Thoughts of a secondary school SLT

Tag: education

  • Getting adolescents on board: motivation, engagement and behaviour (Part 1)

    When I first started this blog, I had a few people asking for advice about motivating secondary school students to engage with Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) sessions. Young children typically enjoy the extra attention and are happy to be taken out of class by a professional. If you’ve ever worked with this age group, then you may have witnessed the motivational power of a few rounds of “pop-up-pirate” or a sticker at the end of the session!

    But this no longer works with older students. (Well, apart from for one of my more naïve students who was absolutely delighted with the Simpsons stickers that I brought in, so never say never!)

    The challenges

    On the contrary, many older students are painfully aware of being “different”, and hate to be singled out for special support. Students presenting  with language disorders at secondary level also typically have problems that are more ingrained. And whether or not they received consistent support, patchy support or no support earlier on, these problems have not gone away.

    At the same time, expectations at school increase dramatically, and academic language becomes increasingly complex. Seeing the gap between themselves and their peers continue to grow, and feeling completely lost in class, many students become frustrated or give up. Without the right support, some lose faith in the education system and the professionals trying to help them.

    Paul and Norbury (2012) also point out the considerable overlap that exists between language disorders and a range of emotional and behavioural difficulties. Some have estimated the figure to be as high as 25%. It may not always be clear whether frustration around the communication disorder is causing the behaviour, or whether it is linked to a co-occurring condition such as ADHD, ASD or another mental health condition.

    What is clear is that the presence of such difficulties makes it harder for our students to benefit from instruction, both in class and in our sessions. This is not going to be the case for every single student, but Paul and Norbury (2012, p.482) warn that navigating these kinds of difficulties is a “fact of life” when working with young people with special educational needs, and something we should learn to expect.

    Despite this, SLTs are not always taught the behaviour management techniques that school staff are. Our training is all about facilitation. We may be well-placed to help identify the reasons why a student is “acting out” in class, or perhaps zoning out, not completing any work. And we may be right that supporting these students’ communication skills is likely to have a positive impact on their behaviour and motivation.

    But what do we do when these same behaviours start showing up in our sessions? When it becomes impossible to work on the very skills these students so sorely need because they cannot concentrate, they disengage or refuse to come to our sessions?

    Logistical issues at larger secondary schools can also result in students missing out on precious SALT sessions. Working at a range of state secondaries for the NHS, I would sometimes have “no shows” due to timetabling issues, or because messages had not always been communicated to students. Teachers under pressure to improve their students’ grades, or perhaps unaware of the value of what we do are not always happy for students to be removed from their lessons and miss out on key learning.

    Past failures

    I have struggled with many of these issues myself. When I first qualified, I was working full-time in an enormous secondary school in a deprived part of London, with over 100 students on my caseload. Please see my first ever post to read more about my journey: https://secondaryschoolslt.com/2025/12/22/in-at-the-deep-end/

    I was responsible for running multiple groups a day and felt very overwhelmed. On paper, I seemed to be doing everything right. I stayed up late, meticulously planning my sessions beforehand, with both a “step-up” and a “step-down” as I had been taught. I included games and activities to motivate my students, a visual timetable, brought a bean bag in as a “talking stick” and sweets as a reward…

    Yet, my students would sometimes refuse to come to my sessions, or if they did they would “act out”. The bean bag I brought in was frequently thrown across the room, and I vividly remember one student telling me, “Your sweets are dead, Miss!” (To be fair to him, they were Werther’s Original, so maybe he had a point…) In short, they were letting me know in no uncertain terms how unhappy and frustrated they were, and how they did not believe I was helping them.

    Over the years, things slowly improved. Yes, part of this was due to a change of environment that brought less overall pressure. Where I currently work, I’m lucky to have more 1:1 sessions and fewer students overall, and to feel supported by a strong and consistent behavioural management system across the whole school, which certainly helps.

    Yet, it has still not always been easy, and some of these issues continued regardless of setting. In particular, as a small, friendly, unintimidating woman, I continued to struggle to run the social groups that were a key part of my role.

    The students most in need of support with their social skills tended to be those with the most severe behavioural difficulties. So I’d often end up running groups consisting largely of students with conditions like ADHD and ASD. Putting them all in a room together felt like a recipe for disaster, and it often was. But I didn’t always have the luxury of picking and choosing “more  suitable” attendees from a wide range of students.

    Last week, in a sign of how much things have improved, a Learning Support Assistant (LSA) requested to support me with all three year groups (Year 8s, 9s and 10s, currently). After joining one of the groups for a session last year when his colleague was absent, he told me what a difference he saw in the behaviour of these students, and how they could clearly see the relevance of what they were learning to their lives.

    So, without claiming to be an expert in behaviour by any stretch, I thought it might be helpful if I shared some of the things that have made the biggest difference to my practice. In Part 2 I will go on to  talk about how using a “student-centred” approach helped me to motivate my students to attend and participate in sessions – coming soon!

    Notes

    Paul, R. and Norbury, C. (2012) Language Disorders from Infancy Through Adolescence: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Communicating. 4th edn. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

  • Reuven Feuerstein and his radical theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability (SCM)

    In the last post in my 4 part series on generalisation, I advocated for using a mediated learning approach during intervention. In this post, I want to talk a bit more about the man behind this approach, Reuven Feuerstein: his background, theories and the evidence base for his work for those interested in learning more.

    Who was Reuven Feuerstein?

    Reuven Feuerstein was a cognitive psychologist based in Israel. Shortly after the second world war, he worked with refugees and traumatised children who had survived the holocaust, an experience that affected him profoundly.

    Feuerstein found that these children often performed poorly on standardised IQ tests. But when faced with a friendly examiner and a bit of nurturing support, many improved. His experiences led him to reject such tests with their rigid instructions and impassive examiner and question the prevailing notion of intelligence as static and unchanging (Feuerstein et al, 1979).

    Feuerstein also studied under Jean Piaget for a time at the Geneva Institute, and was influenced by his theory of learning. But whilst Piaget believed that children learnt through direct exposure to stimuli in their environment, Feuerstein argued that much of human learning takes place through what he called “mediated learning experiences” (MLE) (Feuerstein et al, 1979).

    Mediated Learning Experiences (MLE)

    According to him, MLE occurs when a more knowledgeable person such as a parent or teacher comes between the world and the learner, “framing, selecting, focusing and feeding back environmental experiences” (Feuerstein et al,1979, p.71). For a more detailed  description of MLE and to learn how to mediate for your students, please see my blog post: https://secondaryschoolslt.com/2026/08/31/supporting-generalisation-part-4-mediated-learning-and-bridging-questions/ .

    Feuerstein argued that MLE is the means by which the customs, traditions and language of the native culture are passed down from generation to generation, and it is what differentiates us from other animals (Feuerstein et al, 2006, 2010).

    Learning disabilities are caused by a lack of MLE

    It also plays a vital role in thinking ability. Feuerstein proposed that cognitive functioning is directly connected to the amount of MLE a child has received. Those with IQs in the average range have typically received sufficient mediation throughout their childhoods. Meanwhile, those given the “learning disability” label, and those presenting with language disorders past the age of 10 have not (Feuerstein et al, 2010, p.118, Larson and McKinley, 2003).

    Feuerstein did not deny the existence of intrinsic barriers to learning posed by a range of physical, emotional and neurological conditions including certain chromosomal disorders; he even had a grandson, Elchanan, with Down’s Syndrome. But radically, he framed these as distal causes; barriers that might be overcome through the use of intensive, highly specialised forms of mediation (Feuerstein et al, 2006, 2010).

