Atypical Language Development Can Impact on Childrens Literacy Learning - Research Paper Example

Atypical language development can impact on children’s literacy learning. With reference either to children with specific language impairment or to children with hearing impairment/deafness (or with reference to both those groups of children), evaluate the evidence that seeks to explain why this is the case. MA Literacy Learning and Literacy Difficulties Module Title: Reading and Spelling Difficulties Introduction The development of literacy learning is an important academic and social process that every child is expected to enhance. In a normal and natural context, humans go through developmental processes to facilitate our “ innate quality enabling us to acquire language” (Ásgeirsdóttir, 2011, p. 5). However, Puranik, Lombardino and Altmann (2007) note that there are often situations in the development of children that make it impossible for them to develop their literacy skills at a ‘normal’ rate. In some cases, children fail to develop these skills due to the lack of an advanced form of education being provided. Generally, due to the innate capabilities of humans, the normal experience for a child should be the ability to acquire literacy skills through education. The difficulty that has been associated with some children in acquiring these literacy-learning skills is the area that this research seeks to address, specifically, the role of atypical language development in children’s’ literacy learning. As there are a number of theoretical arguments as to the actual impact of atypical language development on children, this research carried out through a literature review perspective. Studies of children with an identified form of atypical language development are examined against the variables that suggest that their development problems can inhibit their literacy learning. In addition, studies of children with specific language impairment (SLI) are presented and examined, to justify the position that atypical language development can affect literacy learning. Concerning atypical language development, Bishop (2006) explains it as “diagnosed when a child's language development is deficient for no obvious reason” (p. 217). Through this research, I gather evidence from existing works of research on how children with SLI perform when they are tested in literacy and language areas. There are specific areas of literacy and languages learning that are covered. The study is confined to specific aspects of literacy and language learning as the subject covers a broad area. Therefore, the extent of coverage is on the areas of reading, writing, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. As different writers have put forth several arguments on the impact of atypical language development on children’s literacy and language learning, the aim of this study is to examine their arguments, and to present and critique their methods and outcomes. Overview of Specific Language Development (SLI) A number of language theorists have explained the concept of SLI from different contexts. Bishop and Norbury (2002) argue that SLI is a language development difficulty that starts in early childhood. Furthermore, children with SLI fail to develop their language skills normally due to a general slow development process. By implication, children who are diagnosed with SLI tend to have a language development deficiency that is independent of other critical developmental problems such as non-verbal intelligence, sensory development, and development of motor skills. In contrast, Clahsen and Temple (2003) claim that children develop language impairments because of other developmental conditions such as sensory development, development of motor skills, and non-verbal intelligence. In fact, some of these developmental causes can be diagnosed and traced as far back as the stage of foetal development. Bishop (2001) refutes that such conditions, connected to other general developmental issues, cannot be claimed to form SLI. Examining the difference between SLI and other language impairments, Goldin-Meadow (2005) argue that whenever a child’s difficulty with the acquisition of language is attributed to conditions as physical abnormality within the speech apparatus, autism spectrum disorder, or acquired brain damage, these cases cannot be classified as SLI. However, if the language impairment is independent from any of these conditions or hearing loss, then SLI can be said to be present. Tomblin et al (1997) provide further explanations; as the SLI condition is usually independent from other developmental issues, this may delay the mastery of language skills but not create an absolute loss of language skills. The reason attributed is that children with this condition have all other language related body systems functioning normally. This means that the body systems play their roles as expected. An example would be the use of speech apparatus and hearing apparatus to correct a malfunctioning system. Several terminologies that have been used to describe or refer to SLI; these include developmental language disorder and/or developmental dysphasia. Most of these identifications emphasise the fact that the impairment is only concerned with language and not the development process in general. Statistically, Tomblin et al., (1997) have shown that SLI is one of the most