Language Disorders Are Learning Disabilities Challenges on the Divergent and Diverse Paths to Language Learning Disability

Top Lang Disorders Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 25–38 Copyright c 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Language Disorders Are Learning Disabilities Challenges on the Divergent and Diverse Paths to Language Learning Disability

Lei Sun and Geraldine P. Wallach

This article takes readers along the pathway of language learning and disorders across childhood and adolescence, highlighting the complex relationship between early (preschool) language disorders and later (school age) learning disabilities. The discussion starts with a review of diagnostic labels widely used in schools and other professional settings. The sometimes confusing interpreta- tions of labels such as specific language impairment and specific learning disabilities are discussed. We outline key relations that exist among language proficiency, language disorders, and school success and emphasize the centrality of language in literacy and academic success within a conceptual framework that addresses both inherent factors (e.g., abilities the language a child “comes with” to school including one’s foundational literacy levels) and external factors (e.g., classroom dynamics, textbook language). We argue that mismatches between these factors come together in a manner that is best captured by the term, language learning disability. We end with a summary of key points that encourage professionals to reevaluate and challenge the traditional view that children and adolescents with language disorders are a separate and distinct population from those with learning disabilities. Key words: continuum of changing demands, diagnostic labels, intervention directions, learning disabilities, language disorders, language disorders’ outcomes, language learning disabilities, specific language impairment, specific learning disabilities

N THIS ARTICLE, we ask readers to con- A language learning disability (LLD) scenario: A I sider the complex nature of early language parent of a child who has been receiving services disorders, their overlap and continuity with at a speech–language–hearing center for a number learning disabilities, and the changing diag- of years has been pleased with her child’s language nostic labels that may accompany children development. Tim (a pseudonym) began his inter- with language and learning disabilities across vention journey in this particular clinic at about 2.5 years old as a child with delayed language.Tim time. The following scenario sets the tone. had difficulties with both language comprehension and expression in all areas of content, form, and use, as well as attention issues, but he also demon- Author Affiliations: Department of Communicative Disorders, California State strated many age-appropriate abilities, including University, Long Beach. motor development and cognitive-communicative The authors thank Dr. Joel Stark, the “Father” of LLD, skills (e.g., playing appropriately and using non- for his inspiration and support and for suggesting the verbal communication to make his needs known). title for this article. Thus, Tim received a diagnosis in the clinic as hav- The authors have indicated that they have no financial ing specific language impairment (SLI). When Tim and no nonfinancial relationships to disclose. entered school, he was tested by his school-based Corresponding Author: Geraldine P. Wallach, PhD, speech–language pathologist (SLP) and met eligi- CCC-SLP, Department of Communicative Disorders, bility requirements for services as a child with a California State University, Long Beach, CSULB 1250 Bellflower Blvd, Long Beach, CA 90840 (geraldine speech or language impairment (S-LI). By second [email protected]). grade, Tim was speaking in complete sentences DOI: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000005 and understanding most everyday language, but

he was struggling to meet academic standards, As the title of this article and Tim’s case including basic skills for reading and writing, example suggest, children and adolescents comprehending instructional language, and using facing language challenges may be identi- expressive discourse to express his ideas orally and fied with different diagnostic and service de- in writing. At one point, Tim’s mother said that livery labels at different points across their because of his academic difficulties and problems preschool years through high school and into with reading and writing, she and Tim’s teacher adulthood. It is our purpose in this article were concerned that he might have a specific learning disability (SLD). She asked: “Is it true that to untangle misconceptions about the paral- Tim has another problem on top of his language lel and divergent pathways that children with problem?” language disorders may take through their developmental years, sometimes shifting diag- The question asked by Tim’s mother in noses as they encounter new language and this scenario speaks to the confusion about literacy learning challenges. the relationships between preschool language We organize our arguments by presenting disorders (often called SLI by clinical pro- three theses about the relationships between fessionals and researchers) and eligibility la- language impairment and learning disabilities. bels associated with school service delivery First, the use of different labels by different (i.e., S-LI and SLD). Not only are parents un- professionals in different contexts should not clear about these relationships but profession- obscure the commonalities among children als are too. This may be one reason SLPs with language disorders, no matter what they do not do a better job of preparing parents are called. Second, children with a diagnosis and students to navigate the sometimes un- of SLI in the preschool years tend to have clear path taken among different diagnoses continued problems with language learning and service delivery models for children who throughout their school years and beyond, al- demonstrate language difficulties from their though their language disorders, as well as preschool through their school-age years. those of children newly identified as having The aforementioned scenario harkens to SLD, take on different forms as a consequence the classic question asked by Bashir, Kuban, of new contexts and learning tasks. Third, lan- Kleinman, and Scavuzzo (1984): “Are we guage is the embedded curriculum of school, speaking about a group of children, who by not only in the form of what is called “lan- virtue of learning context, are called by dif- guage arts” but also within all other parts of ferent names, but who in reality evidence a the curriculum. The implication of this is that continuum of deficits in language learning?” intervention choices should be based on stu- (p. 99). This, indeed, was our answer to Tim’s dents’ ongoing language learning and literacy mother’s question. It was not a new disor- problems within curricular contexts, regard- der, we told her, but a different manifestation less of their diagnostic labels. We end the ar- of Tim’s ongoing language disorder. The new ticle with summary points for consideration problems arose as he faced new challenges be- and a look toward future research. cause the language demands of the academic curriculum grow across grade levels, and this might happen again as Tim continued through DEFINITIONS AND DECISIONS: AN school. Tim’s two SLPs, one in the clinic and INTRODUCTORY ROADMAP the other in his school, needed to collaborate with each other and with his parents, teach- Our first thesis is that when profession- ers, and other specialists to co-construct a uni- als apply different labels in different con- fied picture of Tim’s strengths and needs that texts, commonalities among language disor- could inform treatment plans and help Tim ders are obscured. Identifying similarities re- gain new skills to meet curriculum standards quires merely looking at definitions across within new contexts. sources.

Under IDEA (2004), language disorders Definitions of SLI, in contrast, come from fall under the broad category of speech or the research literature. Leonard (1991) ob- language impairment (abbreviated S-LI in served that such definitions depend on sig- this article), which is defined as a “com- nificant and specific deficits in language, but munication disorder, such as stuttering, im- their identification is based primarily on ex- paired articulation, a language impairment, or clusion. He wrote, “Although these children a voice impairment, that adversely affects a exhibit significant deficits in language ability, child’s educational performance” (34 C.F.R. they show no evidence of frank neurological § 300.8(c)(11)). To provide services on the damage, their hearing is within normal limits, basis of language impairment, school-based and they perform at age level on nonverbal SLPs must find a child eligible for services as tests of intelligence” (p. 66). Specific language S-LI. The federal regulations, however, offer impairment is generally identified first when no eligibility criteria for diagnosing language children struggle to acquire oral language abil- impairment and no further definition of lan- ities in their preschool years. guage impairment; rather, criteria are estab- Specific learning disability may be identi- lished through state and local guidelines, in- fied for the first time when children struggle troducing additional sources of variation. An- to acquire written language in their school- othercomplexityisthatitisimpossibletodif- age years, but it could be identified earlier. As ferentiate children receiving services under defined in IDEA (2004), SLD IDEA who qualify on the basis of speech im- means a disorder in one or more of the basic psy- pairment from those who qualify on the basis chological processes involved in understanding or of language impairment. Thus, official propor- in using language, spoken or written, that may tions are difficult to identify. manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, We note that the federal definition of S-LI think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathe- does not indicate whether language disorders matical calculations, including conditions such as are specific to oral or written language. Lan- perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain guage is language, whether it is spoken or dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. § written. This is consistent with the definition (34 C.F.R. 300.8(c)(10.i)) of language disorder by the American Speech- We note that this definition is not specific Language-Hearing Association (ASHA, 1993), to written language difficulties, nor is it con- which states: fined to any particular point in time. Section A language disorder is impaired comprehension 300.308(a)(3) indicates, “For a child of less and/or use of spoken, written and/or other sym- than school age,” the evaluation team for iden- bol systems. The disorder may involve (1) the form tifying SLI must include “an individual quali- of language (phonology, morphology, syntax), (2) fied by the SEA [state education agency] to the content of language (semantics), and/or (3) the teach a child of his or her age; and (b) at least function of language in communication (pragmat- one person qualified to conduct individual di- ics) in any combination. agnostic examinations of children, such as a The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of school psychologist, speech–language pathol- Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Asso- ogist, or remedial reading teacher.” ciation, 2013) uses similar terminology, defin- The “specific” aspect of SLD is also defined ing language disorder as: by exclusion in the federal regulations, which indicate that “specific learning disability does Persistent difficulties in the acquisition and use of not include learning problems that are pri- language across modalities (i.e., spoken, written, sign language, or other) due to deficits in compre- marily the result of visual, hearing, or mo- hension or production that include the following: tor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emo- (1) reduced vocabulary . . . (2) limited sentence tional disturbance, or of environmental, cul- structure . . . (3) impairments in discourse. (315.39 tural, or economic disadvantage” (34 C.F.R. (F80.9)) § 300.8(c)(10.ii)). Under former versions of

IDEA, discrepancy formulas between IQ and In its frequently quoted definition, the achievement were used as part of the exclu- National Joint Committee on Learning Dis- sion criterion to identify children with learn- abilities (NJCLD, 1990) emphasized the het- ing disability, but the reauthorization of IDEA erogeneity of learning disability, as well as (2004) indicated that a state, in adopting cri- the involvement of language across both spo- teria for determining whether a child has SLD, ken and written modalities. The essence of the definition is that “learning disabilities is a (1) must not require the use of a severe discrep- general term that refers to a heterogeneous ancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific group of disorders manifested by significant learning disability, as defined in § 300.8(c)(10); (2) difficulties in the acquisition and use of lis- must permit the use of a process based on the tening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, child’s response to scientific, research-based inter- or mathematical skills” (ASHA, 1998; NJCLD, vention; and (3) may permit the use of other alter- 1990). native research-based procedures for determining Adding to the confusion are terms intro- whether a child has a specific learning disability, as duced both in the research literature and in defined in § 300.8(c)(10). nonschool clinical settings to describe vari- This policy was changed because of the ations on language and learning disabilities. lack of evidence that a discrepancy formula The term dyslexia, for example, appears in is appropriate for identifying learning disabil- the federal definition of SLD, with variations ities (e.g., Christensen, 1992; Fletcher, Lyon, of this term including specific reading dis- Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007). Similarly, a discrep- order or reading disorder. Important ques- ancy formula should not be used to iden- tions about the relationships between SLI tify SLI. Addressing the question, “Who shall and dyslexia have been addressed in the re- be called language disordered?” Lahey (1990) search literature (e.g., Bishop & Snowling, emphasized the artificiality of mental and lan- 2004; Catts, Adlof, Hogan, & Elllis Weismer, guage age numbers and the importance of 2005), which suggests that there are some keeping the bigger picture in mind, including distinctions between the groups. Individual the functionality of the tests used to identify children and adolescents are complex beings, language disorders. She also expressed con- however, and clinicians must consider the cerns about assessing language outside of the broad range of language issues that may con- contexts in which children must live, a no- tribute to the language literacy problems any tion just as relevant today. In an early pre- one child or adolescent may face in school. sentation, Lahey (1980) described “learning How can these complex issues be resolved? disabilities” as one of those intricate puzzles Even a cursory consideration of these various with hundreds of pieces that was missing the definitions shows their similarity and, in many box’s cover that provided an intact picture aspects, their complete overlap. By definition, of the puzzle. She went on to reflect on the a disorder of spoken or written language is a sometimes circularity of reasoning involved in learning disability. The converse also is true— using labels such as “learning disabled,” espe- that is, a learning disability is a language dis- cially when they play out like this: order. The one exception is the child who might be identified as having learning disabil- Question: Why are these children with normal in- ity based only on impairment of the ability to telligence having difficulty learning to read? “do mathematical calculations,” but even in Answer: Because they are “learning disabled.” this case, language may be implicated (Patkin, 2011). Acknowledging this overlap, the term Question: How do you know that? language learning disability (LLD) was used Answer: Because they have normal intelligence and by the ASHA Committee on Language Learn- they are having difficulty learning to read? (Lahey, ing Disabilities (1982) in an article describing 1980, as cited in Wallach & Butler, 1994, p. 19). the role of the SLP in learning disabilities. The

