Sketch and Speak: An Oral, Written, and Graphic Expository Strategy Intervention for Secondary Students

Abstract

Purpose
This clinical focus article describes an intervention to improve comprehension, retention, and expression of the ideas and language of expository texts. Sketch and Speak intervention links written, graphic, and oral learning strategies through a triadic process of noting an idea simply with written or pictographic notes, then saying it fully, and saying it again. This simple routine engages transformational and retrieval cognitive processes involved in active learning and information retention. We consider the evidence base from the psychological and educational literature and report research evidence with younger students with language-related learning disabilities. We explain how to use Sketch and Speak with students in the secondary grades and suggest how to coach students toward independent, self-regulated use.

Conclusions
Students in the secondary grades benefit from learning strategies that help them gain control over the ideas and language of informational texts. Sketch and Speak may be a helpful addition to the speech-language pathologist's repertoire for older students with language and learning difficulties.

Full text

PERSPECTIVES
Clinical Focus
Sketch and Speak: An Oral, Written,
and Graphic Expository Strategy
Intervention for Secondary Students
Teresa A. Ukrainetz
a
and Amy K. Peterson
a
Purpose: This clinical focus article describes an intervention
to improve comprehension, retention, and expression of the
ideas and language of expository texts. Sketch and Speak
intervention links written, graphic, and oral learning strategies
through a triadic process of noting an idea simply with written
or pictographic notes, then saying it fully, and saying it again.
This simple routine engages transformational and retrieval
cognitive processes involved in active learning and information
retention. We consider the evidence base from the psychological
and educational literature and report research evidence with
younger students with language-related learning disabilities.
We explain how to use Sketch and Speak with students in
the secondary grades and suggest how to coach students
toward independent, self-regulated use.
Conclusions: Students in the secondary grades benefit from
learning strategies that help them gain control over the ideas
and language of informational texts. Sketch and Speak may
be a helpful addition to the speech-language pathologist’s
repertoire for older students with language and learning
difficulties.
Students in the secondary grades come to speech-
language pathologists (SLPs) with a variety of di-
agnostic labels but the same basic need to improve
academic functioning. Many have struggled in school de-
spite years of specialized instruction, which puts them at
added risk of feelings of failure and helplessness. This clinical
focus article explains the evidence base for teaching task-
specific learning strategies and more general self-regulatory
behaviors that help students gain control over their learning.
We describe an integrated procedure invoking oral, written,
and graphic learning strategies, combined into an expository
intervention called Sketch and Speak. The intervention,
designed around the SLP’s expertise in oral language inter-
vention, is aimed at giving students a set of learning tools
to achieve noticeable, motivating changes in comprehen-
sion and expression of the language and ideas of informa-
tional texts.
Teaching Learning Strategies
Learning Strategies
Strategies are short-term problem-solving procedures
that highlight information and guide attentional focus
(Rosenshine et al., 1996). They can be a single action or a
series of actions taken to efficiently carry out a complex task
(Liberty & Conderman, 2018). Strategies are part of how a
person regulates their own learning or achievement. These
self-regulatory actions can concern how a person generally
approaches their own schooling and life events or can be
specific actions taken to achieve tasks imposed by others
(Gandomkar et al., 2018).
There are innumerable strategies involved in academic
learning. These mental and physical actions are variously la-
beled and grouped. The same action (e.g., planning, identi-
fying main idea, or paraphrasing) may be called a reading,
comprehension, study, or writing strategy. It might also be
called a learning, cognitive, metacognitive, or self-regulatory
strategy. Strategies may also be called processes, procedures,
tools, or behaviors. They may be classified by task type
(reading vs. writing), discourse genre (narrative vs. expos-
itory), when they occur (before, during, or after a task),
visibility (e.g., mental retrieval vs. writing notes), or depth
of processing (e.g., memorization vs. transformation). As
SIG 1
a
Utah State University, Logan
Correspondence to Teresa A. Ukrainetz: teresa.ukrainetz@usu.edu
Editor-in-Chief: Brenda L. Beverly
Editor: Laura B. Green
Received March 13, 2021
Revision received June 8, 2021
Accepted August 12, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_PERSP-21-00052
Publisher Note: This article is part of the Forum: Contextualized
Language Intervention for Older Students.
Disclosure: Teresa A. Ukrainetz is an employee of Utah State University and
earns book royalties from Pro-Ed. Amy K. Peterson is a PhD student funded
through a U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Educati on Programs
Personnel Development grant.
Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups •1–17 •Copyright © 2021 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 1
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