    Ironically, the exact opposite is more likely to take place. Feuerstein argued that the presence of such conditions discourages those around these individuals from mediating to them, and that this is the primary cause of associated learning  difficulties (Feuerstein et al, 2010).

    The hyperactivity, sensory, emotional and social deficits and communication difficulties frequently exhibited by such children can make it hard for them to benefit from the MLE offered to them (Feuerstein et al, 2006). And as Feuerstein et al (2010, p.69) aptly observed, “if the mediation does not reach the child, then MLE does not take place”. As those around them feel discouraged by their failed communication attempts, they are also less likely to initiate in future.

    Evelyn, the daughter of a distinguished family that Feuerstein worked with, was born with a mild genetic condition that appeared to be delaying her development. He described her poor knowledge, cognitive ability and social immaturity when she was first referred to him.

    As they worked together, Evelyn shared memories of having been left alone, surrounded by her toys, her television, hi-fi and computer, but with no-one to mediate for her. Following the MLE she received from Feuerstein, she ended up performing well within the normal range of intelligence (Feuerstein et al, 2010, p67-68,  Feuerstein et al, 2006, p.58).

    A culture of poverty

    In other cases, a “culture of poverty” can often (but not always) lead to reduced MLE. Feuerstein described how families in “survival mode” are so focused on the here and now that there is little energy left over to “interpret, label, identify, and ascribe significance to the phenomena their children encounter”: in other words, to mediate to their children (Feuerstein et al, 2010, p. 63, Feuerstein et al,  2006).

    According to Feuerstein, this leads to a state of “cultural deprivation” where children feel alienated from their own native heritages, and a vicious cycle where adults who were not mediated to as children do not mediate for their own (Feuerstein et al, 1979, Feuerstein et al, 2010).

    SLTs may recognise the pattern Feuerstein describes in the still controversial finding that children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are disproportionately affected by language disorders (e.g. Roy and Chiatt, 2013).

    Observing that two different children placed in the same learning situation will not always draw the same lesson from it, Feuerstein also proposed that the more MLE a child has received, the more they are able to benefit from direct learning experiences (Feuerstein et al, 1979, 2006). He believed that a “critical mass” of MLE has to be reached if we are to extract the maximum benefit from the situations we find ourselves in and to learn from experience (Feuerstein et al, 2010)

    The Theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability (SCM)

    Feuerstein’s solution was to provide the missing MLE (Feuerstein et al, 2010). According to his SCM theory, “The human organism, even one judged to be severely impaired, is capable of change at any age (Larson and McKinley, 2003, p.20). And Feuerstein was not talking about superficial change such as learning a few new words but deep, enduring change to ways of thinking and behaving and the cognitive structures themselves (Feuerstein et al, 2010).

    Decades before any evidence of neuroplasticity, Feuerstein had been one of its earliest pioneers. His view of human intelligence not as a fixed, genetic trait but as dynamic and modifiable was considered audacious then, and is even now, despite plenty of research illustrating the success of his methods.

    Evidence for Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment (FIE) program

    In addition to his MLE techniques, Feuerstein also spent decades creating his Instrumental Enrichment (FIE) program, designed to improve a range of cognitive functions, which he split into the three broad areas of “input”, “elaboration” and “output”. The program was intentionally made content-free and was designed to run alongside the regular curriculum, with specially trained mediators teaching students how to “bridge” what they had learnt to their regular subjects. (Feuerstein et al, 1979, 2007, 2010).

    Keen to back up his theories with empirical evidence, Feuerstein published the results of a two year controlled study alongside his FIE program. The participants were children aged 12-15 with IQs ranging from 50 to 80 attending one of several residential or day centres in Israel. Most were second generation migrants, whilst others had been in the country for at least 6 to 7 years. Many were from low socioeconomic backgrounds, with histories of behavioural difficulties and school failure (Feuerstein et al, 1980, 2010).

    The FIE program was taught at one of the day centres and one of the residential centres for five hours a week for two years. Meanwhile, the control groups at some of the other centres received a program of “general enrichment” (GE), which included supplementary lessons in reading, writing and mathematics (Feuerstein et al, 1980, 2006, 2010).

    After one year, the experimental groups had made significant gains in their cognitive abilities, which increased further after two years. On the other hand, the control groups had made little improvement despite their additional lessons. Most remarkable was the fact that the differences between the groups continued to increase after the training had ended. (Feuerstein et al, 1980, 2006, 2010).

    Thanks to routine intelligence testing to determine eligibility for military service, the researchers were able to follow their students’ progress two years after the FIE program had ended. Incredibly, the FIE graduates were deemed eligible to join the army; something that would not have been possible with their previous results (Feuerstein et al, 1980).

    Not only this, but whilst the GE students experienced a general decline in their abilities in the following years through lack of training, as one might expect, the FIE students actually got better after the course had ended. In some cases, the difference between the groups doubled or tripled compared to three years previously. The authors concluded that the FIE children were continuing to apply what they had learnt independently, leading to self-sustaining progress (Feuerstein et al, 1980, 2006, 2010).

    Since then, the FIE program has been studied across a range of different populations, including those with hearing impairment and ADHD, by those connected to the Feuerstein Institute in Israel as well as independent researchers. An independent meta-analysis of the research reported similar gains in general cognitive ability, as well as in specific areas of cognition such as nonverbal reasoning and spatial awareness, with a moderate effect size overall. Executive function skills such as impulsivity were also found to improve (Partanen and Herwegen, 2003).

    Methodological issues

    The transfer of these gains to school subjects was, however, less pronounced and inconsistent, except for mathematics which did improve (Partanen and Herwegen, 2023). This finding conflicts with the results of the original 1980 study, where the FIE program was found to have had a positive effect on classroom behaviours, attitudes and school-based learning overall.  Despite receiving 300 fewer hours in school based skills compared to the control group, the FIE group did not fall behind, and in some cases performed better in the achievement tests that were set (Feuerstein et al, 2007).

    The authors of the meta-analysis acknowledged that a range of methodological issues might have affected the results of independent studies (Partanen and Herwegen, 2023). For example, some of the trials were considerably shorter than the 300 hours advocated by Feuerstein, the use of transfer strategies and “bridging” was not always faithfully recorded, and the goals and philosophy of the FIE training was not always communicated to the students’ subject teachers by the FIE teachers.

    The inconsistent academic transfer seen in some of these later studies is ironic given the emphasis Feuerstein placed on “transference” and use of bridging (Feuerstein et al, 2006, 2010, etc). Please see my post: https://secondaryschoolslt.com/2026/08/31/supporting-generalisation-part-4-mediated-learning-and-bridging-questions/ for more information.

    The FIE program was not intended to be a simple pen and paper exercise for students to complete in isolation; mediation by highly trained staff was a key component of the program (Feuerstein et al, 1980).  It seems likely, then, that the failure to transfer gains in cognitive ability to the curriculum reported in some studies is due to unfaithful implementation rather than a flaw in Feuerstein’s philosophy.

    Evidence for Feuerstein’s MLE

    It is harder to find standardised trials for Feuerstein’s MLE techniques. Given the fluid, dynamic, even creative nature of MLE and the fact that there is no set workbook to use, this type of interaction is harder to measure. However, Feuerstein himself documented numerous examples of bringing students with severe learning difficulties to near-normal levels of functioning.

