Neuroscience and Inclusive Pedagogical Practices in Teaching History to Students with SLD

Cinthia Giarolo Marigonda; Mariana Domitila Padovani Martins

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602777

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) is a neurobiological condition that affects verbal comprehension and expression, impacting learning in school contexts that demand high linguistic processing, such as History in Middle School (Ensino Fundamental II). Given the scarcity of studies that articulate DLD, neuroscience, and specific pedagogical practices for this curricular component, this research investigated how teaching techniques based on neuroscientific evidence can favor the historical learning of students with DLD. For this purpose, a qualitative and applied approach was adopted, structured as a single case study. A literature review and semi-structured interviews were conducted with specialists in speech therapy, psychology, orthodontics, literacy, and school tutoring. The data were analyzed using the Content Analysis technique, allowing for the identification of patterns of linguistic difficulties, cognitive demands, and potentially effective support strategies. Preliminary results indicated that students with DLD demonstrate greater vulnerability in textual interpretation tasks, elaboration of discursive responses, and logical organization of historical information, benefiting from methodologies that employ visual resources, step segmentation, and explicit linguistic mediation. It is expected that the study will contribute to the development of inclusive pedagogical practices, expanding the teaching repertoire and strengthening the full participation of students with DLD in historical learning.

Keywords: History Teaching; Elementary School II; School Inclusion; Neuroscience; Language Development Disorder.

1. Introduction

Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) is a neurobiological condition characterized by persistent difficulties in understanding and/or expressing language, which cannot be explained by identifiable sensory, cognitive, or neurological deficits. Studies indicate that DLD affects approximately seven percent of school-aged children (Cáceres-Assenço et al., 2020), making it one of the most prevalent and, paradoxically, least recognized communication disorders in the educational environment.

Language is a central element in school learning, serving as the foundation for knowledge construction, social mediation, and the development of abstract thinking. Limitations in this sphere directly impact academic performance in different curriculum areas, especially in those that require greater verbal elaboration and discursive organization.

Despite its high prevalence, DLD remains little publicized within public policies, teacher training, and daily pedagogical practices. Children with early unidentified linguistic difficulties face higher risks of school failure, socio-emotional difficulties, and learning trajectories marked by frustration (Snow, 2009; 2020). In Brazil, guidance documents, such as the material from the DLD Brazil movement (2020), reinforce the need to broaden teacher understanding of the disorder and to develop support strategies that favor effective and equitable school participation.

In Elementary School II, linguistic demands become progressively more complex, especially in curricular components such as History. This discipline requires interpretation of extensive texts, document analysis, temporal understanding, image reading, and the elaboration of discursive responses. Such skills are intrinsically related to the capacity for linguistic comprehension, working memory, and logical organization of thought (Baddeley, 2012). Pedagogical practices aligned with neuroscientific evidence can favor learning by reducing cognitive load, offering linguistic scaffolding, and structuring environments more responsive to individual needs (Dehaene, 2012; Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2011).

In this scenario, understanding how students with SLD experience the learning process in History and what pedagogical adaptations can favor this journey constitutes a relevant and still underexplored field in national literature. Although there are significant studies on literacy, reading, and language development, few studies specifically address the implications of SLD in subjects of a conceptual and interpretive nature such as History. The articulation between neuroscience, inclusive education, and History teaching thus emerges as a promising field for the development of effective didactic practices. The present research, also motivated by the author’s experience as the mother of a child with SLD, seeks to bridge theory and practice by investigating how students with this disorder can be better supported in their historical learning process, reinforcing the social and educational relevance of the study.

Given this context, the objective of this work is to analyze, through a case study, the linguistic and socio-emotional barriers related to Developmental Language Disorder and to propose well-founded pedagogical strategies for teaching History in the 6th grade of Elementary School.

2. Material and Methods

This research was characterized by its applied nature and qualitative approach, structured as a single case study. The methodological objective was to articulate scientific evidence, pedagogical practices, and empirical data related to Developmental Language Disorder (DLD). The investigation focused on the in-depth analysis of a specific case, seeking to understand the linguistic and socio-emotional barriers present in the participant’s school trajectory and to support the proposition of inclusive pedagogical strategies based on scientific evidence.

A single case study method was adopted, taking as a reference the school trajectory of a child diagnosed with DLD, residing in the city of São Paulo. The case data were organized retrospectively from family follow-up of the trajectory, reported school experiences, and dialogue with professionals who accompanied the child. The analysis sought to recognize difficulties, progress, the child’s decisions, and mediation strategies related to language development and the schooling process.

