Lin Yanyan, Group B

Case 2:
(i) the intervention (language acquisition)

Wodrich and Cunningham, (2008) believes that school psychologists’ knowledge allows consultation with teachers about health-related classroom accommodations and communication between medical professional and the teachers. According to Heyman and Goodman, as cited in Wodrich and Cunningham (2008), children with epilepsy experience disproportionate social, interpersonal, emotional, behavioral and school adaptation problems in addition to lower academic achievement.

A school psychologist consulted with a neurologist who was working with the child suffering from epilepsy to come up with an assessment plan. Next, the psychologist observed and interviewed the child, the teachers and parents before administering the “Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fourth Edition” (p. 58). Upon gathering all the data, she proceeded on to formulating a treatment plan.

Based on the findings by Wodrich and Cunningham (2008), a plan was implemented by the teachers upon consultation with the school psychologist. To help improve the language development of the child with epilepsy, several classroom accommodations were made. “Simplified explanations for activities, slowing the pace of verbal directions, use of examples ad visual guidance, pairing [the child] with a classmate to clarify directions and providing written directions”, were some of the changes made (Wodrich and Cunningham, 2008, p. 58). Website on epilepsy were also introduced to the teachers and given additional information by the school psychologist to help them understand epilepsy.

The teacher benefited from the clear information supported by the school psychologist and the child’s language showed improved.

(ii) its effectiveness (as reported in the journal article)

Almost all the school psychologists involved in the research showed complete or near complete familiarity with epilepsy. According to Wodrich and Cunningham (2008), school psychologist who provided consultation and suggested classroom accommodations to teacher, enabled the teachers to give appropriate help to the child with epilepsy. When information on the classroom impacted of epilepsy was introduced to the teachers, “65% of the teacher changed their perception from the child’s epilepsy being a result of a learning factor, to that of a health reason” (p. 58). This proves to show that the teachers benefited from the clear information as they were unfamiliar with epilepsy prior to this.

However, other research suggests that “relatively little information about [children with epilepsy] was available to the team (Wodrich and Cunningham, 2008, p.59). A comprehensive review of school reports showed that only 37% of the files documented the seizure. For students who required medication (antiepileptic drugs), only about half of their school files recorded their need for medications.

(iii) your personal evaluation how the child will benefit from this intervention

In Kim’s case, her language and mathematic abilities would improve with help from the classroom accommodations suggested by the research. If a teacher were to make the changes as recommended, it would be easier to discipline Kim as she would be able to follow the teacher’s lessons better and in turn, display appropriate classroom behaviors.
I believe that pair work would work best for her as she will be allowed to progress at a comfortable pace, acquire new knowledge and have the opportunity to practice her social skills through communication with her partner. Also, taking into consideration Kim’s age, she may pick up positive behaviors by modeling her peer, as children at this age enjoy role-playing.

However, taking note of the effectiveness report in the research, I feel that school psychologists cannot rely fully accurate information on aiding the epileptic child in class as many of their antiepileptic drugs are not reflected in the school records. These drugs can have undesirable side effects such as problems with attention, which will affect the child’s language acquisition in class. As such, though collaboration between a school psychologist and the teacher may allow both parties to provide the child under their care with the best possible intervention, there are still many other factors will act as a barrier. Also, Kim is attending 2 different schools, which may create a greater difficulty in partnership as the schools may have difference in opinions and different goals.

(iv) your suggestions how you can make adjustments to cater to the needs of the child and to facilitate integration of the child / the intervention activity into your classroom.

One suggestion I would make to the intervention is that a school psychologist should be present in both the mainstream school and the special school. In Singapore, it is not required for centers to have their own psychologist, nor do they have one which they can approach for professional consultation. I feel that a school psychologist would greatly benefit Kim as the psychologist would be entitled to observe the child in both schools and provide continuity in care. From the observations and information gathered, the psychologist can then be consulted by both schools to make the appropriate accommodations.

However, it may be costly to employ a school psychologist and most centers would not have the financial means to do so. In that case, the various therapists which are working with Kim in the special schools should be consulted. I would invite the specialist to my centre at least once a month to share and update information on Nicky. I would also consult them when designing an IEP for Kim, as I would want to set realistic goals that Kim would be able to achieve.


References

Wodrich, L. & Cunningham, M. (2008, January). School-based tertiary and targeted interventions for students with chronic medical conditions: Examples from type 1 diabetes mellitus and epilepsy, 45(1), 52-62, Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.