    Case studies and stories reveal that many of his students went on to lead typical lives, get driving licenses, publish books, perform on television, complete degrees, army service, work as carpenters, nurses and bankers, get married and have children. One of Feuerstein’s students, James, even went on to become the director of a large company; something that Feuerstein himself had not thought possible (Feuerstein et al, 2006, p.45-46).

    The ultimate test of Feuerstein’s methods arrived in 1989 when his own grandson, Elchanan, was born and diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome. At that time, those born with the condition were generally considered unteachable, and they were typically institutionalised. It was assumed that Elchanan would not be able to function independently.

    But the family refused to let this label define him and retained high hopes for Elchanan. From infancy, he received all-encompassing mediation from his parents, grandparents and brothers and sisters. Elchanan went on to learn to communicate, read, write and attend mainstream schooling. In June 2026, he got married, fulfilling his grandfather’s dream and prediction that he would go on to live a “normal” life (Feuerstein et al, 2006, Israel National News, 2026).

    Another researcher connected with the Feuerstein Institute, Dr. David Tzuriel, carried out mother-child interaction and peer mediation studies to gather further evidence for MLE. Interestingly, when watching untrained mothers play with their children, he found that transference, or “bridging” was the least commonly used strategy, yet the most powerful predictor of cognitive modifiability and independent problem solving ability (Tzuriel, 2013).

    An optimistic vision for the future

    As an eternal optimist, Feuerstein’s teachings resonated strongly with me. I think we can all agree that early intervention is incredibly important, but Feuerstein’s work and research into neuroplasticity have challenged the notion of a “critical period” of language acquisition. As an SLT working with older students, I continue to believe that with consistent support, meaningful change is still possible for this age group.

    In “You love me!! Don’t accept me as I am”, Feuerstein et al. (2006) argued that loving our students doesn’t always mean passively accepting them as they are but challenging them to go beyond their perceived limitations and supporting their becoming.

    Whilst the passive-acceptant approach is well-meaning, and indeed, necessary in some areas such as providing ramps for those who use wheelchairs, Feuerstein et al (2006) argued that when applied to cognition it can lead to limited progress and “dead ends”. He recommends an “active-modifier” approach instead.

    Although Feuerstein’s work is domain general and not specifically targeted at language and communication per se, he did have some words of advice for Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) and other allied health professionals. He recommended that we “use treatment situations consistent with particular goals but turn them into mediational situations” (Feuerstein et al, 2010, p.123).

    Teachers and parents who have learnt Feuerstein’s techniques reported that their whole approach and perspective changed (Feuerstein et al, 2010, p. 131). On my own journey of trying to incorporate Feuerstein’s techniques into my sessions, I have felt the same way.

    Notes

    Feuerstein, Reuven, Ya’acov Rand, and Mildred B. Hoffman. 1979. The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device, Theory, Instruments, and Techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Feuerstein, Reuven, Ya’acov Rand, John E. Hoffman, and Mildred B. Miller. Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980.

    Feuerstein, Reuven, Yaacov Rand, and Raphael S. Feuerstein. You Love Me!!… Don’t Accept Me As I Am: Helping the Low-Functioning Person Excel. Revised edition. Jerusalem: ICELP Publications, 2006.

    Feuerstein, Reuven, Ya’acov Rand, Mildred B. Hoffman, Moshe Egozi, and Nilly Ben Shachar-Segev. 2007. “Chapter 4: The Instrumental Enrichment Program.” In Instrumental Enrichment Program Reader. Jerusalem: Feuerstein Institute.

    Feuerstein, Reuven, Refael S. Feuerstein, and Louis H. Falik. 2010. Beyond Smarter: Mediated Learning and the Brain’s Capacity for Change. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Israel National News. “A Wedding That Shattered Stigmas: Special Couple Weds.” June 8, 2026. 8:26 a.m. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/428284.

    Larson, Vicki L., and Nancy L. McKinley. 2003. Communication Solutions for Older Students. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.

    Nelson, Nickola Wolf. 1998. Childhood Language Disorders in Context: Infancy Through Adolescence. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Partanen, P., & Van Herwegen, J. (2023). The Effectiveness of Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment Programme: A Systematic Review. In EARLI 2023 Book of Abstracts. DiVA Repository ID: diva2:2031681. OSF Protocol: https://osf.io/g9x5b

    Roy, P. and Chiat, S. (2013). Teasing apart disadvantage from disorder The case of poor language. In: Marshall, C. R. (Ed.), Current Issues in Developmental Disorders. Current Issues in Developmental Psychology. (pp. 125-150). PSYCHOLOGY PRESS. ISBN 9781848720848

    Tzuriel, David. “Mediated Learning Experience and Cognitive Modifiability.” Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 13, no. 1 (2013): 59–80.

    Westby, Carol. 2025. “Mediated Learning Observation Instrument.” Word of Mouth 36 (4): 8–10.

  • Difficulties with text cohesion: Why some students struggle to understand connected text

    Some time ago I was asked to assess a new student who was having trouble at school. He misbehaved in all his lessons and was rude to his teachers, meaning that he spent most of his time in detention. Fortunately, staff members wondered if he might have some undiagnosed difficulties that were causing him to act in this way, so he was referred for a Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) assessment with me.

    Contrary to the reports I had heard, he was kind and polite one to one, even wishing me a good day at the end of the assessment. But the interview was illuminating. When we talked about how school was going, he told me that he understood “nothing” in his lessons, so there was “no point” in behaving.

    I suspected a language disorder, so used the CELF-5 (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals) standardized assessment to find out more. As expected, he had mild difficulties across a range of areas such as vocabulary and ability to follow instructions. But most concerning was his performance on the Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest, when he answered only one question correctly.

    The task involves the assessor reading several short paragraphs aloud before asking students questions about them. I like to use it because I think it reflects quite well how much a child may understand in class, but the skills it assesses are quite broad. A low score might indicate difficulties in a number of areas such as with paying attention, auditory memory, vocabulary knowledge, understanding of sentence structures as well as ability to predict and infer.

    As I tried to delve deeper, we read the paragraphs again and I asked my student to paraphrase some of the sentences. To my surprise, his sentence level understanding was not bad. Yet he still struggled to say what the paragraph was about, and to answer the text-level questions. What he appeared to be struggling with was understanding how the sentences hung together as a whole, to form a “text”.

    As Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs), we are used to supporting our students with some aspects of text level discourse. It is common to work on inference, understanding of different levels of questioning, as well as teaching a range of general reading comprehension strategies such as summarizing, finding the main idea, and perhaps visualizing.

    One area that is not so well researched, perhaps even neglected in our field despite being closely linked with comprehension abilities is that of text cohesion. Simply put, this is the “glue” that connects sentences together and distinguishes a unified text from a series of unrelated sentences.

    The concept was first introduced and formalized in the seminal work of Halliday and Hasan (1976). According to the authors, for a passage of information to be regarded as a text, certain features must be present. We are talking not just about the organizational macrostructures that characterize different genres (although these do add to the “texture”), but the “cohesive ties” that connect individual sentences to each other grammatically or semantically (Halliday and Hasan, 1976).

    Simply put, cohesion occurs when one element of a passage can only be understood in reference to another. In the text, “A man in a blue anorak wandered over Tower Bridge. He stopped to admire the view”, the word “he” can only be understood by referring back to “a man in a blue anorak” in the previous sentence. Cohesion may go in either direction: when you have to refer backwards, as in the previous example, it is called anaphora. This is by far the most common type of cohesive tie. (Halliday and Hasan, 1976).