The 6th grade of Elementary School, mentioned in the objective, was treated as an analytical projection of the demands foreseen for the participant’s future transition, and not as representative of all students with DLD. The proximity between the researcher and the participant allowed longitudinal access to episodes and transformations of the trajectory, which required reflective attention in the interpretation of the data. No systematic classroom observation protocol was carried out, nor were the History activities proposed in this study applied.

The research was conducted in three main stages. The first consisted of a comprehensive bibliographic survey, carried out in recognized scientific databases, such as CAPES/Periódicos, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Articles, books, and documents published primarily in the last ten years were consulted, addressing topics such as DLD, educational neuroscience, inclusive methodologies, phonological awareness, working memory, and History teaching.

This bibliographic survey allowed us to establish the theoretical framework of the investigation and identify gaps in the literature that justified the applied approach adopted. The selection of materials sought to support the understanding of the linguistic and cognitive difficulties associated with DLD, as well as the pedagogical strategies that can favor learning in school contexts.

In the second stage, semi-structured interviews were conducted with specialists from areas related to linguistic, cognitive, and pedagogical development. Five professionals working in the city of São Paulo participated: an orthodontist, a speech therapist, a literacy teacher, a school tutoring professional, and a therapist-psychologist. The interviews took place in the year 2025, as indicated in the appendices.

The selection of these professionals was justified by the relationship between their areas of expertise and dimensions essential to TDL, such as orofacial aspects involved in speech articulation, linguistic development and speech therapy intervention, reading and writing acquisition, complementary pedagogical strategies, and socio-emotional implications in learning. The interviews allowed for the identification of current practices and the understanding of clinical, therapeutic, and educational perspectives.

The third stage consisted of the analysis and integration of data from the bibliographic survey, the case study, and the interviews. For this, the content analysis technique proposed by Bardin (2016) was applied. The analysis phases included floating reading, coding, thematic categorization, and organization of meaning units.

This process allowed the information to be grouped into thematic axes, such as linguistic and cognitive difficulties, inclusive pedagogical strategies, and contributions of neuroscience to learning. The triangulation between theory, retrospective case reconstruction, and professional perspectives made it possible to formulate well-founded pedagogical strategies for the demands foreseen in the 6th grade of Elementary School, especially in the teaching of History.

Regarding ethical procedures, the research fully complied with the guidelines established by CNS Resolution No. 510/2016. The Ethical Direction Form (FDE) was completed, in accordance with institutional guidelines. The study was exempt from submission to the Research Ethics Committee (CEP) as it did not involve the collection of personally identifiable data nor imply risk to participants, using exclusively anonymous or aggregated information.

All the interviewed specialists formally authorized the use of the provided information, and the confidentiality of their identities was preserved, according to the Term of Consent and the Term of Commitment for Data Use. Thus, methodological integrity and compliance with the ethical principles of confidentiality, consent, and participant protection were ensured throughout the entire research process.

3. Results and Discussion

This section of Results and Discussion presents the research findings, articulating them with the objective of analyzing the linguistic and socio-emotional barriers related to Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) and proposing evidence-based pedagogical strategies for teaching History in the 6th grade of Elementary School. The data were obtained through a single case study, complemented by a literature review and semi-structured interviews with specialists, and analyzed using the Content Analysis technique, according to Bardin (2016). The results reveal the complexity of the learning trajectory of students with DLD and the importance of pedagogical interventions and multidisciplinary support.

The participant’s trajectory, a child diagnosed with DLD, revealed typical motor and feeding development in early childhood, with the emergence of the first words within the expected timeframe. However, between two and three and a half years old, a period marked by social interaction restrictions due to the pandemic, it was observed that, although the child formulated long sentences, speech intelligibility was compromised by the use of few phonemes and a difficult-to-understand sonority. The family frequently had to act as mediators, translating the child’s speech for other interlocutors.

With the return to socialization, communication difficulties became more evident, generating feelings of isolation and exclusion in the child, who began to speak less and play alone, manifesting suffering. The search for professional support led to an initial hypothesis of aphasia, later re-evaluated as insufficient. At three and a half years old, speech therapy began, followed, six months later, by psychotherapeutic therapy, focused on the anxieties arising from communicative difficulties. The formal diagnosis of DLD was established when the child turned five years old.