may already be evident from this array of possible group-
ings and labels, “the scope and interdisciplinary nature of
self-regulated learning has produced almost as many ways
to define the construct as there are programs of research
devoted to it”(Dent & Koenka, 2016, p. 427). Regardless
of label or volition, effective use of strategies involves an
active process whereby students deliberately (or by uncon-
scious habit) monitor, regulate, and control their cognition,
motivation, and behavior to achieve task goals within the
contextual features of their learning environment.
We refer to the strategies of interest in this clinical focus
article—actions deliberately taken to help understand,
remember, and express information from written texts in
oral or written products as learning or self-regulatory strate-
gies. At times, we also call them teaching or treatment strat-
egies to reflect when the actions are carried out more under
the control of the SLP than the student.
Effective Features of Strategy Instruction
Strategy instruction to promote self-regulated learn-
ing is supported by a large body of evidence for students
with and without learning disabilities (e.g., Ciullo et al.,
2016; Gersten et al., 2001; Graham et al., 2016; Kamil
et al., 2008; National Reading Panel, 2000; RAND Read-
ing Study Group, 2002; Solis et al., 2012; E. Swanson et al.,
2014). Most of the existing strategy and self-regulation re-
search has been conducted with students in sixth grade
and above. Direct paths between self-regulation of learn-
ing and academic achievement are weak below sixth grade
(Dent & Koenka, 2016). Dent and Koenka (2016) sug-
gest that associations that are found for younger stu-
dents are likely due to behavioral self-regulation: Students
who behave well (e.g., listen to the teacher and raise their
hand to answer) tend to do better academically. They
also tend to be better at planning, executing, and evalu-
ating their learning, but those are not yet necessary skills.
Instead, teachers largely control and direct the process be-
fore sixth grade (Graham et al., 2012; Shanahan et al.,
2010).
Teaching students to use strategies effectively and in-
dependently takes time. Several components of effective in-
struction have been identified across the research: (a) explicit
teacher modeling, (b) practice with feedback, (c) adjustment
of support to the learner level, (d) moving the student toward
independent use, and (e) having students maintain mindful
engagement (Gersten et al., 2001; RAND Reading Study
Group, 2002; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; H. L. Swanson
& Hoskyn, 1998). H. L. Swanson and Hoskyn’s (1998)
analysis of research for students with learning disabilities
found that out of 20 instructional elements, just three ex-
plained most of the common variance: controlling task dif-
ficulty, using small interactive groups, and having students
use a specified language or format. A persistent challenge
is how to combine strategy instruction with content instruc-
tion without losing attention to either (e.g., McKeown et al.,
2009). It is also difficult, but important, to take students
beyond rote execution of procedures to understanding their
value as meaningful learning tools. Students who perceive
themselves as in control of their own learning and academic
success are likely to have greater motivation and engage-
ment, contributing to a self-sustaining path of improvement
(Collins & Wolter, 2018; Guthrie et al., 2013; Mason et al.,
2012).
Strategy assessment should examine the process and
the product. However, it is hard to measure strategy use
because many strategies are either visible but brief actions
or covert mental processes. There are off-line measures such
as strategy awareness questionnaires or online measures
such as observing behaviors, but in general, research studies
examine only achievement products (Dent & Koenka,
2016; Gersten et al., 2001; RAND Reading Study Group,
2002).
Self-Regulated Strategy Development
A popular instructional program is Graham and
Harris’s (1993) self-regulated strategy development (SRSD).
Originally intended for teaching compositional writing to
students with learning disabilities (Graham & Harris, 1993),
it has been expanded to other student populations and sub-
ject areas (e.g., Accardo et al., 2020; Ennis et al., 2015;
Jozwik et al., 2019; Mason, 2013; Rogers et al., 2020; Sanders
et al., 2021). SRSD appeared in the SLP literature over
20 years ago (Graham & Harris, 1999; Graham et al., 2000)
and continues to be recommended and used in this field for
writing intervention (Al Otaiba et al., 2018; Dunn Davison,
2017; Perry, 2017).
SRSD teaches both general self-regulatory strategies
and specific learning strategies. Students learn to think about
who will read their work and why they are writing it, how to
plan what to say, and how to say more (Graham & Harris,
1999). Students learn to assess their own academic progress,
accuracy, and step completion. They decide on a target per-
formance level with the teacher and create a plan to achieve
it. They take themselves through the steps with guiding self-
statements and administer rewards to themselves for meet-
ing goals. Specific strategies are learned through mnemonics
such as STOP/DARE (Suspend judgment, Take a side,
Organize ideas, Plan more as you write/Develop your topic
sentence, Add supporting ideas, Reject arguments for the
other side, End with a conclusion) and TREE (Topic sen-
tence, Reasons, Examples, Ending; Liberty & Conderman,
2018). SRSD sets out six stages to learning the strategies:
teach or activate background knowledge, discuss the strat-
egy, model it, have students memorize it, support learning
and practice, and have students use it independently.
SRSD has a considerable research evidence base.
Systematic reviews have found immediate and maintained
improvements in writing and reading (e.g., Asaro-Saddler
et al., 2021; Losinski et al., 2014; Sanders et al., 2019;
Sreckovic et al., 2014), although few studies examine in-
dependent use of the strategies and self-regulatory be-
haviors. Many elements of SRSD are present in Sketch
and Speak, but the approaches also differ in significant
ways.
2Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups •1–17
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Sketch and Speak Intervention
Overview and Rationale
In several other works, Ukrainetz discusses how SLPs
are well situated to provide strategy intervention and ex-
plains how to do so (Ukrainetz, 2015a, 2015b, 2016, 2017,
2021), including within a version of SRSD (Ukrainetz, 2006).
In this clinical focus article, we focus on note-taking and
oral practice strategies. We developed Sketch and Speak in-
tervention for SLPs and their students from the later ele-
mentary grades into high school. It is about facilitating
and empowering students to access the words and ideas of
challenging expository texts and turn them into oral or writ-
ten academic communicative works.
Like SRSD, Sketch and Speak employs the effective
features of strategy instruction described previously. It uses
explicit teacher modeling, a specified format for the strate-
gies, controlled task difficulty, practice with feedback, and
adjustment of support to the learner level. The process keeps
students mindfully engaged in what they are doing and why.
The strategies are taught explicitly and systematically, with
multiple opportunities to learn and practice skills, informa-
tive feedback, and motivating learning conditions within
meaningful academic communicative contexts.
Unlike SRSD, this intervention is designed specifically
for individualized oral interactions around print, resulting
in purposeful oral academic communicative work. It uses
shared reading and minimal writing strategies to circumvent
decoding and spelling difficulties. It does not require stu-
dents to memorize task-specific mnemonics, have prior
discourse structure knowledge, or have any particular degree
of topic knowledge.
Sketch and Speak, at its center, consists of just three
fairly generic actions: note an idea simply, say it fully, and
then say it again. This triad forms the “active ingredients”
of treatment that take students from identifying memora-
ble ideas from informational texts to their own firmly held
words for authoring oral and written academic works. The
notes are done in two ways: sketching iconic images and
writing conventional notes. In addition to being appealing
to students, sketching the images helps students break away
from the words of the source text to create their own sen-
tences about the text information. A categorically organized
note sheet reorganizes ideas while maintaining expository
discourse structure. Finally, there is an integral part of SLP
intervention for young children that can go missing for
olderchildreninacademically focused interventions—
systematically eliciting and practicing spoken sentences. We
now turn to the reasoning and research that underlie these
strategies of note-taking, pictographic notes, and oral formu-
lation and rehearsal.
Taking Notes for Learning
Writing brief but informative notes about what one
is reading and then turning those notes back into accurate,
well-formulated statements of knowledge are important
academic skills. Note-taking affords the basic benefit of
recording information for later reference but also aids idea
comprehension and retention and can engage higher level
cognitive processes that further improve learning. System-
atic reviews have found that note-taking and note review
are beneficial for acquisition of content area knowledge
(Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004; Graham & Hebert, 2010;
Kobayashi, 2006). A variety of instructional procedures
have shown benefits, with generally greater gains for weaker
students (Boyle & Rivera, 2012; Kobayashi, 2006). Often,
the note-taking instruction is combined with content instruc-
tion and other learning strategies such as main idea and text
structure identification.
Notes have particular features that make them effi-
cient modes of representation (Piolat et al., 2005). Effective
notes represent only relevant and important concepts, in as
few words or alternate representations as needed, to cue
accurate recall. They make connections among ideas and
organize information in ways suited to the task purpose.
Notes condense source language with abbreviated lexical
units, telegraphic word strings, or alternate symbols (e.g.,
+, =). They may spatially distribute text to show meaning
in clusters or sequential processes or transform text into
nonlinear and nonverbal formats, such as graphs, icons, or
concept maps.
Note-taking can involve passive verbatim copying of
chunks of information, but it is the purposeful transforma-
tion, elaboration, and organization of words and ideas that
improve learning and recall (Arnold et al., 2017; Boyle &
Rivera, 2012; Kobayashi, 2006). Active note-taking helps
students to analyze textual information, differentiate main
from secondary ideas, and combine new material with prior
knowledge (Chang & Ku, 2015). It invokes other important
learning strategies, such as self-questioning, summarization,
paraphrasing, and inferring word meaning (Kamil et al.,
2008; National Reading Panel, 2000). For example, notes
that summarize and paraphrase prose passages produce
better immediate and delayed learning of explicit and in-
ferential information than verbatim or sequential notes
(Bretzing & Kulhavy, 1979; Slotte & Lonka, 1999). De-
spite its value, note-taking can be difficult in many
ways.
Pictography as a Note-Taking Strategy
Though note-taking can significantly improve student
performance, even this small amount of writing can be a big
task for some students. Students may have difficulty with
spelling and word choices while taking notes and later with
reading and making sense of their notes. Students often
take incomplete notes; miss important ideas; and write
verbatim a mix of important, minor, and tangential ideas
(Boyle & Forchelli, 2014; Hebert et al., 2014). An alterna-
tive note-taking strategy is pictography or “picture writing.”
The minimal iconic sketches avoid many of the difficulties
of written notes and allow students to focus on the content
of the ideas. Oral formulation and rehearsal from pictogra-
phy provides the added benefit of transformation of knowl-
edge from words to images and back to words.
Ukrainetz & Peterson: Sketch and Speak Strategy Intervention 3
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Pictography is clearly applicable to discourse that
lends itself to stick figures; actions; and sequential orga-
nization, such as narratives or procedures. These “quick-
and-easy”and “just-enough-to-remember”sketches have
long been used as an accessible way to plan, tell, and ana-
lyze stories. It is a flexible tool that is applicable to diverse
individual and classroom applications. Pictography has been
shown to be easily learned and to improve the quality of
oral narratives compared to writing and drawing for ele-
mentary and middle school students of a range of abilities
(McFadden, 1995, 1998; Ukrainetz, 1998). Since those early
studies, instructor- and student-generated sketches have be-
come well-established components of narrative interventions
(e.g., Gillam & Ukrainetz, 2006; Gillam et al., 2020; Paul
et al., 2018, p. 534; Petersen et al., 2014; Ukrainetz,
2015b).
Less is known about the applicability of this visual
strategy to informational discourse. Expository texts often
lack imageability, agents, and chronology and have the
further difficulties of specialized vocabulary, specific phras-
ings, and complex grammatical relations. However, visual
mapping is part of the scientific tradition with flowcharts,
maps, and schematics. Mayer and Gallini (1990) found that
for college students, schematic images of “parts and steps”
were helpful for conceptual recall and problem-solving of
the operation of mechanical devices, especially for students
with limited prior knowledge of the topic. Fourth graders
who transformed ideas between text and graphs as part of
a comprehensive note-taking instruction program signifi-
cantly improved comprehension compared to controls (Chang
& Ku, 2015). These visual supports are quite different from
pictography but provide evidence that nonverbal representa-
tions can be used for expository discourse.
Oral Formulation and Rehearsal for Learning
A sometimes overlooked element of note-taking is
turning the notes, whether written or pictographic, back
into useable verbal statements. Systematic practice retrieving
and formulating the ideas is an important part of any note-
taking strategy.
Retrieval of ideas from memory is key to effective
studying and helps move learning from superficial recall to
deeper comprehension (Arnold et al., 2017). Comprehen-
sion is improved—and better displayed—if retrieval goes
beyond isolated concept labels to full sentences that specify
the relations among ideas and, even better, to a learner’s
own paraphrased sentences (Bretzing & Kulhavy, 1979;
Meyer & Freedle, 1984; Slotte & Lonka, 1999). Once the
student has firmly internalized the concepts and their em-
bodiment as oral words, sentences, and discourse, they can
turn this into writing. The process may be laborious and
attention consuming and the writing may be misshapen,
misspelled, or mispunctuated, but the orally formulated and
rehearsed concepts and language can move from memory
onto the page.
Repeated retrieval is rehearsal. Rehearsal does not
involve deep cognitive elaborative and organizational
processes engendered by strategies such as summarizing,
paraphrasing, and inferencing. However, repeatedly re-
trieving and expressing ideas matters for academic achieve-
ment, especially if it involves some effort and monitoring
for accuracy (Abel & Roediger, 2018; Callender & McDaniel,
2009; Karpicke et al., 2009, 2014; Karpicke & Roediger,
2008; Smith et al., 2013; H. L. Swanson et al., 2010; Wigent,
2013). If rehearsal is applied to ideas and language that
have been previously transformed, elaborated, and orga-
nized, then the combination could be even more effective.
Idea retrieval, formulation, and rehearsal are all about
oral language. One could formulate and repeatedly write full
sentences and organized discourse from notes, but it makes a
lot more sense to talk your way through the notes in your
own words. Studying for a test and preparing to give a
speech both fall in the realm of “talking to learn”rather
than “writing to learn.”Talking to learn extends instruction
from how to take notes to how to use notes, which has been
often ignored in note-taking research (Boyle, 2010). This in-
volves both teaching through interactive talking and listening
and teaching how to talk and listen to oneself.
Teaching students to talk to themselves is another
part of talking to learn. Reciprocal teaching is a long-
standing oral strategy instruction that involves scaffolded
peer dialogues around summarizing, clarifying, question
generating, and predicting to move external talk into a stu-
dent’s own self-talk (Palincsar, 1986; Palincsar & Brown,
1984). Effects, compared to no-treatment and alternate
treatment conditions, have included improved summariz-
ing and question posing within instructional group con-
versations and improved comprehension of studied and
nonstudied materials compared to no-treatment controls
(King & Parent Johnson, 1999; Lederer, 2000; Palincsar,
1986; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Rosenshine & Meister,
1994).
A simple self-talk intervention that achieves notice-
able change quickly is a procedure called read–recite–review
(McDaniel et al., 2009). Students read a text, set it aside,
recite aloud what they remembered, and then reread the
text to check recall accuracy. In a randomized group de-
sign, McDaniel et al. (2009) showed this recitation proce-
dure improved college student recall of a basic passage and
a longer, technical passage compared to students carrying
out only note-taking or rereading strategies. With the more
difficult passage, the self-talk strategy was equivalent to but
faster than note-taking. If one was to combine this oral
practice with note-taking and add an accessible alternative
to writing, the strategy combination might be even more
powerful. We return to the intervention that combines these
three helpful and teachable learning strategies.
Sketch and Speak Research
Group Experiment on the Core Procedure
The first formal investigation of Sketch and Speak
was that of Ukrainetz (2019). This group experimental study
investigated whether students would apply taught strategies
4Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups •1–17
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