common childhood learning disabilities and it affects 7 to 8% of children at kindergarten level. For some children, their impairment perpetuates into adulthood if the appropriate management and treatment interventions are not applied early enough (Rice, Hoffman and Wexler, 2009). SLI is a type of atypical language development and has been noted to have a direct effect on children’s literacy. It is therefore possible to use children with SLI to investigate whether atypical language development indeed has an impact on children’s literacy. Evaluation of Evidence Through this section of the research paper, I evaluate evidence from primary peer reviewed literature that is concerned with the impact of atypical language development on children’s literacy. Specifically, in research works that focus on children with SLI. Whilst evaluating the evidence, a critique of the methodologies and conclusions of the researches is also carried out. The evidence is evaluated under three major themes: indications of how language is impaired in children with SLI, indications of how literacy is impaired in children with SLI, and the key causes of the impact of literacy and language difficulties in children with SLI. How language is impaired in children with SLI? Morphology In a quantitative experiment by Befi-Lopes, Ferreira da Silva and Bento (2010), two groups of students; one with SLI (20 subjects) and the other with no language disorder (40 subjects) were made to engage in tests on semantic presentations to investigate their abilities with morph syntactic difficulties. The children engaged in different tasks including naming, picture drawing and definitions. The emphasis for the morphology focused on naming and definitions. Twenty different pictures were presented to the participants. Results showed that children with SLI recorded a greater number of errors in the picture naming and definitions. The reverse was recorded for children with no language disorder; the control group. However, there was an important pattern on the morphological performance within the group of children with SLI; even though they were able to name the pictures presented to them correctly, their definitions were simpler and incomplete. In line with the findings made above, Catts, Fey, Tomblin and Zhang (2002) argue that morphology impacts literacy learning because children are expected to identify, analyse and describe the structure of language’s morphemes. This is to enable them to translate the structure of the language’s morphemes to other subject areas requiring literacy competence. Arguably, a major weakness of children with SLI is that they lack the requisite capabilities to undertake the transfer of learning. As illustrated through the research of Befi-Lopes et al., (2010) and supported by Catts et al., (2002) it would be expected that while gaining competencies in the structure of language’s morphemes, children would show greater ability so that such abilities could be translated into literature and language learning as a whole. But as the results for children with SLI showed otherwise, chances that weaknesses with morphology would affect literacy and language learning are very high. Syntax Dale and Cole (2011) explain that syntax caters for the principles and processes that guide the formation of sentences in a particular language. Based on this, Ring and Clahsen (2005) engaged students in a quantitative research aiming to compare the outcome of language activity performance within two groups of students: typical developing (TD) students and student with SLI, both randomly chosen. The study subjected the students to several areas of tests, including syntax. The specific area of syntax tested was on generative grammar. Rapin (1996) explained generative grammar as the type of syntax which follows a theory that puts emphasis on the form of a sentence rather than the communicative function of the sentence. This strengthened the study as it ensured fairness and lack of bias concerning results. As part of the generative grammar test, students whose ages ranged from 12 to 17 years, received tutorials in basic subject-verb agreement. Later, three different tests were administered. This is further strengthened the research as it achieved construct validity as students were not judged by one score. Each test was scored out of 5, making the highest available score for each student to 15. The average score of the students with SLI was 9, while that of the TD children was 12. Given the fact that both the samples of students were randomly selected and of the same age group, the conclusion concerning syntax and children is that they are more likely to exhibit difficulty. Meanwhile, Rapin (1996) stressed the importance of syntax within literacy and language learning, adding that it serves as the basis for creating structural rules in sentence formation. Based on this, it is possible to relate the outcome of these students to the purpose of this study. Children with SLI have difficulties with syntax and only if they provided with appropriate mechanisms to deal with this their literacy and language learning, especially when it comes to sentence structure, will remain inhibited. This is because the possibility of engaging in any meaningful literacy and language learning without sentence structure is unrealistic. Semantics A study involving three groups of students was conducted by