Two language therapy procedures - a structured, repetitive drill
approach, and a story-based question and answer approach — were
used to teach is and are to four language-impaired children aged 4;4 to
6;3, over a four-week period. Effectiveness was measured by three
methods: within-therapy data, structured probe data, and at-home
spontaneous probe data. While levels of correct productions were high
in therapy, production on spontaneous probes remained low. Struc
tured probe performance varied, but was generally substantially higher
than spontaneous probe performance. Results indicate that syntax
learning depends on how such learning is measured.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Campbell, R. and Stremel-Campbell, K.1982: Programming 'loose-training' as a strategy to facilitate language generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis15, 295-301.
2.
Coggins, T. and Olswang, L.1987: The pragmatics of generalization. Seminars in Speech andLanguage8, 282-302.
3.
Costello, J.1983: Generalization across settings: language intervention with children. In Miller, J., Yoder, D. and Schiefelbusch, R., editors, Contemporary issues in language intervention, ASHA Reports 12.
4.
Culatta, B. and Horn, D.1982: A program for achieving generalization of grammatical rules to spontaneous discourse. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders47, 174-80.
5.
Fey, M.E.1986: Language intervention with young children. San Diego: College-Hill Press.
6.
—1987: Fostering grammatical development in language-impaired preschoolers. Short course presented at the annual conference of the Michigan Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
7.
Gray, B. and Ryan, B.1973: A language program for the nonlanguage child. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
8.
Hegde, M.N.1980: An experimental-clinical analysis of grammatical and behavioral distinctions between verbal auxiliary and copula. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research23, 864-77.
9.
Hegde, M. and McConn, J.1981: Language training: some factors affecting generalization to an occupational setting. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders46, 353-58.
10.
Hegde, M., Noll, M. and Pecora, R.1979: A study of some factors affecting generalization of language training. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders44, 301-20.
11.
Hughes, D.1985: Language treatment and generalization: a clinician's handbook . San Diego: College-Hill .
12.
Ingram, D.1974: The acquisition of the English verbal auxiliary and copula in normal and linguistically deviant children. In McReynolds, L., editor, Developing systematic procedures for training children's language, Washington, DC: ASHA Monograph No. 18.
13.
Johnston, J.1988: Generalization: the nature of change. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools19, 314-29.
14.
Lee, L.1974: Developmental sentence scoring. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
15.
Lee, L., Koenigsknecht, R. and Mulhern, S.1975: Interactive language development teaching. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press .
16.
Leonard, L.1981: Facilitating linguistic skills in children with specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics2, 89-118.
17.
Olswang, L., Bain, B., Dunn, C. and Cooper, J.1983: The effects of stimulus variation on lexical learning . Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders48, 192-201.
18.
Shields, M.1974: The development of the modal auxiliary system in the verb phrase in children between three and five years. Educational Review26, 180-200.
19.
Spradlin, J. and Siegel, G.1982: Language training in natural and clinical environments . Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders47, 2-6.
20.
Warren, S., Rogers-Warren, A., Baer, D. and Guess, D.1980: Assessment and facilitation of language generalization . In Sailor, W., Wilcox, B. and Brown, L., editors, Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students, Baltimore: Brookes.