to new texts and whether their oral and written expression
of information would improve following instruction. Forty-
four fourth- to sixth-grade students with language, learning,
and attentional disabilities from nine schools were sorted
by codes into two groups balanced on grade, language test
score, and demographic features. The groups were randomly
assigned to treatment or no-treatment conditions. Students
in the treatment condition were instructed by their school
SLPs using grade-level expository texts on unusual animals
in six 30-min individual or pair sessions. Students in the
treatment condition were taught pictographic and written
note-taking paired with oral formulation and practice (ex-
plained further later in this clinical focus article in a clini-
cal scenario under the Core Procedure section). Students
in the control condition continued to receive their regular
instruction.
Students in both conditions were individually tested
before and after treatment to examine whether they improved
their note-taking and reporting on informational texts. The
testing articles, two counterbalanced grade-level texts on his-
torical peoples, were read aloud with the print in view, and
then the students were told to take notes on “important and
interesting ideas”from the article for an oral report. For
both testing and teaching, students took their notes on a
two-column note sheet (described further under the Inter-
vention Materials section). The students reviewed their notes
and then gave an oral presentation from them. At posttest-
ing only, students returned 1–4 days later to write reports
from their notes.
The notes and reports were scored for quantity and
quality features on investigator-devised rubrics (see Appen-
dixes A and B). In addition, for overall quality of the oral
reports, a holistic comparison of pretest and posttest reports
was conducted. Three raters blinded to participant condition
status and pre/post video status rated the participant’svideo
recordings, without having read the source articles. Raters
judged whether one oral report was “substantially”or
“slightly”better than the other or whether the two were sim-
ilar in quality. Raters were told to make the judgment on
the overall quality of the presentation and were asked to
choose two to three reasons from a list of possible reasons
(e.g., vocabulary, sentence structure, information clarity,
report organization, use of presentation voice, and look-
ing at audience), with one “other”reason they could spec-
ify. A report was scored as “better”if it received at least
two of three ratings of slightly or substantially better.
For independent use of strategies on nontaught texts,
results showed benefits for note-taking and expository report-
ing compared to gains in the control condition. The quantity
of notes did not increase, but the total features quality score
(contributed to by four of the five features: bullet/pictography
format, brief and simple, enough to interpret, and use of
own words or differentiated sketches) increased significantly
with a moderate effect size. For the oral reports, length was
also not significantly different, but feature quality improved.
Four of the six quality features (more full sentences, more
openings/closings, more paraphrased sentences, and fewer
extraneous statements) showed significant improvements
with medium effect sizes, but the holistic ratings did not
show significant differences. No significant effects on report
writing were obtained. The time lag for the written reports
complicated interpretation of the cause of lack of change,
but five of six quality features were slightly in favor of the
treatment condition.
Only four students used pictography in whole or part
at posttesting. The instructions did not explicitly say they
could, and the students may not have thought this was per-
missible. One student who wrote fairly competent notes at
pretesting asked permission to use pictography at posttest-
ing. This student sketched simple, differentiated, interpret-
able pictographs in each note sheet category (see Figure 1).
One notated idea not from the source text was a grass squig-
gle, for which the student said, “Llamas were herbivores,”
which meant they only ate plants. This was a well-formed
complex sentence applying knowledge from treatment texts
that mentioned omnivores and carnivores. This student’s
posttest oral report from the pictography was longer and of
better quality than the pretest report (he did not complete
his written report). Another student used a mix of writing
and pictography at posttest (see Figure 2). His teepee,
wikiup, and Hogan sketches captured more than a few
written words could have done. He was also one of the few
who showed evidence of rehearsal during the review time
with concentrated gaze, whispered sentences, and tracking
gestures. Possibly as a result of using all the taught strategies,
this student’s oral and written reports both improved in qual-
ity compared to pretesting.
In treatment records and reflective essays, speech-
language pathology instructors showed strong support for
Sketch and Speak. Students were highly engaged and im-
mediately caught on to creating minimal sketches about
ideas from the articles. They could turn the pictography into
their own well-formed sentences and use it to cue oral re-
ports at the start of the next session. One SLP recognized
that her tendency to engage in stimulating talk distracted
from the treatment focus and could compromise her student’s
sentence retention: “Ihadatendencytoexpandduringread-
ing of the article, making inferences and comparisons, as well
as teaching vocabulary…When my student would formu-
late a sentence, I would tend to try and expand their thinking,
giving suggestions to add more detail.”While the SLP can
improve the student’s initial effort at creating a sentence
from the note, the student needs a single final version to
firmly set into memory. A qualitative analysis of the essays
revealed five factors to which the SLPs attributed success:
simplicity, quick and easy visuals, oral creation of sen-
tences, repeated practice, and visible progress (see Table 1).
Descriptive Case Study on Expanded Treatment
Peterson et al. (2021) examined how to increase stu-
dent use and ownership of the strategies in a descriptive
case study with two fourth-grade students and one sixth-
grade student with language disorders. Peterson was the
students’school SLP at the time and provided the study in-
struction. For this study, we increased the treatment time,
Ukrainetz & Peterson: Sketch and Speak Strategy Intervention 5
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

gave more attention to oral rehearsal and strategy aware-
ness, and employed more varied application contexts. In
addition to pre-/posttesting on nontaught texts, we exam-
ined performance when students shared their final oral re-
ports from treatment with their peers and teachers. The
testing procedure explicitly allowed use of “wordsorpictures”
for the notes. We tested writing at pre- and posttest and did
the writing in the same session as the other outcome measures.
We added an off-line participant awareness interview and
an online video analysis of preparation time for indications
students were reviewing and rehearsing their notes (Dent &
Koenka, 2016). The expanded treatment procedures and the
progress measures are explained further in the Beyond the
Core and Measuring Progress sections.
This study design did not allow firm causal conclu-
sions, but many changes could be logically and plausibly
linked to the treatment experience. We found improvements
in aspects of note-taking, rehearsal, oral and written report-
ing, and strategy awareness from pre- to posttesting, with
gains matching individual personalities and abilities. Out of
10 raters, nine to 10 rated all the oral reports and the fourth
graders’preparatory behaviors as holistically better at post-
testing. The sixth grader showed concentrated study at both
testing periods with no visible differences but, in his posttest
interview, reported using rehearsal as a strategy.
The final treatment presentations, all on the famous
athlete Michael Jordan, showed marked changes. With sup-
port, both fourth graders could create helpful pictographic
notes, formulate sentences, and practice them create to learn
a lot about a topic and give an organized, fluent, confident
oral presentation. The sixth grader made notes that had all
the taught features, composed and rehearsed his own sen-
tences from the notes, and carried out the process largely in-
dependently. He primarily needed reminders to stay with
article information rather than adding his own unsupported
knowledge. At the end of the study, the student wanted to
compose a report on his favorite player and asked to
teach the strategies to a friend. This sixth grader expressed
Figure 1. Student preference for pictography notes. Excerpts from pretest notes for Apache Nation article on the left and posttest notes on
Incan Empire article on the right. Adapted from Ukrainetz (2019), Supplemental Material S1 and S2.
Figure 2. Moving from written to pictography and bulleted notes. Excerpts from pretest notes for Incan Empire article on the left and posttest
notes on Apache Nation article on the right. Adapted from Ukrainetz (2019), Supplemental Materials S3 and S4.
6Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups •1–17
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

