents live on the
campus during this week and attend scheduled grow
meetings in which etiology, problems, and general
principles of therapy are discussed and illustrated.
Following these, the parents attend individual
conferences which cover problems and therapy
specific to their children.

Information in the program includes the above mentioned items and also

Dr. Jordan stated, "as nearly as possible we try to give the parent one
specific speech activity to carry on at home. The parent and child are
then followed by means of periodic out-patient interviews in which hora
therapy is evaluated and altered as the child's progress indicates."

Dr. Jordan indicated that the grow conferences were scheduled during the '
child's period of therapy. Sample copies of printed materials given to
parents were enclosed with the questionnaire. Dr. Jordan mentioned, "This
is a good area."

Harriet Montague, John Tracy Clinic: Harriet Montague indicated that
their 'whole program was based on parent education on both an individual
and group basis. She felt, "All parents need the experience of group
work and grow discussion. They also need individual encouragement and
help.” The information usually given is on the therapy the child re-
ceives in the hearing clinic and on activities which can be done at home.
She states, "The mother must spend two days a week in the clinic observ-
ing, assisting on the playground, attending lectures and participating in
grow programs. The lectures deal with the commnication problems of the
deaf child and with the psychological problems of the child and the par-
ents." Miss Montague outlined the program for parents including weekly
classes and conferences and the Summer School program and mentioned the
correspondence course covering one year of work which is sent to more than
5,000 families throughout the world.

111

Dr. Severina Nelson, University of Illinois: Dr. Nelson indicated that
their program of parent education was conducted on both an individual

and on a grow basis since it was "necessary at times to see parents in-
dividually." Included in the program was information on the following
items: therapy which the child receives in the clinic, speech activities
which can be done at home, nature and causes of speech defects, and books
on certain areas. The program was "usually" held during the child's
therapy however group meetings were held at "different times." Dr. Nelson
indicated that a reading room was available for use by parents.

 

Dr. M. D. Steer, Purdue University: Dr. Steer indicated that a program
for parents was existent in their sunnner and out-patient clinics only and
was conducted on both an individual and grow basis. Included in the
program was information on the following items: therapy the child re-
ceives in the clinic, speech activities which can be done in the home,

and the nature and causes of speech defects. The program was "sometimes"
in operation during the time the child received speech work depending upon
"the availability of the parents and the senior clinicians."

Dr. Harold Westlake, Northwestern University: Dr. Westlake indicated that
EH. p—‘aren‘t' program in his clinic was organized on both an individual and

on a grow basis since "group work is more efficient and has advantages

and some parents are not ready for grows and require individual help first."
In his program, information was given on the following items: therapy

which the child receives in the clinic, speech activities which can be

done in the home, and the nature and causes of speech problems. The pro-
gram is "usually" scheduled for the time in which the child is receiving
speech therapy. Dr. Westlake indicated further:

Our parent groups are for articulatory, incipient
stutterers, young stutterers and adolescent stutterers,
cleft palate and cerebral palsy cases. We have se-
parate groups for these types to take care of unique
problems.

112
For the purpose of conserving space and presenting the study in a
compact form, the questionnaires have been condensed to include only the

questions which were asked. On the original forms there was appropriate
space left after each question for more detailed answers.

Name Date

 

I. Information 21; Meetings:

1. Do you wish to attend the parent meetings?

B. Do you feel you could attend regularly? If not, are there any
special reasons why you could not attend reg—Elarly?

0. Do you think your husband or wife could also attend? If not,
why would he or she be unable to come?

D. Is there a special hour betwaen 9 and 12 MN. on Saturday which would
be most convenient for you to come with your child?

E. Are there any special things you would like to discuss in these parent
meetings? If so, please list them:

II. Special comments :

INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE Egg gag PARENT PROGRAM

 

Name Address Tel.

 

I. Your Child's Speech Problem

A. What, in your opinion, is your child's speech problem?

B. What do you think caused this speech problem?

II.

C.

D.

E.

A.

B.

C.

D.

F.

113

Do you think your child's speech would be better if he would
only try harder? Please explain:

Are you ever embarrassed because of your child's speech?
If so, in what kinds of situations?

Does your child ever seem embarrassed or bothered because of his
speech? If so, in what kinds of situations and how does
he show this?

Speech Correction _aj; Home

At present, are you doing speech work with your child at home?
If not, are there any special reasons why you are not doing speech
work with him?

Has the speech clinician given you suggestions on speech activi-
ties which you can do at home with your child?

What kinds of things has she suggested?

Have you been able to carry out all these suggestions?

In addition to these suggested activities, have you done amr
others? If so, please list some of them:

Who usually works with the child at home? mother father
both brother or sister . Please indica if there is
a speciE reason why this person usually works with the child:

Do you generally work with your child in speech each day?
Generally, how long do you work each time? Do you have a
special hour for this speech work? If so, when?

Are you having any special problems in doing speech work with your
child? If so, please list some of them:

Do any members of the family tease the child about his speech until
it bothers him? If so, who does this and how does the child

usually react?

111;

G. Do you try to correct your child whenever he has particular dif-
ficulty in speaking? Do you correct him: Most of the
time , Part of the time , Occasionally

Are there special times when you always correct him? If so,
when? '

Are there special occasions when you never correct him?
If so, what are these circumstances?

 

III. General Information

A. List the members of the family and their ages:

Nam _A_g_e_ Livipg at Home?

B. Education of Parents: (indicate which is most appropriate)

1. father: grade school - , high school , college , degree-—
2. mother: grade school , high school , college , degree __

C. Occwations of parents:

1. father working hours
2. mother working hours

D. Is the general health of the family: poor , good , average __
List any members of the family that are in poor health:

Name Health Problem

E. Does any other member of the family have a speech problem?
If so, please list:

Name m Problem Has it Been Corrected When Where

115

Speech Correction Work 22 Home
Unit One - Recognizirg Your Child's Speech Problem

There are some 1: million school children - about 5% of the total
school population - in the United States who have speech problems. About
75% of them have problems of articulation where the sounds in words are
not made correctly. Your child is one of these 3,000,000 children who
need help in their speech so that it is easier to understand their words.

The words we say are made up of sounds. For example, in saying
"soap" we have )4 letters but only 3 sounds - "s,” "o," and "p." There are
four ways in which we can make these or any sound incorrectly so that a
word such as "soap" will be hard to understand.

1. We can substitute a wrong sound for the right one. If we said
"tepe" we would have made the "t" sound instead of an ”s.”

2. We can leave out a sound. "Soap" night he just "ope" and we
have left out the “s.”

3. We might distort a sound. If we put our tongue in the wrong
place or let out too much air, the "s" might whistle or sound

"slushy. "

h. We can put too nary sounds in words. Instead of saying "soap"
we might say "serope" and we would have added an "er" which
didn't belong.

(he of the first and most important ways you can help your child's
speech is to find out just what he does with sounds that makes his words
hard to understand. Here are some ways you can do this by being a good
listener:

1. For older children, try playing some question games. Perhaps
you can be thinking of some familiar object or person and let
the whole family try guessing who or what it is. Listen for
an sound errors.

2. With younger children you can look at pictures and objects
together and talk about them, listening for sounds which he
may substitute, leave out, add or distort.

3. Another way is to observe him when he is talking‘to you in
different situations such as asking for something, telling you
something, or answering a question to see if he makes the
same errors in every situation.

116

1:. Note if he can make a sound in one word and yet misses the
same sound in another word. For example, many times a child
might say "won" for "run" and yet say the "r" sound correctly
in "rabbit” or "carrot.”

For this first week he a good listener and don't try to correct your
child when he makes mistakes in speech. Wait until you're sure just what
has to be corrected. Speech work takes time, listening and a great deal
of patience. But, you'll see - it can be lots of fun and interesting tool

Unit Two - Causes pf; Articulatory Problems

During the past week you have been listening closely to your child-
ren, trying to find out what sounds they are substituting, omitting, adding,
or distorting in words. This has been a difficult job, but often it
becomes even more difficult to determine why these articulatory problems
occur.

The process of learning to talk begins from the first cries of the
tirw baby and progresses through his first few years as he learns to make
his cries, cooings and babblings mean something to others around him. He
learns the very difficult process of talking by practicing sounds, listen-
ing to others and finally by imitating the speech that he hears and watching
how others respond to it. There are many factors which may occur in a
child's life which may upset this complex process and may be causes of
articulatory problems.

