This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University] On: 14 May 2013, At: 02:18 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20 Language and Memory Development in Children with Down Syndrome at Mainstream Schools and Special Schools: A comparison Glynis Laws a , Angela Byrne b & Sue Buckley b a Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, UK b Sarah Duffen Centre, Southsea, UK Published online: 01 Jul 2010. To cite this article: Glynis Laws , Angela Byrne & Sue Buckley (2000): Language and Memory Development in Children with Down Syndrome at Mainstream Schools and Special Schools: A comparison, Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 20:4, 447-457 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713663758 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University]On: 14 May 2013, At: 02:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Psychology:An International Journal ofExperimental EducationalPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20
Language and MemoryDevelopment in Childrenwith Down Syndrome atMainstream Schools andSpecial Schools: A comparisonGlynis Laws a , Angela Byrne b & Sue Buckley ba Department of Psychology, University of Surrey,UKb Sarah Duffen Centre, Southsea, UKPublished online: 01 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Glynis Laws , Angela Byrne & Sue Buckley (2000): Language andMemory Development in Children with Down Syndrome at Mainstream Schools andSpecial Schools: A comparison, Educational Psychology: An International Journal ofExperimental Educational Psychology, 20:4, 447-457
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713663758
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs ordamages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
18 1
4 M
ay 2
013
Educational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2000
Language and Memory Development inChildren with Down Syndrome at MainstreamSchools and Special Schools: a comparison
GLYNIS LAWS, Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, UK
ANGELA BYRNE & SUE BUCKLEY, Sarah Duffen Centre, Southsea, UK
ABSTRACT Increasingly, children with Down syndrome are receiving their education in
mainstream schools but little research has investigated whether these placements may in¯ uence
language and memory development. The present study compared 22 children with Down
syndrome in mainstream school placements matched for chronological age with 22 children
attending special schools in a different LEA where mainstream placements were rare. The
children were assessed to obtain measures of the following language and memory abilities:
receptive vocabulary; grammar comprehension; sentence repetition; digit span; face recognition;
and memory for hand movements. Children in mainstream placements achieved signi® cantly
higher scores for vocabulary, grammar and digit span measures, but not for non-language-
based memory measures. More importantly, even after controlling for age and receptive
vocabulary, grammar understanding and digit spans were signi® cantly greater for the main-
stream children.
Introduction
The green paper, `Excellence for all Children. Meeting Special Educational Needs’(DfE, 1997), is the latest government report to support a policy of educating childrenwith learning disabilities alongside their peers in mainstream school. This has beenpolicy since the 1981 Education Act (DES, 1981), following the Warnock Report(1978), but its implementation has been slow and patchy. Cunningham et al. (1998)have reviewed studies reporting the numbers of children with Down syndrome indifferent school placements over the past 35 years. Although these show a shift towardsmainstream schooling, there remains wide variation in placement policies across Eng-land and Wales. Cuckle (1997) collated and analysed data on the placements of over3,000 children with Down syndrome in England and Wales born between 1980 and
ISSN 0144-3410 print; ISSN 1469-5820 online/00/040447-11 Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/01443410020016671
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
18 1
4 M
ay 2
013
448 G. Laws et al.
1992. Whereas 57% or more of 10± 11 year olds were in mainstream schools in someareas, in others the percentage was 9% or less.
The move toward mainstream schooling has been largely supported by social andhumanitarian arguments (Byrne et al., 1989; Falvey, 1995; Gottlieb & Leyser, 1981;Guralnick, 1984; Jenkinson, 1993). However, there may also be educational advantagesfor children in mainstream placements. More emphasis may be placed on the academiccurriculum than in special schools where the emphasis may be on developing the socialskills necessary for adult life. In particular, more time may be devoted to literacy andnumeracy instruction in mainstream classes. These settings also provide a richerlanguage environment in which to develop communication skills (Guralnick, 1984).However, mainstream schools may not provide the individualised language teachingthat children in special schools enjoy, nor such regular access to specialist professionalssuch as speech and language therapists. For children who have speech or languagedif® culties, such as those with Down syndrome, the support offered in special schoolmay be important for language development.
