Discussion suggested that there were many gaps. The educational perspective, which we interpret as a perspective on learning, was considered to be theoretically, but not necessarily practically, different from traditional perspectives on specific language impairment (SLI). The gap(s) could be bridged by taking a more interaction-based perspective on language difficulties.

Current models tend to focus on linguistic and/or psycholinguistic or cognitive deficits but could additionally be used to identify strengths and/or compensatory strategies for the child and adults.

We need to be aware whether, in planning for the child’s needs, we are aiming to fill gaps (in language ) or to help children and adults to circumvent difficulties.

There is a need to balance National Curriculum targets and a child’s learning needs and to identify what helps the child and their significant adults in particular contexts.

We discussed whether the terminology was a mess and whether terminology matters

Some of the terminology is an ‘incredible mess’ – for example, SLI can mean ‘specific language impairment’ or ‘speech and language impairment’ – but what does ‘specific language impairment’ mean? We use ‘difficulties’ and ‘impairment’ – are they synonymous?

Terminology does not matter provided everyone who uses terms understands each other and shares knowledge. There are problems in this across professions. Models, paradigms and terms are currently not shared.

Mapping educational and social approaches to SLI

We discussed ideas that would be important to an educational perspective of SLI which took greater account of learning and the kind of knowledge about SLI that we would be interested in. This might require the development of new discourses for work and for research.

We also discussed the kind of research questions we could we ask and the research approaches we could we draw on.

Research and professional practice would give attention to the barriers to the curriculum and to social experiences for children with SLI. More systemic and interactive approaches would be seen. Thus the focus of attention would not always be on the child but on the environment for learning and for social relationships.

Children would be helped to develop coping strategies.

There would need to be discussion on what constitutes successful outcome for children with SLI.

What would a social model of specific language impairment look like?

A change of emphasis would result in a broader perspective of speech and language and the relationship with learning. This would mean better understanding of educational and social perspectives on language impairment and how speech and language support can be brought more effectively into educational settings.

It would take greater account of the child’s view and see the child in a social context for learning. It would focus on the child’s language as a barrier to society and would be working towards more functional language and independence. The child’s self-esteem, motivation and quality of life would be given greater consideration.

There would be a stronger focus on typical development of communication as dialogue and how this interacts with the social and learning environment. The context for learning and for social relations would be of equal importance to the difficulties of the child.

Definitions of speech and language impairment would therefore need to be more functional and greater account would be taken of the ways in which contextual demands change over time and the nature of the SLI changes over time. Understanding of SLI would be dyad-based – ie based on the child with others.

The characteristics and needs of families would be given more attention.

It was suggested that the aims of intervention should be:

• Fundamental change for better communication; academic achievement; better life outcomes; to be able to use language for learning and for social relationships

Some possible research questions might be:

• In what ways are traditional/ and psycho-linguistic SLT approaches useful in schools?
• Are there subject-specific curriculum demands on children with SLI?
• What strategies do specialist (successful?) teachers use with children with SLI ?
• What strategies do SLTs in education use?
• What are the mechanisms and processes of effective collaboration leading to particular outcomes?
• Are there parallels between approaches to other forms of learning difficulties and SLI?
• What are the characteristics of helpful classroom talk where children have SLI?
• What are the characteristics of successful collaboration ?

Approaches to research might include:

• There is probably a need for greater emphasis on social research methods. Some initial model building would be required to take account of new approaches from within education.
• Increased emphasis on ethnographic approaches, case studies and action research.
• Use of Delphi techniques, knowledge elicitation, skills audit, methods for eliciting children’s views.

Evaluation of the seminar: feedback from participants

What do you think were the most positive aspects of the seminar?