In thinking of the causes for articulatory problems, we can divide
them into physical and non-physical causes. Some of the physical causes

may be:

1. Birth injuries may result in mental retardation, loss of 1
control of muscles used in speech or a hearing loss.

2. Illnesses or injuries during the time of speech develOpment
which can damage the speech organs or leave the child too
weak to try to learn speech.

3. Jumbled or irregular teeth may make it more difficult for a
child to make sounds correctly.

1:. The child may be slow in develOping good muscular coordination
which is necessary for adequate speech development.

117

More frequently there may be non-physical causes for articulatory
problems such as these:

1.

2.

3.

h.

Because the family may over-anticipate a child's wants and
needs, or interpret what he says to others, the child may have
no need to use better speech.

Even with normal hearing he may not be able to distinguish
differences between sounds in words.

He may not receive enough attention when he talks so that he
feels that good speech is worthwhile.

He may be imitating poor speech in his family.

Here are some of the ways in which every parent can help to eliminate
some of the factors which may be allowing articulatory problems to con-

tinue :

1.

2.

3.

Set good speech examples by talking slowly and clearly enough
so that you can be easily understood.

Show your child you're interested in what he has to say by
taking time to listen to him and by giving him Opportunities
to talk without interruptions.

Emphasize praise for effort and improvanent rather than con-
stant correction for mistakes.

Unit Three - Hearing Differences Between Sounds

 

Before a child learns to say sounds in words he must know that they
are there and hear them in the words that other people say. This requires
listening for these sounds as they are made alone and in words. Here are
some ways that you can help make this listening time a ”fun time.”

1.

Try working with the child on listening to non-speech sounds
before beginning on speech sounds. Such activities as tap-
ping on different objects (glasses, metal, wood), making
different noises, blowing whistles, ringing bells are good
ways to see if the child can guess what you are doing and
can hear a difference betwoen these gross sounds.

118

2. Pick a special sound for the child to listen for. Perhaps
you will find it best to work on a different sound every
few days. Make the sound for him rather than calling it by
its letter name. For exanple, call it "ssss" rather than the
'8" sound.

3. Collect a few objects, pictures and words which contain the
sound. Remember not to confuse the spelling and the speech
sounds. For example, "city" and "sun" start with the same
speech sound.

h. Find some activity your child especially enjoys and center
the listening around that.

a. Games can be used where the child must recognize whether
the sound is present in the words you say or the pictures
you name in order to take his turn.

b. Guessing games can be played by all of the family where
you must guess the object or person that has the certain
sound.

c. Have the child perform some activity when he hears the
sound in words or pictures.

<1. You can have a number of pictures or objects and let the
child sort those that contain that sound.

e. Younger children like to have the sounds named. For ex-
ample, "ch,ch," is the train sound, and "2,2," is the
blisy bee sound.

f. Older children can count the number of words you say or
hear on T.V. or objects in different rooms with that
sound.

5. Remember, these are listening times so don't ask ham to say
the words nor correct him if he doesn't make the sound correctly. The
process of learning to make sounds takes time and should not be hurried.
Listening is the first step in learning to make sounds in words.

If you help your child learn to be a good and careful listener he
will be much more apt to find it easier to be a good speaker.

119

5.00.5
whofiaom an?»
egg...

noose.» .8953
:3:

Eu: 4830 «.859:
as:

no» .33
39.

Nm .«oz

950 3..“an one swoop shown some:
on» do m3. osmaop one 3339 .3 opus opd 50m

 

 

850m sfioaamamoa .H

950 mafia—Hp on... 93H o5 weave—son hp opus one 50m

node
3.3 o5 manhood. .3 opus Egon magnum a a.“ as:

so: one
uofiomop o5...” Hook doom .oood much 5” US- 93.3»
.39» 5" Hoe.“ doc :05 pofi canoe Home: a o.“ as:

Ego and an on» 395 see 333 on e35
.3... wnfiaofl woomoao on: one wuaoox he. once one 50m

 

mefiom mm .H

.33 .595
.58» .8.» x55
.23..

SE: ea .33:
an}.

oodon gov .88:
:5.

m3. .oHnEo .03
:9.

9.0 mm

.83: ea dosage no.“ one: on 3 human.” woos ohm :03.» 35.3 and—8300 oha onom .3225
3" no: doom due .99» ganged: o.“ venom o5 son: one pooh? Hook 5.. @5955 Pa doom fade ooh apogee

3” 9:6» o5 dons

 

.233 showed. a no ego» .3359. w nofiao ow zoooao a.“ one... o3 Egon had

858 sotmm and: .. you page

 

 

 

oeom mum 3.83 dogoonuoo goooMm

120

new .soflosfi .woo
:U:

Page
.3?5 63%.?
sh:

hogan.“ Joshua .55
choc an:

onoooouu.
ans:

noose
.2336 £25.“...
an:

.mohc 39.8....

.5. 33...: us. see. BBB B 3.3 .3. was...
.53» “Eon.“ no» o5 no soon. a...” owed.” a o5 do
Pawnee on». no as» on... 3.39?” hp opus one 5.0m

356m ommflm a I a .bH

 

$583 on. on 33.3
one. do snoop home: new o5 No.39...“ hp opus one 50m

 

 

355m mmufiooa .HHH

.Aofihfi 3h .- x03.

353 his... a. 9.. taped 93...... . s33... a.
no... one pmooxo an: on he: osao one dog a.“ owes

a. .28.. 2a 3...... 3 55 .33 have... 33..

o o.“ 9.3. 398» one :58 coeds? 5..» one one
.fioop no... o5 mo meson.“ o5 3.30.93 89.89 on»
no use“. 23 6&5. 8mg... 23 no one? 23 an:
ones a.“ an: .353 A30: 5.3 one choc one s...

.223...

voodoo.“ one on: one .hosoa QB. .— aw m3 333
.5 e5 Dogma: Bee... 3 one...» .5 mo «need.
one pdooxe uni: no 88» on... 5733 opus one 5.0m

stem some.» 3.5 Ede 88?. a. ha .5

.58... need do... .5 BBB has»... 5.8 d3 3»
Bozo» .5 pea en. a»... so... no... .5 no .38.. .5
do cameo». on... Me mean 23. magnum hp and: one 50m

333 5:3
3%:

83
.pconmoflo .hofiam

am:

no“
.9533: .oono

and:

8.00»
.3.vo o3" .55
an:

121

£0.30 .gaamh
.13..

m3.” £3

ME .comwk .finm
=m=

33 £833 .953

:H:

ads .2383. .30:
on:

oon
.53 .953.
gnaw:

.333 p.38 23 no £8... 23 .3 x25 23 pa .3
3.989 23 mo x03 05 :w: 5” ma. .5355 05 Ho
moon 93 Pogo». 3955 a.“ 2.930 mop .Ho good:

93 pmooxo gm: 3 05m 23 .333 mom: a.“ sh:

oomoc Hook 5” doom

so do.» pan» canon Hang a ad 35. .985 3” Bo:
duo .99» no.3 oawoov on» 9.3.50.” .Ho 2.3.3..” £5. aw:
ad 03.3 28» 05 o.“ common 93 5a: moms m.“ awn:

...m on. u... no.3 .83 Ba 5. o5 f. no.3
9 33.. no.» can: .32... 9.38.. a 33." 3 .8 33.3
83 no» 635980 5.50 on... am odd 5. v8. =6 38
f. 56.8 89.3 .5 33 us. .833 23 323 a:
33.5 .3. 9333 .352. 23 .30 x03 05. .3 33am
flow 23. “Kama x03 23 magnum hp cows and 50m

 

 

oogom ommooslxoom .>

_ 33on .899:

05 mo .83. 23 co .3 .3 as. .3 Ba .3233. 56o
33.5.8 2.. 2&8» on... .3 .323... 23 pan... 3088 .5.
ma mean one .383: cows ad a.“ US. 5.30 .893 on».
no £39 a.“ omofip How one no a...» 298.... 05 was ad:

.35.. .3 288 .5. .323 93.3 .3 3332 33 $3..
How on» no 33 compo» o5 mafia...” .3 onus 03 pH
.30: Hook 5” How.“ duo ooh no.3: goo Hand: a 3.. :5.

sons: dad to: Ho nadadnfinaoo a nd enact

Jim: and fit. Ho ooapacflaoo a a.“ .20.. .253 95000
05 you 38.3.32“ 35 .5 9:63am on. Boon 933%

23. no.“ :oflhmom a.“ 0.933 on... 92.32“ hp mode on-
v5 moafloo 05. .Ho mcofipuagaoo and gang. find .30..

