Transcript Slide 1

Manchester Metropolitan
University
Paper presented at the
27th World Congress of the IALP
6th to 9th August 2007
Copenhagen
Ann French
[email protected]
Comparing Perceptions of SLI
in Adolescent Mainstream
School Students
Background
 Experience of working in and with mainstream
schools to support junior/secondary age
students with speech, language and
communication needs (SLCN).
 Awareness of differences between stakeholders
(education staff, health staff, parents,
students…) in ways of talking about SLCN.
 Differences may be deeper than terminology,
and reflect underlying philosophies about
aetiology and management.
Theoretical context
 Incidence of SLI may be around 10% of primary school
children1.
 Sparse data on older children, but linguistic difficulties
persist for many years2, and literacy difficulties may
increase over time3.
 Significant impact on academic achievement, social
skills, self esteem, behaviour, and peer/teacher
attitudes4,5,6,7.
 UK drive for inclusive education8 means that all children
with Special Educational Needs (SEN) should have their
needs met in mainstream.
 Speech and language therapists (SLTs) must select
‘patients’ to be ‘treated’ using inclusion/exclusion
criteria7,9; the service to secondary pupils is limited9.
 Multi-agency collaboration is essential for positive
outcomes10.
Research question
Practical barriers to collaboration between
teachers and SLTs have been identified11.
 Do terminological barriers also exist: i.e. do
professions have different understanding of
‘speech’ ‘language’ ‘communication’?
 More importantly, are there also conceptual
barriers: i.e. do professions think differently
about the speech/language development, use
and needs of students?
 If so, what difficulties might these create for
multi-professional working?
Methodology
Design
 Exploratory qualitative study of a large mainstream
secondary school and associated SLT service.
Data collection and analysis 1
 Content analysis12 of a range of central government,
professional body and local policy documents.
Data collection and analysis 2
 Semi-structured interviews carried out with:
o School staff: Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator
(SENCo); learning support teacher; subject teacher;
teaching assistant.
o SLT staff: paediatric service manager; SLT with
responsibility for secondary schools.
o Service-users: student (aged 17) with SLCN; student’s
parents.
 Framework analysis13 of data using ATLAS.ti.14
Results of documentary analysis
 SLCN are often not mentioned at all.
 ‘Language’ often refers to language spoken (i.e. first
language) or to language stylistics.
 ‘Impairment’, ‘disability’, ‘disorder’, ‘diagnosis’ most often
refer to physical/sensory needs.
 Speech, language, literacy, learning, and behaviour
needs are most often referred to as ‘difficulties’.
 All documents refer to ‘specialists’, ‘partnerships’,
‘training’, but named agencies are largely from
education not health.
 ‘Normal limits’ is not a concept that appears in education
documents.
Differences may be terminological, or may reflect deeper
conceptual differences15.
Results of interview analysis
Areas addressed in interviews:
 What is specific language impairment (SLI),
and how does it differ from conditions such
as specific or moderate learning disability?
 How are the needs of a student with SLI
identified?
 How does SLI impact on academic and social
development?
 How should SLI should be managed in
secondary school?
What is SLI?
‘Specific language impairment’ meant
nothing to education staff; had to be
rephrased as ‘speech and language
difficulties’ (SLD).
Parents found it hard to describe, talked of
son having ‘very specific difficulties’.
Other participants varied in range of
difficulties mentioned 
Difficulties of students with SLD (1)
SLT; SLT manager; Learning
support teacher
Short term memory
Spoken
comprehension
Spoken sentence
formulation
Word finding
Written
comprehension
Written sentence
formulation
Difficulties of students with SLD (2)
Student
Short term memory
Spoken
comprehension
Spoken sentence
formulation
Word finding
Written
comprehension
Written sentence
formulation
 Fluency
 Handwriting
Difficulties of students with SLD (3)
SENCo
Spoken
comprehension
Written
comprehension
Written sentence
formulation
Word finding
Difficulties of students with SLD (4)
Teacher; Teaching assistant
Spoken sentence
formulation
 Speech
 Fluency
How does SLD compare with
Specific Learning Disability
(Dyslexia)?
Similarities
 Problems with attention,
short term memory, written
comprehension,
organisation, recording
ideas.
 Can be helped to
improve functioning.
 Same strategies useful.
Differences
 Greater problems
with spoken
comprehension and
vocabulary learning
in SLD.
 Word finding
problems more
typical of SLD.
How does SLD compare with
Moderate Learning Disability
(MLD)?
Similarities
 Problems
with social
understanding.