Language and memory impairment are core features of Down syndrome. Acquisitionof language is delayed, and in some children this delay may be severe (Evans &Hampson, 1968; Fowler, 1995; Lenneberg, 1967). Fowler’s (1990) research suggeststhe majority of children eventually achieve no more than the levels of languageproduction expected in an average child under three years. A typical pro® le of languageabilities has been identi® ed with particular strengths in social and communicativeaspects of language and in receptive vocabulary, and relative weaknesses in phonologi-cal development, syntactic comprehension and, more particularly, production of gram-matical structures (Chapman, 1995; Fowler, 1990).
Substantial research evidence indicates that individuals with Down syndrome alsohave speci® c impairment in auditory short-term memory (Hulme & Mackenzie, 1992;Fowler et al., 1995; Jarrold & Baddeley, 1997; Kay-Raining Bird & Chapman, 1994;Varnhagen et al., 1987; Vicari et al., 1995; Wang & Bellugi, 1994). In normaldevelopment this function is strongly related to language development (Gathercole &Baddeley, 1993). Although there has been little research to investigate the relationshipbetween language impairment and memory in Down syndrome, there is some evidencefor a link between phonological memory and language comprehension (Fowler et al.,1995; Laws, 1998).
While biology undoubtedly constrains the development of language and memory, itis important to identify environmental factors which may in¯ uence the course ofdevelopment. Although some attention has been paid to academic attainment (e.g.Sloper et al., 1990), very little research has addressed the effects that school placementmay have on language development in children with Down syndrome. Given thedif® culties of weighing up the advantages of greater exposure to normal language inmainstream school versus individualised language teaching in special school, it isessential to investigate whether school placement has an impact on language develop-ment.
Undertaking controlled study of the effect of different school systems on develop-ment poses obvious dif® culties; random allocation to school is simply not a possibility.However, such study has been feasible when placements have been predominantlydetermined by LEA policy. Casey et al. (1988) compared children with Down syn-drome in MLD schools with those in mainstream schooling where placements de-pended on policies rather than children’s abilities. Over the two years of the study, thechildren in mainstream schools made signi® cantly greater gains in Stanford± Binet
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
18 1
4 M
ay 2
013
Language and Memory in Down Syndrome Children 449
mental age scores, language comprehension and numeracy, but the placements did notaffect expressive language, verbal ¯ uency or drawing ability. Sloper et al. (1990) founda strong relationship between type of school attended and academic attainments inreading, number and writing skills. Beadman (1997) reported similar advantages formainstream children in Devon. Such skills depend on instruction and so will re¯ ect thecurriculum offered. It is less clear whether school placement has an effect on develop-mental growth. Fewell and Oelwein (1990), in the United States, examined therelationship between time spent in integrated school settings and developmental gainsacross six domains for a large group of children with Down syndrome. The only effectof schooling was on the expressive language of the children with Down syndrome wherethe children who were in special school were signi® cantly more advanced. Fewell andOelwein (1990) attributed this effect to the lower teacher-to-student ratio in specialschools which allowed more direct language input to each child. Beadman (1997) alsonoted small classes, as well as speech therapy input and teaching social skills, to accountfor the more con® dent speech she observed in children in special schools.