awareness of the value of notes and verbal rehearsal and was
motivated to go further in his own learning. Treatment im-
pact was perhaps most notable in that the student accom-
plishments led to requests from teachers for Peterson to
teach the strategies to their classes, coach individual stu-
dents into classroom use, and guide teachers on how to do
it themselves.
Future Directions With Secondary Students
The research we have completed has been on fourth-
to sixth-grade students with language-related learning dis-
abilities. The larger note-taking and oral rehearsal research
base indicates this treatment procedure has potential for
older students with their greater self-regulatory capacity.
However, it is important to directly investigate the effective-
ness of Sketch and Speak for students in the later grades.
There are few validated discourse-level interventions avail-
able for SLPs to use with students beyond the early grades
(Peterson et al., 2020), so this treatment could be an impor-
tant addition to the SLP repertoire.
When we agreed to write this clinical focus article, we
expected to have completed at least one study with secondary
students. However, due to the pandemic, our research progress
has been slowed. Data collection has been completed for
Peterson’s dissertation, which investigates the core treatment
effects of Sketch and Speak for ninth graders with language-
related learning disabilities in a multiple-baseline single-case
design delivered via telepractice. Preliminary analysis of the
social validity results suggests that the participants enjoyed
the treatment and can visualize themselves using the strategies
in the high school setting. We will incorporate what we learn
from this study to investigate the immediate and maintained
effects of an extended version of the treatment; how to promote
students’use of the strategies in the classroom; and further
understanding of the social validity of the treatment procedures
and strategies for students, parents, SLPs, and teachers. This
line of research will contribute to our understanding of how
to use strategy intervention to empower secondary students
and improve academic learning.
Nitty-Gritties of Sketch and Speak
In this section, we explain how to use Sketch and
Speak clinically. We detail the materials, core treatment
procedure, progress measures, and expansions beyond the
core procedure based on our published research with youn-
ger students and our in-progress work with older students.
We illustrate the process with an SLP named Ms. Jones and
a ninth-grade student named Jaden, addressing Jaden’s
treatment goals of (a) self-regulated use of note-taking and
oral practice strategies and (b) improved comprehension
and expression of grade-level expository texts.
Intervention Materials
Sketch and Speak involves no special materials. Every-
thing is available in schools, on the Internet, or composed
by the SLP. Writing your own short articles is a bit of
work, but they can then be used for many students and
varied treatment targets and modified as needed. Well-
structured texts are good models and sources for building
concepts and language, especially if they are used as topi-
cally related sets (e.g., unusual animals and notable athletes)
to promote interconnected networks of knowledge and vo-
cabulary. However, the procedure works with any informa-
tional texts.
For our research with secondary students, we composed
descriptive-explanatory texts of similar structure, difficulty,
and length. Our approximately 500-word, 1000-Lexile arti-
cles are about unusual animals, famous athletes, interesting
objects, and historical peoples based on sources such as
Wikipedia, http://a-z-animals.com/, http://www.readworks.
org, http://www.kidsdiscover.com, and topic-specific online
sites. We use Lexile Text Analyzer to determine approximate
grade level. Lexiles are a widely used measure of reading
difficulty calculated from word length, sentence length, word
frequency, and other proprietary features (MetaMetrics,
2021). High-Lexile texts can be made more accessible by
building on a student’s existing knowledge, using the-
matically lin ke d topics, or tying into classroom content.
Reading aloud with the print in view and looking at the text
together also helps. Each return for ideas to notate makes
the previously daunting article more familiar. With shared
decoding and meaning-making, “grade level”can be a point
of challenge and pride, not a limiter to possibilities.
The two-column note form is commonly used in class-
rooms for collecting and organizing information. We match
the category names to each topic area and vary the terms to
incidentally develop student knowledge of equivalent and
related taxonomic words. Since the form is not intended
for oral presentations, it has no special place for opening
Table 1. Some perceptions from the school speech-language
pathology instructor.
•“It isn’t complicated. Students appeared to quickly grasp how
the process worked. This seems crucial to the idea of carry over.
If they are going to be using this strategy on their own, it has
to be simple enough to remember and not require significant
materials.”
•“With the focus on ‘quick and easy, just enough to remember,’
many of my students who typically lose focus were more able to
come up with a picture or a few words to use for their notes.”
•“The pictography strategy helped kids remember the meanings
of words such as ‘nocturnal’and ‘amphibian.’”
•“Once a well-formed sentence was established, the student
took ownership of the sentence and successfully implemented
these complete sentences in well-formed oral reports.”
•“Having the student practice the full sentence until a good
grammatical sentence was achieved…It paid off for the students
when giving the full report.”
•“With the repetition and strategies, by the third article, each
student was eager to not only tackle the article and learn about
the interesting animal, they also immediately identified details
with more independence and overall confidence.”
Note. From Ukrainetz (2019, Table 6, p. 62).
Ukrainetz & Peterson: Sketch and Speak Strategy Intervention 7
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

and closing notes. We thought that tweaking the form with
the student promoted active learning, so we use it that way.
Core Procedure
The core procedure involves two-session cycles of
pictography and then bulleted notes on a single article (see
Table 2). In the initial sessions, the notation formats are
paired to maximize concept retrieval and transformation
opportunities. Each time a note is sketched or written, it is
expanded back into a full, well-formed sentence that is then
repeated.
Pictography
In the first session, Jaden is told he will learn some
strategies that will help him remember information from ar-
ticles for his own presentations, projects, or tests. The first
strategy introduced is pictography. Pictography is described
as a “quick and easy, just enough to remember”way to re-
member ideas from articles without writing any words. The
text is on the famous athlete Michael Jordan (see Appendix
C). Ms. Jones begins by reading aloud the first one to two
paragraphs of the text with the print in view. She reads the
paragraph at a moderate pace with expression and encour-
ages Jaden to follow along with his finger on his own copy
of the article. After Ms. Jones reads the first part of the text,
she stops reading to ask, “What is an important or interest-
ing idea you’d like to remember from that paragraph? Where
would we put that on the note form?”Jaden and Ms. Jones
look at the athlete note form (see Appendix D), identify the
categories, and discuss where the idea best fits.
In the first section of the Michael Jordan text, Jaden
might identify an idea such as “varsity basketball coaches
thought he was too short.”Ms. Jones and Jaden decide that
could fit in the categories of Early Life or Fun Facts. They
do this for a second idea and then go back to the beginning
of the article and start the note creation. This familiarization
with the note form and return to the start of the article only
occurs for the initial introduction to the procedure.
On her own blank form, Ms. Jones fills in the topic
line, and Jaden does the same on his own form. For the
first pictographic note, Ms. Jones models a quick sketch of
key elements of the idea on her own note form. In the Early
Life box, Ms. Jones sketches a stick figure holding a ball
with some indicator he is short, such as a horizontal line
above his head or a net way above his head. Ms. Jones
comments that this is not a good artistic drawing but just
something quick and easy to help recall the idea. Jaden
then sketches his own pictography note of that idea. Jaden
can copy Ms. Jones’sketch at first or come up with a simi-
lar sketch while she guides him on key elements to sketch
and how to minimally represent them.
SLPs may want to practice their pictography in ad-
vance, but students are generally at ease with generating
quick sketches of ideas. Quite opaque pictographs work
as memory cues given the immediate sentence rehearsal. Even
so, students may create pictographs that provide too little to
cue them later, such as just a stick figure for the short basket-
ball player, with similar stick figures for other people or
events. Other students may create overly detailed sketches
andneedtobeguidedastowhatis“quick and easy, just
enough to remember.”
Saying Sentences
After the pictographic note is created, Ms. Jones
models saying a full sentence from the pictography note:
“My full sentence about this note is ‘In his early life, coa-
ches told Michael Jordan he was too short to play varsity
basketball.’What do you want your full sentence to be?”
The sentence accurately represents what was stated in the
source text. It can be verbatim but, for idea ownership, is
better paraphrased. The category labels provide possible
carrier phrase entries into new sentences. If Jaden has diffi-
culties formulating a sentence, Ms. Jones can recast, extend,
or elaborate, but the end point must be a single, consis-
tent sentence that belongs to the student. Jaden repeats this
sentence at least once before moving on to the next note. The
student may modify the sentence slightly on later repetitions,
but the SLP should refrain from further rewording.
This process of “note it simply, say it fully, then say
it again”is repeated for each chosen text idea until the ar-
ticle is completed. Not every idea from the article will be
noted: seven to 10 ideas spread across the note sheet cate-
gories are enough for a substantive oral report. Halfway
through the article, Ms. Jones has Jaden say all the sentences
to that point from his pictography, and then they continue
making notes and sentences to the end of the article. The arti-
cle is then removed, and from his pictographic notes, Jaden
gives a full oral report of his rehearsed sentences and says
Table 2. Core Sketch and Speak procedure.
Session 1. Pictography notes Session 2. Bulleted notes
1. Read aloud text with print in view.
2. Stop to identify important or interesting idea.
3. Turn idea into “quick and easy, just enough to remember”
pictography note on a two-column form.
4. Say full sentence from pictography.
5. Say full sentence again—revise if needed for quality or accuracy—
and say again.
6. Repeat #1–5 for each text idea until text read with 7–10 pictos.
7. Say full oral report from pictos and say it again.
1. Say full report from pictography.
2. Check any against article if needed.
3. Say full sentence from pictography and then reduce to “quick
and easy, just enough to remember”bulleted note on a two-
column form.
4. Say full sentence again—revise if needed—and say again.
5. Repeat #3–4 for each pictography to bulleted note.
6. Say opener/closer, add notes, and say again.
7. Say full report from bulleted notes and say it again.
8Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups •1–17
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

