An Eclectic Model of Language Intervention for Disorders of Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing

1981 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nickola Wolf Nelson
2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy Montgomery

Abstract As increasing numbers of speech language pathologists (SLPs) have embraced their burgeoning roles in written as well as spoken language intervention, they have recognized that there is much to be gained from the research in reading. While some SLPs reportedly fear they will “morph” into reading teachers, many more are confidently aware that SLPs who work with adult clients routinely use reading as one of their rehabilitation modalities. Reading functions as both a tool to reach language in adults, and as a measure of successful therapy. This advanced cognitive skill can serve the same purpose for children. Language is the foundational support to reading. Consequently spoken language problems are often predictors of reading and writing challenges that may be ahead for the student (Juel & Deffes, 2004; Moats, 2001; Wallach, 2004). A targeted review of reading research may assist the SLP to appreciate the language/reading interface.


1992 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 36-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn A. Nippold ◽  
Ilsa E. Schwarz ◽  
Molly Lewis

Microcomputers offer the potential for increasing the effectiveness of language intervention for school-age children and adolescents who have language-learning disabilities. One promising application is in the treatment of students who experience difficulty comprehending figurative expressions, an aspect of language that occurs frequently in both spoken and written contexts. Although software is available to teach figurative language to children and adolescents, it is our feeling that improvements are needed in the existing programs. Software should be reviewed carefully before it is used with students, just as standardized tests and other clinical and educational materials are routinely scrutinized before use. In this article, four microcomputer programs are described and evaluated. Suggestions are then offered for the development of new types of software to teach figurative language.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 1783-1797
Author(s):  
Kelly L. Coburn ◽  
Diane L. Williams

Purpose Neurodevelopmental processes that begin during gestation and continue throughout childhood typically support language development. Understanding these processes can help us to understand the disruptions to language that occur in neurodevelopmental conditions, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Method For this tutorial, we conducted a focused literature review on typical postnatal brain development and structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, magnetoencephalography, and electroencephalography studies of the neurodevelopmental differences that occur in ASD. We then integrated this knowledge with the literature on evidence-based speech-language intervention practices for autistic children. Results In ASD, structural differences include altered patterns of cortical growth and myelination. Functional differences occur at all brain levels, from lateralization of cortical functions to the rhythmic activations of single neurons. Neuronal oscillations, in particular, could help explain disrupted language development by elucidating the timing differences that contribute to altered functional connectivity, complex information processing, and speech parsing. Findings related to implicit statistical learning, explicit task learning, multisensory integration, and reinforcement in ASD are also discussed. Conclusions Consideration of the neural differences in autistic children provides additional scientific support for current recommended language intervention practices. Recommendations consistent with these neurological findings include the use of short, simple utterances; repetition of syntactic structures using varied vocabulary; pause time; visual supports; and individualized sensory modifications.


1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Boone ◽  
Harold M. Friedman

Reading and writing performance was observed in 30 adult aphasic patients to determine whether there was a significant difference when stimuli and manual responses were varied in the written form: cursive versus manuscript. Patients were asked to read aloud 10 words written cursively and 10 words written in manuscript form. They were then asked to write on dictation 10 word responses using cursive writing and 10 words using manuscript writing. Number of words correctly read, number of words correctly written, and number of letters correctly written in the proper sequence were tallied for both cursive and manuscript writing tasks for each patient. Results indicated no significant difference in correct response between cursive and manuscript writing style for these aphasic patients as a group; however, it was noted that individual patients varied widely in their success using one writing form over the other. It appeared that since neither writing form showed better facilitation of performance, the writing style used should be determined according to the individual patient’s own preference and best performance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document