In order to study education and development, researchers can choose among a plethora of methods. The Merriam-Webster dictionary tells us that “method” means: a procedure or process for attaining an object …such as …a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art “ or “a way, technique, or process of or for doing something”, or “a body of skills or techniques”. Methods proper to the scientific study of education and development cover a very broad range of procedures, ranging from how to formulate and ask questions, how to design studies for answering such questions, how to perform such studies in real-world contexts, how to extract data and how to process them, how to relate processed data to answers on questions, how to communicate such questions and answers, and how to apply them to real world activities aimed at promoting education and development. This body of methods is customarily termed “methodology”, which is a concept that includes the methods themselves but also our understanding of their relationships and their rational and scientific justification. Let us call this body of methods and the justifications “Integrative methodology”. Researchers often tend to see this integrative methodology as a more or less autonomous set of good practice prescriptions. This view is consistent with practices of academic training in which methodology courses are offered separate from courses on disciplinarian contents, e.g. courses on development or educational science. As a consequence of this autonomy oriented view of methodology, scientific questions regarding development and education tend to be framed in terms of the available or habitual methods. For instance, we readily transform or translate concrete questions about the influence of some particular educational intervention in terms of a statistically significant difference between 2 representative samples that systematically differ in only one variable or feature of interest, which, in this case, is the intervention. Almost every word in this translation carries the heavy burden of methodological principles, concepts and presuppositions: “statistically”, “significant”, “difference”, “representative”, “sample”, “systematically”, “variable”, and “intervention”. And all these principles, concepts and presuppositions are taken from this autonomous body of integrative methodology, which forms our indisputable cookbook of good practices, outside of which no good — scientific — practices exist. The answers to questions that are shaped by this independent body of methodology will then contribute to existing theories of development and education. In this sense, it is the (allegedly) independent methodology that informs theory.In this chapter, we will move against this current practice and make the — apparently deeply obvious — claim that it must be theory that informs the questions and the way we shall answer these questions. That is, it must be theory – that is, your body of justified knowledge about a particular phenomenon – that informs, influences and determines methodology, that is, the whole of methods, procedures and instruments that you use to study that phenomenon. . The sort of theory that should inform integrative methodology must be an integrative theory, that is to say a theory consisting of a consistent set of general principles and concepts shaping the domains of inquiry, which in this particular case are the related domains of development and education
Purpose: This case study is presented to inform the reader of potential speech, language, cognitive, and emotional characteristics in preadolescent cluttering. Method: This case study describes a 10-year-old boy who started to clutter during preadolescence. The case illustrates that, in some adolescents, cluttering can co-occur with temporary stuttering-like behavior. In this case, signs of disturbances in speech-language production associated with behavioral impulsiveness as a young child were noted. Speech, language, cognitive, and emotional results of the case are reported in detail. Results: The changes in fluency development are reported and discussed within the context of changes in the adolescent brain as well as adolescent cognitive and emotional development. While being unaware of their speech condition before adolescence, during preadolescence, the changes in brain organization lead to an increase in rate and a decrease in speech control. Given that the client had limited understanding of what was occurring, they were at risk of developing negative communication attitudes. Speech-language therapists are strongly advised to monitor children with cluttering signals in the early years of their adolescence.
The expressive vocabulary of children with Down Syndrome (DS) is generally measured with parental reports, such as the Communicative Development Inventory (CDI), given that standardized tests for assessing vocabulary levels may be too difficult for most young children with DS. The CDI provides important insight into the parents’ perception of their child’s vocabulary development. The CDI has proven to be a valid measurement of expressive vocabulary, spoken and gestural, in typical and atypical populations. The validity in children with DS is not well established and signed vocabulary is often not included. This longitudinal study examined the concurrent and predictive validity of the Dutch version of the CDI (N-CDI) in children with DS between 2;0 and 7;6 years old to assess spoken and signed vocabulary. N-CDI scores were assessed on strength of association with mental age,an expressive vocabulary test and spontaneous language analyses in a play setting with parents at T1 and T2 (1.5 years later), and a therapy setting with speech language pathologists at T1. The results of the present study show that the N-CDI is a valuable and valid measurement of expressive vocabulary in children with DS. Strengths and weaknesses of several assessment methods for expressive vocabulary are discussed.
