The effectiveness of classroom vocabulary intervention for adolescents with language disorder

Purpose Phonological-semantic intervention has been shown to be effective in enhancing the vocabulary skills of children with language disorder in small-group or individual settings. Less is known about vocabulary interventions for adolescents with language disorder in whole-class models of delivery. The current study investigated the effectiveness of phonological-semantic vocabulary intervention for adolescents with language disorder, delivered by secondary school teachers within science lessons. Methods Seventy-eight adolescents with language disorder, aged 11 – 13 years, were taught science curriculum words by teachers in class, under two conditions: 1) 10 words taught through usual teaching practice; and 2) 10 matched words taught using an experimental intervention known as Word Discovery, which embedded phonological-semantic activities into the teaching of the syllabus. Ten similar control words received no intervention. Word knowledge was assessed pre-intervention, post-intervention, and follow-up. Results At pre-intervention, measures of depth of word knowledge and expressive word use did not differ between usual teaching practice and experimental words. At post-intervention, depth of knowledge of experimental words was significantly greater than that of usual teaching practice words. This significant advantage was not maintained at follow-up, although depth of knowledge for experimental words remained significantly higher at follow-up than at preintervention. At post-intervention, expressive use of experimental words was significantly greater than that of usual teaching practice words, and this significant difference was maintained at follow-up. There was no change in students’ depth of knowledge or expressive use of no-intervention words over time, confirming that the findings were not due to maturity or practice effects. Conclusion The experimental intervention was more effective than usual teaching practice in increasing the word knowledge of participants. Clinical and teaching implications include the importance of intervening during the adolescent years, with classroom vocabulary intervention being a viable option for collaborative teacher and speech and language therapy/pathology practice

European Union Competition Law, Intellectual Property Law and Standardization

This paper provides an overview of the efforts of the European Commission to identify and, when necessary, challenge anticompetitive behaviour with respect to standardization and the licensing of standardized technologies, as well as the case-law of the CJEU on the same subject. The paper starts by discussing the 1992 Communication on Intellectual Property Rights and Standardization, which was the first important contribution of the Commission on the complex interface between standardization, intellectual property and competition law. It then analyses the first major investigations that the Commission made into the licensing conduct of SEP holders, i.e. the proceedings against Rambus and Qualcomm. Next, it discusses the 2010 Commission Guidelines on horizontal cooperation agreements, which contain a chapter dedicated to the application of EU competition rules to standardization agreements. The paper then examines how the Commission has dealt with mergers involving firms holding large SEP portfolios, such as its Google/MMI and Microsoft/Nokia decisions respectively adopted in 2012 and 2013. The paper also analyses the Commission decisions of 2014 against Motorola and Samsung regarding the use of injunctions by SEP holders to enforce their patents against standard implementers. It also analyses the Huawei v. ZTE judgment adopted by the CJEU in 2015, in which the CJEU was asked to determine the circumstances in which SEP holders could seek injunctions against standard implementers without breaching Article 102 TFEU. The paper then discusses several forms of licensing or litigation conduct, which can be problematic under EU competition law, but which have not yet been dealt with by the EU courts or the Commission. Finally, the paper concludes