200 likes | 201 Views
The Effects of Context on The Classroom Disclosure Skills of Children With Language Impairment. By: Kathleen F. Peets. By: Danielle Peterson Speech 12. Purpose of the Study. To “characterize the communicative behavior of children with LI in the context of four classroom discourse types
E N D
The Effects of Context on The Classroom Disclosure Skills of Children With Language Impairment By: Kathleen F. Peets By: Danielle Peterson Speech 12
Purpose of the Study • To “characterize the communicative behavior of children with LI in the context of four classroom discourse types • To identify any differences among the children in response to these discourse types • To attempt to characterize some of the unique challenges of each discourse type.”
Criteria For Participants • Assessment indicates that the child’s speech and language is significantly delayed and interferes with the child’s academic and social functioning/development. • Assessment indicates that the child’s speech and language development is below cognitive functioning, which has been assessed to be in the average range. • Difficulties are not due to the child’s ongoing hearing difficulties or primarily due to second language issues (that is, a delay is also evident in the first language). • Behavioral or emotional difficulties are not so severe as to interfere with programming.
ParticipantsChildren • 11 children from 3rd and 4th grade • Age range 7.10 – 9.5 • 6 monolingual • 5 bilingual • school experience ranged 2-3 years • All children were • Late talkers • diagnosed with a language impairment (LI)
Special Education Classroom • Self contained classroom designed for Language Impairment students • 8 to 12 children per class • Classroom teachers consist of • 1 Special Education Teacher with a Masters Degree • 1 Education Assistant with a certification from a Community College
Academic Activities Journal Writing Small Group Lessons
Journal Writing • used in all 3 classes prior to study • wrote on teacher chosen topics • Instructions: • Journal writing to occur in the classroom only • Separate discussion to plan journal entries • Separate writing session • Teacher’s responses limited to prompts and reminders • Aim: instructions suppose help frame the journal-writing task but lessen the stress of the written component • 10 minute session
Small Group Lessons • Used tools already being used in the classroom • Instructions (only modification): • Use some questions on back of card • Use own questions/discussion ideas • Goal: to use cards with visual line drawings relating to Spring to help children get engaged in group discussion • 15 minute session
Non-Academic Activities Structured Peer Play Sharing Time
Structured Peer Play • used game “Super Marbleworks” in dyads • Super Marbleworks: • nonverbal game • easily played • cooperative game between two people • Game goal is to build a three-dimensional structure together • given instructions prior to building • Children matched with equal peers (disabled with disabled, etc)
Sharing Time • Prior to study being done in all 3 classes • Monologue of child talking to the class • Instructions: • Teachers should use Monday Morning News • Can encourage child as normally would • Goal: “generating a personal anecdote by the child • No time limit
Results Language production and complexity Self-Monitoring Turn Taking
Language production and complexity • Rates of language production were calculated based on WPM and overall talk produced. • Language complexity was measured by MLT, TTR and WPM. • WPM differed as function of context • Teachers not limited – better understanding • Sample of Alex’s Narrative
Academic Activities Non Academic Activities
Academic Activities Non Academic Activities
Self-Monitoring • Varied as function of context • Small effect size • Its observed children have been using the self-monitoring skills effectively and not interrupting their speech. • Speech Sample of Cecelia
Academic Activities Non Academic Activities
Turn Taking • Differ depending on context • Observed most were initiation, elicitations and responses • Frequently peer on peer questions get ignored • One child tends to dominate conversations • Found that peer talk is good to understand certain linguistic forms like directives
Academic Activities Non Academic Activities
Conclusion • Limitations: • Study did not have a peer group of typical developing children • Varied samples from various contexts best when assessing a child’s language • Reprehensive sample should include: • Narrative • Peer interaction • Academic