the whole report again. Jaden and Ms. Jones review what
he learned that day, which Jaden might say was about
Michael Jordan’s life, which is true, but also that he learned
three to help him remember what he read: taking simple
notes with pictography, making up full sentences from the
notes, and rehearsing those sentences.
Bulleted Notes
The second of the paired sessions is about learning the
bulleted notes strategy and revisiting his other new strate-
gies. This session starts with Jaden giving a full oral report
from his pictography notes. The source article can be pulled
out for a fact check if needed, but then that text is put
away. This session is about a second knowledge transforma-
tion: turning the student’s spoken sentences from their pic-
tography notes into bulleted written notes.
Ms. Jones explains how notes are short, just a few
words that capture the main idea of a sentence: “quick and
easy, just enough to remember.”Bullet points indicate that
these are just key words and phrases, not full sentences
with correct spelling and punctuation. Each bulleted note is
followed by Jaden saying and repeating the accompanying
full oral sentence. Ms. Jones models the transformation of
a pictography note to a bulleted note on a new blank note
form, saying “My full sentence for this picto was ‘In his
early life, coaches told Michael Jordan he was too short to
play varsity basketball.’What are the key ideas from that
sentence that I could turn into a bulleted note? I’mgoingto
start with a bullet, then write ‘too short for varsity’in the
Early Life box on my new note form.”Then, Jaden says his
full sentence from the pictographandreducesittoabul-
letednoteonhisownnewblankform.Afterthebulleted
note is complete, Jaden says his full sentence from the note
and says it at least once more before moving to the next
note. The process is repeated with each pictography note
expanded into a full sentence, reduced to a simple bulleted
note, and then expanded into a full sentence and repeated.
After the bulleted notes and sentences are completed, the
pictography notes are removed, and Jaden says his oral re-
port from the bulleted notes twice.
The oral report is turned into a formal presentation
by adding opening and closing statements. Ms. Jones and
Jaden formulate full sentences, “Today I’m going to tell you
about the great basketball star Michael Jordan”and “I
hope you enjoyed this report on Air Jordan.”They reduce
the sentences to simple starter cues (e.g.,“Iwanttotellyou
“and”I hope you enjoyed”) that Jaden writes on the top
and bottom of the form. Jaden repeats those full sentences
at least twice. He then says the complete full oral report
with opening and closing sentences from the bulleted notes
and says the whole report again. To add interest, Ms. Jones
shares a photo sheet that illustrates several ideas from the
source article. In our research, the photos are not shown
until the end so that students do their pictography, notes,
and talking about information from the source article only.
Ms.JonesandJadenendthesessionwithareviewofthe
note-taking and rehearsal strategies Jaden has learned in
these two sessions.
Summing the Core
This two-session pictography plus bulleted notes pro-
cedure has taken Jaden from an initial shared reading of a
challenging informational text through to creating a formal
organized oral report that he can give fluently and confi-
dently. In the process, he has learned a lot about a famous
athlete and has been introduced to four strategies that work
together toward ownership of the ideas and words from
source texts: (a) taking simple pictographic notes, (b) taking
simple bulleted notes, (c) formulating full oral sentences,
and (d) rehearsing those full oral sentences individually
and as a full report. We suggest completing three cycles of
the notation pairings, applied to texts with similar structure
and topics. In this way, the student and SLP experience a
predictable routine with the two notation formats for the
same text and ideas, doubling the opportunities for concept
transformation and verbal rehearsal.
Beyond the Core
At the end of the paired-format cycles, Ms. Jones
will tell Jaden they will move to just doing one set of notes
in different kinds of activities. They will figure out the kind
or combination of pictography and bulleted notes that suits
Jaden and move toward more independent note creation. Ms.
Jones and Jaden will work on instilling the habit of oral sen-
tence formulation and rehearsal during note creation. They
cancontinuetousethestrategies in the sheltered intervention
context on curriculum-relevant texts and classroom-type
activities. For lower ability students, this may be the preferred
route. However, for most secondary students, the route should
be toward independent use of note-taking and rehearsal out-
side the intervention context. Table 3 shows an extended
version of the treatment that moves a student toward inde-
pendence, based on Peterson et al. (2021). In this process,
Jaden will learn about a technique we call whisper rehearsal
that allows visible oral practice for the clinician to scaffold
without calling attention to the student or disrupting other
students. Ms. Jones and Jaden will figure out homework or
class activities in which he can apply his strategies and talk
to resource and subject area teachers about possible uses.
Possible treatment activities include informational
brochures and PowerPoint presentations. The brochures are
created by students combining several prior oral reports. Stu-
dents can dictate their reports to the SLP who types them on
the computer to give another oral practice opportunity and
avoided the time-consuming process of student writing. The
students add title, author, and illustration flourishes and share
the finished product with other students. For the presentations,
students show their notes on the slides and speak from those
notes. For older students such as Jaden, report writing could
be included in treatment. Jaden should be given review time
to whisper-rehearse from his prepared notes and then write
or type the essay. To make this activity more different from
the treatment context, Jaden could write the report in a study
period. When he returns to Ms. Jones, they can compare his
essay to his notes, and he can explain the process he went
through to write it.
Ukrainetz & Peterson: Sketch and Speak Strategy Intervention 9
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Once the skills are in place, the intervention can be
embedded within larger inquiry learning projects where stu-
dents search for and combine information from multiple
texts. Alternately, the process could become a creative, per-
sonal act based on existing knowledge. The process can also
be applied to specific language skills, such as sentence struc-
ture or summarization. For example, to teach use of the
lengthy pre- and postmodified expanded noun phrases char-
acteristic of expository texts (Scott, 1995), the SLP can
guide the student to identify statements in the text with
those structures to take through the “note it simply, say it
fully, and say it again”process. The student will have repeated
opportunities with explicit, systematic support to learn the un-
derlying linguistic pattern, retain examples of that structure
as well as ideas of the source text, and incorporate both into
their own sentences and oral or written reports.
For coaching into use outside the treatment room,
SLP sessions should include guided practice, decreasing sup-
port, and even role play of potential classroom applications.
The SLP can work with the resource, science, or social stud-
ies teachers to identify or modify activities to give students a
need to take notes, to speak or write from notes, and to
collect written or recorded documentation from those ac-
tivities. Composing an essay, rehearsing a speech, or putting
together a project from notes can encourage use of these
strategies in other settings. It is important that students be
able to at least whisper-rehearse their sentences. One can re-
hearse silently, but the audible action is more accountable
to both learner and instructor.
Measuring Progress
Progress in Treatment
Jaden’s progress can be measured in multiple ways.
For his treatment goal of strategy use, Ms. Jones can evalu-
ate the quality of his pictographic and bulleted notes as well
as oral formulation and rehearsal during the treatment activi-
ties. Ms. Jones can track the amount of support Jaden requires
to make the notes and do the oral formulation and practice
on the treatment texts. For his expository comprehension
and expression goal, she can evaluate his ideas, words,
sentences, discourse, and speaking skills. Ms. Jones can
evaluate his report holistically on vocabulary, sentence
structure, information accuracy and clarity, organization,
use of presentation voice, and looking at his audience.
Jaden’s notes and oral performance could be evaluated
more quantitatively and in more detail with the scoring forms
we have used in our research (look again at Appendixes A
and B). For a more distal measure of strategy use and lan-
guage skills, Ms. Jones can have Jaden orally present one of
his practiced reports to a student audience. She can include
a preparatory period and observe whether he seems to be re-
hearsing from his notes.
Progress on Concept and Language Learning
For Jaden’s progress on comprehension and expres-
sion of the ideas and words from the grade-level article,
two kinds of oral reports can be done. The first is a regular
oral report using his notes. The notes are just cues—Jaden
must have learned the ideas well enough to express them
clearly and accurately. The other is an oral report without
the notes. In this case, Jaden gets a few minutes to review
his notes, then the notes are taken away, and Jaden gives
thebestoralreporthecan,sayingasmuchashecanre-
member about what he has learned.
Another way to tap topic learning is answering con-
tent questions (see Appendix E). The questions examine
whether Jaden has understood and retained certain kinds
of information from the Michael Jordan text. We start with
a warm-up question on what is famous about the athlete,
which has several possible answers, then ask about several
significant details, a why question and a vocabulary ques-
tion. For the lexical item, we make sure that the word and
its meaning are highlighted at least once during the shared
reading or sentence creation process. These questions could
also be used formatively in treatment: Ms. Jones and Jaden
can examine his answers and determine how he could under-
stand certain ideas better, choose different ideas to remember,
or do better notes and rehearsal the next time.
Progress Toward Independent Use
Jaden’s progress on independent, self-regulated strat-
egy use involves moving away from the treatment texts
and activities. Ms. Jones can give Jaden a new text, which
could be a different athlete text or something quite differ-
ent, such as an unusual animal article. The overall task is
similar to what occurs in treatment but reveals what hap-
pens if Ms. Jones is not directing the action. Ms. Jones can
read the text aloud to Jaden as he follows along. She then
gives Jaden the text and notes form and instructs him to
Table 3. Extended Sketch and Speak procedure.
Sessions Procedure
Sessions 1–6 Three cycles of paired notations on three topic area texts
Session 7 Text #4 with choice or mix of notation format
Session 8 Informational brochure with dictation to SLP, compare to source; illustrate, title, author
Session 9 Intro whisper rehearsal, small group presentation, record, and compare to notes
Session 10 New text topic area, choice of notation, create oral report with strategies
Session 11 Whisper rehearsal, large group presentation, demo strategies
Session 12+ Evaluate and plan more independent use in more varied activities: text choice, test study, multiple texts for inquiry project
Note. Based on Peterson et al. (2021). SLP = speech-language pathologist.
10 Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups •1–17
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

