Degree | Type | Year |
---|---|---|
2500893 Speech therapy | OB | 3 |
The professor in charge of the course is Mario Figueroa González (Mario.Figueroa@uab.cat).
You can view this information at the end of this document.
Students will require previous knowledge of the following subject: Language disorders and evaluation of the acquisition of oral and written language.
Good communicative and spelling skills are important. It is also recommended to be able to read studies in English on topics related to the contents of the subject.
Carrying out the intervention in a child with an evolutionary difficulty in oral and written language, will require decisions on which objectives to work and how to prioritize them and sequence them throughout the entire development process. Students will also have to design the intervention, selecting the activities, the materials and the aid necessary for children to construct language. This decision-making process on what and how to work requires having some knowledge which is provided by the content of this subject. Students will also need to recover other knowledge already studied in previous subjects. How to specify all the knowledge, new and old, to design and perform the intervention, will be covered.
Our work, however, cannot take place in an isolated context. It is necessary to place it in the context of the child's daily life so that the results of the intervention are generalized towards a wider set of people and situations. For that reason, it is necessary to participate in the natural environment of the child: the family and the school. You will have to enhance this participation and, in some cases, create it so that it can be carried out properly.
The purpose of the subject is to provide the necessary tools that you as a future speech therapist can use in the evolutionary difficulties of oral and written language. The proposed objectives are:
Title | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|
Type: Directed | |||
Joint discussion of practical cases in grup | 2 | 0.08 | 4, 20 |
Seminars of small groups for the elaboration of intervention projects | 26 | 1.04 | 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 20 |
Teoric classes | 39 | 1.56 | 4, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 |
Training activities | 2 | 0.08 | 18 |
Type: Supervised | |||
Tutorials in small groups | 13 | 0.52 | 5, 11 |
Type: Autonomous | |||
Autonom study | 80 | 3.2 | 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16 |
Intervention projects | 54 | 2.16 | 5, 9, 11, 20 |
Attendance at seminars of small groups for the production of intervention projects is NOT mandatory. It will be obligatory to do the practical activities.
Note: Within the schedule set by the centre or degree program, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.
Annotation: Within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.
Title | Weighting | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
EV1(Assessment of Oral language) | 30% | 2.5 | 0.1 | 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 |
EV2 EV2 (Assessment of written language) | 30% | 2.5 | 0.1 | 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 |
EV3: Presentations of intervention projects | 40% | 4 | 0.16 | 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20 |
The assessment system is organized into three evaluation activities of two different types, ALL MANDATORY:
EV1: Assessment of Oral language (theory and practice), with a weight of 30% of the mark (3,0p.). One face to face test takes place of individual evidence work is required in the first assessment period.
EV2: Assessment of written language (theory and practice), with a weight of 30% of the mark (3,0p.). One face to face individual test takes place in the second assessment period.
EV3A: Elaboration of an intervention related to difficulties at oral level, with a weight of 20% of the mark (2,0p.). A collective intervention project will be presented in the first evaluation period.
EV3B: Elaboration of an intervention related to difficulties at written level, with a weight of 20% of the mark (2,0 points). A collective intervention project will be presented in the second evaluation period.
The subject will be considered as not passed if the mean of the activities EV1 and EV2 is not higher than 4,0 or both marks in these two activities (EV1 and EV2) are also below 5,0.
At the end of the course, students who have not passed the subject may be assessed again (in the activities not passed). The maximum mark in the reassessment will be 5,0 points. The format will be the same as the failed part.
Reassessment tests: students who have not passed the criteria established to pass the subject and who have been previously assessed in a set of activities, the weight of which is equivalent to a minimum of two thirds of the total grade for the subject, may opt to take the reassessment tests.
Once the recovery has been made, the subject will be considered passed when the average mark of all the evidence is equal to or higher than 5,0.
The subject will be considered as not passed when the final mark of all the activities is not equal to or higher than 5,0. When the student has completed activities with a value of 4,0 or higher and the average mark of allactivities is not equal to or higher than 5,0, the subject will be considered not passed.
