Early lang theories (1)
Why need theories?
Unds how lang develops
Intervention helps children who struggle to communicate
Biological/neural maturation
Nativist/psycho linguist theory
Explaining to parents their role in education
Behaviourism theory
Social interaction/sociocultural theory
Stackhouse, Wells model
Lang as product of brain fns affected by env, genetics
Brain plasticity--> potential to change
Broca's, Wernicke's area more impt than others for lang
Implications: neuroscience says that early intervention--> more favourable outcomes. Can rewire child's brain
Implication: consider critical, sensitive periods for lang learning. Deficits in input, hearing impariment, abuse/neglect. Isolation.
Chomsky, Pinker
Children have innate lang acq device, can dev pidgin (immature lang) into creole. Only need minimal lang exposure to prime LAD
Children are going to learn lang typically no matter what circumstance they are in
Limitation: Genie
Skinner, Bair, Lovaas
Learning is passive. Result of responding to env stimuli, child has clean slate, behaviour shaped thru +ve, -ve reinforcement
Terminology
Antecedent events
Shaping
Operant conditioning
Consequent events
Behavioural chaining
Learning happens when env stimulus triggers a response, behaviour
Stimulus that precedes a behaviour
eg. sees car (antecedent), "want car" (outcome)
Ix: sabotage env to stimulate lang learning
Behavioural concept that describes production of closer approx to behavioural target BEFORE reinforcemnet. Modelling the correct word
Eg, ka (don't give) "you want a cracker" (modelling) kaka (give). Only give child cracker when child makes step towards the correct word
Learning to make response bcos produces reinforcing effect
Learning to not make response bcos it produces punishing effect
Positive reinforcement (to increase behaviour)
Negative reinforcement (to increase behaviour)
Punishment
Extinction
praising talking, smile, nod, rewards
Eg. rmb you didnt put on sunscreen, put it bcos you rmb that you got sunburn last time, you AVOID getting sunburnt
strengthens a behavior by taking away a negative outcome as an effect of the behavior. When a negative result is avoided by performing a specific action, the preventative behavior becomes more likely to occur again in the future.
Reduce chance of behaviour. Say word wrongly (REMOVES PASTA)
ignore a behaviour
Eg. taking away curfew bcos he has been home early this time
When activity requires many linked steps
Break up long term goals--> Short term goals
Complex behavioural sequence broken into smaller units--> Child can be trained to complete multi stage task. Indv components rewarded
Tx techniques
Drill
Clinician directed, very structured, SLP instructs clients what response is expected eg. specific targets word, sound, phrase
Lots of modelling eg. child repeats/imitates clinician--> prompts will decrease
High rate of stimulus presentation (flashcards), client responses per unit time
More reinforcement provided after desired response heard
Drill play
Antecedent, subsq motivating events eg. feltboard, child naming clothing items
Antecedent: child allowed to choose any sticker from set that he would like to put on scrapbook
Says name of clothing item (reinforcement of correct labelling)
Subsq motivating event: child allowed to put sticker on feltboard
Limitations: does not work long term in clinical practice
What is common?
Specific targets-modelled, imitated
Prompts gradually faded
+ve reinforcement
Increase rate of stimulus presentations per unit time
Note
Choosing stimuli
Objects preferred to pictures when teaching words to very young children/children w delay
Toy name to be paired w actions, adjectives
Need realistic photos
Good bcos can get target words, reinforce behaviour
Vygotsky, Bloom, Burner
Infant directed/baby talk
Scripts
Zone of proximal dev.
Need to be short-enough utterance. Counsel parents to unds where child is at now. Start from word and buildup to sentence again if there is a BREAKDOWN
Communication interaction IMPT in children's lang acq
Change tone, pitch, loudness, copy child's lang
BUT DO NOT reinforce LISPS
Coordinating attention
Adult follows infant's focus of attention, match communication to child's eye gaze. Following child's lead, easier bcos child already paying attention to it, easier to add vocab in
Hannen program parent's 6 diff roles: entertainer, director, tester, watcher, mover, helper, tuned in parent (follows child's lead, add lang)
Eg. child obsessed w opening, closing cabinet, need to change therapy goals
Scaffolding (fill in blanks) OR predictable structure of event that provides chance for participation
Familiar interactions allow child to anticipate his role in interaction build pragmatic comm skills
Joint action routines provide basis for scripts
Eg. repeated book reading with pausing. Peek a boo games
Clinical implications: Focus on child's caregivers in Tx, work w children in homes, kindies to build social interactions, parents, SLPs to use strategies to improve lang input, SLPs observe caregiver interaction patterns w child
Lang facilitation techniques
Self talk: SLP describes what she is feeling, thinking, seeing. Begin with "I". Provides clear, simple match b/w actions, words. Useful for children who X talk. Works best when SLP observes what child is doing, does similar action w materials
eg. building a tower. I'm building. See? I'm building."
// talk: Use lang to describe what child is thinking, feeling, seeing, doing. Share child's focus. eg. "You're building. You did it again!"
Expansions: Restate child's utterance to form gramatically correct, complete sentence. Increase probability that child will spontaeneously imitate part of expansion. Eg. doggy --> The doggy is in the house.
Extensions: comments that add some semantic info to child's remark. Extensions allow increase in child's sentence length.
Eg. doggy--> big doggy or doggy's house--> doggy's warm house
Build ups, breakdowns: Shaping. Demonstrate how sentences are put tgt. Steps: Expand child's utterance into fully grammatical form--> Break down into phrases--> Build into sentences
Recast sentences: Elaborate child's utterance into grammatically correct sentence. Expand child's remark into diff type/more elaborated sentence. Eg. doggy house--> Is the doggy in the house?
Gap b/w child's current level of independent fning, potential lvl of perf
Level of independent perf <--> lvl of assisted perf.
What child is ready to learn w help of competent adult or peer, sibling
Why important?
Consider how lang can be dev, supported by child's comm partners eg. lang models provided MUST BE ABOVE child's current level. CANNOT BE STUCK AT LABELLING
Influence Ax: Consider child's independent perf, also when assisted
Goal setting: Target just beyond what child can do on their own, impt to select goals w/i child's reach, with some help. Find soft spot.
Provide models at lvl higher than child's current lvl. Impt for SLPs to know what the next lvl is