prepare an oral report from the article using the strategies
he has learned. Ms. Jones will watch the process to see if
Jaden seems to be orally formulating and rehearsing sentences
during the notes creation and then for all the sentences to-
gether before giving his full report. The preparation may be
done silently, but there are likely to be indicators such as
whispers, mouth movements, or gestures. Ms. Jones can
also ask Jaden about his strategy use afterward: what he did,
what was going on in his head, and his views of his own
progress and the utility of the strategies for him.
More convincing evidence for the goal of self-regulated
use is what Jaden does in an activity that differs in multiple
ways from treatment. The expository language sample
protocol of Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts
(SALT; Miller & Iglesias, 2019) works for this. In the
SALT procedure, students explain a familiar sport or game
(Heilmann & Malone, 2014). They are given a nine-category
planning sheet to write or draw their ideas, and then they use
those notes to explain the game. This task reveals whether
Jaden will apply his learning strategies to his existing knowl-
edge of a personalized topic. SALT has age reference scores
for ninth to 12th grade, so Ms. Jones can see how Jaden is
doing compared to his peers.
The ultimate evidence of the effectiveness of this treat-
ment would be self-regulated use of the taught strategies
outside the treatment context with resultant improvement
in academic achievement. Measures of progress could in-
clude work sample artifacts, assignment grades, and inter-
views with Jaden and his teachers. These measures do not
allow definite cause–effect statements, but they would go
a lot further than what we usually achieve in evaluating
our strategy interventions.
Final Thoughts on Teaching Sketch and Speak
in the Classroom
We have found that resource and life skill teachers,
English-as-a-second-language teachers, and even classroom
teachers have been intrigued by this process and its results.
This is wonderful but presents a practical conundrum of how
to guide systematic oral formulation and practice for every
student in a room. Furthermore, although pictography is eas-
ily taught to a large group, is enjoyed by most students, and
can obtain impressive immediate recall of ideas, we do not
know if this novel graphic strategy will be what students and
teachers remember, rather than the critical aspect of oral prac-
tice. Pictography is an accessible alternate notation tool that
will sometimes be helpful. Conventional written bulleted notes
will often be helpful. Talking your way through your notes, re-
gardless of notation format, will be even more helpful. Sketch
and Speak can potentially benefit many students, but effective
use in large group instruction will require creative solutions.
Conclusions
A large evidence base supports instruction in learn-
ing strategies and self-regulation for secondary students.
Sketch and Speak is a novel speech-language pathology in-
tervention that employs evidence-based procedures to pro-
mote student ownership of their learning and improve
purposeful retention and expression of the language and
ideas of informational texts. The intervention uses written
and graphic note-taking, along with oral formulation and
rehearsal of well-formed sentences and organized discourse
in a recursive pattern of “note the idea simply, say it fully,
then say it again.”The process connects oral and written
language, and the pictography opens an additional avenue
into learning. The strategy combination and instructional
protocol require no special materials and can be flexibly
applied to diverse student needs and situations. Sketch and
Speak has potential to make noticeable motivating change
in a student’s approach to academic learning.
Author Contributions
Teresa A. Ukrainetz: Conceptualization (Lead),
Writing –original draft (Lead), Writing –review & editing
(Lead) Amy K. Peterson: Conceptualization (Supporting),
Methodology (Supporting), Writing –review & editing
(Supporting).
References
Abel, M., & Roediger, H. L. (2018). The testing effect in a social
setting: Does retrieval practice benefit a listener? Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(3), 347–359. https://doi.
org/10.1037/xap0000148
Accardo, A. L., Finnegan, E. G., Kuder, S. J., & Bomgardner, E. M.
(2020). Writing interventions for individuals with autism spec-
trum disorder: A research synthesis. Journal of Autism and De-
velopmental Disorders, 50(6), 1988–2006. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10803-019-03955-9
Al Otaiba, S., Rouse, A. G., & Baker, K. (2018). Elementary grade
intervention approaches to treat specific learning disabilities,
including dyslexia. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 49(4), 829–842. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-
DYSLC-18-0022
Arnold, K. M., Umanath, S., Thio, K., Reilly, W. B., McDaniel,
M. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2017). Understanding the cognitive
processes involved in writing to learn. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 23(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/
xap0000119
Asaro-Saddler, K., Moeyaert, M., Xu, X., & Yerden, X. (2021).
Multilevel meta-analysis of the effectiveness of self-regulated
strategy development in writing for children with ASD. Excep-
tionality, 29(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.
1850457
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The
effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,
74(1), 29–58. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543074001029
Boyle, J. R. (2010). Strategic note-taking for middle-school stu-
dents with learning disabilities in science classes. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/
073194871003300203
Boyle, J. R., & Forchelli, G. A. (2014). Differences in the note-taking
skills of students with high achievement, average achievement,
Ukrainetz & Peterson: Sketch and Speak Strategy Intervention 11
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

