Language Impairment in Children: Impact on Literacy Outcomes - Essay Sample

Introduction

Language development in a child is essential in overall growth. It supports thinking, problem-solving, and maintaining relationships. Understanding the use of language is a critical step in a child's literacy and forms the basis on how to read and write. This study analyses the language profiles and literacy outcomes of participants with resolving, emerging, or persisting language impairments (LI). Children who address their language impairment have no reading and spelling difficulties.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Childs language development theory focuses on explaining and addressing developmental disorder which occurs alongside low nonverbal ability. A delay in language skill leads to the frustration of the child and creates a communication barrier. The need for early intervention efforts motivates the authors to conduct the study for analysis purposes. It helps in supporting and resolving the development of language skills, as well as assisting in exchange of information with others in a meaningful way, especially among children and their parents. There is a limitation of present outcomes concerning the trajectories of language impairment since the data primarily comes from parental report measures. This study's main aim is using objective language procedures and literacy to authenticate earlier results in solving language impairment theories (Rudolph et al., 2016).

The participants come from the Welcome Language and Reading Project. The NHS Research Ethics Committee and the Psychology Department, University of New York has given ethical permission, and acquire written consent from their parents. The researchers recruit participants whose parents worry they may have a preschool LI and with a risk of developing dyslexia. The assessing of the participants is at six provisions: t1 (age 3), t2 (age 4), t3 (age 5), t4 (age 6), t5 (age 8), and t6 (age 9. In LI, at each point, each child classification is done. A member of the team assesses each child individually. The test lasts approximately 1 to 2 hours per child. Sentence structure subtest method evaluates grammar. In rapid automatized naming (RAN), the children name five items loudly and repeat in an eight by five matrix (Snowling et al., 2016).

The measure of expressive and receptive grammar at t1, t3, and t5 concludes with a 95% confidence interval. At t1, as overlapping confidence interval confirms, the resolving and persisting LI groups are the same. At t3, each of the group differs from the other. The scores for TL, resolving, emerging and persisting have no integrations with the ones in the resolving group. The confidence level for LI does not overlap anymore at t5. However, the emerging and persisting LI sets do not indicate overlap to the resolving groups (Snowling et al., 2016).

Persisting preschool LIs are worse than resolving LIs. Language and literacy results are reasonably low for participants with persisting and higher for the ones with the resolving LI. A substantial part of participants with standard linguistic capabilities in preschool had LIs emerging in their mid-childhood. A large percentage of the children are at significant risk of family dyslexia. Boys are more in the resolving and persisting LI sets. Participants with initial LI that resolved at the beginning of their formal learning tend to have better learning results, while participants who have late learning problems that persisted developed reading troubles (Snowling et al., 2016).

At the end of the study, persisting LIs are further worst and prevalent than resolving LIs. Children with resolving LI perform relatively well than those with persisting LIs on literacy and language outcomes. Participants with early LIs that settles at the beginning of their formal literacy instruction tend to have positive results, while the ones with the persisting LIs develop reading difficulties (Snowling et al., 2016).

This study differs from previous searches that found 44% of LI at the age of 4 years resolved by the age of 9 years. The present research has participants with preschool LI and those with the danger of family dyslexia as well. The researchers collect both boys and girls in similar groups who do not have any social disadvantages. The findings suggest a different etiology of genetic origin. Some results are consistent with previous searches. For example, in the evaluation of literacy results in every LI trajectory, resolving the LI group performs at a similar level to the TL group on all procedures (Snowling et al., 2016).

Children with dyslexia have a learning disability in reading, reading comprehension, spelling and writing. The condition is higher in children with a dyslexic parent. Interventions for poor reading promotes language skills and phoneme awareness in early school years provide a strong foundation for literacy development. The finding of this study is vital to a speech therapist. It will help in identifying the most appropriate method of analysing the type of communication problems such as voice, articulation, fluency, and emotional language disorders.

Mainly, the data concerning the trajectories of LI in this study originate from parent report procedures. The emphasis on the language milestones is crucial on the children's literacy development. Only language problems existing in reading instructions affect reading progress. Second, children with a risk of dyslexia not only have poor literacy due to early oral language difficulties but also mediation effects by poor phonological awareness. Lastly, the previous finding concludes that there is an association between an emerging LI trajectory and a family chance of literacy difficulties (Rudolph et al., 2016).

The study uses the data of 220 children which is a small number in comparison to the children with language difficulties. There is a need to increase the number of participants for perfect data collection. Teachers and caregivers often ignore preschoolers whose language seems to be lagging. This research suggests treating language acquisition as a tool for success in complex integrative tasks. Caregivers of children with communication and language conditions have an impact on their enrollment and involvement in their therapeutic exercise. They spend the most time with the child and play and have an active role in speech therapy. Identifying disorders early enough by the caregivers and parents can assist in diagnosis and treatment before the start of formal education (Rudolph et al., 2016).

Speech and language difficulties detection before school will allow interventions in time. Screening tests and speech-language therapy sessions will address the problems and avoid interference with formal education. Collecting data from enough participants will enable any other research to be successful. Also, increasing the number of research personnel to assist in the analysis of many participants will ensure positive and accurate results in future.

The article is quite enlightening and comprehensive. Collection of Participants and the measures researchers undertake in assessing the children's abilities are well indicated by the authors. The authors have put the reader into consideration by simplifying the tables and their contents. Finally, outlining the key points gives the reader an overview of the whole article.

References

Snowling, M. J., Duff, F. J., Nash, H. M., & Hulme, C. (2016). Language profiles and literacy outcomes of children with resolving, emerging, or persisting language impairments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(12), 1360-1369.

Rudolph, J. M., & Leonard, L. B. (2016). Early language milestones and specific language impairment. Journal of Early Intervention, 38(1), 41-58.