• An opportunity to hear about other peoples views on the SLI area and the way in which we look at research in this area
• Interesting mix of people but this made it hard to maintain focus in discussions.
• The organisation of the timetable with presentations and then an opportunity to talk in small groups.
• It highlighted how much research in the speech, language and communication area comes from people outside education.
• Meeting with other researchers and clinicians; small group discussions; meeting in informal atmosphere
• I found it fascinating to listening to the variety of views, be able to participate in and openly explore these within a supportive group
• The different perceptions demonstrate the difficulties that exist with the core understanding (who are these children, what is SLI) and also gives some very positive opportunities to bring this together in shared views.
• The positive acceptance by a group of professionals of the views of the child and parents’ perceptions - issues being taken on board in a ‘new light’ for example, quality of life, life beyond school was very encouraging and heartening.
• Opportunity to network
• The topic is an area that really needs tackling and is causing me great concern! I feel like something positive is being done!
• Made me reflect on my clinical practice - why I am working the way I work.
• Well run, good format - easy to express one's ideas and thoughts.
• Well attended - good selection of people
• Important to hear other people's perspectives
• The combination of people from different aspects of work with SLI (practitioners, trainers, researchers)
• The opportunity to be very open about the issues and discuss them productively.
• The balance of discussion time with more formal presentations

Are there any ways it could have been improved?

• More educational researchers and managers and teachers from schools present in the group.
• There was a lot of talking, some more tangible outcome would be good; rather than the overarching theoretical perspectives, it would be good to know what individual researchers are working on and how this ties in with the education perspective.
• A broader range of research documents could be usefully shared perhaps around educational issues.
• The need for sharing information about what provision and practice is
• Needs a tangible result from each session that we and other people can take away for example, a list of types of research we would like to see at the educational interface and their pros and cons.
• More educationalists needed to balance discussion - practitioners who work directly with children as well as LEA or DfES . More policy makers needed to ensure that ideas affect practice (mentioned by several respondents.)
• I felt that some of the discussion groups were a little unstructured - difficult to keep on task.
• It may have been a good idea to split up each table on Day 1. We automatically did this on Day 2, but several people did not attend for both days.
• Name badges could have the person's 'title' e.g. lecturer / clinician etc.
• I strongly suggest giving up the idea of using SLI to refer to speech and language impairment. SLI is a very well established, internationally known acronym for specific language impairment. It does not make sense to me to use it in any other way. If a new term or acronym is required, what about using LSI for language and speech impairment.
• I would like to see more focus on research methods (so next one may satisfy this).

What key ideas did you take away from it?

• Terminology needs to be sorted!
• Assessment tests used could be looked at.
• Consultation model needs clarity urgently.
• Is there a shared understanding of what is meant by ‘language’ within and outside education across the UK!
• Is there other research that echo’s Sue Roulstone’s findings and what might the implications be?
• Mainstream teachers need more information about SLI
• Research is needed to find out just what is happening on a day to day basis
• People are too entrenched in terminology
• Things didn't seem to have moved on much since I was last involved in this area around 1995.
• Shula Chiat's paper is a very promising approach.
• Practice and research - so difficult to integrate! Also sociological and psychological!
• The importance of 'resilience factors', how do some children cope as well as they do?
• The increasing importance of looking at the children's views
• I believe there is a gap between the research approaches commonly used around SLI and those needed and that would be helpful in education.
• It didn't really feel like we'd reached a conclusion. There seemed to be a mismatch between the perspectives of the course organisers and many of the participants and it wasn't entirely clear how the two could be reconciled.
• Ensured I approach all children in a broad framework.
• Liaison and effective collaboration with teachers evaluated.
• Enthusiasm for single case study now undertaken.
• A clearer view of the issues and problems.
• Better understanding of the viewpoint of educationalists.
• Finally, I think it is absolutely essential that as much as possible of what we discuss comes into the public domain in various ways - both academic journals and professional magazines. I am still keen to write up the bit on Linguistics that I did, and to expand it to incorporate some of the education interaction stuff. Would submit to CLTT unless something else is arranged.

The next seminar is at the end of January 2005: Friday 21st or Wed 26th.

The theme of the day is

“Developing research methodologies for assessment of SLI in educational contexts”

We can approach this by considering:

• what is the purpose of assessment of SLI in education ?
• current ways of assessing language in / for learning in education
• how we can research assessment of SLI in learning in education

Would you be able to offer a short paper on one of the three considerations of assessment of SLI in education given above?

Back to Main page