£035
530 mo.“ .90

:x:

3332. £935
anon

FORM FOR RECORDING PARENT RESPONSES

 

Mbeting Number

 

Parent (f)

Spontaneous
Comments

Group Number

Parent ( )

 

Parentjp)

Parent (p)

 

Questions

 

Answers to
Direct
Questions

 

Response
Indicating
Knowledge
Gained

 

Indicate by checks in the appropriate column the number and type of
responses made by parents.

Content of Lesson and Comments:

122

123

For the purpose of conserving space and presenting the study in a
compact form, the questionnaires have been condensed to include only the
questions which were asked. 0n the original forms there was appropriate
space left after each question for more detailed answers.

EVALUATION UE‘STIONNAIRE or THE GROUP nIscuasIou PRmRAM Egg PARENTS 91:
LTmD ARM-ROW ___._.

This information will be used to help us determine how effective
this program has been. No names will be used in the written evaluation
of this program.

Space has been left after each question for you to explain your
answers more fully.

Name

 

1. Please rate this program for parents according to its value for you:
a. Very helpful
b. Of some help
c. Of very little help

2. In your opinion there have been:
a. The right number of meetings
b. Too many meetings
c. Too few meetings

3. Do you find that doing speech work with your child is:
a. Much easier than before attending the program
b. A little easier than before the program
c. About the same as before the program
d. Harder than before attending the program

1:. Are you having am problems in doing speech work with your child?

5. At present you are working with your child in speech:
a. More regularly than before attending the program

b. About the same amount of time as before attending the program

0. Less regularly than before the program

6. What kinds of speech activities are you doing with your child?

7. In your opinion, doing speech work at home has been:
a. Very helpful to the child
b. Of some help to the child
c. 01‘ little help to the child

12b
8. If there were more of these meetings would you like to attend?

9. Do you feel you would have gained more if the meetings had been con-
ducted on an individual rather than a group basis?

10. Do you think that all parents who bring children to the clinic should
be required to come to meetings of this type?

11. In your opinion, should these meetings be continued as long as the
child is in the speech clinic?

1?. Has this parent program given you any new information which has been
of help to you in working with your child?

13. Please give us any suggestions you may have as to how this program
could be improved. (use the back of this page if necessary.)

125

Background Information 931 Subaects

For a better understanding of this study, it was necessary to com-
pile a brief background sketch of the parents who indicated that they
would attend the program. The information given has been based on the
material gained from the initial and final questionnaires and interviews.
No attenpt has been made to give a complete case history on the subjects.

Each parent has been referred to by designated letters. In cases
where both parents have been mentioned the titles ‘Mrs.," or "Mr." precede
the famly letter.

Family A

Educational and occupational information. Mrs. A graduated from business
school and her husband graduated from college. Mr. A was working as a
road design engineer for the State Highway Department and Mrs. A was not
working outside the home. Mrs. A listed her husband's working hours as,
"approximately forty hours a week," and mentioned he would be unable to
attend Saturday meetings.

 

Faun. inionnation. Mrs. A was forty-one years old and Mr. A was forty-

They have two sons aged five and eight and a daughter aged seven-
teen. Both boys had articulatory problems, however only the five-year-
old was enrolled in the college clinic at the time of the parent meetings.
Both bays attended public school speech classes. Child A had been en-
rolled in the college speech clinic for three terms and diagnostic tests
noted severe articulatory problems with inconsistent omissions and sub-
stitutions.

Information from _t_hg parents 9_n_ the child's speech problem. Mrs. A
stated that the child's speech problem was in "articulation" and it was
probably caused by imitating his older brother's speech. She felt that
the child's speech would be better if he tried harder. The child
"feels bad when the family fails to understand something he is explain-
ing." Mrs. A remarked at her own embarrassment when “even I am unable
to understand him."

Home 3 ech work. Previous to the parent meetings, Mrs. A had been
mug wi the child by "repe ating his prayers slowly and deliberately
and in trying to get him to say every syllable." She mentioned that the
family “constantly try to help him but not to the point of antagonizing
him." Someone in the family generally works with the child each day

"as the occasion arises during conversation." None of the family tease
the child about his speech. Conversational correction was done "part of
the time particularly on new names and words, but never when he was
emotionally upset or over-tired.a

126

Mrs. A mentioned that the clinicians had informed her of the
sounds that the child was working on and has suggested activities for
her to do at home. She has been unable to carry out these suggestions
because of a "lack of cOOperation from M--- after he leaves the clinic."
She felt that child has made decided improvement but that he still resented
"having to say words over.”

Mrs. A mentioned that as part of the program "information regarding
your methods of working with the children would be very beneficial; par-
ticularly methods for forming various problem sounds."

Parent evaluation of the program. Mrs. A attended all of the group meet-
ings. She rated the. program as I'very helpful." and stated that she had
gained new ideas from the group meetings. She said, "I gained a great
deal of understanding of speech problems and the value of patience, plus
ways of helping M--- that I never would have thought of by myself." She
went on to say that although the child did not "respond at present to
some of the methods of helping him that were suggested" she would have
use for these ideas in the future.

Mrs. A felt that doing speech work with her son was "a little
easier" than before attending the group meetings. She was spending about
the same amount of time in working with him and was setting aside no re-
gular time because this had not proven effective. She did speech work
with the child "when the occasion arose" and used his interest in learn-
ing to count as a basis for finding and drilling on specific sounds. Mrs. A
felt that her main problem was I"to incorporate the sounds he is able to
make correctly in his conversation." While she could see signs of improve-
ment she hesitated to 'take much of the credit for it."

Mrs. A mentioned that there had been "too few" meetings but that
more might have become "too technical for parents who aren't attempting
to make a career of speech correction." Mrs. A preferred to have meet-
ings on a group rather than on an individual basis. ”Individual meetings
might cause one to over-emphasize their particular problem and there is
something to be gained from a group exchaxge of ideas." She decided that
all parents who have a child enrolled in the speech clinic should be re-
quired to attend these meetings "a minimum of one term" and that "one
term each succeeding year should be continued for all parents to keep
them alert on the methods used in helping children."

During the final conference the director of the program comented
that Mrs. A had left the question concerning suggestions for the program.
Mrs. A stated, "I have nothing to offer in this respect. The meetings
were friendly, interesting and informative." Mrs. A mentioned that she
had particularly enjoyed the observation lessons and wished that she might
have more of them.

127

Family B

Educational and occqutional information. I‘h‘s. B had some college work
and Mr. B is a _high school graduate. Mr. B works five days a week from
8 A.M. to S P.M. as a draftsman. m. B is not employed outside the
home. Mr. B would be unable to attend the Saturday meetings.

 

 

P:anpl%information. Mr. B was thirty and his wife was thirty-three. They
v 0 daughters aged five and three. The five-year-old had attended
the college clinic for three terms previous to the parent meetings. The
original diagnostic tests showed retarded speech development and refusal
to use speech. Later tests showed that the child was using speech and the
problem had become one of an articulatory nature with inconsistent sub-
stitutions and omissions.

Information from parents pp 3313 child's speech roblem. Mrs. B stated
that the childe speech problem was that "it is di ficult for her to form
sounds correctly." In the area of causal factors she was I'willing to go
along with the conclusion of the Psychology Clinic that it was due to
damage to the brain tissue either before or during birth plus an auto ac-
cident in which she received a cut on the forehead." Mrs. B indicated that
she felt the child could do better in speech but she was "clinging to her
own way of pronouncing words rather than trying to say them correctly.”
Mrs. B felt that neither she nor the child were embarrassed by the child's
speech. No one in the family was teasing the child about her speech and
everyone was "pleased with her progress in the last few months."

 

Home ech w___ork. Previous to the parent meetings Mrs. B had done no
speech wor which had not been suggested by the clinicians. Previous
clinicians had suggested that they "concentrate on the 'm' sound but it
was suggested a few months ago that we were trying too hard to make her
say certain words. Then we stepped working."

Mrs. B mentioned that when speech work was done at home the younger
sister usually "corrects" the child and that "it works better than if my
husband or I try." Correction is done occasionally but never in front of
other children. The main problem noted by Mrs. B was that the child was
”inconsistent in using the same sound in different words." Mrs. B wanted
to discuss this problem in the parent meetings.

Parent evaluation of the proLam. Mrs. B attended all of the group meet-
ings and rated the—- program as being "very helpful to the extent that I know
how to help her on 'spur of the moment' occasions." She felt that the
I'listening part of the information" was most beneficial to her. In the
conference she explained that she was referring to auditory discriflnation
activities.

