Search

Children with language disorder frequently experience difficulties with vocabulary acquisition, and these difficulties often persist into adolescence. The literature indicates that clinical studies tend to investigate phonological-semantic approaches, whereas educational studies focus on the derivation of meaning within a literacy context. Little is known about whether the practices of speech and language therapists and teachers reflect these findings from the literature. The current paper reports on a survey which gathered information from speech and language therapists and mainstream secondary school teachers, about their current practice concerning vocabulary support for adolescents, aged 11-16, who have language disorder. An online questionnaire was distributed through teaching and speech and language therapy professional networks. The aim of the study was to establish which specific strategies were used in practice by speech and language therapists and mainstream secondary school teachers to teach vocabulary to adolescents with language disorder, and which strategies were the most effective. Responses were obtained from 127 speech and language therapists and 47 mainstream secondary school teachers in the UK. Speech and language therapists were more likely than mainstream secondary school teachers to teach phonological awareness and semantic feature analysis as strategies for developing vocabulary skills. Both professions used literacy-related strategies as well as strategies for independent word learning such as the derivation of meaning from morphology and context. Increased joint working and training opportunities would further develop the knowledge and skills of both mainstream secondary school teachers and speech and language therapists, enabling theoretically-grounded and relevant vocabulary support for this group of adolescents.

Purpose: Phonological-semantic intervention has been shown to be effective in enhancing the vocabulary skills of children with language disorder in small-group or individual settings. Less is known about vocabulary interventions for adolescents with language disorder in whole-class models of delivery. The current study investigated the effectiveness of phonological-semantic vocabulary intervention for adolescents with language disorder, delivered by secondary school teachers within science lessons. Method: Seventy-eight adolescents with language disorder, aged 11-14 years, were taught science curriculum words by teachers in class, under 2 conditions: (a) 10 words taught through usual teaching practice and (b) 10 matched words taught using an experimental intervention known as Word Discovery, which embedded phonological-semantic activities into the teaching of the syllabus. Ten similar control words received no intervention. Word knowledge was assessed pre-intervention, postintervention, and follow-up. Results: At pre-intervention, measures of depth of word knowledge and expressive word use did not differ between usual teaching practice and experimental words. At postintervention, depth of knowledge of experimental words was significantly greater than that of usual teaching practice words. This significant advantage was not maintained at follow-up, although depth of knowledge for experimental words remained significantly higher at follow-up than at pre-intervention. At postintervention, expressive use of experimental words was significantly greater than that of usual teaching practice words, and this significant difference was maintained at follow-up. There was no change in students' depth of knowledge or expressive use of no-intervention words over time, confirming that the findings were not due to maturity or practice effects. Conclusion: The experimental intervention was more effective than usual teaching practice in increasing the word knowledge of participants. Clinical and teaching implications include the importance of intervening during the adolescent years, with classroom vocabulary intervention being a viable option for collaborative teacher and speech and language therapy/pathology practice.

Background: Language disorder and associated vocabulary difficulties can persist into adolescence, and can impact on long-term life outcomes. Previous reviews have shown that a variety of intervention techniques can successfully enhance students' vocabulary skills; however, none has investigated vocabulary intervention specifically for adolescents with language disorder. Aims: To carry out a systematic review of the literature on vocabulary interventions for adolescents with language disorder. Methods & Procedures: A systematic search of 14 databases and other sources yielded 1320 studies, of which 13 met inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were: intervention effectiveness studies with a focus on enhancing oral receptive and/or expressive vocabulary skills in the study's aims; participants in the age range 11;0-16;11 with receptive and/or expressive language difficulties of any aetiology. Main Contribution: There was a high degree of diversity between studies. Types of intervention included: semantic intervention (four studies); comparison of phonological versus semantic intervention (two); and combined phonological-semantic intervention (seven). The strongest evidence for effectiveness was found with a combined phonological-semantic approach. The evidence suggested a potential for all models of delivery to be helpful (individual, small group and whole class). Conclusions & Implications: Tentative evidence is emerging for the effectiveness of a phonological-semantic approach in enhancing the vocabulary skills of adolescents who have language disorder. Future research needs to refine and develop the methodologies used in this diverse group of studies in order to replicate their findings and to build consensus.