inaugural issue of Topics in Language Dis- tification, word attack, calculation), even after orders (see Butler & Wallach, 1980; Stark & controlling for intelligence. Wallach, 1980) and subsequent issues (e.g., Making the implicit connection between Wallach, 2005) have addressed the complex- early language disorders and later academic ity of issues surrounding terminology, in- difficulties more explicit, Young et al. (2002) cluding use of the term language learning found that children with a diagnosis of lan- disability. Although LLD is not part of any guage impairment in the preschool period official diagnosis, it applies to children and were more likely to have academic difficul- adolescents who could fit either diagnostic la- ties severe enough to be classified as learning bel (SLI or SLD) and to whom different labels disability than their non–language-impaired might apply across their childhood and ado- peers. They noted that LD was determined if lescence. It has been used in the literature achievement in a particular academic area was to comprise both SLI and SLD, and we sug- below the 25th percentile according to the gest that it might be helpful in avoiding false test norms in their study. Indeed, the chronic dichotomies that obscure the language base and long-term effects of early language dis- common to both. orders suggest that SLI and SLD may be in- distinguishable in many children. Not all children who start out with SLI, however, qual- CHANGES IN SLI AND SLD ACROSS TIME ify for SLD services in their school-age years. AND CONTEXTS: TURNS AND BUMPS IN Young et al. posited that many factors can THE ROAD influence this pathway, including the nature of children’s early language disorders, the im- Longitudinal research supports the contin- pact and focus of preschool intervention, and uing challenges facing children with early home literacy practices, among other factors. language disorders, as well as overlaps be- Other studies have shown that children tween those who begin with SLI, some- with SLI, such as Tim, who was introduced at times called language impairment, without the beginning of this article, have a higher risk the “specific”, and those who later are identi- of having later learning difficulties (e.g., Catts, fied with SLD, sometimes called learning dis- Bridges, Little, & Tomblin, 2008; Catts, Fey, ability, without the “specific” (e.g., Bishop, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999; Grizzle & Simms, 2003, 2009; McArthur, Hogben, Edwards, 2009; Scott, 2011). These later learning diffi- Heath, & Mengler, 2000). Stothard, Snowling, culties may take the form of problems acquir- Bishop, Chipchase, and Kaplan (1998) found ing higher levels of spoken language compre- that children with a diagnosis of language hension and expression (e.g., Nippold, 2007; impairment at young ages (kindergarten or Scott & Balthazar, 2010; Suddarth, Plante, & younger) continued to experience language Vance, 2012; Ward-Lonergan & Duthie, 2012), and academic difficulties as adolescents even as well as with reading and writing (Catts if their language difficulties seemed to have re- & Kamhi, 2005; Poe, Burchinal, & Roberts, solved early. Tomblin, Zang, Buckwalter, and 2004). O’Brien (2003) found that 60% of the chil- Acquiring literacy involves more than sim- dren with language disorders they identified at ply developing phonological and phonemic kindergarten in their epidemiological sample awareness, phonics, decoding skills, and read- continued to show persistent language impair- ing fluency (Justice, 2006; Justice & Ezell, ments through fourth grade. Similarly, Young 2002; Snowling & Hayiou-Thomas, 2006). et al. (2002) found that children with a diag- Catts, Compton, Tomblin, and Bridges (2012) nosis of language impairment at the age of 5 noted that late-emerging poor readers (i.e., years continued to lag behind at the age of 19 students who start to show reading problems years in all domains of academic achievement around fourth grade but who had adequate (spelling, reading comprehension, word iden- reading achievement in early school years)

may have had unidentified deficits in language the majority of students continue to strug- and/or other cognitive abilities at younger gle with reading comprehension that inter- ages. acts with their ongoing spoken language A number of studies have shown that problems (e.g., Catts, 2009; Keenan, 2014; phonological difficulties place children at risk Troia, 2014). School-age students with SLI fre- of deficient reading decoding, but more com- quently demonstrate limited and less evolved prehensive language impairments contribute vocabulary repertoires, difficulties with com- to poor reading comprehension (Nation, plex syntactic structures (including compre- Clarke, Marshall, & Durand, 2004; Snowling hension of such structures), and problems & Hayiou-Thomas, 2006). Comprehensive lan- producing and understanding connected dis- guage impairments also may contribute to dif- course (Catts & Kamhi, 2005; Ehren, 2009; ficulty understanding the discipline-specific Ehren et al., 2012; Eisenberg, 2013; Scott language of social studies, science, mathemat- & Balthazar, 2010; Scott & Windsor; 2000). ical story problems, and other academic sub- These spoken language difficulties follow chil- jects (Ehren, Murza, & Malani, 2012; Faggella- dren throughout their school years and con- Luby, Sampson Graner, Deshler, & Valentino tribute to their difficulties in performing the Drew, 2012). Thus, one of the many chal- more advanced linguistic tasks of school, such lenges facing school-based SLPs and other spe- as reading and writing curricular content, and cialists is to recognize some of the literacy- following and attending to complicated in- learning patterns and gaps that occur before structional language that may appear in spo- children arrive at school, as well as to evalu- ken and/or written form (Catts et al., 2012). ate the language knowledge, skills, and strate- Many children with early language dis- gies that underlie literacy learning across the orders fail to “outgrow” these difficulties grades (Ehren, 2009, 2013). or catch up with their typically developing Children with SLI may come to the task of peers. The idea of “catching up” is consis- learning to read with a broad range of spo- tent with “illusory recovery,” described by ken language deficits. Some of these deficits Scarborough and Dobrich (1990) as a time include those related to gaps in language period when the students with early language content, form, or use; difficulties with met- disorders seem to catch up with their typi- alinguistic awareness; and problems organiz- cally developing peers. This is a time when ing and analyzing information effectively and they undergo a “spurt” in language learning efficiently (Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, that includes developing conversational skills 2001; Catts & Kamhi, 1999; Olivier, Hecker, and basic syntactic ability (Scarborough, Klucken, & Westby, 2000). Children with a 2001). What follows the spurt, however, is a history of SLI are at risk for reading disabilities postspurt plateau. This developmental reality because of the interactions among impaired points to the importance of considering early spoken language skills and the increas- underlying deficits that may be masked by ing linguistic demands required by the written early oral language development and the texts they encounter (e.g., Leland, Ociepka, & consequence of failure to evaluate a child’s Kuonen, 2012; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012; language abilities in all modalities, including Snowling, Bishop, & Stothard, 2000). preliteracy, literacy, and metalinguistic Ehren, Hatch, and Ukrainetz (2012) noted skills. Similar to some children with SLI, that literacy in the later elementary years children with SLD may not show academic involves more than a “read-to-learn” transi- or language-related learning difficulties until tion; rather, middle schoolers and adolescents linguistic and cognitive demands of the task must continue to “learn to read” higher level increase and exceed their limited abilities texts. Although some students with SLI de- (Wong, Graham, Hoskyn, & Berman, 2008). velop adequate decoding and word recog- As this account suggests, the path from nition skills as part of foundational literacy, preschool and early language learning to