and learning disabilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 35,
9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.06.002
Boyle, J. R., & Rivera, T. Z. (2012). Note-taking techniques for
students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(3),
131–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711435794
Bretzing, B. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth
of processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4(2),
145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(79)90069-9
Callender,A.A.,&McDaniel,M.A.(2009). The limited benefits of
rereading educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
34(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.07.001
Chang, W.-C., & Ku, Y.-M. (2015). The effects of note-taking skills
instruction on elementary students’reading. The Journal of
Educational Research, 108(4), 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220671.2014.886175
Ciullo,S.,Lembke,E.S.,Carlisle,A.,Thomas,C.N.,Goodwin,M.,
& Judd, L. (2016). Implementation of evidence-based literacy
practices in middle school response to intervention. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 39(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0731948714566120
Collins, G., & Wolter, J. A. (2018). Facilitating postsecondary tran-
sition and promoting academic success through language/
literacy-based self-determination strategies. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(2), 176–188. https://doi.org/
10.1044/2017_LSHSS-17-0061
Dent,A.L.,&Koenka,A.C.(2016). The relation between self-
regulated learning and academic achievement across childhood
and adolescence: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Re-
view, 28(3), 425–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9320-8
Dunn Davison, M. (2017). Using self-regulated strategy development
to support curriculum-based homework: A case study. Perspec-
tives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 2(1), 133–137. https://
doi.org/10.1044/persp2.SIG1.133
Ennis, R. P., Jolivette, K., Terry, N. P., Fredrick, L. D., & Alberto,
P. A. (2015). Classwide teacher implementation of self-regulated
strategy development for writing with students with E/BD in a
residential facility. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24(1), 88–111.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9207-7
Gandomkar, R., Sandars, J., & Mirzazadeh, A. (2018). Many ques-
tions remain to be answered about understanding self-regulated
learning in the clinical environment. MedicalEducation,52(9),
882–884. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13675
Gersten,R.,Fuchs,L.S.,Williams,J.P.,&Baker,S.(2001). Teach-
ing reading comprehension strategies to students with learning
disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research,
71(2), 279–320. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002279
Gillam, R. B., & Ukrainetz, T. M. (2006). Language intervention
through literature-based units. In T. M. Ukrainetz (Ed.), Liter-
ate language intervention: Scaffolding PreK–12 literacy achieve-
ment (pp. 59–94). Pro-Ed.
Gillam, S. L., Gillam, R. B., & Laing, C. (2020). SKILL narrative:
Supporting knowledge in language and literacy (4th ed.). Utah
State University.
Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur,
C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N. (2012). Teaching elemen-
tary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide
(NCEE 2012-4058). National Center for Education Evalua-
tion and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sci-
ences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch
Graham, S., Bruch, J., Fitzgerald, J., Friedrich, L., Furgeson, J.,
Greene, K., Kim, J., Lyskawa, J., Olson, C. B., & Smither
Wulsin, C. (2016). Teaching secondary students to write effectively
(NCEE 2017-4002). National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. http://whatworks.ed.gov/publica-
tions/practiceguides
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1993). Self-regulated strategy devel-
opment: Helping students with learning problems develop as
writers. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 169–181. https://
doi.org/10.1086/461758
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1999). Assessment and intervention
in overcoming writing difficulties. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 30(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/
10.1044/0161-1461.3003.255
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Troia, G. A. (2000). Self-regulated
strategy development revisited: Teaching writing strategies to
struggling writers. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200020040-00003
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence
for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation
Time to Act Report. Alliance for Excellent Education.
Guthrie, J. T., Klauda, S. L., & Ho, A. N. (2013). Modeling the
relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engage-
ment, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research
Quarterly, 48(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.035
Hebert, M., Graham, S., Rigby-Wills, H., & Ganson, K. (2014).
Effects of note-taking and extended writing on expository text
comprehension: Who benefits? Learning Disabilities: A Contem-
porary Journal, 12(1), 43–68.
Heilmann, J., & Malone, T. O. (2014). The rules of the game: Prop-
erties of a database of expository language samples. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4), 277–290. https://
doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-13-0050
Jozwik, S. L., Cuenca-Carlino, Y., Mustian, A. L., & Douglas, K. H.
(2019). Evaluating a self-regulated strategy development reading-
comprehension intervention for emerging bilingual students with
learning disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Educa-
tion for Children and Youth, 63(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1045988X.2018.1523126
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T.,
& Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective
classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE
#2008-4027). National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. De-
partment of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
Karpicke,J.D.,Blunt,J.R.,Smith,M.A.,&Karpicke,S.S.
(2014). Retrieval-based learning: The need for guided retrieval
in elementary school children. Journal of Applied Research in
Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jarmac.2014.07.008
Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Metacog-
nitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval
when they study on their own? Memory, 17(4), 471–479. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09658210802647009
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008). The critical impor-
tance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408
King, C. M., & Parent Johnson, L. M. (1999). Constructing mean-
ing via reciprocal teaching. Reading Research and Instruction,
38(3), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079909558287
Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/-reviewing
on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-
analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 459–477. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01443410500342070
Lederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in in-
clusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
33(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300112
12 Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups •1–17
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Liberty, L. M., & Conderman, G. (2018). Using the self-regulated
strategy development model to support middle-level writing. The
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and
Ideas, 91(3), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2018.
1426303
Losinski, M., Cuenca-Carlino, Y., Zablocki, M., & Teagarden, J.
(2014). Examining the efficacy of self-regulated strategy devel-
opment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders: A
meta-analysis. Behavioral Disorders, 40(1), 52–67. https://doi.
org/10.17988/0198-7429-40.1.52
Mason, L. H. (2013). Teaching students who struggle with learn-
ing to think before, while, and after reading: Effects of self-
regulated strategy development instruction. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 29(2), 124–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.
2013.758561
Mason, L. H., Meadan, H., Hedin, L. R., & Cramer, A. M. (2012).
Avoiding the struggle: Instruction that supports students’moti-
vation in reading and writing about content material. Reading
& Writing Quarterly, 28(1), 70–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10573569.2012.632734
Mayer, R., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth
ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4),
715–726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.715
McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Einstein, G. O. (2009). The
read–recite–review study strategy. Psychological Science, 20(4),
516–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02325.x
McFadden, T. U. (1995). An investigation into narrative composition:
The effects of a pictographic strategy for children with language
disorders [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University
of Texas at Austin.
McFadden, T. U. (1998). The immediate effects of pictographic repre-
sentation on children’snarratives.Child Language Teaching and
Therapy, 14(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/026565909801400103
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethink-
ing reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of in-
struction for strategies and content approaches. Reading
Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253. https://doi.org/10.1598/
RRQ.44.3.1
MetaMetrics. (2021). Lexile framework for reading: Matching
readers with text. https://lexile.com
Meyer, B. J., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on
recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121–143.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021001121
Miller, J. F., & Iglesias, A. (2019). Systematic Analysis of Language
Transcripts [Computer software]. SALT software.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature
on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub.
00-4769). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded
instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1–2), 73–98. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15326985ep2101&2_5
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of
comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.
Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s1532690xci0102_1
Paul, R., Norbury, C., & Gosse, C. (2018). Language disorders
from infancy through adolescence: Listening, speaking, reading,
writing, and communicating (5th ed.). Elsevier.
Perry, V. (2017). A mixed methods study of expository paragraph
writing in English-proficient, Hispanic, middle school students
with writing weaknesses. Perspectives of the ASHA Special
Interest Groups, 2(1), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp2.
SIG1.151
Petersen, D. B., Brown, C. L., Ukrainetz, T. A., Wise, C., Spencer,
T. D., & Zebre, J. (2014). Systematic individualized narrative
language intervention on the personal narratives of children
with autism. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
45(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1044/2013_LSHSS-12-0099
Peterson, A. K., Fox, C. B., & Israelsen, M. (2020). A systematic
review of academic discourse interventions for school-aged chil-
dren with language-related learning disabilities. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 51(3), 866–881. https://doi.org/
10.1044/2020_LSHSS-19-00039
Peterson, A. K., Ukrainetz, T. A., & Risueño, R. J. (2021). Speak-
ing like a scientist: A multiple case study on Sketch and Speak
intervention to improve expository discourse. Autism & Develop-
mental Language Impairments, 6.
Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during
note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 291–312.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1086
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding:
Toward a research and development program in reading compre-
hension. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports
Rogers, M., Hodge, J., & Counts, J. (2020). Self-regulated strategy
development in reading, writing, and mathematics for students
with specific learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children,
53(2), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920946780
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review
of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479–530.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064004479
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching stu-
dents to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies.
Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221. https://doi.org/
10.3102/00346543066002181
Sanders, S., Losinski, M., Parks Ennis, R., White, W., Teagarden, J.,
&Lane,J.(2019). A meta-analysis of self-regulated strategy
development reading interventions to improve the reading com-
prehension of students with disabilities. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 35(4), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.
2018.1545616
Sanders, S., Rollins, L. H., Mason, L. H., Shaw, A., & Jolivette, K.
(2021). Intensification and individualization of self-regulation
components within self-regulated strategy development. Inter-
vention in School and Clinic, 56(3), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1053451220941414
Scott, C. (1995). A discourse approach to syntax teaching. In
D. F. Ti bbits (Ed.), Language intervention beyond the primary
grades (pp. 435–464). Pro-Ed.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D.,
Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading
comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice
guide (NCEE 2010–4038). National Center for Education Eval-
uation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education. whatworks.ed.gov/publications/
practiceguides
Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontane-
ous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 24(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0980
Smith, M. A., Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2013). Covert
retrieval practice benefits retention as much as overt retrieval
practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 39(6), 1712–1725. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033569
Solis, M., Ciullo, S., Vaughn, S., Pyle, N., Hassaram, B., &
Leroux, A. (2012). Reading comprehension interventions for
middle school students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of
Ukrainetz & Peterson: Sketch and Speak Strategy Intervention 13
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