In the analysis reported here, the different approaches to school placement adoptedby two counties in the south of England have allowed us to compare language andmemory development for children in different school settings. One county supportedspecial school placements; about 80 children in the age range studied were at specialschools compared with just ® ve children in mainstream schools. In the other county, ithad been policy for some time for parents to choose mainstream placements for theirchildren and increasing numbers of children with Down syndrome were attendingordinary schools. The majority of younger children were mainstreamed. The determi-nants of placement decisions in this county would necessarily be more complex thanthose in a county where mainstream placements were so exceptional. However, there isno evidence to suggest that ability at the outset was the main criterion in selectingmainstream placements. On the contrary, some longitudinal data we have for a smallsample of children in this county (including ® ve of the participants in the present study)show that there were no signi® cant differences between children in special or main-stream schools in terms of non-verbal cognitive ability, vocabulary or language compre-hension, or memory span, at the beginning of a 4.5-year study when the children werenear the start of their school careers (Laws et al., 1995).
The analysis reported in the current study focused on developmental language andmemory measures, although some information was obtained on reading attainment. Noinformation on parents’ SES or education was recorded, but there is no reason tosuppose any great difference in the social composition of the two groups. Also, someevidence suggests such factors may not in¯ uence language development in Downsyndrome (Chapman et al., 1991).
Method
Participants
The study included 44 children with Down syndrome. Twenty-two of the childrenattended mainstream schools in a county in southern England. Their ages ranged from7 years 3 months to 14 years 8 months (mean 5 10 years 2 months); 13 boys and 9girls. The children were involved in a longitudinal study of reading development of 24children (Byrne, 1997); two children were not available for the additional assessmentsreported in the current study. The mainstream children were matched with a group of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
18 1
4 M
ay 2
013
450 G. Laws et al.
22 children attending schools for severe learning dif® culties in another county. Theirages ranged from 7 years 6 months to 14 years 10 months (mean 5 10 years 8 months);7 boys and 15 girls. These children were a subset of 33 children recruited for a memorytraining study (Laws et al., 1996). The matching was achieved by excluding all thosechildren in special school who were either younger than or older than the children inthe mainstream group. On examination, most of the children were also reasonably wellage-matched on an individual basis. However, ® ve pairs of children could not bematched so satisfactorily since the special schoolchild in each pair was somewhat older.This was accounted for in the analyses.
Measures
Vocabulary Comprehension. The short form of the British Picture Vocabulary Scale(BPVS; Dunn & Dunn, 1982) was used as a measure of receptive vocabulary. This testrequires the child to point to the correct picture from a choice of four in response towords spoken by the examiner.
Grammar Comprehension. The Test for the Reception of Grammar (Bishop, 1983) wasused to assess language comprehension. The child is asked to choose the correct pictureto match a phrase or sentence spoken by the examiner. Sentences increase in grammat-ical complexity as the test proceeds. Items are grouped into blocks of four, and all fouritems must be correctly answered for a point to be scored. Testing ceased when fourconsecutive blocks had been failed.
Sentence Repetition. A total of 16 sentences, increasing in length and grammaticalcomplexity, were presented for imitation. A point was scored for each word correctlyrepeated. Research suggests that performance on this task is related to auditoryshort-term memory and to grammar comprehension and expressive language ability inindividuals with Down syndrome (Marcell et al., 1995).
Memory. A number of memory tests were use to sample performance in differentstimulus and response modalities.
Auditory Digit Span. This was recorded as the longest sequence of digits recalled usingthe number sequences and procedure described in the Kaufman Assessment Battery forChildren (K-ABC; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983).
Visual Digit Span. Cards were printed with the sequences of digits used in the auditorytest. Presentation of the stimuli involved showing the printed card and each digit waspointed to in sequence at the same time as speaking its name. The cards were thencovered and the child asked to repeat the sequence.
Hand Movements. This is a subtest of the K-ABC and tests memory and recall for asequence of hand shapes. The test provides a visual stimulus and requires a manualresponse.
Face Recognition. This is also a subtest from the K-ABC. The child is shown a targetface or faces and is asked to identify the person from memory in a group photograph.