 

 

128

Mrs. B felt that there were the right number of meetings but that
if there were more meetings she would like to attend. She was working
with the child more regularly and was finding it much easier. Her main
problem was that "I can't get her to cowerate with me." The activities
that she was doing with the child were mainly reading and counting.

Mrs. B felt that the work was of "some" help to the child.

Mrs. B felt that group meetings were more helpful than individual
ones would have been. She believed that they should be continued as long
as the child remained in the clinic. Her reason for this belief ard her
idea that parents should be required to attend these meetings is clarified
in her statement, "each of us who attended found out how we were wrong
in what we were doing - aryway I did." Mrs. B mentioned in the interview
that she had learned that she must give the child opportunities for using
speech and "not to push her.” Mrs. B especially enjoyed the observation
meetings and mentioned that she had gained many new ideas from them. She
had no suggestions for improving the program.

Family 0

Educational and occupational information. Mr. C was not living at home
during the term preceding the parent meetings, because the research for
his doctoral dissertation kept him in another part of the state. Mrs. C,
a college graduate, was teaching high school physical education until her
husband finished his degree.

Fast]. information. Mrs. C was thirty-three and her husband thirty-five.

y ave 1340 daughters aged two and four and a son aged nine. The four-
year-old and the boy had been enrolled in the speech clinic for one tem.
The son had had some previous speech work in another clinic but had stop-
ped when it became apparent that he had "tendencies for stuttering." The
diagnostic test at this clinic showed him as having substitutions on "r'I
and "l." The girl was diagnosed as having delayed speech and she had
made no attempt to use words. Mrs. C was included in the program because
of the son's articulatory problem.

 

Information from the arents pp _t_h_e_ child's each problem. Mrs. C's main
concern was with her daughter who "does not al at all - no motivation.”
She mentioned that the son's problem was in "articulation 2 mostly con-
sonants." She felt that he "talks faster than he can sound his words
properly.” Mrs. C mntioned that they had never "pushed the boy and that
"at least he doesn't stutter." Mrs. C did not believe that either of the
children were bothered by their speech problem.

It was explained to Mrs. C that the parent grows were discussing
problems and methods of correction for children with articulatory disorders.

129

Since that was the case, most of the material would not apply to working
with the younger child. Even though she noted that she was not worried
about the boy's speech, she wanted to attend the meetings. Her main
concern was still with the girl. As the younger child progressed in
clirdcal work she gained a great deal of speech and she reached a point
where sound and word imitation was being mastered. With this progress it
was possible to suggest activities for correcting sound which could be
used for motivation purposes in stimulating speech.

Home 8 ech work. Mrs. C said that there had been no suggestions from
the clinic ans as to home speech work. However, she usually tried to work
with the children every day. The activities mentioned were in “trying

to pronounce words slowly and distinctly." She corrected the boy "part
of the time" but never when "we are in a crowd." In mentioning what she
would like to discuss she wrote, umotivation for the younger child.”

Parent evaluation _o'_f t_h_e_ program. Mrs. C attended six of the grow meet-
ings. She was absent twice due to sickness in the family. In the question-
naire she mentioned that the program was of "some help" and that the
“greatest single value" came in observing the clinical lessons.

Mrs. C was working more regularly with the children and was finding
it a "little easier.” She listed only “imitating games" for the younger
child as being a part of her speech activities. She felt that speech
work was of "some help to the children" but there were “too many dis-
tractions and too little time."

Mrs. C felt that there had been enough meetings and that there
would be cases where some parents need not be required to attend meetings
of this type. In her own case she mentioned that a ”certain number of
meetings a year would be nice." She indicated a prefereme for grow
meetings because "the discussions were helpful from the standpoint of
finding so many similar problems.” She gave no suggestions for improv-
ing the program.

During the final conference Mrs. C cemented on the younger
child's progress and how hard it was not to expect too much of her. She
was concerned that the children did not work well at home. Mrs. C men-
tioned that the boy's problems in school adjustment and that his speech
had held him back in reading because the children had made fun of him.
She wondered whether she should take him out of the clinic and find some-
one to tutor him in reading. A discussion with the boy's clinician
during the interview helped her make the decision against this. The
clinician advised that the child needed a rest from speech and school
this smmmr and more companionship with his family.

130
Family D

Educational and occwational information. Mrs. D had completed the tenth
grade in higF-s'chool and her husband had firdshed the eleventh. Mr. D
was working week days from 6 Add. to 2: 30 P.H. in a factory and managing
his samll farm. It's. D was not employed outside the home. HP. D's work
did not perudt him to attend grow meetings.

 

 

Family information. Mr. D was twenty-nine years old and Mrs. D twenty-six.
Their only child, a son, was six years old and had been enrolled in the
speech clinic for four terms. Diagnostic tests showed extreme nasality
with no consistent functioning of the velum and inconsistent substitutions
and cussions. The mother noted that neither she nor the child were em-
barrassed by the speech problem and that no one teases him about it.

 

Family D did not have a telephone and the questionnaire was sent
to the home with a letter explaining the parents' matings. The author
of this study met with Mrs. D a week previous to the grow meetings. She
had no questions concerning the questionnaire and indicated that she would
like to attend the grow meetings. She was anxious to learn "what I could
do at home to help him."

Information from the parents _c_>_n_ the child's speech roblem. In explain-
ing the speech problem Mrs. D noted that "as far as we w it is just
his talking and he is not able to say the words plain. He's been checked
by the doctor and he can't find anything wrong with him. I believe he
talks through his nose."

 

 

Home spgech work. At the time of the parent meetings Mrs. D had been
doing "sons" speech work every day for about fifteen minutes. She had
used pictures and had corrected him "part of the time on general talking
around home.“ She was having trouble "keeping his attention."

Parent evaluation pi £133 ro am. Mrs. D attended six grow meetings.

She was absent twice because 0 transportation difficulties. 0n the final
questionnaire she indicated that the meetings had been "very helpful."

She indicated that the material on "learning how to sound out words and
how to place the tongue in sounds" was most helpful.

 

Mrs. D was working more regularly with the child and felt the work
was much easier. She mentioned that the speech work at home had been
"very helpful" to the child but she was still having trouble in keeping
his attention. She went on to say, "Now that we make a game of it he is
doing better."

Mrs. D felt that all parents should be required to come to meetings
of this type as long as the child was in the clinic. She said, "before

131

the meetings I really didn't know how to work with C---." Mrs. D offered
no suggestions for improving the program and stated "I feel that you are
doing a good job." During the final interview she mentioned that she
liked the grow lessons because, "in a grow you feel more at ease.‘'

FandlyE

Educational .329. occupational information. Mr. E was a high school teacher
and was doing par-time work toward a Master's degree. His wife, a college
graduate, was teaching regularly in an elementary school. Mr. E's work
brought him to the college each Saturday so he was the one who brought

the child to the clinic. Mrs. E did not plan on attending the grow
meetings.

Familp information. Mr. E was forty-two and his wife thirty-seven. They
ave 0 daughters aged twalve and nine and a son aged six. The son had
been enrolled in the clinic for one term previous to the parent meetings.
Diagnostic tests indicated an articulatory problem involving inconsistth
omissions and substitutions. Mr. E mentioned during the interview that
neither he nor the child were embarrassed by the child's speech and that
no one in the family teased him about it.

Information from _th_e arents pp 3133 child's speech problem. Mr. E noted
the child's speech problem as "dropping the sounds he has difficulty
with." He said that he did not know what caused it but he was sure the
child's speech would be better if he would try harder.

Home 8 ech work. At the time of the interview with Mr. E the family
was unab e to carry out the clinician's suggestions of "trying to correct
the dropping of the sounds miss-pronounced." The family had been asking,
"What did you say?" when the child said a word wrong. Then they asked
him to pronounce the word correctly. Either the father or the mother
tried to work with the child every day "when the time was available."
They were having trouble because "he avoids the words and substitutes
words.” They corrected him "part of the time" but never in front of
strangers. Mr. E wanted to discuss, "how we can best help J---."

Parent evaluation pf Exp program. Mr. E was able to attend one grow
meeting and one observation session. Mrs. E came alone to another grow
meeting. Mr. E came to two additional make-w meetings which were spent
in discussing the material he was missing in the grow meetings. Be-
cause of the interest he had shown and his efforts to discuss the lesson
material, he was included as a special subject in the study.

 

132

Both parents participated in completing the questionnaire. They
mentioned that the program had been very helpful and that it was diffi-
cult for them to evaluate the program completely because they had attended
so few meetings.