30 years of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(4),
327–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411402691
Sreckovic, M. A., Common, E. A., Knowles, M. M., & Lane, K. L.
(2014). A review of self-regulated strategy development for writ-
ing for students with EBD. Behavioral Disorders, 39(2), 56–77.
https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291303900203
Swanson, E., Hairrell, A., Kent, S., Ciullo, S., Wanzek, J. A., &
Vaughn, S. (2014). A synthesis and meta-analysis of reading
interventions using social studies content for students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 178–195.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412451131
Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention
research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis
of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3),
277–321. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003277
Swanson,H.L.,Kehler,P.,&Jerman,O.(2010). Working memory,
strategy knowledge, and strategy instruction in children with
reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(1), 24–47.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338743
Ukrainetz, T. A. (1998). Stickwriting stories: A quick and easy nar-
rative representation strategy. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 29(4), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-
1461.2904.197
Ukrainetz, T. A. (2006). The many ways of exposition: A focus on
text structure. In T. A. Ukrainetz (Ed.), Contextualized lan-
guage intervention: Scaffolding PreK–12 literacy achievement
(pp. 246–288). Pro-Ed.
Ukrainetz, T. A. (2015a). Improving reading comprehension: More
than meets the eye. In T. A. Ukrainetz (Ed.), School-age lan-
guage intervention: Evidence-based practices (pp. 565–608).
Pro-Ed.
Ukrainetz, T. A. (2015b). Improving text comprehension: Scaffold-
ing adolescents into strategic reading. Seminars in Speech and
Language, 36(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1396443
Ukrainetz, T. A. (2016). Strategic intervention for expository texts:
Teaching text preview and lookback. Perspectives of the ASHA
Special Interest Groups, 1(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1044/
persp1.SIG1.99
Ukrainetz, T. A. (2017). Commentary on “Reading comprehension
is not a single ability”: Implications for child language interven-
tion. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(2),
92–97. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16-0031
Ukrainetz, T. A. (2019). Sketch and Speak: An expository inter-
vention using note-taking and oral practice for children with
language-related learning disabilities. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 50(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.
1044/2018_LSHSS-18-0047
Ukrainetz, T. A. (2021). Comprehension strategy intervention for
elementary students. ASHA Reading,,Writing,,andtheSLP
Online Conference.
Wigent, C. A. (2013). High school readers: A profile of above av-
erage readers and readers with learning disabilities reading ex-
pository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 134–140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.03.011
14 Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups •1–17
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Appendix A
Written and Pictographic Notes Rating Rubric
A. Quantity –How Many Notes Quantity count = _______
•Count number of separate items; not by closely examining meaning, can be repetitions
•Listed vertically or separated by spaces, periods, sentences, or and between very different ideas; 1 item for sentence or phrase list even if
multiple ideas
B. Quality –Efficiency & Effectiveness of Notes Quality = _______ /15
•Compare to source article for information clarity and accuracy
•Compare to oral report for reporter’s interpretations for ratings
1. Topic & Open/Close
3 = Relevant topic at top and open or close note in words or pictograph
2 = Relevant topic at top but no open/close note
1 = Topic identified incidentally within first category
0 = Topic identified other than in first category, not identified, or incorrect
2. Bullets (Good) & Periods (Bad)
3 = All items with bullets and no periods (exclamations or questions okay)
2 = More than half items have bullets, regardless of period use
1 = Some items have bullets or more than half items have no periods
0 = No items have bullets
2. Pictography
3 = Three or more pictographs (separated images, not
touching or creating a single scene)
2 = Two pictographs
1 = One pictograph
0 = No pictography
3. Quick & Easy Written Notes
3 = All brief items, info dense: short sentences, lists, phrases, key words,
abbreviations, small grammatical words omitted, no category repetition
2 = More than half brief or reduced items
1 = Half or fewer brief or reduced items
0 = No brief items
3. Quick & Easy Pictography
3 = Each pictograph differs; not essentially the same
image
2 = More than half pictographs differ
1 = Some pictographs differ
0 = Pictographs essentially the same
4. Enough to Remember
3 = All items clear enough for reporter to generate coherent report statement (ok if not well-formed or grammatical); credit one note even if
multiple statements or both notes if combined in statement
2 = More than half adequate items: inadequate = misinterpret own note, only isolated word or with mismatched category; not from source;
skipped in report even if clear to rater
1 = Some adequate items
0 = No adequate items
5. Use Your Own Words
3 = All own sentences or only part of source sentences; no almost verbatim
sentences
2 = More than half own sentences
1 = Half or fewer own sentences
0 = No own sentences
5. Differentiated Pictography Images
3 = Each pictograph differs; not essentially the same
image
2 = More than half pictographs differ
1 = Some pictographs differ
0 = Pictographs essentially the same
Note. Modified slightly from Ukrainetz (2019).
Ukrainetz & Peterson: Sketch and Speak Strategy Intervention 15
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Appendix B
Oral and Written Report Rating Rubric
Appendix C ( p. 1 of 2)
Michael Jordan Text
Michael Jordan or MJ is one of the greatest basketball legends of all time. He and his famous sneaker have set records
and made a difference in people’s lives around the world.
MJ was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1963. During high school, MJ excelled in basketball, baseball, and football. As a
sophomore, he tried out for the varsity basketball team, but coaches thought he was too short. MJ maintained his determination
and played on the junior varsity team, scoring 40 points in multiple games. After that and growing 4 inches in a year, MJ earned
a spot on varsity, where he led his team to victories. MJ was offered a spot on many college basketball teams and chose the
University of North Carolina Tar Heels.
After attending UNC for 3 years, MJ was drafted by the Chicago Bulls. He quickly emerged as a National Basketball Association,
or NBA, league star. He entertained crowds with his prolific scoring and high jumps, which earned him the nickname “Air Jordan.”
He was on the cover of the Sports Illustrated magazine and was voted Rookie of the Year. On the next year, MJ’s season was
cut short because of a broken foot, but he bounced back from his injury with a record of 63 points in a single playoff game.
MJ played in the NBA for 15 seasons. In the middle of his basketball career, MJ had a terrible personal setback when his father
was shot by two teenagers who were stealing his car. To take a break from basketball and fulfill a dream of his father, MJ joined
the Minor League Baseball league. After 2 years, he returned to his main passion of basketball and continued to be a star player
with the Bulls and later the Washington Wizards.
MJ set more records than any other player in NBA history. He won the Most Valuable Player award 5 times and was a 14-time
NBA All-Star. In 1999, he was named the greatest North American athlete of the 20th century by ESPN. Other famous NBA players,
including LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, said MJ was their role model growing up. In 2016, MJ was awarded the Presidential
Medal of Freedom for his lifetime contributions to America and the world.
Instructions: Quality of formal oral report of article information. Based on written transcription and video recording. Compare to source article
for information clarity and accuracy. Descriptors ordered in magnitude: all, almost all, mostly, many, some, few, very few, none.
1. Topic & open/close
3 = Topic stated near beginning, relevant performative open/close statements (“I want to tell you...,”“I hope you enjoyed...”)
2 = Topic stated in first half; quality open/close statements OR one weak open/close statement (e.g., “The end, I think that’sit”)
1 = Two or more of: topic stated in last half OR open/close statements both weak OR missing one open/close statement
0 = No topic or open/close statements
2. Vocabulary
3 = Many different specialized (e.g., “axolotl,”“metamorphosis”), advanced (e.g., “extraordinary,”“vast”), or very specific words (e.g.,
“Jim Thorpe,”“Olympics,”“Grand Slam”); no incorrect words or colloquial fillers (e.g., “whatchamacallits,”“thingamabobs,”“whatever
they are”)
2 = Many specialized or advanced words but a few vague or incorrect words OR one colloquial filler
1 = Some specialized or advanced words with many vague, incorrect, or filler words
0 = Very few specialized or advanced words OR many vague, incorrect, or colloquial fillers
3. Sentences
3 = All well-formed sentences with some complex sentences
2 = Almost all well-formed sentences, regardless of type, OR all well-formed and all simple
1 = Some well-formed sentences, regardless of type
0 = Almost no well-formed sentences, regardless of type
4. Discourse
3 = Well-organized expository report with information grouped by subtopics or categories (e.g., “The X’s habitat is…”;“their diet
consists of…”)
2 = Mostly well-organized and grouped mostly into subtopics or categories
1 = Poor organization: unrelated sentences clumped together, idea statement and then return later to expand
0 = Listing of items with no clear organization, report is incoherent, information in incorrect categories
5. Information
3 = Many idea statements with almost all different ideas; all ideas match source article
2 = Many idea statements: several repeating or expressing similar ideas OR one idea does not match source
1 = Few idea statements OR many very similar idea statements OR two or more ideas do not match source
0 = Two or more of: few idea statements OR many very similar idea statements OR two or more ideas do not match source
6. Verbal Fluency
3 = Almost all fluently and expressively delivered: few short pauses or mazes; no more than one small instance of self-talk or extraneous
comments (e.g., “I think,”“Or something like that”)
2 = Mostly fluently and expressively delivered: some pauses or mazes, a few instances of self-talk or extraneous comments
1 = Many disfluencies or lacking in expression: long pauses or mazes or many self-talk and extraneous comments (e.g., “I forgot what
that was called,”“What was that again?”)
0 = Mostly nonfluent with many long pauses, frequent mazes, and self-talk or extraneous comments
Total quality score: _________/18
16 Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups •1–17
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

MJ’s stardom extends far beyond the basketball court. He is a successful billionaire businessman. He was sponsored by
brands such as Nike, Coca-Cola, Gatorade, and McDonalds. He has many business interests, including the Charlotte Hornets
basketball team and a motorcycle racing team. MJ is a generous philanthropist. He has donated and raised many millions of
dollars for charitable causes, including medical clinics, hurricane victims, and the Make-A-Wish foundation for very ill children.
MJ’s most famous product has always been the Air Jordan sneaker. It became so popular that people have even been robbed
of their Air Jordans at gunpoint. Air Jordans are still one of the top selling Nike products, more than 32 years after MJ introduced
them. You may even have a pair of Air Jordans in your closet.
Appendix D
Notes Form for Athlete Articles
Topic ___________________________
Appendix E
Michael Jordan Short Answer Questions
1. What was Michael Jordan famous for?
2. What sports did Michael play?
3. What trouble did Michael have when he was in high school?
4. How did Michael fulfill his father’s dream?
5. Why was Michael nicknamed Air Jordan?
6. What does “philanthropist”mean?
Scoring:
0 = not correct form or content; in article but not answer to question; answer to question but not in article; too minimal or
unclear to evaluate
1 = partially correct or unclearly stated or overly minimal from article
2 = fully correct and clear from article
Early Life
About the Sport
Professional Highlights
Other Accomplishments
Fun Facts
Appendix C ( p. 2 of 2)
Michael Jordan Text
Ukrainetz & Peterson: Sketch and Speak Strategy Intervention 17
SIG 1 Language Learning and Education
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Amy Peterson on 10/29/2021, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions