Thoughts of a secondary school SLT

Tag: MLE

  • 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.

  • Supporting Generalisation (Part 1): Challenges and Solutions

    When we see our students for intervention, we all hope that they will make progress not just with the targets we set them during our sessions, but also that the linguistic skills and knowledge taught ultimately help them become better communicators in real-life contexts (Paul  and Norbury, 2012). Any less than this and our job could be said to be incomplete (Nelson, 1998). Yet, achieving “generalisation” or “carryover” has long been considered one of the harder parts of a Speech and Language Therapist’s (SLT’s) job.

    Criticisms of the “pull-out” model

    In recent years, the traditional “pull-out” model of therapy, where students are removed from their lessons and taken into a separate room, has been heavily critiqued for not supporting generalisation. Some have argued that in creating an artificial context, skills taught within sessions may not naturally transfer to real communicative situations and have limited relevance to students’ lives (Nelson, 1998). Indeed, research has found that children do not always generalise what they learn in this way to spontaneous conversation (Paul and Norbury,  2012).

    As an SLT working privately in schools as part of a “buy in” service, much of the support that I provide is within this context. The criticism notwithstanding, there are many benefits to this way of working. A separate room can provide a quiet, nurturing, distraction-free space for those with  attention difficulties. It also allows the teaching of basic skills, tools and strategies, as well as more attention, talking time and scaffolding (Paul and Norbury, 2012), than would not be possible in a busy classroom environment. Older students may appreciate the freedom to practice new skills without the pressure of doing it in front of peers (Nelson, 1998).

    However, it is important to remain conscious of the drawbacks, and to remember that generalisation is unlikely to occur automatically. According to Paul and Norbury (2012), it needs to be consciously built into any intervention program rather than considered an afterthought. They argue that it should form a part of every session; if not every activity, then at least every goal.

    If your role involves any direct work with students, then you could try some of the following approaches to ensure that what you teach “carries over”: using more “natural”, contextually based activities and materials, involving teaching staff, supporting metacognitive skills, teaching strategies as well as using a mediated learning approach and bridging questions.

    Using “natural”, contextually-relevant activities and authentic materials

    Whilst the “pull-out” room has been criticized for being contrived and “unnatural”, the intervention activities we choose to introduce within that environment may be more or less so. Activities can be placed along a “continuum of naturalness” (Fey, 1986, cited in Paul and Norbury, 2012, p.68), according to how similar they are to those our students normally engage in. So, asking them to complete a specially designed connectives worksheet might be considered less natural, whilst supporting them to integrate said connectives into a real class assignment might be considered more so.

    Interestingly, research has shown that certain approaches which fall toward the less natural end of the scale such as drilling can be highly efficient at getting students to learn new language forms. No natural approach can elicit so many correct responses in such a short space of time (Paul and Norbury, 2012). But, like the pull-out room, the problem comes with transferring these gains to real-life communication. Paul and Norbury (2012) recommend a combined approach of more “clinician-directed” activities during the early stages of treatment, with more naturalistic ones either simultaneously or afterwards to encourage “carry over”.

    With younger children, this might take the form of child-led play, or informal conversation extended by an adult. With older students of secondary school age, we can incorporate materials they are likely to encounter at other times of day into our sessions. So, as hinted earlier, we might use their textbooks, lecture slides or curriculum vocabulary lists rather than specially designed activities (Costello, 1983 in Paul and Norbury, 1998, p.86). Nelson (1998) also recommended balancing “pulling-out” students from lessons with “pulling in” curriculum content and materials. By doing so, our students immediately see the relevance of what we are teaching to their daily lives.

    One idea already commonly used by SLTs naturally supports generalisation: pre-teaching curriculum vocabulary. To truly know a word, we must encounter it multiple times across different contexts. When you teach your student curriculum terms such as “tectonic plate”, “constructive” and “destructive margins” you ensure that they will hear them in at least two different contexts: their Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) session, and their geography lesson.

    Paul and Norbury (2012) also recommend “priming”, by previewing materials and exercises students will go on to encounter in their lessons. They argue that since our students already know the right answers, this allows them to “look smart” in front of other students, boosting their self-esteem.

    However, Larson and Mckinley (2003) caution us not to fall into the trap of simply tutoring our students the curricular material, which they claim is only a short-term solution to underlying language difficulties. Instead, we should aim to use these materials as a vehicle to teach specific language-based skills and strategies. So, when teaching a strategy like morphological analysis, where I teach students how to break complex words apart to work out their meanings, I often include some curriculum vocab words from different topics to practice on.

    Say I have taught the prefix “omni” and the root words “potent” and “bene”, then students may be able to work out the meanings of their new R.E. words “omnipotent” and “omnibenevolent” as well as perhaps extending their reasoning to more everyday words like “beneficial”, “impotent” and “potential”. Teaching the prefixes “endo” and “exo” as well as the root “thermo”, may help them to work out “endo-“ and “exothermic reaction”, “thermal imaging” and perhaps “exoskeleton”. Or, if we are working on figurative language, then I might draw similes and metaphors from their curriculum text,  A Christmas Carol, and have us work out the meanings together.

    Of course, sometimes curriculum materials may initially be too complex for lower level students. In these cases, you may need to start with more basic, specifically designed activities. For instance, I sometimes use simple inference worksheets from websites like Super Teacher. But where possible, I try to combine them with more authentic, contextually relevant tasks, such as getting them to write short PEE paragraphs (Point, Evidence, Explanation) – an acronym commonly used in secondary school English lessons to support extended writing skills – to answer the inference questions about the scenarios.

    This way, my students immediately see how their developing inference skills directly support their ability to analyse and write in English lessons. Once they succeed with these simpler tasks, they can progress to applying these skills to their actual curriculum texts. Alternatively, if you have spent time teaching students to write relative clauses, then you could try spotting them in newspapers together.

    Involving teaching staff

    Using a pull-out model does not preclude the possibility of working more collaboratively. When I worked for the NHS, we would invite our students’ Learning Support Assistants (LSAs) into our sessions as a matter of course. Doing so allows you to share targets, model facilitation strategies and pass on ideas, hopefully allowing your work to be reinforced outside of SALT sessions, thereby supporting generalisation.

    It can also give LSAs an insight into a new student’s difficulties, or conversely, their abilities. In cases of learned helplessness, some students become so reliant on support staff, believing themselves to be incapable that they effectively give up and stop trying. I once worked with a student at a Further Education (FE) college whose LSA attended our sessions. After watching him work, she commented that she had no idea he was so capable.

    Supporting your students to succeed in a quiet, low-pressure environment may help to change others’ perceptions of their limits. When an LSA sees what a student can achieve with the right scaffolding, it might lead to a shift in expectations in the classroom, potentially leading to gentle encouragement to aim higher.

    What next?

    If we want our students to become more independent, we have to move beyond teaching basic language skills. In Part 2 of this series of posts, I discuss using a learning strategies approach and supporting meta skills to aid generalisation and independence. Click here: https://secondaryschoolslt.com/2026/08/12/supporting-generalisation-part-2-teaching-strategies/

    Notes

    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.

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