Ullman and Pierpont (2005): children with SLI, children with SLI + concomitant speech disorder (CSD) and TD children. The focus of the study was to compare the ability of these groups of students in semantics. As noted by Hill (2001), semantics is concerned with meaning of words, phrases, symbols, and signs presented to people. The study examined how language is impaired in children with SLI compared to other students. This was a comparative study. Having three different groups of respondents, considered a major strength, as the children with SLI had two other sets of children to compare their linguistics abilities to. Three different forms of tests were administered concerning areas of meaning of words (5 questions, each scoring 3, maximum total of 15), phrases (5 questions, each scoring 2, maximum total of 10), and signs (5 questions, each scoring 5, maximum total of 25). In the test involving meaning of words, students were tasked to read a word and give its meaning. In the test involving phrases, students were asked to identify mistakes in phrases that did not make them meaningful. In the test involving signs, students were asked to make meaning of oral speeches based on punctuations used. Out of the 50 marks attainable, in the three areas of semantics, students with SLI scored the same average as the TD children. However, those with SLI+CSD had weaker scores. This illustrates that there are learning areas within language that students with SLI and TD children can perform equally. However, the methodological approach can be criticised as not the same scoring system was used across all three tests: some tests were scored out of 15 and others were scored out of 10. An important observation that can be made is that the scores of children with SLI and the TD samples were the same; therefore, both sets of children are competent at the same level concerning semantics within literacy and language learning. Meanwhile, comparing semantics to other areas of literacy and language development like pragmatics, Tomblin et al., (1997) states semantic is a fundamental aspect of literacy and language that does not require many cognitive outcomes to achieve. This means that before it can be concluded that children with SLI can exhibit the same level of competence in literacy and language learning as TD children it would be important to relate the scores in semantics to other areas of learning. Pragmatics Pragmatics has been noted to be very similar to semantics when it comes to measuring the ability of students in language development. However, in pragmatics, the focus includes the intent of the speaker rather than only on the structural and linguistics knowledge (Thomas & Redington, 2004). A research conducted in this area by Schaeffer (2005) included two groups of students: an SLI group and a TD group. The SLI group was control and comprised of two sample sizes: age and Mean Length of Utterance in Morphemes (MLUm). The test was conducted to investigate subject properties in spontaneous speech of 4-year old children with SLI, whom all had English-speaking backgrounds. Two tests were conducted to evaluate the impact of different language components on children: the first in grammatical properties of subjects and the second in pragmatic properties of subjects, which was subject-drop. Results from Schaeffer (2005) showed that children with SLI had below their age-level score, on their test for grammatical properties, which focused on subject-verb agreement and subject case. The case was however different when it came to pragmatic properties of English as in this area, the children with SLI scored higher marks in relation to what I am talking about. Among the TD children, whose ages were lower than those with SLI, the results showed a better performance in both grammar and pragmatics. The indication that the results give is that grammar and pragmatics actually develop at a different pace and as far as language is concerned, children with SLI are only impaired in their grammar but not in pragmatics, which is taken from a non-linguistic and interface perspective. From the definition, stated above, of pragmatics by Thomas and Redington (2004), one could argue that pragmatics focuses on a student’s ability to make the right meanings and implications from text and oral contents that they come across. In addition, within literacy and language it is expected that a person will not only be good with receptive skills but with productive skills as well (Thomas & Redington, 2004). It is at such a point, when the mastery in receptive skills and productive skills is accomplished, that literacy and language learning will have taken place. The receptive skills include listening and reading whiles productive skills are writing and speaking. But to develop excellent productive skills, the acquisition of pragmatics through the meaningful interpretation of text and oral content cannot be exempted (Schaeffer, 2005). This is because the scores that the SLI children have indicate that they have what it takes to understand and give the right implications to text and oral contents. Consequently, the SLI children are better placed to developing both receptive and productive skills as has been outlined already. Indication of how literacy is impaired in children with SLI Reading Several studies have been conducted to give evidence on the difference in performance in reading