The speech-language pathology intervention played a crucial role in expanding the child’s phonetic repertoire and improving speech clarity. This evolution had a significant positive impact on her social interactions, allowing for the formation of friendships and more active participation, as the need for constant adult translation decreased. The dental follow-up, carried out in conjunction with speech-language pathology, addressed aspects such as tongue posture at rest, chewing, and lip seal, although in the participant’s specific case, orofacial factors were not the primary cause of the DLD, but contributed to comfort and speech production, as pointed out by the orthodontist (Appendix E).

From the beginning of the diagnostic hypothesis, a support network composed of school, family, and specialists was fundamental. The low visibility of DLD, highlighted by initiatives such as RADLD (2020) and TDL Brasil (2020), required a continuous effort of study and communication so that the child’s difficulties would not be erroneously interpreted as inattention, immaturity, or lack of knowledge. The literacy teacher, in particular, played a decisive role in observing the child’s writing, testing different supports, and maintaining constant dialogue with the speech therapist. The advances observed, therefore, cannot be attributed to a single technique, but to the continuity and articulation of these interventions.

Around the age of five, the child still presented noticeable phonetic exchanges, which led some colleagues to comments like “spoke like a baby”. Faced with these provocations, the child reacted with crying and isolation, using crying as a communicative resource, as they lacked the words to narrate what happened, name their feelings, and set boundaries. This reaction was not interpreted as individual fragility, but as a manifestation of the lack of linguistic resources to deal with the situation. The responsibility for intervention fell on the adults, who needed to protect them and expand their means of social positioning.

By welcoming episodes of crying and isolation, the teachers helped the child transform these reactions into language, encouraging her to verbalize what had happened, express discomfort, and set boundaries. Therapy, in turn, focused on identifying and naming feelings, and the family reinforced these forms of expression at home. Although the change was not immediate, between six and six and a half years old, the child gradually reduced her dependence on crying and isolation, communicating more assertively about her emotions. This process demonstrated learning built on interaction, where the clarity of language expanded her ability to act on situations and the experience of being heard increased her willingness to express herself.

The interviewed psychologist (Appendix A) describes that frustration, withdrawal, and avoidance are common behaviors in children with DLD when they cannot communicate their thoughts and needs. She recommends emotional validation, the use of functional phrases, and the presence of a trusted adult as support strategies. In the analyzed case, these supports did not eliminate conflicts, but modified the way the child responded, transforming crying from a mere behavioral problem into a starting point for the construction of emotional language and social autonomy.

The child’s literacy process began timidly, with few written words. However, the literacy teacher observed that the phonetic exchanges present in speech were not automatically reproduced in writing. The child wrote based on what they knew and what they discriminated auditorily, not just on how they pronounced the words. This observation was crucial to prevent the oral language, still not very intelligible, from being used as a global measure of their linguistic knowledge. As reported by the literacy teacher, decoding and the phoneme-grapheme relationship did not represent the main difficulty; the obstacles arose with the demand for vocabulary, integration of information, and syntactic-semantic organization (Appendix D).

The distinction between decoding, phonological awareness, and reading comprehension, observed in the child’s trajectory, is consistent with studies on reading acquisition, phonological assessment, and literacy methods, although these studies do not individually describe the participant’s specific profile (Scliar-Cabral, 2010; Seabra and Dias, 2011; Filippo et al., 2023; Instituto Alfa e Beto, 2019). In collaboration with the speech therapist, the teacher implemented strategies that included working on oral expression, attention to what was heard, reading aloud to identify inconsistencies, and the use of visual and auditory aids for writing.

A semester-long film production project was particularly effective, as it mobilized the child in developing ideas, script, dialogue, and understanding the context of the scenes. The project’s success was not limited to the final product but extended to the process of planning, rehearsing, and revising, which became shared actions by the class. For the child, this experience allowed them to experience language in a meaningful situation, where revision was part of collective work, not an indicator of individual inability, promoting a more inclusive and less threatening learning environment.

At six and a half years old, the child already spoke without noticeable phonetic errors, read and wrote with ease, being literate. However, the DLD began to manifest in other ways, less in the surface of speech and more in the interpretation of texts, commands, instructions, environments, and contexts. The child demonstrated a tendency to be more literal and presented difficulties in organizing opinions in interactions with peers. At home, she spoke freely, but at school or in exposed situations, her communication could be concise or laconic, and the brevity did not always correspond to the socially expected manner for her age. This difference between apparent fluency and a deeper interpretive vulnerability helps explain why the disorder might go unnoticed by educators who did not know her complete history.

The child demonstrated curiosity, enjoyment of learning, and good academic performance. However, at one point in her journey, the possibility of being corrected inhibited her participation in the classroom and in groups. Even when she had a relevant hypothesis, she might choose not to read, not to offer an opinion, or not to try, which did not stem from a lack of interest in the content, but from a strategy to avoid exposing an answer that might need revision. This behavior reflects a fear of making mistakes and a concern about the perception of competence, a relevant socioemotional aspect for students with DLD.

The homework assignments highlighted this conflict sharply. When the child inadequately understood what the question asked, they sometimes refused parental help and stuck with their first answer. The difficulty lay not only in identifying and correcting the error, but in the disappointment of not having understood immediately, feeling “wrong”. The preservation of the initial version and the refusal of intervention can be interpreted, in this context, as strategies to protect one’s own perception of competence, a defense mechanism against frustration and linguistic insecurity.

Family, school, and therapist worked together to reframe the notion of error, presenting it as an attempt at correctness and early versions as improvable productions. At school, reading aloud, offering opinions, and performing group exercises were valued as part of the learning process. Observing peers who overcame their own difficulties helped reduce the feeling that needing help or revising was an exclusive peculiarity. Currently, the child more calmly accepts corrections from teachers and family members, although building this confidence is an ongoing process.

The central challenge was to promote the child’s autonomy without generating helplessness. Intervening at each stage could reinforce dependence, while early withdrawal of support, before sufficient strategies were developed, could leave them alone when facing uncomprehended instructions. Mediation was implemented gradually: allowing a first attempt, assisting in locating the point of doubt, offering clues, and returning the decision about revision to the child. The school reinforcement professional (Appendix B) confirmed the importance of anticipating stages, using examples, and accompanying the construction of autonomy without replacing the child’s action, reinforcing the need for structured and sensitive pedagogical support.

At the time of the TCC’s elaboration, the participant was eight and a half years old and was in the third year of Elementary School I. She expressed herself fluently, read with ease, maintained friendships, and socialized easily. She showed special interest in Science and Mathematics, achieving adequate academic results, sometimes higher than expected, and did not engage in parallel or less complex activities compared to the class. However, weaknesses persisted in interpreting statements, long sentences, and successive commands, indicating that linguistic difficulties manifested at more complex levels of language.

Class and homework tasks were graded and supported by images, even when the objective was textual analysis. These visual resources were part of the collective planning and benefited the entire class, preventing the child from being separated from classmates. Visual support did not replace the text, but it helped in locating information, made the task steps visible, and supported interpretation. Project-based assessment also valued attempts, revisions, participation, and progress, allowing for the observation of knowledge that might remain hidden in immediate and exclusively verbal responses, which is crucial for students with DLD.

The case study data were collected before the participant’s transition to the 6th grade of Middle School II. Therefore, the challenges described by the specialists for this stage are projections based on the vulnerabilities observed in the child’s trajectory, in interviews with professionals, and in the literature. The speech therapist (Appendix C) emphasizes that students with DLD may understand more than they can verbally demonstrate, while the tutoring professional (Appendix B) points to linguistic complexity, rather than conceptual complexity, as the possible central obstacle in the transition to Middle School II.

In the teaching of History, this distinction is decisive, as interpreting a source, relating cause and consequence, or justifying a hypothesis simultaneously mobilizes content, vocabulary, working memory, and discursive planning. A brief answer does not authorize the conclusion that there was no historical reasoning. For the participant’s future transition, it will be essential to observe the process of task completion: what she initiates, which part of the command she executes, how she asks for confirmation, what she modifies when given a hint, and how much of the answer she manages to reconstruct. It is this path, more than the mere presence of right or wrong, that allows for effective adjustment of pedagogical mediation.

Pedagogical strategies for teaching History

The analysis of the case study and expert interviews provided subsidies for the proposition of pedagogical strategies that aim to reduce linguistic barriers without simplifying the complexity of historical content. These proposals do not constitute a universal protocol and were not tested with the 6th-grade participant, but they are prospective suggestions. The common principle guiding them is to support access to knowledge, observe the student’s action, and gradually withdraw support as it becomes unnecessary, promoting autonomy and active participation.

