Why spoken language development is considered an important foundation for written language and how this information would be used for planning interventions with children with speech and literacy difficulties ANNA KSIGOU University of Sheffield, Department of Human Communication Sciences Language and Communication Impairment in Children INTRODUCTION PLANNING INTERVENTIONS WITH CHILDREN WITH SPEECH AND LITERACY DIFFICULTIES SPOKEN LANGUAGE AS AN IMPORTANT FOUNDATION FOR WRITTEN LANGUAGE In this module, which deals with speech and language impairment in children, one of the most important parameters for assessment and intervention is the essential role of spoken language development as a foundation for written language. This kind of information seen in the light of a psycholinguistic perspective can endow us with information for planning interventions with children with speech and literacy difficulties. Due to the complexity of the terminology used in the literature and the subsequent confusion, the essential terms are defined and their definition given remains solid throughout this assignment. More specifically, the first part of the assignment includes discussion on the reasons spoken language is a prerequisite for written language. In the second part, criteria for assessment are briefly mentioned, and the including and excluding causes of speech and literacy disorders are presented. Finally, the third part incorporates approaches and techniques for planning interventions, all following evidence from successful interventions of researchers and speech therapists, encompassing intervention in the educational setting. The most significant factors which determine which children are at risk for developing literacy difficulties would seem the severity, pervasiveness and persistence of their spoken language difficulties. [Stackhouse in Snowling and Stackhouse (2006), Bird et al (1995) in Bishop (1997)]. One of the more critical and enlightening papers presenting a study of the early literacy development of children with speech difficulties is Nathan, Stackhouse, Goulandris and Snowling’s Test of the ‘Critical Age Hypothesis’ (2004). Due to the complex multifactorial nature of literacy, cognitive factors such as the general cognitive ability (IQ) and environmental variables can affect the development or not of a literacy problem. Stackhouse’s psycholinguistic perspective (Stackhouse and Wells 1997) consists of three parameters: input, lexical representations and output. The main assumption is that children should have semantic, phonological and grammatical representations stored for common words together with the motor programmes for producing them [Shula Chiat (2000)] The typically developing child follows Frith’s (1985) three phases, namely the logographic strategy (whole-word recognition), the alphabetic phase (phoneme-grapheme correspondences) and the orthographic phase (segmentation of morphemes) Castles and Coltheart (2003) conclude that there is a causal link from competence in phonological awareness to success in reading and spelling acquisition [Pascoe, Stackhouse and Wells (2006)] On the other hand, Scholes (1997) from the University of Florida, has evaluated five possible relationships among speech, writing, and language Snowling, Bishop and Stothard (2000) : need for a developmental perspective, the cognitive view that the language skills which contribute to literacy development change over time, placing different children at risk of failure at different stages Many factors will influence the type of intervention that works best. The most important ones are the following (Snowling and Stackhouse 2006): the age of the child the child’s current levels of phonological processing whether speech and language difficulties persist and, if these are being managed, whether the child has ongoing speech and language therapy needs and whether there are being met the integrity of the other skills that contribute to reading, namely visual and semantic skills the persistence of spelling and writing difficulties the child’s self-perception, behaviour and attention the child’s network of support and carry-over to the home environment LITERATURE REVIEW Popple and Wellington in Stackhouse and Wells (2001) : collaboration between professionals, the team work spirit and the value of an individual education plan (IEP), in which a multidisciplinary and multisensory approach was used Nathan and Simpson in Stackhouse and Wells (2001) : integration of skills and employment of multisensory teaching and learning techniques Pascoe, Stackhouse and Wells (2005) : combination of a psycholinguistic approach with a linguistic approach understanding of the learner’s language development, cognitive strengths and weaknesses, any additional barriers to learning (Jamieson and Simpson in Snowling and Stackhouse (2006) integration of spoken and written language Pascoe, Stackhouse and Wells (2006) also stress the fact that successful literacy outcome is dependent on both phonological awareness and speech training being combined and integrated into a therapy programme from an early age. Hatcher in Snowling and Stackhouse (2006) : the reading intervention programme metacognitive approach to teaching ‘integrated intervention’ : one in which speech processing and production, phonological awareness and reading/spelling are included (Popple and Wellington 2001, Nathan and Simpson 2001) Martin and Miller (2003) : individualized programmes for each pupil, a cross-curricular approach, computer-assisted learning programmes for literacy difficulties and additional teaching personnel SELECTED REFERENCES Bishop, D.V.M (1997) Uncommon Understanding: Development and Disorders of Language Comprehension in Children. East Essex: Psychology Press Castles A. and Coltheart M. (2004) Is there a causal link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read? Cognition 91 (2004), 77-111 Chiat, S. (2000) Blocks on the road to words in Understanding Children with Language Problems. Cambridge University Press Hatcher, P. (2006) Phonological awareness and reading intervention. in Snowling, M., and Stackhouse, J. (Eds) (2006) Dyslexia, Speech and Language: A Practitioner’s Handbook. Chichester: Wiley & Sons Ltd. Pascoe, M., Stackhouse, J. and Wells, B. (June 2006) Children with Persisting Speech Difficulties. Children’s Speech and Literacy Difficulties 3. Chichester: Wiley & Sons Ltd. Pascoe, M., Stackhouse, J., Wells, B. (2005) Phonological therapy within a psycholinguistic framework: promoting change in a child with persisting speech difficulties. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. 40.2. 189-220. Popple, J. and Wellington, W. (2001) Working together: The psycholinguistic approach within a school setting in Stackhouse, J and Wells, B (eds) (2001) Children’s Speech and Literacy Difficulties 2: Identification and Intervention. London: Whurr. Scholes R., (1997) Spoken and Written English: The Case for Distinct Languages, Interchange, Vol. 28/1, 1-14, 1997 Snowling, M. and Stackhouse, J. (2006) Dyslexia, Speech and Language: A Practitioner’s Handbook. Chichester: Wiley & Sons Ltd. Snowling, M.J. (2000) Dyslexia. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Stackhouse, J. (2006) Speech and spelling difficulties: What to look for in Snowling, M. Stackhouse, J. (eds) (2006) Dyslexia, Speech and Spelling: A Practitioner’s Handbook. Chichester: John Wiley Stackhouse, J. and Wells, B. (1997) Children’s Speech and Literacy Difficulties 1: A Psycholinguistic Framework. London: Whurr Publishers. Stackhouse, J. and Wells, B. (2001) Children’s Speech and Literacy Difficulties 2: Identification and Intervention. London: Whurr Publishers . CONCLUSION In summary, written and spoken language should not be regarded as two separate areas, each tackled by different professional groups. An understanding of the links between the two areas and their subskills arising from a common speech processing system will enable therapists, teachers and others to design and deliver comprehensive intervention packages. The focus should be on the best ways of delivering intervention programmes and on who can do this most effectively. (Snowling and Stackhouse 2006).