Vocabulary knowledge has been shown to be a predictor of academic success, posing a challenge for children and young people with language disorder. Language disorder can persist into adolescence and yet there is limited evidence on how to support the vocabulary skills of adolescents with language disorder in a mainstream setting. This article describes an experimental study aimed at investigating the feasibility of a whole-class approach to increase the understanding and use of curriculum vocabulary in adolescents with language disorder. Ten curriculum words were taught by the science teacher using a phonological-semantic approach, and 10 matched same-topic words were taught using routine teaching practice. Progress was made post-intervention in word knowledge of both low-frequency experimental and control words, with significantly greater change in knowledge of the experimental words. Most students, and the teacher, viewed the phonological-semantic word-learning approach favourably.

Background: There is some evidence that vocabulary intervention is effective for children, although further research is needed to confirm the impact of intervention within contexts of social disadvantage. Very little is known about the effectiveness of interventions to increase adolescent knowledge of cross-curriculum words. Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention programme designed to develop adolescents' knowledge of cross-curriculum words. Methods & Procedures: Participants were 35 adolescents aged between 12 and 14 years who were at risk of educational underachievement with low scores on a range of assessments. Participants received a 10-week intervention programme in small groups, targeting 10 cross-curriculum words (e.g., "summarize"). This was evaluated using a bespoke outcome measure (the Word Knowledge Profile). The study involved an AABA design, with a repeated baseline, delayed intervention cohort and blind assessment. Intervention included both semantic and phonological information about the target words and involved the adolescents using the words in multiple contexts. Outcomes & Results: Results were promising and participants' knowledge of the targeted words significantly increased following intervention. Progress was demonstrated on the Word Knowledge Profile on the item requiring participants to define the word (for the summer intervention group only). This increase in depth of knowledge was seen on taught words but not on matched non-taught words. Conclusions & Implications: Cross-curriculum words are not consistently understood by adolescents at risk of low educational attainment within a low socio-economic context. A 10-week intervention programme resulted in some increases to the depth of knowledge of targeted cross-curriculum words.

Purpose: Phonological-semantic intervention has been shown to be effective in enhancing the vocabulary skills of children with language disorder in small-group or individual settings. Less is known about vocabulary interventions for adolescents with language disorder in whole-class models of delivery. The current study investigated the effectiveness of phonological-semantic vocabulary intervention for adolescents with language disorder, delivered by secondary school teachers within science lessons. Method: Seventy-eight adolescents with language disorder, aged 11-14 years, were taught science curriculum words by teachers in class, under 2 conditions: (a) 10 words taught through usual teaching practice and (b) 10 matched words taught using an experimental intervention known as Word Discovery, which embedded phonological-semantic activities into the teaching of the syllabus. Ten similar control words received no intervention. Word knowledge was assessed pre-intervention, postintervention, and follow-up. Results: At pre-intervention, measures of depth of word knowledge and expressive word use did not differ between usual teaching practice and experimental words. At postintervention, depth of knowledge of experimental words was significantly greater than that of usual teaching practice words. This significant advantage was not maintained at follow-up, although depth of knowledge for experimental words remained significantly higher at follow-up than at pre-intervention. At postintervention, expressive use of experimental words was significantly greater than that of usual teaching practice words, and this significant difference was maintained at follow-up. There was no change in students' depth of knowledge or expressive use of no-intervention words over time, confirming that the findings were not due to maturity or practice effects. Conclusion: The experimental intervention was more effective than usual teaching practice in increasing the word knowledge of participants. Clinical and teaching implications include the importance of intervening during the adolescent years, with classroom vocabulary intervention being a viable option for collaborative teacher and speech and language therapy/pathology practice., Vocabulary skills are often at risk for children and adolescents with language disorder (e.g., McGregor, Oleson, Bahnsen, & Duff, 2013). Vocabulary knowledge is a key predictor of reading comprehension, essential [...]