The family was trying to "play games involving different sounds"
and were trying to work more regularly. They felt that the child was
getting more benefit from clinic work than at home because he "tries
harder.”

Mr. and Mrs. E felt that the meetings should be on a grow basis
and continued as long as the child remains in the clinic. As they put it,
"the parent is certainly better able to work with the child if he has
attended some of the meetings. It gives them a better understanding of
the problem."

During the final interview Mr. E indicated his enjoyment of the
observation lesson. He felt that he learned one important thing "that
it takes a lot of patience and you can't go into a lesson 'cold."'

FamilyF

Educational and occwational information. Mr. F was a college instructor
Vitha DoctorTs degree. Mrs. F is a college graduate and was not em-

ployed outside the home. Mrs. F mentioned that her husband might "pos-

sibly" attend the meetings except that he was usually working on Saturday.

 

sadly information. Mrs. F did not indicate her own age nor her husband's.
Howaver, the clinic records show that Mrs. F was forty-three and Mr. F
forty-one. They have three sons aged thirteen, eleven and five and a
daughter aged seven. The seven-year-old had been enrolled in the clinic
for five terms and the five-year-old was enrolled at the beginning of the
term in which the parent grows began. Both children had articulatory
problems with omissions and substitutions. The seven-year-old was being
treated by an orthodontist for additional dental problems. The eleven-
year-old had been dismissed from the clinic five years ago and the mother
stated that his articulatory problem had been corrected.

 

Information from _t__he par arents on the child's speech problem. Mrs. F stated
that the children's problems in speech were "mispronounciation of various
sounds. " She felt that the older child's speech problem was caused by
"slow develwment and poor coordination." The younger child was "pro-
bably imitating his sister." Mrs. F mentioned that both children could

do better in speech if they tried. She had noticed that the boy was
trying but that the girl "forgets when she is recounting something.”

Hrs. F was sure that both children were embarrassed by their speech and

133

that she was sometimes embarrassed when the girl's friends can'tunder-
stand her. The older children sometimes tease them but it did not seem
to bother them.

Home speech work. Mrs. F had been trying to carry out the clinician's
suggestions in making a scrapbook. However, she was having difficulty in
finding appropriate pictures. She indicated that all of the family work
with the children and ”make corrections during regular conversation.”

She was doing nothing that had not been suggested by the clinic. The
children are usually corrected in conversation "part of the time" but
never when they are "disturbed or unhappy or tired." Mrs. F wanted
especially to discuss "techniques for helpirg children's speech."

 

Parent evaluation of 3.11.9. ro am. Mrs. F attended seven grow meetings
and was absent once-because o illness. Her husband did not attend any
meetings. In the questionnaire Mrs. F stated that the meetings were

”very helpful," and that there had been the right number of them. She
felt that all parents should attend meetings of this type for one tern.

 

Mrs. F thought that speech work was much easier than before at-
tending the meetings. She was working more regularly using mirror work,
watching for sounds in reading and in using a sock puppet. She felt
that she was doing these activities at a time when the children were too
tired, but even then they seemed to help them in carrying-over clinical
work.

Mrs. F mentioned that she would ”probably not" have gained more
if the meetings had been on an individual basis. She went on to say,
"I have felt the need of help in develwing techniques and of being able
to carry over lessons received in the clinic. These have been supplied
in these classes.“ Her only suggestion for improving the program was
to have the clinician send home a note each week with an assignment or
suggestions for home speech work.

During the final conference Mrs. F discussed the problem of her
younger son's resentment of correction and coming to the clinic. This
problem was referred to the director of the clirzic and it was decided that
the child should be taken out of clinical work for one term. Mrs. F was
pleased with her daughter's acceptance of her speech problem and she felt
that her sense of humor would help her over-come it.

Family G

Educational apd occupational information. Mr. G was a machine operator
with week day workinglours from ELM. to L: P.M. Both parents had had

a grade school education with Mrs. G having completed rdnth grade. Mrs. G
was not employed outside the home. Mrs. G thought that her husband could
“possibly" some to the grow meetings.

13h

F information. Mr. G was sixty years old and Mrs. G was forty-five.

ey have two daughters aged eleven and ten and a son aged eight. Mrs. G
had a tirenty-vyear-old son from a previous marriage who was in the any.
The eight-year-old had been enrolled in the clinic for one term previous
to the parent meetings. He had been diagnosed as an articulatory case
with severe substitutions and omissions. Mrs. G indicated that neither
she nor the child were embarrassed by the child's speech and that none of
the family tease the child about it.

 

 

Information from the p_rents on th___e_ child's s ech problem. Mrs. G said
Eat the childe problem was that "he don't say s words right." The only
statement she made as to a causal factor was, "he always talked this way."
Mrs. G was sure that "he can say things right if he wants to, but he's

just got away with it."

Home ech work. An older sister was working with the child "off and on"
every "correcting him on his words." Mrs. G said that "he does more
for her.” The clinicians had given Mrs. C no suggestions for home speech
work. She was facing a problem in helping the child because ”he gets stub-
born in repeating words and says, 'I said it once." The family try to
correct him "most of the time" especially on his sisters' names and on
I'special words."

Mrs. G could think of nothing special she would like to discuss
in the grow meetirgs. The author read the questions to her on the
initial questionnaire and recorded verbatum answers. Mrs. G mentioned
that she had forgotten her glasses and "couldn't see to read without them."

Parent evaluation of the ram. Mrs. G attended seven meetings and Mr. G
atfin dad six. The-_bsences of both parents were because of illness in the
family. Neither parent came to the clinic for a final conference and the
questionnaire was received at the clinic by mail.

Mr. and Mrs. G mentioned that the program had been "very helpful."
They indicated that it was much easier to work with the child and that
they were spending about the same amount of time in doing speech work
at home. The activities listed were correction and sounds and they felt
that these were of "some help" to the child.

Mr. and Mrs. G stated that they felt there had been the right
number of meetings and that no more were necessary. They felt that group
meetings were more helpful than individual ones would have been. If
there were more meetings they would like to attend "some of them" but
they felt that they should not be required of all parents. No suggestions
were given for improving the program.

135
Family H

Educational and occupational information. The program was explained to
Mrs. H by telephone and a questionnaire was sent to her home. It was
impossible for her to come for an interview due to working hours on week
days in an alteration shop. The program was explained more fully when
she brought the child for clinic on the first day of Winter Term.

Mrs. H indicated that she wanted to attend the meetings but that
her husband could not come since he was working eight hours a day as a
service manager. Both parents were high school graduates.

F information. The ages of the father and mother respectively were

y-eight and thirty-three. The paternal grandmother aged sixty-three
lived with the family. The parents have one daughter aged thirteen and
a son eleven. The son had been enrolled in the clinic for one term pre-
vious to the parent meetings. His articulatory problem was one of omis-
sions and substitutions.

 

Information from parents an the child's ppeech pgoblem. Mrs. H said that
her son had an "articulation problem." Three doctors thought he was
"slow in talking and in time he would out-grow this." She felt his
speech would be better if he tried harder. Mrs. H mentioned that she was
never embarrassed by the speech problem but that the child ”will not
respond in school because of it." She says no one at home teases him
about his speech and that his father "had the same difficulty with speech
as a child but has outgrown it except for a few words."

 

 

Home speech work. At the time of the interview Mrs. H and her husband
were wcTrking with the child as the clinician had suggested. They were
doing tongue exercises and ”pronouncing words." They worked with him for
about one-half hour each day and corrected him "occasionally." Mrs. H
mentioned nothing special which she would like to discuss in the meetings
except "speech."

 

Parent evaluation o_f_ 2113 program. Mrs. H attended six meetirgs. No men-
tion was made of the causes for the two absences. In the questionnaire
she indicated that the program had been "very helpful in understanding the
kind of help J-- needs and ways of helping him."

Mrs. H felt that there were the right nmnber of meetings but that
they should be continued as long as the child was enrolled in the clinic.
In addition she mentioned that she thought they should be required of all
parents.

Mrs. H was working more regularly with the child since the grow
meetings and she was finding the work "much easier." She mentioned, "Now
I know what I can do to help." She found that "saying words over until

136

they are correct and reading is most helpful" and that the child "is
interested in helping himself." She felt that home work was "very help-
ful" to the child "in reviewing what has been done before.“

Mrs. H mentioned that group meetings were more helpful than in-
dividual ones for "discussing problems of the other children has helped
in finding different ways of working with mine." She listed no ways for
improving the program.

During the final interview Mrs. H discussed the home situation and
the difficulty the child was having in adjusting to his grandmother. Mrs. H
was worried about his school work because he had been behind. She was
pleased with his speech progress. Her one comment on the parent program
was, ”I think it's been grand."

FamiJJJ

Educational and occupational information. Mr. J had completed the tenth
grade in high school and was working on a "swing-shift" schedule in a
factory. Mrs. J had finished the tenth grade and was working on a
correspondence course to complete her high school education. Mrs. J

was doing feature writing for a local newspaper but was not working
outside the home. Mrs. J mentioned that she wanted to Join the parent
groups but that her husband would not come because he was not "interested
in social life."

Family information. Mr. J was forty-five and Mrs. J was thirty-three.

Mr. J had two sons aged twanty and nineteen from a previous marriage.

Mr. and Mrs. J have three daughters aged eleven, ten and six and twa

sons aged eight and four. The eight-year-old had been enrolled in the
speech clinic for one term as a severe articulatory case with inconsistent
omissions and substitutions. The twenty-year-old son was a paraplegic left
arm amputee from an auto accident and had been confined to a wheel-chair
for the last two years.

Information from the a rents on the child's speech problem. Mrs. J men-
tioned thEtT the child's problem was that "he either doesn't hear certain
sounds, or has a lazy tongue. He omits several words in a sentence and
has difficulty in pronouncing symbols." She felt it had been caused by
"illness at the age of two years." Mrs. J thought that the child might
do betmr in speech if he tried harder and that he has been improving
steadily. She mentioned that she was embarrassed "when people about him
act as if they think he is abnormal." She feels he is embarrassed ""when
he tries to reply to a question and cannot make himself understood."

 

137

Home geech work. Mrs. J was using the clinician's suggestions in

"having him say words with the 's' sounds and telling where the sound
appears in a word." In addition she had been teaching him to "read and
recite poems with expression." The mother and older brother usually work
with the child for about an hour a day after school. Mrs. J indicated that
she corrects the child "most of the time" when they are alone. She

went on to say, "I know corrections in the presence of outsiders embar-
rasses me. Therefore, I will not correct a child unless we are alone."

Mrs. J wanted to discuss "how to be most helpflll in correcting aw
child's problem." During the first interview she mentioned her problems
of trying to give equal attention to the children especially with the
special care required by the crippled son. She was very concerned about
the child's speech and was anxious to learn more about helping him.

Parent evaluation of the re am. Mrs. J attended seven group meetings
and was absent once because 0 illness in the family. She indicated that
the meetings had been "very helpful" and that there had been the right
number. She would like to attend more meetings "if there was more to
learn." She felt that all parents should attend until they "understand
their child's particular problem.“

 

Mrs. J was working more regularly with the child since the program
began and was finding the work "much easier" and "very helpful to the
child." The activities done included listening more carefully to his
speech and flpronouncing each letter of a word he is unable to say, "draw-
ing pictures which contain difficult words, finding and learning poems
with sounds that require the most help and using the "quiet-noisy system"
for making sounds.

Mrs. J indicated that she felt that she would not have gained
more from individual meetings. She mentioned, "Before attending these
meetings I had no knowledge of how to help C--. I was not aware of
which sounds he omitted or substituted. It was like 'the blind leading
the blind.” Mrs. J suggested that recordings of the parents might have
been made because she felt that many speech problems stemmed from poor
speech in the parents.

During the final conference Mrs. J again mentioned that she wished
that the parents could have heard their own voices. She was very self-
conscious that she did not speak well and that she was very hesitant
to speak in front of others who had "more education ." She also felt that
she was possibly doing too many things to be a good mother, but that
every outside activity included the children. She mentioned her in-
compatibility with her husband because of his social withdrawal. Mrs. J
seemed very relieved when the author assured her that she had excellent
speech and pointed out several of her outstandingly good characteristics.

138

Family K

Educational and occupational information. Mr. K was a high school grad-
uate and was working eight hours a day in the military division for the
State of Michigan. Mrs. K was also a high school graduate and was not
working outside the home. Both parents came for the interview and Mr. K
stated that he would be unable to attend the group meetings.

Fandl information. Mrs. K was twenty-eight years old and her husband
irty-three. They have one son aged eight and two daughters aged six
and four. The four-year-old was newly enrolled in the speech clinic as
an articulatory case with inconsistent omissions and substitutions. The

son was attending public school speech classes.

Information from the arents on 23 child's speech problem. Mrs. K men-
tioned that the child " oesn't—know how to use her tongue to make the
sounds." She thought this was caused by the fact that “everyone knew
what she wanted before she asked for it and she doesn't have to talk."
Mrs. K thought that the child could do better if she tried harder. Mrs. K
reported that she was not embarrassed by the child's speech but that it
did bother the child when strangers could not understand her. No one

in the family teases her about her speech.

 

Home speech work. Both parents were working each dagr correcting the
child "most of the time when she uses 'me' instead of '1.” Their main
problem in working with her was that she became "disgusted when she can't
make sounds and letters right." Mrs. K wanted to discuss "anything that
would help me work with V—---.”

During the first interview both parents were interested in the
clinic organization and wanted additional information on stuttering.

Parent evaluation _o_i_’ the program. Mrs. K attended six meetings and was
ahsent Flee because of illness in the family. On the final questionnaire
she noted that the program had been very helpful and that there had been
the right number of meetings. She felt that all parents should be re-
quired to attend because "it is the only way to know what is being done
for your child and how to cooperate." If there were more meetings Mr. K
wanted to attend.

 

 

Mrs. K was working with her child more regularly and was finding
it much easier. The speech work consisted of games, scrapbooks, stocking
puppets and "correcting her in conversation because she doesn' t seem to
resent it and likes the help." Mrs. K felt that the home speech work
was "very helpful" to the child.

139

Mrs. K wrote, "without the program I wouldn't have understood just
how hard it could be for children. Things have been brought to my at-
tention that I didn't know existed, such as the use of the tongue and
teeth and the sounds of letters." 0n suggestions for improving the
program she stated, "I don't see where it needs improvement."

During the final interview Mrs. K re-stated marw of the comments
in the questionnaire and mentioned again the improvement the child was
making in using sentences rather than isolated words.

Family L

Educational and occupational information. Both parents were high school
graduates and Mrs. L did not work outside the home. Mr. L’s work at the
city post office did not permit him to attend Saturday meetings.

Family information. Mr. L was thirty-nine and Mrs. L thirty-seven. They
have two daughters aged thirteen and nine and two sons aged ten and five.
The ten-year-old had been in the clinic for two terms as an articulatory
case with substitutions and omissions. The last diagnostic test indi-
cated that the only remaining problem was a slight lateral lisp.

 

Information from parents on th__e_ child's speech problem. Mrs. L stated
that her son's problem was a "lisp" and she had no idea of the cause.
She had done the "same thing as a five and six-year old." Neither she
nor the child were embarrassed by the speech problem and the child is
trying to correct himself because of his friendship with his clinician.
No one in the family teases him about speech.

 

 

Home speech work. All of the family "helped some" in practicing word
fists given by the clinician. However, the child preferred to work alone.
The parents corrected him "occasionally when he says words wrong," but
"that is seldom now." The child was never corrected in front of anyone
outside the immediate family.

Mrs. L mentioned that the child was progressing so well that she
did not need to work with him at home. She was still willing to attend.
the meetings.

Parent evaluation o__1_' the program. Mrs. L attended six meetings and gave
no reason for the two absences. She indicated that the meetings were
I'of some help" ard that they would be of more value to parents whose
children had greater problems. She did not feel it necessary to attend
more meetings but that they should be resumed "from time to time to keep
parents informed and to contact new parents."

 

 

1110

There had been no change in the amount of time spent in speech
work at home nor the ease in which the work was carried on. She felt that
the child was receiving little help from home work because his problem
was so slight.

Mrs. L felt that part of the meetings should be on an individual
basis to discuss the child's particular problem. The one new idea she
had received was that "children often do not hear the particular sound
of certain letters and that you should use the sound of the letter rather
than the letter name.

In the questionnaire Mrs. L cemented at length at the excess noise
in the observation lessons because of the parents' conversation. She
thought that these other parents "cared only about their own child.” She
also had the feeling that the clinician of one particular child had a
"poor attitude." .

During the final conference she modified her statements somewhat
and said that she had a "pet peeve" for noise and that she was angry when
she filled out the questionnaire. She still felt that many of the meet-.
ings were a Waste of her tine" and that the other people were too noisy
for a group situation.

She was especially concerned that one clinician did not seem
sympathetic and interested in his patient. However she had observed the
two getting ready to work and mentioned "they seemed to like each other
and he seemed different with the child than he did with us that day.“

Family M

Educational and occimational information. Both parents are college
graduates. Mr. M is an accountant working from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. with
frequent bits of over-time. Mrs. M was not working outside the home.
Mr. M was not able to attend the group meetings because of work.

 

Family information. Mrs. M was thirty-six years old and Mrs. M thirty-
seven. They have two daughters aged ten and five and two sons aged nine
and three. The nine-year-old had been enrolled in the college clinic for
six previous terms. The first diagnosis was of delayed speech deveIOpment,
but by the term for the parent program his improvement had been such that
his problem was in substitution of "w" for "r" and "l."

lhl

Information from parents 33 the _c_hild's speech Emblem. Mrs. M said the
boy had "trouble with different sounds, 'r' in particular." She did not
know the cause. She felt he was trying as hard as he could to over-come
it but 'mispronouncing sounds had become such a habit that he Just seems
to have difficulty over-coming it." She was not embarrassed by the

speech problem but the child "won't talk freely in the presence of others."
No one teases him about his speech.

 

 

Home 5 ech work. Mrs. M was doing very little in speech work at home be-
cause " e doesn't cooperate with me very well and after I correct him a
few times he gets very disgusted and balks at saying the words over."

She had discussed this with the clinicians who told her not to try to
push him. The mother usually worked with the child because his father
"doesn't have much time." Ms. M corrected the child ”part of the time"
but never in front of argone other than the family. Mrs. M could think
of nothing special she wanted to discuss in the meetings.

Parent evaluation _o_f_ the program. Mrs. M attended six group meetings and
Essed two because off-illness in the family. She rated the program as
”very helpful in giving me ideas such as playing games involving speech
sounds and in knowing how to make sounds."

 

She was spending about the same amount of time in working with the
child and was finding it a "little easier" by trying to work on the ”r”
and "1" sounds in games. She did not feel that this word had been par-
ticularly helpful to the child for "he seems to do more for the clinician."

Mrs. M thought that there had been the right number of meetings
but that if there were more she would like to attend. She thought that
the grow organization was best because, "I feel as though we have all
derived benefit by talking over our problems in a group. It's nice to get
other parents' views on their problems and how they cope with them.” She
mentioned, “I can't think of am way the program should be improved.
Everything that has been done is fine.”

Family N

Educational and occupational information. Due to the distame which the

ved-Tr'om the college, Mrs. M was contacted by telephone and a
questionnaire was sent to the home. Mrs. N came for an interview the
first day of clinic for Winter Term. Mr. N was unable to attend the
program because of his night work in a factory. Mrs. N was not working
outside the home. Mrs. N had had two years of high school and Mr. N had
completed grachschool.

1&2

Fami information. The ages of the father and mother were forty-eight
an rty-seven respectively. They have one daughter aged eight and
three sons aged thirteen, nine and seven. The seven-year-old had been
enrolled in the speech clinic for one term as an articulatory case with
inconsistent omissions and substitutions.

 

 

Information from parents 93 213 child's eech roblem. Mrs. N reported
that the child "didn't pronounce some Et are correctly." He had probably
imitated his sister who "didn't say her words right at first.“ She felt
the child had shown improvement since he had speech work at the clinic and
at school. Mrs. N was not embarrassed by the speech problem but she had
noticed that the child became "impatient" when others didn't understand
him. No one in the family teased the child about his speech.

Home ech work. Mrs. N mentioned that she had not done much work with
E‘s-c because she was not "me what to do and didn't want to do the
wrong thing." After he had been working only a short time "he started
to stutter” and she felt it was better if she "didn't press him too far.‘
Mrs. N usually worked with the child two or three times a week for about
ten minutes. She corrected him 'part of the time” but she did not want
him to feel "different from the other children." Mrs. N wanted to "learn
more ways to help P--."

Parent evaluation of the re 8111. Mrs. N attended all of the group
We. 5 the HnET'quas onnaire she rated the program as being
"very helpful" and she would like to attend more meetings. She indicated,
“the meetings have given me a clearer understanding of speech problems
and it keeps a person more interested when you know what is being done.”
Mrs. N felt that the meetings should be continued while the child is
enrolled in the clinic and that all parents should be required to attend.

Mrs. N was working more regularly with the child and found the
work "much easier." The activities included ugames involving speech and
saying words correctly.“ The Iain problem was in keeping the child's
attention. This work seemed to be of “some help” but the child seemed to
gain more in the clinic and at school.

Mrs. N showed a preference for the grow meetings rather than
individual conferences. She stated 'I have gained information by dif-
ferent problem I have been able to talk over with the grow and sug-
gestions that have been made have been very helpful." She gave no
suggestions for improving the program.

11:3
Family 0

Educational and occupational information. ‘ Mr. 0 had completed the tenth
grade and was woang in a factory Eon 6:3.) A.M. to 2:30 P.M. His work
did not permit him to join the parent meetings. Mrs. O was a high school
graduate and not employed outside the home.

F information. Mr. O was thirty-five and his wife was thirty-four.

ey a three daughters aged eleven, ten and one, and twa sons aged
eight and three. The eight-year-old had been enrolled in the clinic for
one term with an articulation problem of emissions and substitutions.

Information from arents 23 Lbs child'ss speech problem. Mrs. 0 men-
tioned the cHId's pro on *was —-in "the sounds of words and not speakim
plain." She felt he had "learned words too fast." Mrs. O thought the
child could speak better if he tried harder and neither she nor the
child were embarrassed by the speech problem.

Home gpaech work. The clinician had given Mrs. 0 no suggestions for work
at home. Both parents and an older sister were helping him with his
I'reading. " She felt his main problem is that he "doesn't like to take
the time to work on speech." Mrs. O corrected the child "part of the time
especially when he is talking too fast.” She never corrected him in
front of strangers nor “out in public." Mrs. O nntioned no special
topics which she wanted to discuss in the matings.

Parent evaluation of th___e_ m. Mrs. 0 attended seven of the group
meeEngs and nissed one _because of transportation difficulties. She
rated the program as "very helpful” and mentioned that the w stings had
given her new information.

 

Mrs. G was spending about the same amount of time in working with
her child and was finding the work ”such easier." She was working to
help him "pronounce words plainer," and she felt this had been "very
helpful“ to the child. Mrs. O remarked, "the program helped in knowing
what G—u's problem is and what to do about it.’I

Mrs. O felt that there had been the right number of meetings but
they should be continued as long as the child is in the clinic. All
parents should be required to attend. Mrs. 0 indicated a preference for
grow rather than individual meetings.

During the final conference Mrs. O noted that she had learned
"how to get Gno- interested in his speech'' and she had found that he can
speak well “when he thinks about it." She mentioned that she could see
how long it will take for good speech to become a habit.

Family P

Educational and occppational information. Mr. P was a college graduate
and director of a purchasing division in a factory. His working hours
were from 8 Add. to S P.M. on week dws. Mrs. P was also a college grad-
uate and was not working outside the home. Mrs. P reported that her
husband could also attend the meetings.

rand}; informtion. The ages of the father and mother were forty-two and
fifty-one respectively. They have one daughter aged twalve and ten-year-
cld twin sons. The twins had been enrolled in this clinic for one term
with inconsistent problems of missions and substitutions and nasality.

 

 

Information from parents on the child's eech roblem. Hrs. P mentioned
that one twin Had upoor aFEio-fiIaHon" engage-o er " pitch." The
possible causes listed were, "tongeu-tied until the age of three ac-
companied by broncial troubles, sinus and deafness.“ Mrs. P mentioned
that these problems had been corrected and that both boys could have better
speech if they worked harder and had the incentive.

Home mach work. Mrs. P indicated that she was often embarrassed "for
them" when other make remarks about their speech.” She felt "they are
only unhappy in a new environment where the children consent on their
speech." They had moved several times and had had these adjustment
problems.

- Mrs. P reported that with clinical work the boys were not in-
terested in working at hone. ”They haven't seemed to develop any com-
plexes because of speech and we felt that more important than too mch
stress at home, feeling that as they grew older they would want help."
The boys were reaching that point and she wanted to have help on how to
work with than.

When the boys were younger the parents had worked with them, but
recently they had begun to "clam up" and she corrected them only
"occasionally" in conversation.

Parent evaluation 9; _t__h_e_ pgggram. Mrs. P attended all of the group meet-
ings but her husband came to none. In the final questionnaire she rated
the program as "very helpful" and said that "part of the help lies in

being simply aware of their problems and difficulties." She had gained

new information on "activities at home and a better understanding of correct
speech for those to whom it doesn't come naturally."

 

Mrs. P was working more regularly with the boys and she mentioned,
“now I know what to do when I do work.” She felt that this work was easier.

1145

She felt that this might stem from the change in the boyS'. attitude and
that "I too am taking speech." The activities consisted of pronounciation
and games. She was working on "one sound at a time" with one twin and

she was having difficulty in finding time to be alone with either boy.

Mrs. P stated that meetings should be resumed at intervals because
there were nary changes in attitudes and problems. She felt that all par-
ents should be required to attend meetings. Mrs. P thought that the groups
should be small "so that there can be an inter-change of ideas and pro-
blems without confusion.”

Mrs. P listed several suggestions for improving the program. She
felt that the fathers should be especially invited to attend one meeting.
The acoustic arrangement of the observation room should be improved.
Monty minutes of each meeting should be devoted to observations and
there should be frequent discussions with the children's clinicians.

During the final conference Mrs. P explaimd that her husband did
not come because the other fathers were not there. She had discussed
the meetings with him afterward and he was always interested in the in-
formation. She was anxious to discuss how well one of the twins had done
in a play and how much the boys' attitudes had improved in wanting to
work on their speech.

Family Q

Educational and occupational information. Mrs. Q was not working outside
the home. Her husband was a mechanic who worked on Saturday. He was
unable to attend the meetings. Both parents were high school graduates.

Mrs. Q enrolled her son on the first day of the parent meetings
and a formal interview was not held.

Fami information. The ages of the father and mother were fifty-five
an orty:three respectively. They have two adopted children, a girl
aged seven and a boy aged ten. The boy was enrolled in the clinic as a
mild articulatory case with a few sound substitutions. The girl was in
a public school speech class.

 

Information from the arent on the child's s ech problem. Mrs. Q men-
tioned that the chi-Id " ee-to—Erry most 0% the time when he is speak-
ing.” She was not sure of the cause but she mentioned that "he couldn't
talk at all" at the time they got him when he was four years old.
Neither she nor the child were embarrassed by the speech problem and no
one in the family teases him about it.

11:6

Home speech work. Mrs. Q was carrying out the suggestions of the school
teacher in "listening for sounds, relaxing his throat and hands and enter-
cising his tongue." Hrs. Q usually worked with him every day because she
"had more time and patience." She usually corrects him "part of the time."
She mentioned nothing special which she wanted to discuss in the group
meetings.

Parent evaluation pf the progIam. Mrs. Q attended five group meetings.
Fer—three absences were due to illness in the family. Mrs. Q rated the
program as "very helpful." and she had gained new information from the
meetings.

 

 

Mrs. Q thought there had been the right number of matings, but
if there were more she would attend. She thought that if there rad been
more meetings the parents would not have attended. Mrs. Q mentioned that
she felt all parents should be required to attend meetings of this type.

Mrs. Q was spending about the same amount of time in working with
her child and was finding the work "much easier." She was Watching for
sounds" and now she knew "how to work with him.“ They work about ten
minutes each day so that he doesn't get tired. They usually do word
games with "r" and ”1." She felt that this work was of "sona'I help
to the child and "he seems to try harder.”

Hrs. Q thought that the group basis was best for the meetings for
"with a group it helps because we get the opinions of others." Mrs. Q
had no suggestions for improving the program

FaminR

Educational and occupational information. Both parents came for an in-
terview and indicated Tthat they wished to attend the meetings. Mr. R
was a high school graduate and was working in a factory on a swing-shift
schedule. Mrs. R was not employed outside the home. She had had a grade
school education.

F information. The ages of the father and mother were forty-four
rty-thrae respectively. They have one daughter aged nine who was

being enrolled in the clinic. Her speech was retarded with many omissions

and substitutions. The psychological tests showed mental retardation

and she had not been admitted to the public school for that reason.

Information from parents pp the child's s ech roblen. The parents
felt that the child's speech—Ed been 'shu off or a long time before

1h?

her adenoids were out.” They mentioned that both the parents and the
child were embarrassed by the speech problem, especially "in front of
others who don' t understand her." They were both trying to do speech
work with her for about one-half hour every day and they were using
pictures and counting. They correct her "most of the time" when there
were "no others around.”

Both parents had articulatory problems although they did not seem
aware of it. Most of the father's difficulty was in the fact that he
lacked front teeth.

The interviewer read the questions and recorded the answers on the
initial interview because the parents "couldn't understand them."

Mrs. R came to one meeting and her husband came to none. They
were not asked to assist in the evaluation of the program.

Family S

Educational and occupational information. Mr. S, a high school graduate,
was working b-a'E'een fifty and sixty hours a week as a factory foreman.
Hrs. 8 had several years of college and was not employed outside the home.
Mr. S was not able to attend the meetings because of Saturday work.

 

F information. Mrs. S was forty-five and his wife forty. Mrs. S

ad 0 sons aged thirteen and eleven and a daughter aged seven. The
three children were from a previous marriage. The girl had been an-
rolled in the clinic for one term and had been diagnosed as an articula-
tory case with inconsistent omissions and substitutions. Mrs. S was very
hard-of-hearing. Her speech was slurred with nary omissions. In the
interview it was necessary to repeat and rephrase questions often although
she felt that her hearing was no handicap because she was a good lip-reader.

Information from parents___ on the c__h__il_____d's geech roblem. Mrs. 8 indicated

er c Md damispronounciation in his speec. She felt that this
might have been caused by "her tongue, but she was checked twice by
physicians.“ Mrs. S felt that the child could use better speech if she
tried, and neither she nor the child were embarrassed by the speech pro-
. blen. No one teases her about it.

Home speech work. Mrs. S had been helping the child "when she mis-pro-
nouncas certain words." The clinicians had suggested "keeping her up on
saying the letter"s." All the family try to help the child and Mrs. S
works with her ”when I think of it.” The child is correct "most of the
time." Hrs. S had set aside no special time for speech and mentioned,
"I know I should.“ Mrs. 8 said that an older brother had had similar
speech but he "out-grew it."

11:8

Mrs. S attended three group meetings and then neither she nor the
child returned to the clinic. The same attendance had occurred during
the previous term. She was not invited to assist in evaluating the pro-
gram. During the group meetings it was obvious that she was not com-
prehending the material nor watching the speakers lips. She mentioned
that she had a hearing aid but used it only to answer the telephone.

Family T

Educational and occupational information. Mrs. T enrolled her child for
the first time on the day of the first parent meeting. No formal inter-
view was held.

 

Both parents were college graduates. Mr. T was an accountant and
the mother was not working outside the home. Mrs. T mentioned that her
husband could come "occasionally.”

Family information. The ages of the father and mother respectively are
rty-thrae mdmm. They have two sons aged five and two and a
daughter aged four. The daughter had an articulatory problem with new

omissions and substitutions.

Information from the arents on the child's speech problem. Mrs. T men-
tioned the speech-probiem as Tfinn'aETlity ?5 pronounce "r, s and l." The
parents had no idea of the cause and felt she had been trying as hard as
possible. The mother was not embarrassed by the speech problem but the
child was. The child's brother teases her about her speech and Mrs. T
wanted to discuss what to do when this teasing occurred.

Home a each work. Mrs. T was doing speech work every day "going over the
mast" and correcting the child in conversation "part of the time.”

Mrs. T attended only the first meeting and her husband came to
none. After the first clinical lesson the child would not stay alone so
her mother accompanied her to each lesson. Mrs. T did not participate in
evaluating the program.

Family U

Mrs. U came for an interview and mentioned that although she would
like to attend the meetings she had to stay with the other children. Her
husband was a college student and worked on Saturdav. Hr. U was thirty
and his wife twenty-eight. They have two daughters aged eight and six
and a son aged two. The eightdyear-old was newly enrolled in the clinic
with substitutions of “w" for "r and 1." Mrs. U did not attend the group
meetings.

 

MB! 19 '55 ‘. - . - fl)

J

Jan?! :5

Aug: ' :- .,
"“74 :' :2»
o_Az’ZG- ‘ ‘-
”@2835'»?
lid 17 ‘56
An: I: '37

hot 1 3 ’51

\
1". ‘1. 5%
. “' 3...}, .‘_

JAN 13 1961 a
£483 l/a/é/

. /.
:>_Q1»ta{!' j/of‘é/

L / 3/27 /L/ ‘

 

 

h .