No unique final test for students who enrole for the second time or more is anticipated.
https://www.uab.cat/web/estudiar/graus/graus/avaluacions-1345722525858.html
Evidence code |
Weight |
Authorization (individual, group or both)
|
Via (face to face, virtual or both) |
||
EV1 |
Theoretical and practical evaluation |
30% |
Written |
individual |
Face to face |
EV2 |
Theoretical and practical evaluation |
30% |
Written |
individual |
Face to face |
EV3 |
Presentation of intervention projects |
40% |
Written |
group |
Face to face |
This subject offersthe option of single assessment
EXAMINATION-BASED ASSESSMENT
It will take place on the same day as EV2, wherethe EV1 must be done and the delivery and presentation of the project, which in the case of single assessment will be individual, and the oral presentation of the project.
The maximum duration of the single assessment examination is 5 hours
Acosta, V. (2012). La intervención logopédica en los trastornos específicos del lenguaje. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatria y Audiologia, 32, 67-74.
Calder, S. D., Claessen, M., Ebbels, S., & Leitão, S. (2020). Explicit grammar intervention in young school-aged children with Developmental Language Disorder: An efficacy study using single-case experimental design. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 51(2), 298–316. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-19-00060
Cirrin, F. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2008). Language intervention practices for school-age children with spoken language disorders: A systematic review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/012)
Cummings, A., Hallgrimson, J., & Robinson, S. (2018). Speech intervention outcomes associated with word lexicality and intervention intensity. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-18-0026
Escorcia Mora, C. T., García Sánchez, F. A., Orcajada Sánchez, N., & Sánchez López, M. C. (2016). Perspectiva de las prácticas de atención temprana centradas en la familia desde la logopedia. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 36(4), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RLFA.2016.07.002
Finestack, L. H., & Satterlund, K. E. (2018). Current practice of child grammar intervention: A survey of speech-language pathologists. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27(4), 1329–1351. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0168
Frizelle, P., Tolonen, A. K., Tulip, J., Murphy, C. A., Saldana, D., & McKean, C. (2021). The impact of intervention dose form on oral language outcomes for children with Developmental Language Disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, andHearing Research, 64(8), 3253–3288. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-20-00734
Gillam, S. L., Gillam, R. B., Magimairaj, B. M., Capin, P., Israelsen-Augenstein, M., Roberts, G., & Vaughn, S. (2024). Contextualized, multicomponent language instruction: From theory to randomized controlled trial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_LSHSS-23-00171
Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., & Greenberg, J. (2012). Facilitating emergent literacy: Efficacy of a model that partners speech-language pathologists and educators. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2011/11-0002)
Loeb, D. F., Davis, E. S., & Lee, T. (2021). Collaboration between child play therapy and speech-language pathology: Case reports of a novel language and behavior intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 30(6), 2414–2429. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-20-00310
Marvin, C. A., & Privratsky, A. J. (1999). After-school talk: The effects of materials sent home from preschool. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8(3), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0803.231
Pérez, E. (2018). Diagnóstico e intervención en la dislexia, la disortografia y la disgrafia. Lebón. Barcelona.
Pérez, E. (2013). Diagnóstico e intervención de las dificultades evolutivas del Lenguaje Oral. Lebón. Barcelona.
Ruston, H. P., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2010). Effects of a conversation intervention on the expressive vocabulary development of prekindergarten children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(3), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0100)
BIBLIOGRAFIA COMPLEMENTÀRIA
ACOSTA, V.M.; MORENO, A.M. (1999). Dificultades del lenguaje en ambientes educativos. Del Retraso al Trastorno Específico del Lenguaje. Masson. Barcelona.
BERKO, J; BERNSTEIN, N. (1999). Psicolingüística. McGraw Hill. Madrid.
BUISÁN C. (1996). Diagnóstico y predicción de la adquisición del grafismo. Barcelona: Cedecs Psicopedagogía.
