Language for Thinking

[lougle]

Poltergoose very kindly sent me LfT and I have been reading through it.

I have a question:

The assessment pages have shaded boxes in the different Language levels (ABC) next to various questions.

Are those shaded boxes indicating that the particular question is not scored for that level? Or that it is? Or something completely different?

There is no reference anywhere that I can see, to the significance of the shadings.

dd2 will not, not, not, repeat exercises. She will only do new ones. I am going to have to think about how to structure these.

We did the icecream one today and she actually did quite well. Her answers were very limited in scope, but logical and fairly clear.

She didn't seem to grasp the concept of the vendor running out of strawberry icecream. She said 'she could wait until they make some more.'

dd2 discounted strawberry info and went directly for 'can I have an ice cream?'

re the running out dd2 also said. 'wait til they get some more'

Ah Lougle, as a behaviourist, I can't accept 'quite well' because it doesn't mean anything.
It's the kind of thing SEN types say in meetings to fob people off.

What was her score? How many times has she done it? Has score gone up or down?

Handy, if she won't repeat, you won't have any way of knowing whether she has taken in and retained any of your therapeutic input. Would suggest you think of a way to ensure she does repeat.

scored 12/18, first time of doing it. Up on first score of the first scenario by one, but down on the repeated first scenario. I think my ' quite well' was Mitte towards the way she answered the questions. She was much calmer and more confident with answering, despite the actual score not being much higher.

mitte?? more

Yay I my book arrived today, cant wait to get started.

Not sure where the 'I' came from!

Thanks, moondog, I realise repeating scenarios is pretty Just a question of how

Pretty crucial even(!)

I'll let you off in that case Lougle as harder to quantify that.
If it was a teacher though, I would urge them to think of how that could be measured-fewer episodes of turning away or attempts to derail the discussion maybe. Helpful to think like this as it stops one from sliding off into murky area of value judgements and stick instead to the facts.

Hope you work something out Handy and that you get on ok Claw.

Ooh yes, I see your point. I think I could do that. We had fewer silly movements and eye rolls and dramatic sighs, so they could definitely be counted if I was videoing each session consistently.

DD2 wasn't hugely enthused tonight but she was engaged, there was NO falling back on the sofa or any other such variations, which is a huge improvement. She also had a go at answering all the questions I asked

She also thought she had lost the LfT book and her response was 'oh no, its the best way for me to learn english, what can I do now' which was heartwarming (so long as we ignore her response when I suggested the solution might be looking for the book )

dd2 has been off sch this week (following her ear op). And reminded me of how her language level dips when she is not, erm, using it quite as much. Some e.g.s:
(on the slide): mum, can you help me for some reason?
(telling me her next teacher is the current Y4 teacher) the one who teaches year four, at now
(about stones found in the park): I found them automatically

Nobody can explain why this happens.

Hope she's recovering, handy.

DD2 had to tell her teacher that she had made a mistake in choosing her peers for next year (she did this last year too - beforehand she knows who she wants to write down, but at the last minute she writes down the nearest people she can see).

She walked into the classroom and said 'I putted the wrong names down!' Her teacher was doing the 'desperately trying to catch up with the conversation' thing and I had to step in and explain.

It's so DD2. She's thinking about something, so everyone else must know what we're talking about...

hope your dd is feeling better Handywoman.

I've sometimes felt that if DD2 spends too much time 'thinking in her own head' as opposed to actually having a diologue where communication is required her language use gets more random. Almost like she knows what she's talking about so there no need to use language in a way that anybody else can follow, and then these random constructions sort of 'stick' so we get apparent language regressions when she hasn't been engaged in enough dialogue.

It feels a bit like she needs constant reinforcment/feedback to promote the 'standard' language patterns above her own constructions.....

Mind you that is very DD, she does have a tendency to opperate along the lines of 'that may be how you do it but I'm going to do it MY way' leading to many errm interesting moments, like the discussion about why is was important not to cycle in the road with your eyes closed........

Oh vikinglights you don't know how brilliant it is to hear the same thing happens elsewhere!!!!

So relate to those 'interesting moments' too. As you say it's not a true regression. It is just the need to have language in use to keep it structurally in check.

In true dd2 style she managed this response (we managed to re-visit the spilled paint scenario. After the oft-repeated question 'how can you tell he feels X?' dd2 replied 'because of the expression on his face'. Erm.... top marks anyone? She sure can surprise, that dd2!

She is recovering well thanks peeps although has been pretty prone to anxiety and going back to school will be interesting

glad she's recovering well

hope the return to school is as smooth as possible

'DS, what colour did you make your wings for the school play?'

(I need to get a marching t-shirt)

DS: 'Lots of colours. One is red, one is blue, one is purple, one is red, one is silver......'

Me: 'How many wings do you have?'

DS: '2' (concrete answer to concrete question).

Me: 'Oh, so what colour are they?'

DS: 'One is green, one is gold, one is pink, one is......

Me: 'You've got 2 wings!?'

DS 'I already TOLD you!'

Eventually stupid me worked out that he is saying what COLOURS he had painted his 2 wings. One COLOUR is pink, another colour is green.........

Star

I am in a quandary. There are times when DD2's answer is very unconventional and misses what I think is the intention of the question, but her answer is logically correct. What score does that get?

2 examples:

Q: How did Ahmed knock over the paint?
A: "I don't know, because you didn't tell me."

Logically, I can't fault this. It doesn't actually tell you in the scenario. I'm sure the intention is for the child to say something plausible ie. "He might have been looking around instead of concentrating and knocked it with his arm.", but she is actually right. So, does it get a 3 or a 0?

Q: "What other things could you do in an art lesson?"
A: "You can accidentally knock the water over."

Well, yes you could. The question is clearly intended to encourage the child to talk about the types of 'art' they could use in a lesson (paint, clay, etc.) but you absolutely could knock over a pot of water.

That's the trouble. She is logical. It is just a bit...vulcan

Q: "What could be in the box?"
A: "A rosette."

Wellll...yes. In fact it could be anything that is small enough to fit in the box. It's unlikely to be a rosette, but I can't say it's not.

Bless her.

I would mark it down tbh, because whilst she is correct logically, she isn't socially.

Logic is fine but only if the social circumstances say that it is iyswim.

You're marking her understanding of what you are asking her, and that includes the unsaid stuff just as much as the said stuff.

At least, that is how I judge it because I think the unsaid stuff needs to be learnt too, so it needs to be marked as a gap to fill.

btw, DS is currently playing minecraft. Now I haven't got a clue what the game is about but I know you are supposed to dig for minerals and avoid being eaten by zombies.

But what is ds doing?

He's putting signs up by all the trees, labelling them, like they do in Kew gardens apparently.

I never knew he was paying attention to anything in Kew gardens except the promised ice cream at the end.

He's a smart cookie!

I know I've said it before, but I just can't understand how DD2 can grasp the difference between a homophone and a homonym, identify them in everyday speech as she talks, yet can't describe something as simple as gardening club.

Nice to hear how everyone is getting on.
Lougle, I'd go over more socially acceptable responses as part of the 'debrief'. You acknowledge her logic and plausibility but point out that most people would think about x,y or z.
I'd be marking answers like that as a 2. Ultimately the 'mark' is less important than you making a written or mental note of what she says that is quirky, helping her to render it less quirky and then reassessing to see if she has taken that on board.

Homophones/homonyms are concrete things.
Higher level language issues aren't.
That's the difference.

Thanks moondog. So I need to be more explicit with her, instead of thinking 'what a bizarre thing to say.' That is very helpful.

I do that, a bit. I need to be more systematic and make sure that I am encouraging her, not crushing her.

On another note, people, DH is starting to reflect on his own behaviour! DD2 didn't respond at all when I told her that she had done x and it was upsetting. When I challenged her on it she said 'ok'. I said 'DD2, we normally say sorry.' She said 'sorry' and carried on doing what she was doing. DH was frustrated, then the penny dropped. Finally, he has seen why after 11 years of marriage I still get frustrated when he just gives a perfunctory 'sorry' if he hurts me

He has also realised that he relies on concrete definitions as DD2 does. When he was 21, he spent a good couple of weeks on crutches that a friend gave him. DD1 broke her ankle last week and I said 'she said she heard a crack.' We were talking about his injury and he suddenly said 'that's why I didn't go to hospital. I didn't hear a crack...' I said 'What??' and he told me that he had been told that if you break your ankle you hear a crack. He hadn't heard one, so he didn't go to hospital, even though he still couldn't weight bear after 2 weeks!

Language for Thinking is helping him to reflect on his areas of difficulty as I discuss DD2 with him, probably because they are so similar. I have tried so many times to discuss him with him and got nowhere. It's like DD2 is his 'video evidence'.