skills in TD children and children with SLI. In a study by Gates (2010), these children were tested on two phonological skills: non-word repetition (NWR) and non-word discrimination (NWD). The results showed that TD children outperformed the other group of children in both NWD and NWR. This is because the TD children performed better than children with SLI in the phonological processes they were tested in. Concerning children with SLI, the results showed that there were slight differences when it came to processing of phonological skills. This is because in general terms, these children showed deficits with both NWR and NWD. However, there were also differences with trend of performance score. A major strength of the methodology used by the researcher was that the study was comparative, making it possible to measure differences between children with SLI and TD children. Meanwhile, it is possible to relate the outcomes of this test in phonological skills to reading. This is because there are several studies that have sought to establish the relationship between phonological skills and reading. For example, Moats and Tolman (2009) observed that phoneme awareness is necessary I both learning and using the alphabetic code which is used either singly or in combination to represent single speech sounds when reading. It was also noted that phonological skills facilitates growth in printed word recognition, which means that phoneme awareness can be a basis for predicting later outcomes in reading and spelling (Moats & Tolman, 2009). In another study which focused directly on reading outcomes in children with language impairment (LI), Catts, Fey, Tomblin and Zhang (2002), noted that children with SLI and non-specific LI have different outcomes with reading competence. Overall, the longitudinal study conducted revealed that as children with LI progress from kindergarten, they tend to have higher risk with for reading disabilities at the second and fourth grade. The extent and nature of risk was however different for the two groups of children with LI involved in the study. For example, those with nonspecific LI had higher risk than those with SLI. This result gives indication of the possibility of improving reading skills for children with SLI. For example Catts et al. (2002) stressed that when children with SLI attain improved spoken language abilities by second and fourth grades, they have better chances with reading outcomes. This also goes to confirm the earlier point made about why phonological skills are important for reading. This is because at the early stages of reading, children use encoding to determine the sounds in verbal word before they are able to map these sounds into letter sequence to spell out the written words they find (Harm & Seidenberg, 1999). Writing Apart from reading or phonological skills, writing skills is also considered an important aspect of children’s literacy. Therefore, I use evidence from empirical studies that examine writing skills deficiency in children with SLI. Puranik et al., (2007) conducted a study comprising of children with three types of language development disorders: SLI, dyslexia, and TD. The sample groups of SLI and TD had 15 children each while the dyslexia contained 17. Their ages ranged 11 to 21 years old. The task was to write an expository text-retell, which means that they had to reproduce an expository text that had already been read to them. The results showed that TD children did better than those with dyslexia did. However, dyslexic children performed better than those with SLI. The conclusion drawn from this study is that children with SLI have core limitations to their language development skills when compared with TD children. This is because the writing skills in which they were tested in is an important productive skill needed to gain language development. Another similar study, performed by Gates (2010) focused on children with SLI and SLI + specific speech disorder (SSD). This study aimed to test the Bishop and Snowling’s position: there are differences between the outcomes of performance in non-phonological dimension of language for subjects who presented uniquely distinct clinical outcomes. A strength within this study was it had a theoretical perspective, based on which results were established. This means that the research’s findings were based on literature rather than the subjective and discretional interpretations of the researchers. Based on the theoretical perspective, the researchers constructed a training test instrument to check for the viability of the research instrument. Because of this, construct validity became a major advantage for the researchers as they had a pre-constructed test instrument that had been tested for consistency with variables in their research. Again, the approach to this study was considered very relevant in contributing to discussion on whether children with SLI really are prone to other developmental problems such as dyslexia. This is because there continues to be a school of thought that argues that SLI in itself makes children likely to contracting other development problems like dyslexia (Leonard, 2008). The method used by the study’s researchers required the sample to reproduce a text that had already been made available to them to read. The age group of the respondents ranged from 5 to 10 years old and so they were each expected