Written language intervention approaches: a brief review.
SLPs working in schools are often asked to work on oral and written language of children with communication impairments. This paper discusses evidence for three major approaches to written language intervention: traditional pen and paper intervention and two different types of computer-based learnin...
| Publicado en: | Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Vol. 11; no. 2; pp. 111 - 118 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , |
| Formato: | review tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Plural Publishing Inc.
2008 Jun
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=105675800&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 105675800 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 13613286 GP8 jtl: Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing issn: 13613286 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: 2008 Jun vid: 11 iid: 2 pid: 35104 pub: Plural Publishing Inc. place: San Diego, CA 92123, California artinfo: ui: 105675800 105675800 2010000363 105675800 ppf: 111 ppct: 7 formats: tig: atl: Written language intervention approaches: a brief review. aug: au: Gillian E McAllister L McLeod S Parkes RJ affil: School of Community Health, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, Albury NSW 2640, Australia; ed_gillian@hotmail.com sug: subj: Communicative Disorders Schools Speech-Language Pathology Methods Written Language Education Computer-Assisted Instruction Feedback Grammar Spelling Teaching Methods Vocabulary Writing ab: SLPs working in schools are often asked to work on oral and written language of children with communication impairments. This paper discusses evidence for three major approaches to written language intervention: traditional pen and paper intervention and two different types of computer-based learning (CBL). The traditional pen and paper intervention has been found to be successful when it incorporates language-based and explicit instruction; however, difficulties with spelling and legibility can decrease its effectiveness. The word-processing software approach has a small body of supporting evidence, but it does not provide explicit instruction for the development of vocabulary and punctuation. Writing prompt software has a small, promising body of evidence supporting its use. More research into the use of writing prompt software for written language intervention is warranted. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: review tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|