CLEMENTE M., DOMÍNGUEZ A.B. (2003) La enseñanza de la lectura. Pirámide. Madrid.
CUETOS, F. y CASTEJÓN, L. (2005) Disociación de la información conceptual y lingüística a partir de un estudio de caso. Revista de Neurología, 41:469-74
CUETOS, f. (2012). Neurociencia del Lenguaje. Ed. Panamérica. Madrid.
DEL RIO, M.J. (2006). Consideraciones sobre el uso de los procedimientos naturalistas para la intervención en logopedia. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología. Vol. 26. nº 3, 139-145.
DEL RIO, M.J.; GRÀCIA, M. (1996). Una aproximaciónal análisis de los intercambios comunicativos y lingüísticos entre niños pequeños y adultos. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 75:3-20.
ETCHEPAREBORDA, M.C. (2002). Detección precoz de la dislexia y enfoque terapéutico. Revista de Neurología; 34 (supl.1):S13-S23.
FEY, M.E.; WINDSOR, j.; WARREN, S. (1995) Language Intervention- Preschool Through the Elementary Years. Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
GALLARDO JR., GALLEGO JL. (1993). Manual de logopedia escolar. Un enfoque practico. Aljibe. Granada.
GALLEGO JL. (1999) Calidad en la intervención logopèdica. Estudio de casos. Aljibe. Málaga.
GENERALITAT DE CATALUNYA. DEPT. D’ENSENYAMENT. Marc d’actuació dels CREDA: Criteris i objectius d’intervenció.
GRACIA M. (2003) Comunicación y lenguaje en primeras edades. Intervención con familia. Milenio. Lleida
JIMÉNEZ, J.E.; ORTIZ, M.R.; HERNÁNDEZ-VALLE, I.; GUZMAN, R; GONZÁLEX, G. (2002). La instrucción de la conciencia fonológica. En J.N. García (Coord.). Aplicaciones de Intervención psicopedagógica. Madrid: Pirámide.
JIMÉNEZ, J.E.; ORTIZ, M.R. (1995). Conciencia Fonológica y aprendizaje de la lectura. Teoría, evaluación e intervención. Madrid: Síntesis.
LEAL, A. (1983). La representación gràfica de los sonidos y el paso del símbolo al signo. En: Moreno, M. La Pedagogía Operatoria. Laia. Barcelona.
LEAL A. (1987). Construcción de sistemas simbólicos: la lengua escrita como creación. Gedisa. Barcelona.
MARTÍN Mª P. (2003). La lectura. Procesos neuropsicológicos de aprendizaje, dificultades, programas de intervención y estudio de casos. Lebon. Barcelona.
MONFORT M., JUAREZ, A. (1997). Los niños disfàsicos. Descripción y tratamiento. CEPE. Madrid.
PÉREZ PÉREZ, E. (1997). Cohesión y coherencia en las narraciones de niños y niñas con Trastorno Específico del lenguaje. Rev. De Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología. Vol. XVII, nº 2: 103-111
PÉREZ PÉREZ,E; LLANO, C.; VILA, C. (2006). Test de Lectura y Escritura. TEYL. Lebón. Barcelona.
PÉREZ PÉREZ, E.; SERRA, M. (2003). Análisis del retraso del lenguaje. Ariel. Barcelona.
SÁNCHEZ-CANO, M. (2010). El asesoramiento como intervención para atender al alumnado con dificultades. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, Vol. 30, nº 4: 180-185
SUPORTS. (1999) El desenvolupament del llenguatge i l’enfocament d’intervenció naturalista. Monogràfic. Vol. 3 nº 1.
No aplicable.
Name | Group | Language | Semester | Turn |
---|---|---|---|---|
(SEM) Seminars | 111 | Catalan | first semester | morning-mixed |
(SEM) Seminars | 112 | Catalan | first semester | morning-mixed |
(SEM) Seminars | 113 | Catalan | first semester | morning-mixed |
(TE) Theory | 1 | Catalan | first semester | morning-mixed |