One of the proposed strategies is to segment the content without simplifying it. This implies presenting one command per step, as in the analysis of the Capitoline Wolf, where the actions would be “observe”, “identify”, “relate”, and “justify”. The objective is to observe which step the student starts alone, where they lose the sequence, and if they can resume with a hint. This approach reduces cognitive load and allows the student to focus on one part of the task at a time, facilitating information processing and the construction of historical knowledge in a more accessible way.

Another strategy is to externalize sequences, such as ordering images that represent the mythological foundation of Rome and using them as support to narrate temporal relationships. It is proposed to observe if the student can organize the sequence of events, which connectives they use to establish temporal relationships, and how much support they still need to complete the task. This practice aids in organizing thought and constructing historical narratives, making the process more concrete and visual, which is beneficial for students with SLD who may have difficulties with linguistic abstraction.

Making categories visible is a strategy that involves comparing concepts, such as Athens and Sparta, Greek poleis that allow classification according to previously stated criteria. The proposal is to observe whether the student compares the concepts or merely copies information, and whether they can transfer the comparison structure to a new situation. This approach facilitates the understanding of complex conceptual structures and promotes the development of historical reasoning, rather than just memorizing isolated characteristics, which is a challenge for the working memory of students with SLD.

Modeling academic language is essential, offering structures such as “my hypothesis is…” and “the evidence is…” for document analysis and debate. The objective is to observe whether the student can complete the model with their own ideas and, subsequently, reduce support. This practice helps the child internalize academic forms of expression, developing the ability to argue and justify their historical analyses, which is fundamental for Ensino Fundamental II (Middle School), where discursive demands become more complex.

Allowing the planning and revision of written productions is another important strategy. This involves encouraging the student to first produce topics, speeches, or outlines before elaborating the historical paragraph. It is proposed to observe how the child transforms their ideas into text, what type of revision they accept, and what they perform autonomously. This approach values the writing process, reducing the pressure for an immediate perfect answer and promoting reflection and self-correction, crucial skills for the development of academic autonomy.

Diversifying participation methods is crucial for including students with SLD. This can be achieved by combining speech, writing, the use of cards, and graphic organizers in debates about ancient citizenship. The objective is to observe whether the chosen response method alters the quality of demonstrated knowledge and the child’s confidence to participate. This flexibility allows students to demonstrate their learning in different ways, overcoming linguistic barriers that may hinder oral or written expression in high-demand situations.

The gradation of tasks, visual support, and language modeling are in line with the understanding of working memory limitations and the need to make linguistic operations observable, as highlighted by Baddeley (2012), Dehaene (2012), and Tokuhama-Espinosa (2011). Studies on reading and writing words and numbers also indicate that school tasks mobilize shared and specific cognitive mechanisms, reinforcing the importance of distinguishing the conceptual domain from the linguistic form through which the student demonstrates what they know (Lopes-Silva et al., 2016).

In the case studied, the benefit of visual resources and explicit mediation was evident when the child managed to remain on task, revise without abandoning their authorship, and participate without being isolated in a different proposal. Therefore, the evaluation must go beyond the final product, also recording the type of cue used, the changes produced, and the degree of autonomy achieved. The psychologist’s recommendation of “curricular adaptations” (Appendix A) is interpreted, in this work, as linguistic and access adaptation, which involves reorganizing commands, offering support, and diversifying forms of participation, without automatically reducing objectives, skills, or curricular complexity.

Activity 1 – Document Analysis with Guided Questions: Capitoline Magnifying Glass

This activity, one of the proposals from the original TCC, aligns with skills EF06HI02 and EF06HI11 from the National Common Curricular Base (Brazil, 2017). Its objective is to analyze the Capitoline Wolf as a source of complex historical composition and as a representation of the permanence of Rome’s foundation narrative. The dating of the wolf and the addition of the figures of Romulus and Remus in the 15th century would be explained to the students, so that the work would not be presented simply as a production of Ancient Rome, as indicated by the Capitoline Museums (2026). The class would observe the image and receive progressive questions, presented one at a time, to guide the analysis.

The progressive questions would be: “What do you see?”, “Who appears?”, “Which characters can be identified?”, “What relationship does the scene have with the narrative of Romulus and Remus?” and “What can this source reveal about the permanence and re-elaboration of the origin narrative of Rome?”. The commands OBSERVE, IDENTIFY, RELATE, and FORMULATE would remain visible during the activity, serving as a structural guide. The child could initially record words or topics, discuss in pairs, and then formulate a hypothesis with the support of the structure “The image may indicate that…, because it shows…”, which models academic language.