classroom and curricular expectations and re- condition (among other concepts); and multi- quirements is filled with several unexpected clause sentences. turns and detours. Failure to account for the Following these themes, Nippold (2007) language correlates of reading, writing, and discussed the importance of using literate academic success may mean missing the un- language forms as students move along the derlying core of students’ difficulties. continuum from oral and contextualized language to literate and decontextualized language. Typically developing peers with strong LANGUAGE AS THE EMBEDDED foundations in language continue to expand CURRICULUM OF SCHOOL: ROADMAPS their vocabulary, increase their sophisticated FOR PRACTITIONERS use and understanding of complex sentence structures, begin to enjoy nonliteral meaning Halliday (2004) referred to language skills as of the text, and extend their background the embedded curriculum of learning, noting information through general instruction and that “language . . . is learning how to mean” independent reading. In contrast, students (p. 12; also see Olivier et al., 2000). McKeown, with language learning and academic difficul- Beck, and Blake (2009) addressed the impor- ties struggle with school texts (e.g., Nippold tance of macrostructural knowledge (i.e., the & Scott, 2009). Helping students to appre- organization of content-area texts) and its im- ciate the relationships signaled by “between pact upon comprehension, especially when words” connectors (i.e., connecting words a topic is new or unfamiliar to a reader (see within sentences) and “beyond words” con- Wallach, Charlton, & Bartholomew, 2014, for nectors (i.e., words that connect ideas across a summary of this research). sentence boundaries), to facilitate reading comprehension and production (often in Problems when language abilities do not written form), is critical for school success equal expectations of text regardless of students’ diagnostic labels (Scott Studies of children with SLD and SLI & Balthazar, 2010; Venable, 2003). According have demonstrated similar effects of complex to Nippold (2007), some of the later linguis- texts. Cawthon, Kay, Lockhart, and Beretvas tic forms that students must comprehend (2012) observed the impact of language upon include advanced adverbial conjuncts (e.g., learning in their study of students with a di- moreover, in contrast), adverbs of likelihood agnosis of SLD. They noted that the linguistic and magnitude (e.g., possibly, extremely), complexity of both reading and mathematics technical terms related to curricular content testing items interfered with students’ abil- (e.g., bacteria, protein), metalinguistic and ity to demonstrate knowledge. For example, metacognitive verbs (e.g., imply, hypothesis), sentences with multiple relative clauses and words with multiple meanings (e.g., strike, passive voice structures, along with subject- short), and words with multiple grammatical specific vocabulary, created significant bar- functions (e.g., hard, sweet). riers for their students with academic prob- The cumulative deficits that students with lems. Scott and Balthazar (2010) identified LLD experience may be explained by a vari- similar challenges in comprehending and pro- ety of underlying issues; for example, insuf- ducing what they called “the grammar of in- ficient ability to derive the meaning of new formation” in their sample of children with words through phonological and morpholog- SLI. This grammar of content-area subjects ical analyses, immature grammatical knowl- includes comprehending and using complex edge and skill, weak background knowledge, syntactic and lexical units that take the form and limited metacognitive skill make reading of informationally dense sentences with mul- higher level text a daunting one (Catts, 2009; tiple nouns, verbs, and adjectives; adverbial Ehren, 2009; Ehren et al., 2012; Faggella-Luby conjunctions that represent time, place, and et al., 2012; Olivier et al., 2000; Shanahan