    It is also possible to refer forwards, e.g. “When he got home, John went straight to bed” and “I couldn’t believe she did it: Sarah won the marathon”. In both examples, pronouns are used early on to refer forward to information that comes later. So in the second example, “it” refers forward to “the winning of the marathon”. This is called cataphora. Interestingly, this is the primary function of a colon: as a kind of visual arrow pointing forwards (Halliday and Hasan, 1976).

    Halliday and Hasan (1976) classified cohesive devices into 5 categories: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. According to them, the first three are grammatical in nature, whilst the last is semantic, with conjunction being a combination of the two. However, they were quick to note that there is no sharp dividing line between categories and some examples may be on the borderline (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). Other researchers have organized them in different ways.

    Reference involves replacing a specific entity in the text with another, as in the man in the blue anorak example. Common reference items include the personal pronouns, “he”, “she”, “they”, “it”, etc, as well as the demonstratives “this” and “that”. The definite article “the” also plays a role, so named because it denotes something definite, or specific.

    In the text, “A stray cat appeared on my doorstep this morning. The cat looked hungry, so I gave it some food”, we understand that the cat being mentioned in the second sentence is the same as in the first, since “the” is frequently used to link back to a noun that has already been introduced. Reference mainly involves replacing nouns, though this could be people, animals, places (e.g. there) or objects. In extended reference, whole paragraphs may even be replaced, e.g. “considering all this”.

    In substitution, a word or phrase is also replaced with a filler word, but something is added that contrasts with the original idea (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). For example, in the text, “My pen has run out of ink. I need to buy a new one”, “one” substitutes for “pen”. But we are not talking about the exact same pen; we want a new pen. Substitution may be nominal, verbal, or even clausal. Common examples include “one”, “any”, “same”, “do  so”, “not”, etc, “Is James coming to the party? I hope so”.

    Ellipsis is similar to substitution, but redundant information is removed instead of being replaced. Halliday and Hasan (1976) called it “substitution by zero”.  So in the text, “There were ten laptops available in the shop yesterday. Now there are only three”, we can only understand what “three” is referring to by looking back to “laptops” in the previous sentence.

    Conjunctions and adverbial conjuncts can also be used as cohesive devices, since they link different propositions together across sentences and make the relationships between them explicit. These relationships may be additive, adversative, causal, temporal, explanatory, or other, e.g. “furthermore”, “despite”, “anyway”, etc.

    Finally, sentences may be linked together using vocabulary in lexical cohesion, which can be further subdivided into reiteration and collocation. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), nominal reiteration is very similar to pronominal reference, grammatically speaking, since the original noun is replaced by something else.

    However, instead of a personal pronoun being used, this “something else” may take the form of a synonym, superordinate, subordinate or general noun (or simply the same word repeated). For example, in the text: “The neighbour’s tiny puppy was left outside in the freezing rain all night. The poor thing was shivering uncontrollably when we found it”, “the poor thing” refers back to the puppy.

    As well as acting as a cohesive device it allows writers to share more information or a personal feeling about their subject, whilst avoiding repetition. It is a tool relied on heavily by journalists in newspaper articles. This is also one of the examples that falls on the borderline between categories according to Halliday and Hasan (1976), having both a syntactic and semantic element.

    With collocation, the linkages between sentences are of a more general nature. Here, we are not focusing on a particular referent. Instead, the presence of related words found throughout the passage tie it together. The more likely the words are to be encountered in the same context, the more cohesive the passage will be. So the words “surgeon”, “craniotomy”, “procedure” and “incision” will give a certain type of “texture”.

    Some types of anaphor are easier to understand than others. A simple cohesive tie connects one sentence with the preceding, and is probably the easiest to understand. More remote ties that span several sentences will be more difficult because they tax working memory capacity (Irwin, 1986). Equally, nominal reference is thought to be easier than verbal reference to understand, whilst replacement of whole clauses and paragraphs of information is thought to be the hardest.

    In her work on later language development, Marilyn Nippold (1998) observed how understanding and use of a range of cohesive devices continues to develop throughout the school-age and adolescent years. But according to Nelson (1998), this is something that many with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) struggle with. Indeed, young children with DLD are known for having difficulty with pronominal reference, and inconsistency with this is something I have noticed even at secondary school age.

    However, an even greater concern has been some of my students’ difficulties with lexical reiteration. A student with these types of difficulties might easily imagine several different characters in a text where only one is being referred to by different nouns. If a text contains the sentences, “The doctor walked into the emergency room. The surgeon grabbed the scalpel. The specialist began to work”, a struggling student might imagine three different characters. Such a difficulty will clearly have a profound impact on text level comprehension.

    To sum up, despite production and comprehension of text cohesion devices being a common area of difficulty for students with DLD, there is currently little information about this in our field compared to others such as education and linguistics. Although the student I mentioned earlier also had broader inferencing difficulties, poor understanding of text cohesion devices, especially lexical reiteration, was a notable problem for him. In future posts I hope to share some practical ways to help students navigate these difficulties.

    Notes

    Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976.

    Irwin, Judith Westphal. Understanding and Teaching Cohesion Comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1986

    Nelson, N. W. (1998) Childhood Language Disorders in Context: Infancy Through Adolescence. 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Nippold, M.A. (1998) Later language development: The school-age and adolescent years. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

  • What is literate language and how is it relevant at secondary school?

    By the time they start primary school, most children have a robust lexicon of words that they are able to employ for different purposes (Benson, 2009). However, as they progress through the years, they begin to learn more and more words, slowly acquiring a rich and varied vocabulary, capable of expressing great subtlety in meaning.

    This includes more abstract and technical terms, as well as low frequency, subject-specific “Tier 3” words. Many of these words will be multisyllabic and morphologically complex, containing a root word and at least one affix (a prefix or suffix) (Nippold, 2018). This stage of vocabulary acquisition is typically associated with literacy development and increased exposure to written materials which contain more of these “literate” forms.

    Written language differs from oral language in a number of ways, but chiefly in the amount of contextualization or abstraction (Benson, 2009). Whilst oral language is supported by non-linguistic information such as the speaker’s use of gesture and tone of voice, as well as the physical surroundings in which the interaction takes place, written language must stand alone (Rubin, 1987). (For more information about the differences between oral and written language, see my post: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/04/06/how-are-oral-and-written-language-different/)

    This results in a particular style of language that is denser, with a more specified lexicon and advanced syntactic structures (Benson, 2009) to convey complex thoughts and relationships between ideas. This style, used in the “literate activities of reading, writing, listening to lectures, talking about language and thought and mastering the school curriculum” has been termed “literate language”, or the “literate lexicon” (Nippold, 1998, p.21).

    Words included under this umbrella are a wide range of conjunctions, adverbs of likelihood and magnitude, factive and non-factive verbs, metacognitive and metalinguistic verbs, polysemous and double function words, as well as adverbial conjuncts and derived nominals and adjectives (Nippold, 1998).

    Whilst simple coordinating conjunctions such as “and”, “but” and “so” are relied on in casual conversation, written and instructional discourse, especially at secondary level, is characterized by a wider range of subordinating conjunctions, including “whereas”, “unless” and “provided that”, to express more complex relationships between ideas (Balthazar et al, 2010).

