본문 바로가기
  • Home

Analysis of Research Literatures on Milieu Language Intervention for Children with Intellectual Retardation: between 1992 and 2014

  • Journal of Special Education: Theory and Practice
  • Abbr : JSPED
  • 2014, 15(4), pp.507-533
  • Publisher : Research Institute of the Korea Special Education
  • Research Area : Social Science > Education

Song, Hie-seon 1 Youngchul Lee 1

1우석대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to make a analysis of research literatures 21 theses, dissertations and articles that offered milieu language intervention for children with intellectual retardation only in between 1992 and July of 2014. The findings of the study were as follows: First, the most common goal of the intervention was to improve communicative competency. Many of the studies provided the intervention primarily for preschoolers and elementary school students, which denoted that this intervention was applied much to preschoolers and elementary school students. The most dominant place for the intervention was schools, followed by welfare centers. As for the time for the intervention, the most common case was providing it separately without using the regular timetable, and the second most case was doing it during play. The third most case was using a time for a special purpose, and the fourth most case was using a time for eating between meals. Second, concerning instrumentation, the case that an intelligence test, adjustment test and language test were all conducted at the same time accounted for 52.4 percent. In the case of intelligence test, the case that KEDI-WISC and DAP(Draw-a-Person) were both utilized accounted for 19 percent. Regarding instruments for communication diagnosis, PEP(Psycho Educational Profile) accounted for 42.9 percent. Third, as for PND according to the age of language development, it produced a medium level of effect in the initial stage of intervention, but the effect wasn't statistically significant. Fourth, reinforced milieu language intervention was highly effective in the baseline and the intervention stage 1, but the effect was not statistically significant. The use of milieu language intervention was more prevailing than that of reinforced milieu language intervention.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.