& Shanahan, 2012; Wallach, 2008; Wallach, higher levels of both spoken and written diffi- Charlton, & Christie, 2010). culties as students with LLD advance through Because the academic curriculum is the grades (Scarborough, 2005, 2009). Many transmitted through language, understand- of the ongoing changes in language disorders ing content-specific language is critical to across time are also reflected in problems with learning. Venable (2003) recommended that writing. clinicians take a closer look at readability that may have an impact upon word recognition and reading comprehension. She highlighted Problems with written expression some “trouble spots” that many students Writing is especially challenging for many might encounter when reading complex students with LLD because of linguistic skills texts, including unfamiliar vocabulary, espe- involved in the process and the necessary cially words with unfamiliar roots and affixes; integration of content, form, and use of lengthy and complex sentence structures language (Hall-Mills & Apel, 2012; Suddarth with multilayered subordination within one et al., 2012). In addition, writing involves sentence; sentences containing ellipsis, found metacognitive and cognitive processes such when relative clauses include unexpressed as executive function/self-regulation (Singer words; pronoun reference and noun substitu- & Bashir, 1999, 2004, 2012; Westby, 2014; tion; and sentences with figurative language Wong, 1997). Because it takes years for typ- (metaphors, idioms, etc.). ically developing students to master writing Fang and colleagues (Fang, 2006, 2008, skills, a longer learning process may be ex- 2012; Fang, Schleppegrell, & Moore, 2014) pected and necessary to improve the writing also suggested clinicians review the “embed- skills of students with LLD. A variety of writing ded curriculum” that may impose grammatical tasks, including the writing of narrative, ex- challenges for students across content areas pository, persuasive, argumentative, and de- of language arts, science, history, and mathe- scriptive essays, are required in middle and matics. Patkin (2011) examined the interplay high school; thus, it is important for us to of language and mathematics and supported understand the changing demands across the the importance of helping students with aca- continuum of academic writing requirements demic problems understand double-meaning (Nippold, 2007; Paul & Norbury, 2012; Scott, words detached from everyday use (e.g., 2011; Wong, 1997). power, base, table). Many researchers and Writing is viewed as an aspect of language practitioners advocate creating a balance competence that is reflected in academic per- between the teaching of domain-specific lit- formance (Perfetti & McCutchen, 1987). It is eracy strategies (e.g., how to read science vs. the primary way that students demonstrate how to read history) and more foundational knowledge in school (Graham & Harris, 2004) or generalized literacy skills (Ehren et al., and improve their reading skills (Graham & 2012; Faggella-Luby et al., 2012; Wallach et Herbert, 2010). Writing also helps students al., 2014). As noted by Ehren et al. (2012), gain employment and communicate widely there is a difference between learning literacy (Dockrell, 2014). It is one of the most com- in a discipline and learning literacy of the dis- plex aspects of language and a significant fac- cipline. These are challenges for all students, tor in academic success and the acquisition but even more for children with SLI and SLD. of knowledge in school-age years (Singer & Clearly, the spoken-to-written and written- Bashir, 2012). Science, for example, is a disci- to-spoken relationship along the path to pline that is particularly informed by precise school success is an ever-changing one. Many writing (Fang, 2012). of the early language problems of children Making explicit the connection between with SLI are apparent as reading and writing LLD and writing problems, Dockrell (2014) difficulties in the early grades; they evolve to commented,

Difficulties in the production of written text have ically developing peers. Similarly, Hall-Mills been reported both for students with continuing and Apel (2012) found that low levels of language difficulties and those with . . . [seem- syntactic complexity and higher level gram- ingly] . . . resolved language problems, leading to matical errors were indicated to a greater the hypothesis that written language can be con- extent in expository text than in narrative ceptualized as a window into residual language writings. Looking further down the contin- problems. (p. 511; emphasis added; also see Bishop uum, however, they found that limited or & Clarkson, 2003; Fey, Catts, Proctor-Williams, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2004; Lewis, O’Donnell, Free- less sophisticated text structure knowledge bairn, & Taylor, 1998) persisted in both genres in adolescents with SLI. More errors in spelling, punctuation, lexi- As suggested earlier, linguistic and learn- cal choices, subject–verb agreement, and use ing difficulties often resurface because writ- of advanced sentence structures are aspects ing requires the integration of multiple lin- of micro-level issues reported in the writings guistic and cognitive processes (Bashir & of students with ongoing language disorders. Singer, 2006; Graham, Harris, & Larsen, 2001). Suddarth et al. (2012) further evaluated writ- Looking back to early language experiences, ing in adults with a history of SLI. Their study preschoolers with language disorders often revealed that significantly more errors (e.g., lack the level of experiences with writing that a combination of spelling, word-choice, verb children with typical language abilities have, tense, punctuation, and other errors) were and they continue to lag behind in the “self- produced in the written narratives of adults talk” and planning that is needed to be an with a history of SLI than that in the writ- effective writer of one’s language (e.g., Singer ten narratives of adults with typical language & Bashir, 2012; Snowling & Hayiou-Thomas, development. 2006). Dockrell (2014) provided school-based and While examining narrative and expository other professionals with cautionary advice text across spoken and written systems, Scott that speaks to the themes of this article. and Windsor (2000) found that children with She noted that there are significant overlaps SLI performed more poorly in writing, es- among various diagnostic categories used to pecially in expository discourse, than their describe children and adolescents with writ- peers. Other researchers have shown that ing difficulties (also see Dockrell, Lindsay, & school-age children with language disorders Connelly, 2009). In addition, Dockrell (2014) have greater macro-level difficulty writing and observed that labels provide “insufficient in- organizing narrative and expository texts and formation to guide intervention” (p. 513). greater micro-level difficulty forming complex She added that difficulties in capturing differ- sentences (Mackie, Dockrell, & Lindsay, 2013; ences, for example, between those children Puranik, Lombardino, & Altmann, 2007). Chil- identified as having SLI and those identified dren and adolescents with LLD need explicit as having learning disability may involve “ar- instruction and scaffolds to use executive bitrary cutoffs used to identify learning dis- functions (e.g., “Plan what you want to write abilities” and heterogeneity within and be- with self-talk, use your graphic organizer, tween groups (p. 513). Not surprisingly, stu- and re-read what’s written”) to facilitate their dents identified as having learning disability writing of connected text (Singer & Bashir, experience many difficulties that are similar 2012). to those reported in students with SLI. These Koutsoftas and Gray (2012) also found that include more spelling and punctuation errors, students with SLI produced poorer lexical shorter compositions, poor word selections, diversity and sentence complexity, produc- and difficulties with coherence and organiza- tivity, and spelling accuracy in both narra- tion of text as a whole (Graham et al., 2001; tive and expository writing than their typ- Li & Hamel, 2003; Monroe & Troia, 2006).

