PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2019, Vol. 15(2) 157-166

Describing and comparing pragmatic language skills ofTurkish students with typical development and inclusive education students withmild intellectual disability

Özlem Diken

pp. 157 - 166   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.189.11   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1807-05-0004

Published online: April 06, 2019  |   Number of Views: 31  |  Number of Download: 133


Abstract

The purpose of this study is to describe and compare pragmatic language skills of Turkish students with typical development and inclusive education students with mild intellectual disability. Participants included 152 primary school students  (75 students were students with typical development-STD, and 77 students were inclusive education students with mild intellectual disability-IES) aged between 5 and 12. Data were collected via Turkish version of Pragmatic Language Skills Inventory (TV-PLSI, Alev, Diken, Ardıç, Diken, Şekercioğlu and Gilliam, 2014). Results indicated that out of 75 students with typical development (STD), 58 (77,4 %) had average or above average pragmatic language skills whereas out of 77 inclusive education students (IES), only 17 (22,1 %) showed average or above average pragmatic language skills. More specifically, 60 (77,9) IES had below average, poor and very poor pragmatic language skills. Results on comparisons of two groups also revealed that students with typical development showed higher pragmatic language skills than inclusive education students with mild intellectual disability on total score and three subtest scores of the TV-PLSI. Suggestions were provided.

Keywords: Pragmatic language skills, Turkish students with intellectual disabilities, inclusion, typical students.


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Diken, O. (2019). Describing and comparing pragmatic language skills ofTurkish students with typical development and inclusive education students withmild intellectual disability . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(2), 157-166. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.189.11

Harvard
Diken, O. (2019). Describing and comparing pragmatic language skills ofTurkish students with typical development and inclusive education students withmild intellectual disability . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(2), pp. 157-166.

Chicago 16th edition
Diken, Ozlem (2019). "Describing and comparing pragmatic language skills ofTurkish students with typical development and inclusive education students withmild intellectual disability ". International Journal of Progressive Education 15 (2):157-166. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2019.189.11.

References
  1. Alev, G., Diken, İ. H., Ardıç, A., Diken, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Gilliam, J. E., (2014). Adaptation and Examining Psychometrical Properties of Pragmatic Language Skills Inventory (PLSI) in Turkey. Elementary Education Online, 13(1), 258-273. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bishop, D. V. M. (2000). Pragmatic language impairment: A correlate of SLI, a distinct subgroup, or part of the autistic continuum? In L. B. Leonard & D. V. M. Bishop (Eds.), Speech language impairments in children: Causes, characteristics, intervention and outcome. New York, NY: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Diken, Ö. (2014). Pragmatic language skills of children with developmental disabilities: A descriptive and relational study in Turkey. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 55, 109-122. [Google Scholar]
  4. Green, B. C., Johnson, K. A., & Bretherton, L. (2013). Pragmatic language difficulties in children with hyperactivity and attention problems: An integrated review. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 00(0), 1-15. DOI: 10.1111/1460-6984.12056. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hatton, 1998 Pragmatic language skills in people with intellectual disabilities: A review. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 23, 79–100. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ketelaars, M. P. (2010). The nature of pragmatic language impairment. Universal Press, Veenendaal. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kuder, S. J (1997). Teaching students with language and communication disabilities. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  8. Owens, R. E. (1999). Language Disorders: A functional approach to assessment and interveniton. USA: Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  9. Rispoli, M. J., Franco, J. H., Meer, L. V.D.M., Lang, R., & Camargo, S. P. H. (2010). The use of speech generating devices in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13(4), 276-293. [Google Scholar]
  10. Spekman, N. J., & Roth, F. P. (1982). An intervention framework for learning disabled students with communication disorders. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 429-437. [Google Scholar]
  11. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers. [Google Scholar]