Reading. The mainstream children were assessed using the British Ability Scales: BasicReading (word decoding) scale (Elliott et al., 1978). The children at special schools
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
18 1
4 M
ay 2
013
Language and Memory in Down Syndrome Children 451
TABLE I. Means (and SD) and age equivalent (AE) scores for principal measures forchildren at each type of school
were assessed using the K-ABC Decoding subscale. Children were classi® ed as readersor non-readers on the basis of whether they had identi® ed words in the reading testoffered.
Procedure
All the measures listed were used to assess the special schoolchildren before thememory training study mentioned earlier. The BPVS, TROG and reading measureswere collected from the mainstream schoolchildren as part of the procedure for thelongitudinal study of reading development in which they were taking part. Thesechildren were revisited within one to four weeks of these assessments and were giventhe additional memory measures reported here.
Results
A t-test established that there was no signi® cant difference in the mean chronologicalages (CA) of the two groups. Although there were more boys in the mainstream groupthan in the special school group, there were no signi® cant differences in the meanscores recorded for boys and girls. Table I shows the means, standard deviations andage equivalents (AE) where appropriate for scores on each of the measures used.
The children in mainstream school achieved higher mean scores on all measures.These differences were signi® cant in the case of BPVS scores (t 5 2 3.89; df 5 42;p , 0.0001), TROG scores (t 5 2 4.47; df 5 42; p , 0.0001), auditory digit span(t 5 2 2.88; df 5 42; p 5 0.006), visual digit span (t 5 2 5.27; df 5 42; p 5 , 0.0001),and sentence repetition (t 5 2 2.91; df 5 42; p 5 0.006). Difference is in face recogni-tion abilities closely approached signi® cance (t 5 2 2.00; df 5 42; p 5 0.052), but therewas no signi® cant difference between the groups’ performance on the hand movementstask.
BPVS scores are often accepted as an indicator of mental development [although thismeasure probably overestimates mental age in Down syndrome (Chapman, 1997)],and would be expected to be related to the other measures used. Partial correlations,controlling for chronological age, showed that BPVS scores were signi® cantly related tolanguage measures (TROG: r 5 0.647; p , 0.0001; sentence repetition: r 5 0.418;p 5 0.005) and to visual digit span (r 5 0.502; p 5 0.0001) but not so closely related to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
18 1
4 M
ay 2
013
452 G. Laws et al.
TABLE II. Means (and SD) and age equivalent (AE) scores for principal measures forchildren at each type of school in each age group
(a) Younger children (10 years 4 months or less) (N 5 22)
auditory digit span (r 5 0.268; p 5 0.08). Thus, some of the language and memorydifferences observed between the samples could be accounted for by the different levelsof receptive vocabulary in the two groups of children.
To take account of this, further analyses of the differences in means between thegroups was undertaken using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in which CA and BPVSscores were treated as co-variates and their effects removed. The ANOVA analysesshowed signi® cant main effects for school attended for TROG scores (F 5 12.367;df 5 1, 40; p 5 0.001), auditory digit span (F 5 5.983; df 5 1, 40; p 5 0.019), and visualdigit span (F 5 24.920; df 5 1, 40; p , 0.0001). Thus, even after taking age andreceptive vocabulary into account, the mainstream children were more advanced interms of language comprehension and short-term memory. The effect of schoolattended on sentence repetition approached signi® cance (F 5 3.810; df 5 1, 40;p 5 0.058), but there was no effect of school on hand movements and face recognition.The same results were obtained when these analyses were repeated after exclusion ofthe less well-matched pairs of children (TROG: F 5 8.1; df 5 1, 30; p 5 0.008; auditorydigit span: F 5 4.59; df 5 1, 30; p 5 0.04; visual digit span: F 5 26.713; df 5 1, 30;p , 0.0001; sentence repetition: F 5 7.033; df 5 1, 30; p 5 0.004).
In order to examine whether these differences applied throughout the age range, thesample was divided to give an older group and a younger group of children (124months or less). Table II shows the means, standard deviations and age equivalents forthe mainstream and special school groups in each age category.
The effects of school attended on vocabulary comprehension were investigated
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
18 1
4 M
ay 2
013
Language and Memory in Down Syndrome Children 453
separately for each age group using ANOVA with CA held as a co-variate. Vocabularycomprehension was signi® cantly more advanced in the mainstream group for both theyounger and the older children (younger: F 5 13.88; df 5 1, 19; p 5 0.001; older:F 5 5.72; df 5 1, 19; p 5 0.03). Further analyses holding CA and BPVS scores asco-variates showed that grammar comprehension was also signi® cantly better in main-stream children in both age groups (younger: F 5 6.79; df 5 1,18; p 5 0.018; older:F 5 4.89; df 5 1,18; p 5 0.04). Auditory digit span did not differ signi® cantly, but visualdigit span was signi® cantly higher for the mainstream children; again this applied toboth age groups (younger: F 5 14.94; df 5 1, 18; p , 0.001; older: F 5 11.84; df 5 1,18;p 5 0.003). Sentence repetition scores approached signi® cance for the younger childrenbut were not signi® cantly higher for the mainstream children in the older age group. Asbefore, there were no signi® cant differences for the hand movements or face recognitiontasks.
The classi® cation of children as readers or non-readers resulted in all but two of themainstream children being placed in the reading group and all but three of the specialschoolchildren being classi® ed as non-readers. This confound meant it was not possibleto examine the relationship between reading and language development independentlyof school placement.
Discussion
The analyses presented here suggest that mainstream education of children with Downsyndrome may be related to better language and memory development. Children whosemainstream school placements were predominantly determined by LEA policy havesigni® cantly higher levels of language and memory development than their peers inspecial schools in an area where mainstream schooling was not an available option. Thiseffect appears to be speci® c to language measures. The hand movements and facerecognition tasks were not related to placement suggesting that the non-verbal abilitiesof the children did not differ. This also suggests that the language results are unlikelyto be attributable to extraneous effects such as differences in the children’ s con® denceunder test conditions. This pattern of results is similar to that reported by Laws et al.
(1995) where language and memory measures for a group of readers with Downsyndrome signi® cantly diverged from those of non-readers over four-and-a-half years ofstudy, although both readers and non-readers made the same gains on a test ofnon-verbal ability (Raven, 1963).
The effect of school placement on vocabulary development is considerable with adifference equivalent to about one-and-a-half years’ development between the samplesoverall. When the younger children were considered separately, the children at main-stream school were ahead by an average of two-and-a-half years. For the older children,the difference was less marked, but although the mean age of the older special schoolgroup was a good deal higher than that of the mainstream older children, there was stilla signi® cant advantage for mainstream. It is also worth noting that the average BPVSscore was exactly the same for younger and older mainstream children. Some researchhas suggested that a plateau of language growth may be reached in middle childhood(Fowler, 1988, 1990; Fowler et al., 1994). Although this hypothesis has lately beenquestioned (Chapman, 1997), these results lend some support to this hypothesis.
The difference in the children’s grammar comprehension was particularly interestinggiven that this is a speci® c de® cit for the syndrome. Some differences in grammarwould be expected on the basis of the vocabulary differences. Perhaps the strongest
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
18 1
4 M
ay 2
013
454 G. Laws et al.
indication of a difference in language competence and memory performance betweenthe two groups of children comes from the fact that, even when BPVS scores werecontrolled, the analysis revealed signi® cant advantages for the mainstream children.
For younger children, the difference in grammar comprehension was quite dramaticbut, as with vocabulary scores, there is less difference between the older children, withmainstream children an average of 9 months in advance of those at special school. Thisnevertheless indicates a signi® cant gain in functional terms, particularly bearing in mindthe age advantage for the special schoolchildren in the older group. As with the resultsfor receptive vocabulary, these results also suggest that the language development of theolder children in mainstream school may be slowing.
Research on normal development shows a strong relationship between digit span andreceptive vocabulary (e.g. Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993), although this is generally lessmarked in studies of Down syndrome (Hulme & Mackenzie, 1992; Jarrold & Baddeley,1997; Laws, 1998). The relationship is explained in terms of digit span re¯ ecting anunderlying processing capacity essential for learning new words. For children withDown syndrome, de® cits in short-term memory are probably an important factor inlanguage impairment. It is, therefore, interesting to observe that there was a signi® cantdifference in digit span between the school groups over and above the differences inreceptive vocabulary. The lack of a signi® cant correlation between the two measuresmay well be due to problems of reliability and validity of digit span as a measure withthis group (Laws, 1998).
Although no direct measure of expressive language ability was available, the sentencerepetition task has been related to expressive language abilities in children with Downsyndrome (Marcell et al., 1995). Unlike Fewell and Oelwein’ s (1990) study, andBeadman’ s (1997) report, which found that expressive language was better for childrenin special settings, the mainstream children in our study had superior sentence rep-etition scores suggesting that their other language experiences are more than compen-sation for the individualised language teaching they miss from not being in specialschool.
In summary, the analyses presented here suggest that school placement may playsome part in language and memory development in children with Down syndrome; inparticular, language comprehension is advanced over and above any differences inBPVS scores. For researchers interested in the language or memory developmentpotential of individuals with Down syndrome, or the variability within this population,these results indicate that school placement should be taken into account in theirresearch. For parents and professionals interested in the education of the children,these results provide some con® dence in the policy of mainstreaming. However, thereremains a need for well-designed longitudinal research to ® nd out more about how thisdevelopmental effect is produced. If it is due to curriculum differences, which aspectsof the curriculum are important? Buckley and Bird (1993) speculate that readinginstruction will lead to language gains but the evidence for this is equivocal. In the studyby Laws et al. (1995) there was a strong suggestion that reading in¯ uenced languagecomprehension and memory measures. However, Byrne (1997) found good readers inthe current study mainstream sample to have no better language and memory abilitiesthan the poor readers. Clearly, further investigation of the links between language,memory and literacy would be useful.
Other aspects of the curriculum, or the exposure to a normal language environmentin the classroom and in the playground, may also in¯ uence development. Dew-Hughesand Blandford (1999) makes a number of observations in comparing mainstream and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
18 1
4 M
ay 2
013
Language and Memory in Down Syndrome Children 455
special schools in Oxfordshire. The classroom day was over two hours longer inmainstream classes because less time was required for the movement and physical careof the children. More time was spent working in pairs or co-operative groups withtypically developing classmates. Teachers used more sophisticated language in lessons,and also had higher expectations of the children’s behaviour and learning abilities.These factors could all contribute to successful language learning. It is important thatfuture research not only investigates whether development is in¯ uenced by schoolplacement, but also establishes the mechanism for any such in¯ uence.
Acknowledgements
Data collection was funded by the University of Portsmouth. Data from the specialschoolchildren were part of the data obtained for a study of memory training under-taken by the ® rst author and funded by an HEFCE grant to Dr John MacDonald andProf. Sue Buckley. The author would like to acknowledge thanks to Dr Angela Byrnefor the use of BPVS and TROG measures collected in the course of her Ph.D.
The authors would like to thank all the children and schools who took part in theresearch for which this data were collected. Acknowledgement is also made to JoannaNye for her assistance with data collection from both groups of children, and to Prof.Martyn Barrett for commenting on an earlier draft.
Correspondence: Dr. Glynis Laws, Department of Experimental Psychology, Universityof Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 34D. Tel: 01865 271 334; Fax: 01865 281255.
REFERENCES
BEADMAN, J. (1997) An Evaluation of Educational Placement for Children with Down’s Syndrome in the
South Devon Area (Totnes, Devon County Council).BISHOP, D.V.M. (1983) Test for the Reception of Grammar (TROG). (Manchester, Department of
Psychology, University of Manchester and Chapel Press).BUCKLEY, S. & BIRD, G. (1993) Teaching children with Down’ s syndrome to read, Down’s Syndrome:
Research and Practice, 1, pp. 34± 41.BYRNE, A. (1997) The Development of Reading Skills in Children with Down Syndrome, Ph.D. thesis,
University of Portsmouth.BYRNE, E.A., CUNNINGHAM, C.C. & SLOPER, P. (1989) Families and their Children with Down’ s
Syndrome: one feature in common (London, Routledge).CASEY, W., JONES, D., KUGLER, B. & WATKINS, B. (1988) Integration of Down’s syndrome children in
the primary school: a longitudinal study of cognitive development and academic attainments, British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, pp. 279± 286.CHAPMAN, R.S. (1997) Language development in children and adolescents with Down syndrome,
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 3, pp. 307± 312.CHAPMAN, R.S. (1995) Language development in children and adolescents with Down syndrome, in:
P. FLETCHER & B. MACWHINNEY (Eds) Handbook of Child Language (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers).CHAPMAN, R.S., SCHWARTZ, S.E. & KAY-RAINING BIRD, E. (1991) Language skills of children and
adolescents with Down syndrome: I. Comprehension, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, pp.1106± 1120.
CUCKLE, P. (1997) The school placement of pupils with Down’ s syndrome in England and Wales,British Journal of Special Education, 24, pp. 175± 179.
CUNNINGHAM, C.C., GLENN, S., LORENZ, S., CUCKLE, P. & SHEPPERDSON, B. (1998) Trends andoutcomes in educational placements for children with Down syndrome, European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 13, pp. 225± 237.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
18 1
4 M
ay 2
013
456 G. Laws et al.
DEW-HUGHES, D. & BLANDFORD, S. (1999) The social development of children with severe learningdif® culties, Down Syndrome: Research and Practice (in press).
DFE. (1997) Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Education Needs (London, HMSO).DES. (1981) The Education Act 1981 (London, HMSO).DUNN, L.M. & DUNN, L.M.L. (1982) British Picture Vocabulary Scale (short form) (Windsor, NFER-
Nelson).ELLIOTT, C.D., MURRAY, D.J. & PEARSON, L.S. (1978) British Ability Scales (Windsor, NFER Nelson).EVANS, D. & HAMPSON, M. (1968) The language of mongols, British Journal of Disorders of Communi-
cation, 3, pp. 171± 181.FALVEY, M. (1995) Inclusion of students with disabilities in public schools and classrooms with their
non-disabled peers, in: L. NADEL & D. ROSENTHAL (Eds) Down Syndrome: living and learning in the
community (New York, Wiley).FEWELL, R.R. & OELWEIN, P.L. (1990) The relationship between time in integrated environments and
developmental gains in young children with special needs, Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,10, pp. 104± 116.
FOWLER, A.E. (1988) Determinants of rate of language growth in children with Down syndrome, in:L. NADEL (Ed.) The Psychobiology of Down Syndrome (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press).
FOWLER, A.E. (1990) Language abilities in children with Down syndrome: evidence for a speci® csyntactic delay, in: D. CICCHETTI & M. BEEGHLY (Eds) Children with Down Syndrome: a developmental
perspective (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).FOWLER, A.E. (1995) Linguistic variability in persons with Down syndrome, in: L. NADEL & D.
ROSENTHAL (Eds) Down Syndrome: living and learning in the community (New York, Wiley-Liss).FOWLER, A.E., DOHERTY, B.J. & BOYNTON, L. (1995) The basis of reading skill in young adults with
Down syndrome, in: L. NADEL & D. ROSENTHAL (Eds) Down Syndrome: living and learning in the
community (New York, Wiley-Liss).FOWLER, A.E., GELMAN, R. & GLEITMAN, L. (1994) The course of language learning in children with
Down syndrome: longitudinal and language level comparisons with young normally developingchildren, in: H. TAGER-FLUSBERG (Ed.) Constraints on Language Acquisition: studies of atypical children
(Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlsbaum).GATHERCOLE, S.E. & BADDELEY, A.D. (1993) Working Memory and Language (Hove, Lawrence
Erlbaum).GOTTLIEB, J. & LEYSER, Y. (1981) Friendships between mentally retarded and non-retarded children,
in: S.R. ASHER & J.M. GOTTMAN (Eds) The Development of Children’ s Friendships (New York,Cambridge University Press).
GURALNICK M.J. (1984) The peer interactions of young developmentally delayed children in specialisedand integrated settings, in: T. FIELD, J.L. ROOPNARINE & M.S. SEGAL (Eds) Friendship in Normal and
Handicapped Children. (Norwood, Ablex).HULME, C. & MACKENZIE, S. (1992) Working Memory and Severe Learning Dif® culties (Hove, Lawrence
Erlbaum).JARROLD, C. & BADDELEY, A.D. (1997) Short-term memory for verbal and visuo-spatial information in
Down’ s syndrome, Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 2, pp. 101± 122.JENKINSON, J.C. (1993) Integration of students with severe and multiple learning dif® culties, European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 8, pp. 320± 335.KAUFMAN, A.S. & KAUFMAN, N.L. (1983) Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (Circle Pines, MN,
American Guidance Service).KAY-RAINING BIRD, E. & CHAPMAN, R.S. (1994) Sequential recall in individuals with Down syndrome,
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, pp. 1369± 1380.LAWS, G. (1998) The use of nonword repetition as a test of phonological memory in children with
Down syndrome, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, pp. 1119± 1130.LAWS, G., BUCKLEY, S., BIRD, G., MACDONALD, J. & BROADLEY, I. (1995) The effects of reading
instruction on language and memory development in children with Down’s syndrome, Down’ s
Syndrome: Research and Practice, 3, pp. 59± 64.LAWS, G., MACDONALD, J. & BUCKLEY, S. (1996) The effects of a short training in the use of a
rehearsal strategy on memory for words and pictures in children with Down syndrome, Down’ s
Syndrome: Research and Practice, 4, pp. 70± 78.LENNEBERG, E.H. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language (New York, Wiley).MARCELL, M.M., RIDGEWAY, M.M., SEWELL, D.H. & WHELAN, M.L. (1995) Sentence imitation by
adolescents and young adults with Down’s syndrome and other intellectual disabilities, Journal of
Intellectua l Disabilities Research, 39, pp. 215± 232.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
18 1
4 M
ay 2
013
Language and Memory in Down Syndrome Children 457
RAVEN, J.C. (1968) Coloured Progressive Matrices (London, H.K. Lewis).SLOPER, P., CUNNINGHAM, C., TURNER, S. & KNUSSEN, C. (1990) Factors relating to the academic
attainments of children with Down’ s syndrome, British Journal of Educationa l Psychology, 60, pp.284± 298.
VARNHAGEN, C.K., DAS, J.P. & VARNHAGEN, S. (1987) Auditory and visual memory span: cognitiveprocessing by TMR individuals with Down syndrome and other etiologies, American Journal on
Mental De® ciency, 91, pp. 398± 405.VICARI, S., CARLESIMO, A. & CALTAGIRONE, C. (1995) Short term memory in persons with intellectual
disabilities and Down’s syndrome, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 39, pp. 532± 537.WANG, P.P. & BELLUGI, U. (1994) Evidence from two genetic syndromes for a dissociation between
verbal and visual± spatial short-term memory, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 16,pp. 317± 322.
WARNOCK, M. (1978) Special Educationa l Needs: Report of the Warnock Committee of Enquiry into the
Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. (London, HMSO).