To be a proficient writer, students must plan, (Bashir & Scavuzzo, 1992). Speech–language translate, and review their work—skills that pathologists must be aware of the language are interactive with the writer’s knowledge of underpinnings of school tasks (Ehren, 2009, the topic, audience, and writing plans (Flower 2013) and the nature and timing of “illusion- & Hayes, 1984; Graham et al., 2001; Singer & ary recoveries.” Bashir, 2012). Students with SLI and learning Third, definitions of literacy have broad- disability frequently use a retrieve-and-write ened to include many types of literacy, such approach (i.e., write down relevant informa- as foundational literacy (e.g., basic decod- tion they want to say about the topic) with a ing and comprehension), content-area liter- lack of planning and revising skills (Monroe acy (e.g., predicting, inferencing, managing & Troia, 2006; Singer & Bashir, 2012; Wong, expository text), and discipline-specific liter- 1997). All of these findings point to many sim- acy (e.g., paying attention to the different lan- ilarities and few if any differences among the guage requirements of subjects). These dif- heterogeneous group of children with LLD, ferent layers of literacy represent the lin- whether they are first identified with a label guistic demands all children face in curricu- of SLI or SLD. lar learning. Intervention goals and targeted language learning strategies should change CONCLUSION accordingly to guide effective and relevant intervention. We summarize the following three key In conclusion, we propose that the major- points related to the theses that we have de- ity of learning disabilities are language dis- veloped within this article. These can serve as orders that have changed over time. SLD is guides to decision making and communicat- not a “new” and distinct condition that ar- ing with parents and others about the needs rives when children enter school, as we told of children with SLI and SLD. Tim’s mother in the scenario that opened this First, children’s diagnostic labels may discussion. In addition, we offer the follow- change from language disorders to learning ing questions: Does the term learning dis- disabilities when they come to school and ex- ability adequately capture the ongoing verbal- perience academic difficulties, but their lin- linguistic needs of our students? Do current as- guistic needs continue and are a common fea- sessment and intervention approaches reflect ture of both SLI and SLD. The majority of chil- the ongoing language-based learning difficul- dren newly identified as having SLD have ex- ties of our students who have academic chal- isting language/literacy needs that may have lenges? Are there better ways for professionals been unidentified previously and that should across disciplines and service delivery sites to be addressed. Identifying the language corre- collaborate to address the needs of these chil- lates of academic tasks is critical (regardless dren and adolescents with LLD, regardless of of students’ diagnostic labels) and may help their individual labels? These are questions, clinicians to create more relevant and func- among others, that readers are asked to con- tional interventions that are curriculum-based sider. We hope that they will stimulate re- and literacy-focused. newed efforts on the part of researchers to in- Second, early language disorders are vestigate relationships of language and learn- chronic and tend to follow children through ing disorders and renewed efforts on the part time, manifesting themselves differently of clinicians to support better communication based upon an individual’s inherent abilities, with parents, students, and other profession- language-learning contexts, and learning tasks als with shared caseloads and concerns.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic guage impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). and Hearing Research, 51, 1569–1579. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. Catts, H., Compton, D., Tomblin, B., & Bridges, M. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1993). (2012). Prevalence and nature of late-emerging poor Definitions of communication disorders and varia- readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, tions [Relevant paper]. Retrieved from http://www. 166–181. asha.org/policy Catts, H. W., Fey, M., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1998). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Operationalizing the NJCLD definition of learning Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific disabilities for ongoing assessment in schools [Rel- Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361. evant paper]. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/ Catts, H. W., Fey, M., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001). policy Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) kindergarten children: A research-based model and Committee on Language Learning Disabilities. (1982). its clinical implementation. Language, Speech, and The role of the speech-language pathologist in learn- Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38–50. ing disabilities. ASHA, 24, 937–944. Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1999). Defining reading Bashir, A. S., Kuban, K. C., Kleinman, S., & Scavuzzo, A. disabilities. In H. W. Catts, & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), Lan- (1984). Issues in language disorders: Considerations guage and reading disabilities (pp. 50–72). Boston, of cause, maintenance and change. ASHA Reports, 12, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 92–106. Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (2005). Language and read- Bashir, A. S., & Scavuzzo, A. (1992). Children with lan- ing disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. guage disorders: Natural history of academic success. Cawthon, S., Kaye, A., Lockhart, L., & Beretvas, N. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 53–65. (2012). Effects of linguistic complexity and accommo- Bashir, A., & Singer, B. (2006). Assisting students in be- dations on estimates of ability for students with learn- coming self-regulated writers. In T. A. Ukrainetz (Ed.), ing disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 50, Contextualized language intervention: Scaffolding 293–316. preK-12 literacy achievement (pp. 565–598). Eau Christensen, C. A. (1992). Discrepancy definitions of read- Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. ing disability: Has the quest lead us astray? A response Bishop, D. (2003). Specific language impairment: Diag- to Stanovich. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 276– nostic dilemmas. In L. Verhoeven, & H. van Balkom 278. (Eds.), Classification of developmental language dis- Dockrell, J. (2014). Developmental variations in the pro- orders: Theoretical issues and clinical implications duction of written text: Challenges for students who (pp. 309–326). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. struggle with writing. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, Bishop, D. (2009). Specific language impairment as a lan- B. J. Ehren, & G. P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language learning disability. Child Language Teaching guage and literacy: Development and disorders (2nd and Therapy, 25, 163–165. ed., pp. 505–523). New York: Guilford Press. Bishop, D., & Clarkson, B. (2003). Written language as a Dockrell, J., Lindsay, G., & Connelly, V. (2009). The im- window into residual language deficits: A study of chil- pact of specific language impairment on adolescents’ dren with persistent and residual speech and language written text. Exceptional Children, 75, 427–446. impairments. Cortex, 39, 215–237. Ehren, B. J. (2009). Looking through an adolescent lit- Bishop, D., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental eracylensatthenarrowviewofreading.Language, dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 192– different. Psychology Bulletin, 130, 858–888. 195. Butler, K. G., & Wallach, G. P. (Issue Eds.). (1980). Lan- Ehren, B. J. (2013, November 1). Helping older students guage disorders and learning disabilities. Topics in meet Common Core Standards: Important work for Language Disorders, 1, 1–114. (entire issue). SLPs. Seminar presented at the Norco-Corona School Catts, H. W. (2009). The narrow view of reading pro- District, Norco, CA. motes a broad view of comprehension. Language, Ehren, B. J., Hatch, P., & Ukrainetz, T. (2012, Novem- Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 178– ber). SLPs: At the core of the Common Core State 183. Standards (CCSS). Seminar presented at the American Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., Hogan, T. P., & Elllis Weismer, S. Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention, At- (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia lanta, GA. distinct disorders? Journal of Speech, Language, and Ehren, B. J., Murza, K. A., & Malani, M. (2012). Disci- Hearing Research, 48, 1378–1396. plinary literacy from a speech–language pathologist’s Catts, H., Bridges, M., Little, T., & Tomblin, B. (2008). perspective. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), Reading achievement growth in children with lan- 85–98.

Eisenberg, S. L. (2013). Grammar intervention: Content disabilities: A pilot study. Communication Disorders and production for facilitating children’s language de- Quarterly, 34,1–9. velopment. Topics in Language Disorders, 33, 165– IDEA. (2004). Reauthorization of the individuals with 178. disabilities education act: Guidance with respect to Faggella-Luby, M. N., Sampson Graner, P., Deshler, D. state and federal regulations implementing the In- D., & Valentino Drew, S. (2012). Building a house dividuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004. on sand: Why disciplinary literacy is not sufficient Retrieved from www.ncld.org/disability-advocacy/ to replace general strategies for adolescent learners learn-ld-laws/idea/what-is-idea who struggle. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), Justice, L. M. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response 69–84. to intervention, and the prevention of reading diffi- Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading culties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in in middle school. International Journal of Science Schools, 37, 284–297. Education, 28, 491–520. Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2002). Use of storybook Fang, Z. (2008). Going beyond the Fab Five: Help- reading to increase print awareness in at-risk children. ing students cope with the unique linguistic chal- American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, lenges of expository reading in intermediate grades. 11, 17–29. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, Keenan, J. (2014). The assessment of reading comprehen- 476–487. sion.InC.A.Stone,E.R.Silliman,B.J.Ehren,&G.P Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary liter- Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: acy. Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 19–34. Development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. 469–484). Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Moore, J. (2014). The New York: Guilford Press. linguistic challenges of learning across academic dis- Koutsoftas, A., & Gray, S. (2012). Comparison of narrative ciplines. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, and expository writing in students with and without & G. P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and language learning disabilities. Language, Speech, and literacy: Development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 395–409. 302–322). New York: Guilford Press. Lahey, M. (1980, May). Learning disabilities: A puzzle Fey, M., Catts, H., Proctor-Williams, K., Tomblin, B., & without a cover picture? Paper presented at the sym- Zhang, X. (2004). Oral and written story composi- posium on Language, Learning, and Reading Disabil- tion skills of children with language impairment. Jour- ities: A New Decade, City University of New York, nal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, New York. 1301–1318. Lahey, M. (1990). Who shall be called “language disor- Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. dered”? Some reflections and one perspective. Jour- (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to nal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 612–620. intervention. New York: Guilford Press. Leland, C., Ociepka, A., & Kuonen, K. (2012). Reading Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1984). Images, plans, and prose: from different interpretative stances: In search of a The representation of meaning in writing. Written critical perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Communication, 1, 120–160. Literacy, 55, 428–437. Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2004). Writing instruction. In Leonard, L. B. (1991). Specific language impairment as B. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities aclinicalcategory.Language, Speech, and Hearing (3rd ed., pp. 281–313). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Services in Schools, 22, 66–68. Graham, S., Harris, K., & Larsen, L. (2001). Prevention and Lewis, B., O’Donnell, B., Freebairn, L., & Taylor, H. intervention of writing difficulties for students with (1998). Spoken language and written expression— learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research Interplay of delays. American Journal of Speech- & Practice, 16, 74–84. Language Pathology, 7, 77–84. Graham, S., & Herbert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Li, H., & Hamel, C. (2003). Writing issues with college stu- Evidence for how writing can improve reading (a dents with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the lit- Carnegie Corporation Time to Act report). Washing- erature from 1990 to 2000. Learning Disability Quar- ton, DC: Alliance of Exceptional Education. Retrieved terly, 26, 29–46. from http://www.all4ed.org/files/writingtoread.pdf Mackie, C. J., Dockrell, J. E., & Lindsay, G. (2013). An eval- Grizzle, K., & Simms, M. (2009). Language and learn- uation of the written texts of children with SLI: The ing: A discussion of typical and disordered develop- contributions of oral language, reading and phonolog- ment. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent ical short-term memory. Reading and Writing, 26(6), Health Care, 39, 168–189. 865–888. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science: Vol- McArthur, G., Hogben, J., Edwards, V., Heath, S., & Men- ume 5 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. gler, E. (2000). On the “specifics” of specific reading London: Continuum. disability and specific language impairment. Journal Hall-Mills, S., & Apel, K. (2012). Narrative and expos- of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Dis- itory writing of adolescents with language learning ciplines, 41, 869–874.

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. I., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Re- ical awareness and some other promising predictors. thinking reading comprehension instruction: A com- InB.K.Shapiro,P.J.Accardo,&A.J.Capute(Eds.), parison of instruction for strategies and content ap- Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum proaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 218–253. (pp. 75–119). Baltimore: York Press. Monroe, B., & Troia, G. (2006). Teaching writing strate- Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1990). Development gies to middle school students with disabilities. The of children with early language delays. Journal of Journal of Educational Research, 100, 21–33. Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 70–83. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. Scott, C. (2011). Assessment of language and literacy: (1990). Definition of learning disabilities. Retrieved A process of hypothesis testing for individual differ- from http://www.ldonline.org/about/partnerships/ ences. Topics in Language Disorders, 31, 24–39. njcld/archives Scott, C., & Balthazar, C. (2010). The grammar of infor- Nation, K., Clarke, P., Marshall, C., & Durand, M. (2004). mation: Challenges for older students with language Hidden language impairments in children: Parallels be- impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 30(4), tween poor reading comprehension and specific lan- 288–307. guage impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Scott, C., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language per- Hearing Research, 47, 199–211. formance measures in spoken and written narratives Nippold, M. (2007). Later language development: and expository discourse of school-age children with School-age children, adolescents, and young adults. language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Lan- Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Inc. guage and Hearing Research, 43, 324–339. Nippold, M. A., & Scott, C. (Eds.). (2009). Expository dis- Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary course in children, adolescents, and adults: Develop- literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language ment and disorders. New York: Taylor & Francis. Disorders, 32, 7–18. Olivier, C., Hecker, L., Klucken, J., & Westby, C. (2000). Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (1999). What are executive Language: The embedded curriculum in postsec- functions and self-regulation and what do they have ondary education. Topics in Language Disorders, 21, to do with language learning disorders? Language, 15–29. Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 265– Patkin, D. (2011). The interplay of language and mathe- 273. matics. Pythagoras, 32,1–7. Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (2004). EmPOWER: A strategy Paul, R., & Norbury, C. (2012). Language disorders from for teaching students with language learning disabili- infancy through adolescents: Listening, speaking, ties how to write expository text. In E. R. Silliman, & L. reading, writing, and communicating (4th ed.). St. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Language and literacy learning Louis, MO: Mosby/Elsevier. in schools (pp. 239–272). New York: Guilford Press. Perfetti, C., & McCutchen, D. (1987). Schooled language Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (2012, November). Self- competence: Linguistic abilities in reading and writ- talk: Its role in intervention and strategy learning. ing. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psy- Seminar presented at the American Speech-Language- cholinguistics, reading, writing and language learn- Hearing Association Conference, Atlanta, GA. ing (Vol. 2, pp. 105–141). New York: Cambridge Uni- Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D., & Stothard, S. (2000). versity Press. Is preschool language impairment a risk factor for Poe, M., Burchinal, M., & Roberts, J. (2004). Early lan- dyslexia in adolescence? Journal of Child Psychology guage and the development of children’s reading and Psychiatry, 41, 587–600. skills. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 315–332. Snowling, M. J., & Hayiou-Thomas, M. E. (2006). The Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L. J., & Altmann, L. J. (2007). dyslexia spectrum: Continuities between reading, Writing through retellings: An exploratory study of speech, and language impairments. Topics in Lan- language impaired and dyslexia populations. Reading guage Disorders, 26, 110–126. and Writing, 20, 251–272. Stark, J., & Wallach, G. P. (1980). The path to a concept Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language of language learning disabilities. Topics in Language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, Disorders, 1, 1–14. theory, and practice. In S. Neuman, & D. Dickinson Stothard, S., Snowling, M., Bishop, D., Chipchase, B., & (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97– Kaplan, C. (1998). Language-impaired preschoolers: A 110). New York: Guilford Press. follow-up into adolescence. Journal of Speech, Lan- Scarborough, H. S. (2005). Developmental relationships guage, and Hearing Research, 41, 407–418. between language and reading: Reconciling a beauti- Suddarth, R., Plante, E., & Vance, R. (2012). Written nar- ful hypotheses with some ugly facts. In H. W. Catts, rative characteristics in adults with language impair- & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between lan- ment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Re- guage and reading disabilities (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, search, 55, 409–420. NJ: Erlbaum. Tomblin, B., Zhang, X., Buckwalter, P., & O’Brien, M. Scarborough, H. S. (2009). Connecting early language (2003). The stability of primary language disorder: and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Phonolog- Four years after kindergarten diagnosis. Journal of

Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1283– of language and literacy: Development & disorders 1296. (2nd ed., pp. 485–501). New York: Guilford Press. Troia, G. A. (2014). Phonological processing deficits and Wallach, G. P., Charlton, S. J., & Christie, J. (2010). What literacy learning: Current evidence and future direc- do you mean by that? Constructive beginnings when tions. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P. working with adolescents with language learning dis- Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: abilities (LLD). Perspectives in Language Learning, Development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. 227–245). and Education, 17, 77–84. New York: Guilford Press. Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Duthie, J. K. (2012, March). Ex- Venable, G. (2003). Confronting complex text: Readabil- pository discourse intervention for adolescents with ity lessons from students with language learning dis- language disorders. Perspectives on Language Learn- abilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 225–240. ing and Education, 20, 44–56. Wallach, G. (2005). A conceptual framework in Westby, C. E. (2014). A language perspective on exec- language learning disabilities: School-age language utive functioning, metacognition, and self-regulation disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, in reading. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, 292–301. & G. P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and Wallach, G. P. (2008). Language intervention for school- literacy: Development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. age students: Setting goals for academic success. St. 339–358). New York: Guilford Press. Louis, MO: Mosby/Elsevier. Wong, B. (1997). Research on genre-specific strategies for Wallach, G. P., & Butler, K. G. (1994). Creating com- enhancing writing in adolescents with learning disabil- munication, literacy, and academic success. In G. P. ities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(2), 140–159. Wallach, & K. G. Butler (Eds.), Language learning Wong, B., Graham, L., Hoskyn, M., & Berman, J. (Eds.). disabilities in school-age children and adolescents: (2008). The ABCs of learning disabilities. Burlington, Some principles and applications (pp. 2–26). Boston, MA: Elsevier Academic Press. MA: Allyn & Bacon. Young, A., Beitchman, J., Johnson, C., Douglas, L., Atkin- Wallach, G. P., Charlton, S., & Bartholomew, J. C. (2014). son, L., Escobar, M., et al. (2002). Young adult aca- The spoken-written comprehension connection: Con- demic outcomes in a longitudinal sample of early iden- structive intervention strategies. In C. A. Stone, E. R. tified language impaired and control children. Journal Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 635–645.