to have sufficient level of comprehension with reading. After a period of reading, the material was taken from them and they were asked to reproduce a random version of the text. Results from this study showed that children with SLI+SSD were as impaired as those with SLI both input and output phonological processing. What causes literacy and language impacts on SLI children Throughout literature, there are various theories that attempt to explain the causes of literacy and language on SLI children. The first supporters of theory argue that children with SLI have difficulties with their auditory temporal process, which is regarded to be of low-level (Bishop & Snowling, 2004). Furthermore, the auditory processing of children greatly influences the way that the brain processes auditory information. From the empirical evidence given above, it can be said that this theory remains highly challenged. This is because the empirical evidence has established that greater part of the problem SLI children face as part of literacy and language development go beyond auditory production of language. This however does not mean that the theory is rejected but that there could be other possible explanations that the theory does not cover in comprehension. Another theory is one that supports that the problem is due to deficit in a specialised language-learning system (Brown & Levinson, 1978). This theory seems to be an expansion of the first one, as this seeks to explain that apart from auditory processes, there are several problems with auditory activities that result in SLI. The basis of this is that the specialised language system encompasses most aspect of learning including the right use of language that is both learned and acquired (Cole, 2008). Lastly, there are those theorists, who focus on deficit in specific areas of memory enhancement, that make it difficult for SLI children to adequately store information that they pick around them, especially while learning. It would be noted that it is the extent to which children are able to memorise or retain acquired language that determines how well they will be able to use it (Musiek, 2009). This means that when there is a problem with memory, ability to do well with all other aspects like semantics, pragmatics, phonology, and the rest becomes inhibited. Analysis The study focused on two major areas of development in atypical language for children with SLI. These areas were language skills and literacy skills. In terms of literacy skills, emphasis was on reading and writing, while in the area of language, emphasis was on phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Evidence implied that in areas of literacy, TD children perform better than children with SLI. There were however some areas, such as categorical perception and semantics that the degree of performance was the same. Out of the various areas that were measured in terms of language and literacy, there were no areas that children with SLI outperformed children with TD (Jerger & Musiek, 2000). In some of the studies, new subjects with clinical indications were used. Two such subjects were children with dyslexia and children with SLI plus concomitant speech disorder (CSD). The outcome of these results implied that among children with SLI alone and those with dyslexia, those with dyslexia performed better with non-phonological dimensions of language. However, when it comes to the performance of phonological dimensions of language, those with SLI were better (Hill, 2001). This is a type of data that exemplifies the role of atypical language development on children’s literacy learning. This is because where literacy learning was involved, which was phonological dimension of language, those with SLI showed great difficulty. Between those with only SLI and those with SLI plus CSD, it was noted that in areas of language development, results of performance were either the same or those with only SLI performed better. Conclusions The summary of the findings makes it possible to draw a number of conclusions for this research. Firstly, it can be argued that atypical language development can indeed impact children’s literacy. This conclusion is based on the direct outcome of results between TD children and those with atypical development, particularly SLI. Even though the impact on literacy development has been established (Leonard, 2008), it can also be argued that atypical language development does not absolutely cause children to be handicapped when it comes to literacy learning. This is because in some cases, SLI children produced the same results as TD children (Ullman & Pierpont, 2005). This means that the literacy learning impairments that children with SLI suffer are largely correctional and can be improved with the introduction of the right forms of intervention (Goldin-Meadow, 2005). Recommendations for Further Research From the critique performed on the evidences used, and the approach used in this study, there are a number of recommendations. Firstly, the aim of the study was very limited to finding evidence to the fact that SLI children experience some forms of literacy learning challenges. This however did not include solutions to the challenges identified. It is suggested that future researches will build on this study by finding ways for improving or solving the learning deficiencies that have been identified in the current