    Although words such as “possibly”, “somewhat” and “barely” may not seem complicated, adverbs of likelihood and magnitude such as these are also key components of literate language, since they enable precision of thought that goes beyond simple, concrete descriptions.

    Certain types of verbs also contribute to the abstract nature and linguistic specificity of written discourse. Factive and non-factive verbs, such as “know”, “realise”, “believe” and “imagine” reflect different mental states and distinguish between concepts of truth and uncertainty. Metalinguistic verbs such as “assert”, “imply” and “concede”, as well as metacognitive verbs such as “hypothesise”, “infer” and “doubt” are also crucial for academic reasoning and constructing arguments.

    On a related note, polysemous and double function words such as “cold” or “sweet” require advanced metalinguistic awareness to understand that the same word can have different meanings depending on the context. Whilst many words have a casual, everyday sense that even young children will know, academic texts frequently feature the more abstract sense which won’t be learnt until later on (Nippold, 1998).

    At secondary level, adverbial conjuncts such as “consequently”, “subsequently”, “conversely”, and “ultimately” are also used increasingly (Nippold, 2016) in essays and other high level expository texts as a way of “signposting” information for the reader. These words connect ideas across sentences, rather than within sentences as conjunctions do.

    Other examples of literate words include derived nominals and derived adjectives. Derived nominals are nouns formed by adding suffixes to verbs, e.g. “condensation” from condense, whilstderived adjectives come from nouns e.g. “categorical” from category. Words such as these are commonly found in subjects such as science, mathematics and English literature (Nippold, 2018).

    In one study, Nippold examined a range of textbooks for the aforementioned subjects to see how often these types of words occurred. Out of a total of 16,028 words, she found 254 derived nominals and 273 derived adjectives. Although this may not seem like a huge number, she argued that they occurred often enough that any student who struggled with them could easily misinterpret key parts of the text (Nippold, 2018).

    Literate language also extends beyond the lexicon to certain types of sentence structure. Written sentences tend to be longer and more densely packed with information, with subordinate clauses arranged in hierarchical rather than linear fashion to highlight importance of ideas (Balthazar et al, 2010).

    According to Marilyn Nippold, these two features develop in tandem, in what she called the “lexicon-syntax interface” (Nippold, 2014). For example, she highlighted how the use of meta-cognitive verbs drives the use of nominal clauses, e.g. “she assumed that he would arrive” (Nippold, 2014). Elaborated noun phrases are also commonly used in subjects such as science to introduce specialist vocabulary, e.g. “sedimentary rocks, layers of compacted sand and marine shells, are formed over millions of years” (Balthazar et al, 2010).

    To reiterate, most children gradually develop an awareness of literate language features through repeated exposure to and engagement with complex written and instructional materials. Whilst young children tend to learn new words orally through informal conversation, this shifts around the fourth year of primary school (Nippold, 1998), as they move from the “learning to read” to the “reading to learn” stage.

    Older school children learn new words in three main ways: through direct instruction of curriculum vocabulary in their lessons, as well as employing the metalinguistic strategies of contextual abstraction and morphological analysis to their own independent reading (Nippold, 2018). These strategies entail working out the meanings of new words encountered in text from the context and from their constituent parts, respectively.

    Learning new words in this way requires not only metalinguistic awareness and knowledge of a range of different root words and affixes, but also a substantial amount of time spent reading challenging texts on a regular basis (Nippold, 2018). Research has found that active, proficient and motivated readers who are interested in a wide range of topics develop much larger vocabularies than struggling readers. (Nippold, 1998).

    Unfortunately, students with language disorders often fall into the latter category; many struggle to read at a basic level, or to understand what they read (Nippold, 2018). What’s more, those who did not manage to establish a solid basis in oral language skills earlier on in their schooling will have enormous difficulty engaging with more challenging literate language (Benson, 2009).

    Students with language disorders also tend to be less strategic learners (Nippold, 2018), with poorer metacognitive and metalinguistic awareness. Whilst this makes them less likely to use the aforementioned strategies, metalinguistic awareness is also intertwined with literate language on a deeper level, since words are chosen carefully to reflect nuances in meaning (Benson, 2009).

    Difficulties with literate language may appear subtle compared to more obvious oral language deficits. However, familiarity with this style is vital for academic success (Benson, 2009), and any difficulties will affect students’ ability to understand explanations in lectures and textbooks, to write essays and reports, and engage in debates. Ignorance of certain types of words such as derived nominals and adjectives may also hinder success in STEM related subjects and access to those fields (Nippold, 2018).

    For more information about the purpose and distinctive features of academic language, or “expository discourse”, please see my next post: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/04/15/what-is-expository-discourse-and-how-is-it-relevant-at-secondary-school/

    Notes

    Balthazar, Catherine H., and Cheryl M. Scott. “The Grammar of Information: Challenges for Older Students with Language Impairments.” Topics in Language Disorders 30, no. 4 (2010): 313–327.

    Benson, Susan E. “Understanding Literate Language: Developmental and Clinical Issues.” Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders 36 (Fall 2009): 174–78.

    Nippold, M.A. (1998) Later language development: The school-age and adolescent years. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Nippold, Marilyn. (2014). Language Intervention at the Middle School: Complex Talk Reflects Complex Thought. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 45. 153-156. 10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0027.

    Nippold, Marilyn A. “Back to School.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 47, no. 4 (2016): 269–71.

    Nippold, Marilyn A. “The Literate Lexicon in Adolescents: Monitoring the Use and Understanding of Morphologically Complex Words.” Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups 3, no. 1 (2018): 211–221.

    Rubin, Donald L. “Divergence and Convergence between Oral and Written Communication.” Topics in Language Disorders 7, no. 4 (1987): 1-18. 

  • Why do some students struggle to understand what they read?

    Reading comprehension is not a single skill, but a complex task underpinned by a range of different abilities and knowledge (Catts, 2021). To understand a text, students must first have adequate sight reading and decoding abilities, as well as fluency in reading. They will need to have adequate background and vocabulary knowledge, and be able to use a range of metalinguistic strategies to work out the meanings of new words as well as to monitor and repair any gaps in understanding.

    They will also need adequate working memory to keep the relevant information in mind and piece it all together into a coherent whole. On top of all this, to truly engage with a text, students will need to infer, reason, compare and contrast, summarise information, problem solve and interpret. Given the complexity of the task, some have gone so far as to call it, “thinking guided by print” (Catts, 2009).

    Catts (2021) emphasized the particular importance of background knowledge in understanding a text. Whilst we may think of reading as a way of learning new information, research has shown that our prior knowledge of the general domain of the text greatly influences comprehension. In one study, poor decoders who were knowledgeable in the subject matter (baseball) outperformed good decoders with poor understanding of the subject (Catts, 2009).

    This may be because new information needs something to hook onto: an anchor (Catts, 2021). When we read a text, we are not so much learning new information, as we are integrating it with our own prior knowledge to create a dynamic “situational model” (Catts, 2009). Having an awareness of the topic can also prevent us from going off on the wrong track, and guide us in making inferences. It is likely that having some background knowledge will also allow students to think more deeply about the topic, due to freeing up working memory space (Catts, 2021).

    Another important aspect of reading comprehension which has sometimes been overlooked, yet is especially relevant to Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs), is sentence comprehension. In her article, “A Case for the Sentence in Reading Comprehension”, Cheryl Scott (2009) argues that many reading comprehension problems are actually the result of undetected sentence processing difficulties. There is a fair amount of evidence for her position.

    Traditionally, students with “literacy difficulties” have been split into two camps: “poor decoders” and “poor comprehenders”. Poor decoders are those who struggle to translate letters into sounds, to blend them together to make words, to read fluently: those who could also be described as “dyslexic”. Poor comprehenders, on the other hand, have no problem with the reading process itself, but they struggle to understand the meaning of a text. Approximately 5-10% of school children could be said to fit into this category (Catts et al, 2006).

    A range of studies have found evidence of weak underlying language abilities in this group. For example, Catts’s group of poor comprehenders scored near the 20% percentile for receptive vocabulary, and near the 30th percentile for grammatical understanding. He observes that although mild, and “subclinical”, these difficulties may be enough to have a significant impact on complex reading comprehension tasks. Whilst these difficulties were often present from kindergarten, only a small percentage of these children had met the criteria for a language disorder, with very few receiving support from an SLT (Catts et al, 2006).

    Despite these findings, reading comprehension interventions have traditionally prioritized the teaching of generic strategies over targeting any underlying language deficits. But Cheryl Scott (2009) observes that if a student is unable to parse individual sentences to derive meaning from them, then they will struggle to understand at text level. Marylin Nippold (2017) also questions how we can expect students to grasp the main idea, or to summarise a passage if they have not understood the individual sentences it is composed of.  Although reading comprehension strategies may be useful to some students, they are unlikely to be effective unless underlying language deficits are addressed first.

    Given the myriad skills required by the task of reading comprehension, it is no wonder that students with underlying language difficulties struggle so much. Besides having poorer vocabularies and syntactic ability as mentioned previously, some of these students may have associated difficulties with working memory and literacy. They are also likely to have poorer background knowledge by dint of their reading difficulties and possible reluctance with reading. Thus, a vicious cycle is born, where students see their difficulties compounded.

    As SLTs, it may be worth paying particular attention to the overlooked role of syntax (Nippold, 2017): something we are very specifically qualified to address. This is particularly relevant to the secondary school years, as students are expected to understand increasingly complex sentence structures (see my post). Indeed, it is no coincidence that a group of “poor comprehenders” typically emerge at this time (Scott, 2009). Unfortunately, there is still a great need for research in this area (Nippold, 2017).

    Notes

    Catts, Hugh W., Suzanne M. Adlof, and Susan Ellis Weismer. “Language Deficits in Poor Comprehenders: A Case for the Simple View of Reading.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 49, no. 2 (2006): 278–293.

    Catts, Hugh W. “The Narrow View of Reading Promotes a Broad View of Comprehension.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 40, no. 2 (April 2009): 178–183. 

    Catts, Hugh W. “Rethinking How to Promote Reading Comprehension.” American Educator 45, no. 4 (Winter 2021-2022): 26–33. 

    Nippold, Marilyn A. 2017. “Reading Comprehension Deficits in Adolescents: Addressing Underlying Language Abilities.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 48 (2): 125–131.

    Scott, Cheryl M. “A Case for the Sentence in Reading Comprehension.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 40, no. 2 (2009): 184-191.

  • What are the main challenges of secondary school for students with language disorders?

    The move to secondary school (age 11 in the UK) is difficult for any Year 7 student, but especially so for those with language disorders. On a basic level, secondary schools are typically much bigger than primary schools. The number of students to a class can double in size, and there are large, confusing buildings to navigate.

    At primary school, most pupils have one main classroom teacher who is with them for all their subjects, with whom they can form a more intimate relationship. But at secondary school, students usually have a whole range of teachers for different subjects. Timetables become more challenging to follow, as students have to find their way to different classrooms. Since teachers have so many students, they may struggle to get to know them on an individual basis, and any learning difficulties are more likely to go unnoticed. In short, it is easier to get lost in secondary school.

    Expectations also increase dramatically. Students have to contend with a wide range of subjects involving advanced concepts and specialist vocabulary. They are required to complete higher level tasks, such as analysing literature, writing extended essays and reports, preparing presentations, undertaking research, engaging in critical thinking and debate, and preparing for and sitting exams.

    Workloads increase. To succeed, students must learn to work independently and to manage their time effectively, as well as follow the (often unspoken) rules and routines of school (Nelson, 1998). All of this can feel like something of a shock following the friendly, informal context of primary school.

    On top of all this, these young students must learn to navigate a new social landscape and to find their place in the world, away from the family unit. At a time when their bodies are beginning to change and social interactions are becoming more complex, preadolescents and adolescents must attempt to forge new friendships, find their “group”, avoid being the subject of bullying and attempt to establish a personal identify (Larson and McKinley, 2003).

    Secondary school also brings with it a couple of important, unique challenges which are worth expanding on further, since they particularly affect those with language disorders. The first is a shift which begins in Years 3 and 4, but becomes more pronounced in secondary school, from “learning to read” to “reading to learn” (Balthazar and Scott, 2010).

    One of the main goals of the primary school years is the acquisition of literacy, achieved through regular phonics classes, individual reading and whole class storytelling sessions. At secondary school, it is assumed that most students are able to read and write fluently, so the same level of support is not offered to those who continue to struggle. (Although, positively, some of the better equipped schools I have worked for have offered an online literacy program called “Lexia”).

    Not only will students still struggling with literacy find themselves unsupported, but in the “reading to learn” stage they are now expected to learn new information through their reading. They must move beyond a basic understanding of the text, to draw inferences, analyse, compare and contrast, synthesise and summarise information and think critically (Balthazar and Scott, 2010).

    Clearly any student who has not yet mastered basic decoding skills or reading fluency, who may not even fully understand what they’re reading, will struggle enormously with these higher level tasks. Unfortunately, given the considerable crossover between language and literacy difficulties (see my post for more information), many students with language disorders will fall into this category. Since most subject teachers are unable to dedicate time within the busy classroom to support these students, many will struggle to access the curriculum.

    What’s more, whilst young children typically learn new words through oral exposure, most secondary school students are learning more and more words through their independent reading (Nippold, 1998). Those who avoid reading or who read texts below their cognitive capacity due to residual reading difficulties will have reduced exposure to new vocabulary and linguistic structures. This in turn can negatively impact their language development, leading to the “Matthew effect”, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (Snyder and Caccamise, 2008)

    So far, I’ve hinted at the increasing complexity of the language used and demanded at secondary school but have not fully discussed its nature and causes. Firstly, the shift from oral to written communication is more fundamental than a change in medium. Written language is not just oral language “written down”, but is different in both style and function (Rubin, 1987, Nippold, 1998). (For more information about the differences between oral and written language, please see my post: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/04/06/how-are-oral-and-written-language-different/)

    Broadly speaking, oral language tends to be less formal, with more familiar vocabulary and simpler sentence structures (Benson, 2009). Written language by contrast tends to be more formal, precise, and information-dense, characterized by a wide range of vocabulary that is richer, more technical and specific in nature, as well as more complex use of syntax (Rubin, 1987, Benson, 2009). Marilyn Nippold also termed this style of language and vocabulary, “literate language”, or the “literate lexicon” (Nippold, 1998). (See post for more details).

    Closely connected with these points, is the emergence of a new type of discourse at secondary school. Whilst narratives predominate in primary school, and continue to develop at secondary, other types of discourse come to the fore: most notably, “expository discourse”, or “expository text”.

    Expository discourse is the language of the classroom, of lectures, textbooks and essays. It is language used to explain, define, inform or instruct. Since its main purpose is to convey new information, it is inherently difficult to understand (Snyder and Caccamise, 2008). And once again, those with language disorders will find it particularly challenging since it tends to be dense, information heavy, with complex vocabulary and syntax (Paul and Norbury, 2012) (See my post: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/04/15/what-is-expository-discourse-and-how-is-it-relevant-at-secondary-school/ for more information).

    Despite the move to secondary school being such a challenging time, it has traditionally been when many students with language disorders have been discharged from caseloads (Larson & McKinley 2003). Plenty of recent evidence also indicates that support falls away quickly after primary school (RCSLT, 2023). Given what is at stake, some experts in the field recommend at least supporting students through this difficult transition (Larson & McKinley, 2003).

    You could say that this stage of development also brings with it unique opportunities. There is some evidence that subsequent periods of brain growth occur during the adolescent years, bringing opportunities for growth that may not have been possible earlier on (Larson and McKinley, 2003). What’s more, the increasing cognitive and linguistic demands of the secondary setting can drive further development (Nippold, 1998, 2014) when students are supported effectively. In other words, secondary school is not too late; it may be the perfect time to intervene.

    Notes

    Balthazar, Catherine H., and Cheryl M. Scott. “The Grammar of Information: Challenges for Older Students with Language Impairments.” Topics in Language Disorders 30, no. 4 (2010): 313–327.

    Benson, Susan E. “Understanding Literate Language: Developmental and Clinical Issues.” Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders 36 (Fall 2009): 174–78. doi.org.

    Larson, V.L. and McKinley, N.L. (2003) Communication solutions for older students. Thinking Pub. 

    Nelson, N. W. (1998) Childhood Language Disorders in Context: Infancy Through Adolescence. 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Nippold, M.A. (1998) Later language development: The school-age and adolescent years. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Nippold, Marilyn. (2014). Language Intervention at the Middle School: Complex Talk Reflects Complex Thought. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 45. 153-156. 10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0027.

    Paul, R. and Norbury, C. (2012) Language Disorders from Infancy Through Adolescence: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Communicating. 4th edn. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

    Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT). “A Vision for Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) for the UK” London: RCSLT, 2023. https://www.rcslt.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/A-Vision-for-Developmental-Language-Disorder.pdf. 

    Rubin, Donald L. 1987. “Divergence and Convergence between Oral and Written Communication.” Topics in Language Disorders 7 (4): 1–18.

    Snyder, Lynn, and Donna Caccamise. 2008. “Comprehension Processes for Expository Text: Building Meaning and Making Sense.” In New Directions in Communication Disorders Research: Integrative Approaches, edited by M. A. Nippold and C. M. Scott, 13–39. New York: Psychology Press.

  • Later language development: what Speech and Language Therapists need to know about the secondary school years

    Until relatively recently, the topic of later language development had been somewhat neglected. Whilst early childhood is seen as a time of rapid linguistic growth, later language development has been described as “gradual and protracted” (Nippold, 1998, p.3). Still, recent research has elucidated the many important advancements that occur during this period, calling into question the myth that language development is complete by school age.

    What’s normal?

    Whilst the early period is still considered the time of primary language acquisition, there is now a consensus that language development continues into adulthood and has no fixed end point. In the case of vocabulary, for example, even older adults may learn new words as they pursue different hobbies and read widely. On the other hand, some adults never master all grammatical structures, especially if they did not continue on to further education, where more scholarly forms are in more common usage (Nippold, 1998).

    Wide variation is thus characteristic of language development in the later years. As students begin secondary school, choose certain subjects, drop others, and take on extra-curricular activities, they also develop increasingly specialised vocabularies to match their interests: language becomes ever more individual to the student (Nippold, 1998). What’s more, with slang terms, hesitations, and non-specific phrases such as “like” and “stuff” increasingly common in adolescent language, even typical development may appear disordered (Larson and McKinley, 2003). Nippold (1998) points out that even well-educated adults make grammatical errors from time to time.

    These factors make it more difficult to set guidelines and to define what is “normal” during the adolescent years. And because change is slow and gradual, we may need to compare students across very different age groups to see the differences (Nippold, 1998, p.3).

    Walter Loban (1976) was the first person to document language growth into early adulthood through a longitudinal study comparing a low language ability group with a high language ability group. Since then, various other experts in the field have written about the topic, and a body of research now exists in the area. I have drawn mainly on the amazing work of Marylin Nippold in writing this blog post, particularly her book, “Later language development” (Nippold, 1998).

    Vocabulary

    One important development that occurs during the later years is the expansion of vocabulary. Whilst a 6 year old knows roughly 18,000 words, this increases to at least 60,000 in early adulthood (Nippold, 2024). As students progress through school and participate in the “literate” activities of reading, writing, academic discussion and accessing the curriculum, they begin to acquire more technical and specialist vocabulary, as well as concepts such as adverbs of magnitude and likelihood, and metacognitive and metalinguistic verbs (Nippold, 1998).

    Learning a word is also a gradual, rather than an all or nothing process (Nippold, 1998), and many qualitative improvements occur over time. As we encounter words in different contexts, semantic representations strengthen, and new meanings are added to words already in the repertoire: whilst a young child will typically know the physical meaning of a “double function” word such as “cold”, it is only later that she will learn its psychological meaning, and understand how these different meanings overlap (Nippold, 1998, p.15). Slowly, an organised semantic network develops, as connections between similar words are strengthened (Nippold, 1998).

    The way that we learn words also changes. When we are young, we learn words incidentally, through oral input, but when we begin secondary school, a lot of curriculum vocabulary is taught directly in class. Another important source of learning at this age is the written word, as students are exposed to more unusual, abstract and complex vocabulary and structures through their independent reading. Many young readers learn to utilise morphological and contextual clues to figure out the meanings of unfamiliar words they encounter, supported by developing metacognitive skills and a greater awareness of derivational morphology (Nippold, 1998).

    Syntax

    Syntax also develops in various, subtle ways. Considerable growth occurs at both the intrasentential1 and the intersentential2 levels. Individual sentences increase in length, complexity, and density of information (Nippold, 1998). Loban (1976) observed small, but regular increases in sentence length throughout the school years, although Nippold (1998) cautions us that the length of utterance depends very much on the context. All speakers tend to use shorter sentences when communicating in informal, conversational contexts, and longer sentences in more formal contexts, or when required to explain and give detailed information, such as when telling the rules of a game (Nippold, 1998, 2014).

    Clausal density is another sign of mature development. Whilst a 5 year old may be able to form grammatically correct sentences containing a range of subordinate clauses, the ability to construct longer sentences containing multiple, embedded subordinate clauses to express increasingly complex and abstract thoughts continues to develop into adulthood (Nippold, Mansfield, Billow and Tomblin, 2009). Improved understanding and use of a range of subordinating, coordinating and correlative conjunctions goes alongside this (Nippold, 1998).

    Certain types of clause, such as nominal, adverbial and relative clauses are also used increasingly (Nippold, 2024); the latter, in particular are a common sign of maturing language (Loban, 1976). For a detailed look at these, and other aspects of advanced grammar, I highly recommended Nippold’s book: “A grammar guide for Speech-Language Pathologists” (Nippold, 2014).

    Still, a long, clunky sentence is not necessarily a sign of mature language skills when the message could be expressed more succinctly. Loban (1976) found that during the later stages of adolescence, his low language ability group unexpectedly appeared to catch up with his high language group at one point, in terms of the average number of dependent clauses used per communication unit. However, upon deeper analysis, he found that the higher language group were using more sophisticated sentence structures which enabled them to be more concise.

    Rather than continuing to add on further clauses, sentences may be expanded in other ways, such as elaboration of noun and verb phrases through the use of appositives, infinitives, gerunds, prepositional phrases, and others. Indeed, the presence and combination of low-frequency syntactic structures such as these is another characteristic of mature language (Nippold, 1998). Students also learn to link different sentences together using adverbial conjuncts and other devices to produce cohesive discourse (Nippold, 1998).

    Discourse & comprehension

    Narratives are the most dominant type of discourse throughout primary school, and young children already know a lot about storytelling. At secondary school, students learn to construct longer, more detailed and organised narratives containing multiple episodes, whilst giving more space for their characters’ feelings and motivations. At the same time, other types of discourse, such as expository discourse3, persuasion and negotiation come to the fore (Nippold, 1998).

    Comprehension also improves slowly, and older children develop the important ability to process larger units of discourse (Nelson, 1998). Still, Larson and McKinley (2003) caution that we should not expect pre-adolescents and adolescents to understand everything we say to them, since some grammatical structures may not even be understood by adults. Anyone who has read complex academic prose can tell you that some sentences are just harder to understand than others.

    Figurative language & pragmatics

    Abstract thought, and with it figurative language such as similes, metaphors, idioms and proverbs also develops over time. Research has found that preschoolers have some awareness of this type of language, but that deeper understanding emerges during the school years and adolescence. Similarly, jokes, slang and ambiguous language become increasingly important, since they are linked to students’ self-esteem and peer-acceptance (Nippold, 1998). Conversational and pragmatic skills also develop, with older students more able to adapt their communication to different contexts (Nippold, 2024).

    Whilst many linguistic achievements appear to be “built in”, we have seen how school itself, and the contexts in which students find themselves can influence language development. Similarly, the increasing demands of formal education, which typically include reading challenging material, and extended written assignments sometimes requiring independent research may push forward cognitive and linguistic growth (Paul and Norbury, 2012, Nippold, 2024). As Nippold says, “complex thought encourages complex talk” (Nippold, 2014).

    Final thoughts

    Despite the amount of research now available, later language development is still widely ignored. Larson and McKinley (2003) found that very few university programs across the USA offered modules on this topic, and my experience at a UK university in 2012 was similar. In a small survey that I carried out last year, around half of my fellow SLTs did not feel they had the knowledge to work with this age group, with a further 25% feeling unsure, suggesting that perhaps not much has changed. I hope this summary has helped; for a more in-depth look at later language development and a deeper understanding of grammar, I highly recommend Marilyn Nippold’s excellent books (Nippold, 1998, 2023).

    To find out more about what a language disorders might look like in the later years, please see my post: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/01/07/what-is-developmental-language-disorder-dld/

    Notes

    Larson, V.L. and McKinley, N.L. (2003) Communication solutions for older students. Thinking Pub. 

    Loban, W. (1976) Language Development: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Nelson, N. W. (1998) Childhood Language Disorders in Context: Infancy Through Adolescence. 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Nippold, M.A. (1998) Later language development: The school-age and adolescent years. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Nippold, M. A., Mansfield, T. C., Billow, J. L. and Tomblin, J. B. (2009) ‘Syntactic development in adolescents with a history of language impairments: a follow-up investigation’, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18(3), pp. 241–251. 

    Nippold, Marilyn. (2014). Language Intervention at the Middle School: Complex Talk Reflects Complex Thought. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 45. 153-156. 10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0027.

    Nippold, M.A. (2023). Grammar guide for speech-language pathologists: Steps to analyzing complex syntax. San Diego: Plural Publishing.

    Nippold, Marilyn. (2024). Language Development in School-Age Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults. 10.1016/B978-0-323-95504-1.00374-4.

    Paul, R. and Norbury, C. (2012) Language Disorders from Infancy Through Adolescence: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Communicating. 4th edn. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

    1. Within sentences ↩︎
    2. Between sentences ↩︎
    3. Discourse aiming to explain or inform; this is the language of the classroom, of lectures, textbooks, reports, etc.  ↩︎

  • In at the deep end

    I began my Speech and Language Therapy journey sobbing in the Additional Learning Needs room in the autumn term of 2014. It was the beginning of the academic year and I’d just gotten my first job as a Newly Qualified Practitioner (NQP) at an “academy” in a deprived borough of London. Unusually for a mainstream secondary school, they’d hired a private Speech and Language Therapist – me! – to manage their huge caseload of around 100 students with language and communication needs. And I didn’t seem to be handling it all that well…

    “I get on well with teenagers”, I’d said during the interview, “and since everyone’s so focused on early intervention, I think they can get forgotten about. But I feel they deserve to be supported too…” That’s how I found myself leading (in the loosest sense of the word) seven Speech and Language Therapy sessions a day – for groups of disengaged young people who seemed keener on throwing the bean bag I’d brought as a “talking stick” at each other’s heads than in doing any of the activities I’d carefully planned.

    It didn’t help that I’d never worked in a secondary school before, let alone had a placement in one. Or that my postgraduate course back in 2012 had covered early language development, before moving swiftly onto acquired adult conditions, all but skipping the adolescent period. Although research into this age group is slowly building, it’s still only a fraction of what’s available for early years. You could be forgiven for thinking that language development ends at 5, and there’s nothing left to be done…

    On the contrary, as student after student came through my door for their assessments, a staggering level of need emerged that I’d never have expected to find in this ordinary secondary school. Many were struggling with basic sentence structures and vocabulary, yet they were expected to analyse Shakespearean tragedies and compose essays. The gap between where my students were and where they were expected to be seemed insurmountable – was it really my job to help them cross it?

    Meanwhile, as the only SLT at school, I had to wait for my weekly supervision session at the clinic for a sighting of one of my colleagues. This made for a slightly strange and isolating first year. And without anyone to ask advice on a daily basis, my students became a mirror for how I was doing. The reflection wasn’t always flattering. They’d often “act out” or refuse to come to my sessions. This was tough, but looking back, it was some of the clearest and most honest feedback I ever received.

    I only ended up staying at that first school for a year, but I did stick with the age group. Over the next decade I went on to work at a range of mainstream secondaries around London, mainly privately, but also as a locum for the NHS.

    Slowly, things started to get better, and I began to see my own progress reflected in my students. Their annual CELF-5 scores improved. They’d tell me that they were understanding more in class; that they were finding it easier to follow their teachers’ instructions. A memory strategy helped one remember his mum’s PIN so he could help her with the shopping (so he said!). Another would proudly show me his conduct card at the beginning of every session with admittedly fewer infractions than the previous term.

    But most of all, my students began showing up more – physically and mentally – to my sessions. And overwhelmingly they did so without complaining; it was almost as if they thought it was helping!

    I’m not a researcher or academic – just an ordinary SLT who’s been in the extra-ordinary position of having time, week in, week out, to try out a range of interventions with my students to see what worked. It’s taken a lot of trial and error, digging out random books and taking obscure courses to get to a point where I feel like I’m truly serving my students’ needs.

    My practice is by no means perfect, but I wanted to start this blog to pass on what I’ve learnt, and to share a window into my practice for anyone who’s interested. Whether you’re a student, SLT or another professional interested in finding out more, I hope this helps.

    Tawna

    You might like to start here: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/01/07/what-is-developmental-language-disorder-dld/