Mediation during the activity would only resume the question where there was an interruption, without providing the conclusion, encouraging student autonomy. It was proposed to observe if the child would initiate the description autonomously, distinguish what was visible from what was interpretation, relate an evidence to the context of production and circulation of the work, accept to revise the first answer, and reduce support throughout the activity. In this way, the original principle of gradually advancing from description to historical interpretation would be maintained, allowing the teacher to evaluate the student’s reasoning process.

Activity 2 – Comparative Chart: Athens and Sparta

This activity corresponds to the third proposal of the original TCC, linked to skills EF06HI10 and EF06HI12 of the BNCC (Brazil, 2017). The objective is to compare the forms of social and political organization of the Greek poleis, Athens and Sparta, without reducing the task to mere memorization of characteristics. The student would fill out a structured table with previously defined categories, such as political participation, education, and social groups, using cards with words and images to organize the information, which offers visual support and reduces the linguistic load of the task.

The work would follow successive commands: LOCALIZE a piece of information; CLASSIFY it according to the corresponding criterion; COMPARE a similarity or difference; and EXPLAIN what this comparison reveals. After filling out the chart, each pair would choose a comparison and prepare a brief explanation. The child could first plan in writing, rehearse with her partner, and decide whether to read her formulation or present it orally, which diversifies the forms of participation and expression of knowledge, meeting the individual needs of students with DLD.

An initial model, such as “Regarding…, Athens…, while Sparta…”, would support syntactic organization and be removed when no longer necessary, promoting the gradual construction of linguistic autonomy. It was proposed to observe whether the child would understand the comparison criteria, transfer information from the sources to the organizer, produce a comparison instead of just copying, ask for clarification when in doubt, and sustain their idea after a correction. This approach allows distinguishing linguistic difficulty from conceptual understanding and preserving the authorship of the response, focusing on the learning process and not just the final outcome.

The analyzed trajectory does not describe a linear progression from difficulty to overcoming it, but rather a complex evolution. The child’s speech intelligibility improved significantly, but new linguistic demands revealed interpretation barriers. Crying decreased as a communicative resource, yet anxiety about correction persisted for longer. The child achieved reading fluency and good academic performance, but may still require extensive reorganized commands. Therefore, DLD did not disappear with literacy, but changed its form of manifestation, requiring continuous adaptations.

The most consistent changes in the child’s trajectory occurred when adults stopped interpreting their reactions solely as behavioral problems and sought to understand the underlying function of these reactions. Isolation, for example, communicated a lack of resources to face conflicts; maintaining a response, even if incorrect, protected the perception of competence; and silence in front of the group reduced the risk of exposure. Effective mediation embraced these functions while simultaneously expanding the child’s repertoire of alternatives, teaching them to name feelings, ask for clarification, test responses, revise, and set boundaries.

The case study suggests that access and autonomy are not opposing objectives, but complementary ones. Pedagogical and therapeutic support produces inclusion when it allows the child to perform operations that they cannot yet sustain alone and when it is adjusted according to their response. The triangulation between family, school, and specialists offered the necessary continuity, but the child’s own protagonism was fundamental in the observed transformations: they began to speak, to accept revisions, to build friendships, and to persist in tasks that, previously, could trigger crying, refusal, or withdrawal, demonstrating significant progress in their socio-emotional and academic participation and well-being.

4. Conclusion

This study sought to analyze the linguistic and socio-emotional barriers related to Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) and propose evidence-based pedagogical strategies for teaching History in the 6th grade of Elementary School. It was found that the trajectory of a child with DLD is marked by a complex evolution, in which initial difficulties in speech intelligibility were overcome with speech therapy and psychotherapy support, but the disorder later manifested in challenges in text interpretation, understanding extensive commands, and organizing opinions. It was observed that the fear of making mistakes and refusing help functioned as protective strategies for the perception of competence, and that effective mediation, which reframed errors and offered gradual support, was crucial for building autonomy. The main contribution lies in proposing inclusive pedagogical strategies, such as content segmentation, sequence externalization, category visibility, academic language modeling, pre-writing planning, and diversification of participation forms, aiming to reduce linguistic barriers without simplifying the complexity of historical content and, thus, expand the teaching repertoire to strengthen the full participation of students with DLD.