 Same
strategies
useful.
Differences
 Size of verbal-nonverbal
discrepancy.
 Students with MLD less
motivated, less enquiring,
less aware of problems; less
improvement possible.
 Students with MLD more
emotionally vulnerable.
How are the needs of a student
with SLD identified?
 If not previously identified, depends on
teachers/head of year noticing a problem (but
teachers may focus on speech) and referring to
SENCo.
 SENCo/learning support teacher assess literacy;
may refer on to SLT (or to educational
psychologist).
 SLT assess spoken language; may refer on to
educational psychologist for nonverbal cognitive
assessment.
How does SLD impact on
academic and social
development?
Responses mirror the literature, but are
constrained by participants’ perceptions of
SLD e.g.
Teacher/teaching assistant focus on
effects of not being intelligible.
SENCo focuses on literacy.
How should SLD should be
managed in secondary school?
General agreement on principles and
strategies, but constrained by participants’
perceptions of SLD.
Some threats to successful outcomes
(other than funding, staff shortages……..)

National Curriculum: over-heavy demands on
written language.
Schools: too little attention to assessing/managing
students’ spoken language skills.
Teachers: too little interaction with student to
understand problems; onerous task of managing
whole class.
Teaching assistants: too poorly paid/qualified to be
student’s key teacher.
SLTs: too little understanding of demands on
teachers, so giving inappropriate advice.
Students: may hide difficulties by being silent, or
react angrily, so teachers focus on behaviour
and not underlying difficulty.
How could things be improved?
 A curriculum which values nonverbal as highly as verbal
skills.
 Education degree programmes and Speech Pathology
degree programmes which give better insight into each
others’ work.
 Joint Education/SLT discussion/decision making on SLD
‘diagnoses’ and management.
 Teaching assistants who are trained and paid to work
specifically with SLD.
 Wider use of technology to support students e.g. intranet
accessible from home, with worksheets, homework
details, modified lesson content.
 Being prepared to support some students differently e.g.
greater peer support in first year of secondary for those
who need it.
A final thought: do students with SLCN
develop more slowly than peers, and if so
should they take public examinations later?
The student with SLCN, now at 6th form
college:
“it’s so much - easier at college - - I’m a lot.
I’m a lot cleverer now.”
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Dockrell, J. and Lindsay, G. The ways in which speech and language difficulties impact on children’s access to
the curriculum. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 1998, 14, 2, 117-133.
Baker, L. and Cantwell, D.P. A prospective psychiatric follow-up of children with speech/language disorders.
Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1987, 26, 546-553.
Snowling, M., Bishop, D.V.M. and Stothard, S.E.. Is preschool language impairment a risk factor for dyslexia in
adolescence? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2000, 41, 5, 587-600.
Botting, N. and Conti-Ramsden, G. Social and behavioural difficulties in children with language impairment.
Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 2000, 16, 2, 105-120.
Knox, E. (2002). Educational attainments of children with specific language impairment at year 6. Child
Language Teaching and Therapy, 2002, 18, 2, 103-124 Bronfenbrenner, U. The Ecology of Human
Development. 1997. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Marshall, J., Stojanvik, V. and Ralph, S. ‘I never even gave it a second thought’: PGCE students’ attitudes
towards the inclusion of children with speech and language impairments. International Journal of Language
and Communication Disorders, 2002, 37, 4, 475-489.
Dockrell, J.E., Lindsay, G., Letchford, B and Mackie, C. Educational provision for children with specific speech
and language difficulties: perspectives of speech and language therapy service managers. International
Journal of Language and Communication. Disorders, 2006, 41, 4, 423-440
Department for Education and Skills. Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. 2001.
http://www.dfes.gov.uk
McCartney, E. Include us out? Speech and language therapists’ prioritisation in mainstream schools. Child
Language Teaching and Therapy, 2000, 16, 2, 165-180.
Department for Education and Skills. Removing Barriers to Achievement. 2004. http://www.dfes.gov.uk.
Hartras, D. Teacher and speech-language therapist collaboration: being equal and achieving a common goal?
Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 2004, 20, 1, 31-54.
Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman and R.G.
Burgess (Eds). Analysing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge.
ATLAS.ti. Demo Version WIN 5.2. www.atlasti.com
French, A. Perceptions of language impairment for students attending mainstream secondary school. AFASIC
4th International Symposium, 2007, Warwick University, UK.
The author would like to thank the British
Academy and the International Association
Of Logopaedics Edinburgh Trust for
financial support to attend the 27th World
Congress of the IALP