study. Until now, it can be stated that the inability to clearly take a position on how well SLI children will perform after they are subjected to various forms of interventions, is the most significant gap in the research that should be associated in future studies. However, in order to achieve this effectively, it will be important that the research methodology will focus on finding solutions to problems identified. Consequently, the use of action research is recommended for future research. This is because action research seeks to identify a problem in a given research setting and seeks to improve the problem (Saunders et al., 2003). Word count: 4.275 References Ásgeirsdóttir, A. S. (2011) Home Literacy & Child Language Development: The Importance of Children’s Literature and Poetry. [Online]. Available at http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/8407/22379/1/Essay_Final2.pdf accessed: August 12 2014. Befi-Lopes, D. M., Ferreira da Silva, C. P. & Bento, A. C. P. (2010) Semantic representation and naming in children with specific language impairment. Pró-Fono Revista de Atualização Científica, 22, (2), 1-7. Bishop, D. V. M. (2006) What Causes Specific Language Impairment in Children? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, (5), 217–221. Bishop, D. V. M. (2001) Genetic and environmental risks for specific language impairment in children. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, 356, 369–380. Bishop, D. V. & Snowling, M. J. (2004) Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: same or different?. Psychological Bulletin, 130, (6), 858–86. Bishop, D. V. M. & Norbury, C. F. (2002) Exploring the borderlands of autistic disorder and specific language impairment: A study using standardised diagnostic instruments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 917-929. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Catts, H. W, Fey, M.E., Tomblin J.B & Zhang, X. (2002) A Longitudinal Investigation of Reading Outcomes in Children With Language Impairments. Journal of Speech, Language and Learning Research, 45, 1142-1157 Clahsen, H. & Temple, C. (2003) Words and rules in Williams syndrome. In Y. Levy, Y. & J. Schaeffer (Eds.), Towards a definition of Specific Language Impairment in children. Erlbaum. Cole, P. (2008) Pragmatics. (Syntax and Semantics, 9). New York: Academic Press. Dale, P. S. & Cole, K. N. (2011) What's normal? Specific language impairment in an individual differences perspective. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 80–83. Gates, S. (2010) Speech processing in typical and atypical language development: using nonwords to map the way. [PhD Thesis]. University College London, University of London. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005) The resilience of language. Psychology Press: Hove, Sussex. Harm, M. W. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999) Phonological, reading acquisition and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106, (3), 491-528. Hill, E. L. (2001) Non-specific nature of specific language impairment: a review of the literature with regard to concomitant motor impairments. Lang Commun Disord, 36, (2), 149–71. Jerger, J. & Musiek, F. (2000) Report of the Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis of Auditory Processing Disorders in School-Aged Children. Acad Audiol, 11, (9), 467–74. Moats, L. & Tolman, C. (2009) Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS): The Speech Sounds of English: Phonetics, Phonology, and Phoneme Awareness. Sopris West: Boston. Musiek, F. (2009) Habilitation and management of auditory processing disorders: overview of selected procedures. Acad Audiol, 10, (6), 329–42. Puranik, C., Lombardino, L. & Altmann, L. (2007) Writing through retellings: an exploratory study of language-impaired and dyslexic population. Reading and Writing, 20, (3), 251-272. Rapin, I. (1996) Practitioner review: developmental language disorders: a clinical update. Child Psychological Psychiatry, 37, (6), 643–55. Rice M. L., Hoffman L. & Wexler K. (2009) Judgments of Omitted BE and DO. In Questions as Extended Finiteness Clinical Markers of SLI to Fifteen Years: A Study of Growth and Asymptote. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 52, (6), 1417–1433. Ring, M. & Clahsen, H. (2005) Distinct patterns of language impairment in Down's syndrome, Williams syndrome, and SLI: The case of syntactic chains. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 18, 479-501. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2003) Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Schaeffer J. (2005) Pragmatic and grammatical properties of subjects in children with specific language impairment. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 88-120. Thomas, M. S. C. & Redington, M. (2004) Modelling atypical syntax processing. In W. Sakas (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Workshop on Psycho-computational models of human language acquisition at the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 85-92. Tomblin, J. B., Records, N. L., Buckwalter, P., Zhang, X., Smith, E., O'Brien, M. (1997) Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 40,1245–1260. Ullman, M. T. & Pierpont, E. I. (2005) Specific language impairment is not specific to language: the procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex, 41, (3), 399-433. Read More