Cognitive-Emotional Theory Of Language Development

1464 Words 6 Pages
The above long and short-term goals were established based on the Cognitive-Emotional
Theory of language development. The relationship between cognition and emotional development can be traced back to Erik Erikson, Anna Freud, and Selma Fraiberg. Current proponents for this theory include child psychiatrist Stanley Greenspan and his colleague Serena
Wieder (Nelson, 2010). This theory acknowledges that nature and nurture cannot be individually accepted as the sole influence for language acquisition, but rather their combined interaction.
This theory also posits that the emotional health and attachment to caregivers are imperative for language development. In addition to good emotional health, properly functioning biological systems are necessary
…show more content…
The SLP works with the student throughout the writing and oral presentations.
The goal is to have the student work on a personally significant project to ultimately present to an audience. Throughout the process, the students utilize small-groups, peer and teacher conferences, rubrics, organizers, and computer software to plan, edit, and revise their papers
(Mather & Goldstein, 2001). Ideally, the WL approach is implemented in 1-hour blocks in
…show more content…
As they are working on their projects, students are addressing: spelling, syntax, morphology, vocabulary, and story organization
(Mather & Goldstein, 2001).
The Writing Lab (WL) approach is founded on two theories- social constructivist theory and connectionism theory. The author, Nelson, measured the effectiveness of this approach by measuring: the student’s word production fluency in a 1-hour probe, analysis of macro and microstructure features of oral and written narratives, documenting the number and type of conjunctions used, counting the number of syntactically correct and incorrect sentences, and computing the percentage of words spelled correctly (Mather & Goldstein, 2001). Nelson performed the WL approach for 53 students, from three different classrooms. All of whom were from an inner-city school, lower socioeconomic status, receiving special education services, and were not apart of the majority culture or race (Mather & Goldstein, 2001). By measuring the students’ progress at three different points throughout the year, the researchers found that all students, regardless of special education needs, showed significant growth. It should be noted that this study did not have a control

Related Documents