However, it is important to note that the results of this single case study are not generalizable to all children with DLD, and the proposed strategies constitute informed projections, not having been tested with the participant in the 6th year of Elementary School II. The research did not include systematic classroom observations or the application of the suggested History activities. For future studies, longitudinal monitoring of the transition of students with DLD to Elementary School II is recommended, analyzing how pedagogical supports are used, transformed, and progressively withdrawn. It is concluded that a truly inclusive pedagogical practice requires an in-depth understanding of the student’s individual trajectory, observing not only the final product but the entire response process, and that mediation, by making language accessible and welcoming difficulties, becomes a path to autonomy.

Bibliographic References

BADDELEY, A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, v. 63, p. 1-29, 2012. Disponível em: https://jontalle.web.engr.illinois.edu/MISC/ReadingGroup.11/Papers/Baddeley-WorkingMemory.12.pdf. Acesso em: 22 set. 2025.

BARDIN, L. Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70, 2016.

BRASIL. Ministério da Educação. Base Nacional Comum Curricular: Educação Infantil e Ensino Fundamental. Brasília, DF: MEC, 2017. Disponível em: https://basenacionalcomum.mec.gov.br/. Acesso em: 30 dez. 2025.

CÁCERES-ASSENÇO, A. M.; GIUSTI, E.; GÂNDARA, J. P.; PUGLISI, M. L.; TAKIUCHI, N. Por que devemos falar sobre Transtorno do Desenvolvimento da Linguagem. Audiology – Communication Research, v. 29, p. 1-9, 2020. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/acr/a/VXX67QGcWJSbDPRfF6q9fWn/?format=pdf&lang=pt. Acesso em: 22 set. 2025.

DEHAENE, S. Os neurônios da leitura: como a ciência explica a nossa capacidade de ler. Porto Alegre: Penso, 2012.

FILIPPO, C. Sondagem da habilidade de consciência fonológica: uma revisão integrativa. Cuadernos de Educación y Desarrollo, v. 15, n. 3, p. 1-12, 2023. Disponível em: https://ojs.cuadernoseducacion.com/ojs/index.php/ced/article/download/1624/1515/4093. Acesso em: 22 set. 2025.

INSTITUTO ALFA E BETO. Educação infantil: novos caminhos. Relatório do seminário realizado pela Comissão de Educação e Cultura da Câmara dos Deputados. Brasília: Instituto Alfa e Beto, 2019. Disponível em: https://alfabetizacao.mec.gov.br/images/pdf/alfabetizacao_infanti_novos_caminhos_gastao_vieira.pdf. Acesso em: 22 set. 2025.

LOPES-SILVA, J. B. et al. What is specific and what is shared between numbers and words? Frontiers in Psychology, v. 7, p. 22, 2016. Disponível em: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00022/pdf. Acesso em: 22 set. 2025.

Museus Capitolinos, 2026 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

RADLD. Raising Awareness of Developmental Language Disorder (DLD). 2020. Disponível em: https://radld.org/. Acesso em: 22 set. 2025.

SCLIAR-CABRAL, L. Evidências a favor da reciclagem neuronal para a alfabetização. Letras de Hoje, v. 45, n. 3, p. 43-47, 2010. Disponível em: https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/fale/article/download/8119/5808/28412. Acesso em: 22 set. 2025.

SEABRA, A. G.; DIAS, N. M. Métodos de alfabetização: delimitação de procedimentos e considerações para uma prática eficaz. Revista Psicopedagogia, v. 28, n. 87, p. 306-320, 2011. Disponível em: https://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-84862011000300011. Acesso em: 22 set. 2025.

SNOW, P. C. Oral language competence and the transition to school. International Journal on School Disaffection, v. 6, n. 1, p. 21-29, 2009. Disponível em: https://access.portico.org/Portico/show?auld=phx2c2c5rjj&viewFile=pdf. Acesso em: 22 set. 2025.

SNOW, P. C. SOLAR: the Science of Language and Reading. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, v. 37, n. 3, p. 222-233, 2020. Disponível em: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265659020947817. Acesso em: 22 set. 2025.

TDL BRASIL. Transtorno do Desenvolvimento da Linguagem. São Paulo: TDL Brasil, 2020. Disponível em: https://tdlbrasil.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Ebook-TDL.pdf. Acesso em: 22 set. 2025.

TOKUHAMA-ESPINOSA, T. Mind, Brain, and Education Science: a comprehensive guide to the new brain-based teaching. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2011.

Article originating from a Final Course Work on Inclusive Education and Diversity

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform