[PDF] [PDF] Interventions to improve childrens early language skills - UCL

Oral language skills are critical for development Interventions to improve oral language skills can be highly resources and strategies to help support early



Previous PDF Next PDF





[PDF] SOME SAMPLE CLASSROOM INTERVENTIONS FOR LANGUAGE

Possible Intervention Strategies: o Model a slow, acceptable rate of speech for the student o Agree on a hand signal to cue the student about using a slower rate of speech relax the student target bulls-eye



[PDF] Language Intervention Toolkit

Language and literacy skills are acquired in natural communicative settings Language and literacy (General Language Intervention Strategies - continued) 4



[PDF] Speech and Language Strategies For - Special Education

These speech and language strategies were primarily to facilitate documentation of prior interventions is have concerns with social communication skills



[PDF] Interventions to improve childrens early language skills - UCL

Oral language skills are critical for development Interventions to improve oral language skills can be highly resources and strategies to help support early



[PDF] Oral Language Intervention for Children Learning English as an

their broader language skills and indeed children learning EAL tend to show to recognise when comprehension breaks down and use strategies to repair the 



[PDF] SLP Intervention Model Best Practices

on-one in intervention provides strategies to while the teacher level language skills, and therefore reading comprehension, can be impacted by limited



Linguistic Intervention Programme - ScienceDirectcom

This article discusses the issue of achievement strategies in foreign language Keywords: Linguistic intervention programme, language proficiency, ability to 



[PDF] Intervention Procedures to Encourage Verbal Language in - CORE

behaviors, selective interests, and deficits in communication skills These is focused on intervention strategies that increase socially appropriate behaviors



[PDF] Teacher Intervention to Support Oral Language and Literacy - ERIC

children's language and literacy in dramatic play and other contexts involving role-play in Greenberg, 2010) We used these principles to identify Lila's scaffolding strategies and to suggest additional ways in knowledge and skills Found at 



[PDF] Effective Interventions for Struggling Readers - Department of

oral language skills by interventions focusing on developing listening skills, Teaching reading comprehension strategies can have a positive impact for

[PDF] interview questions on collections in salesforce

[PDF] intimation letter to society for rent of flat

[PDF] intramolecular acetal formation

[PDF] intranet eit health

[PDF] intrinsic value ba ii plus

[PDF] intro to app development with swift

[PDF] intro to app development with swift pdf

[PDF] intro to business final exam study guide

[PDF] intro to real analysis answers

[PDF] introduce yourself essay sample 100 words

[PDF] introduce yourself paragraph

[PDF] introducing basic network concepts

[PDF] introducing cisco data center networking (dcicn) v6.2 pdf

[PDF] introducing cisco data center technologies

[PDF] introducing second language acquisition

language skills

Charles Hulme

Department of Education

University of Oxford

The Take Home Messages!

Oral language skills are critical for development

They provide the foundation for literacy skills and more broadly for the whole of formal education Interventions to improve oral language skills can be highly effective Such interventions may be delivered effectively by Teaching Assistants working in schools, or by parents Improving oral language skills is important in its own right but also transfers to improvements in reading comprehension and possibly to decoding in younger children

Some methodology

Studies of intervention can be thought of as involving at least three inter-related steps

1.Establish that an intervention has a causal effect in

improving the condition in question

2.Estimate the sizeof the causal effect

3.Explore the moderatorsand mediatorsof an effect

Moderators does the effect vary as a function of

participants characteristics? For whom does the intervention work best?

Mediators what are the mechanisms underlying an

effect? How does the intervention work?

Establishing Causal Effects

The simplest method (with fewest assumptions) is to randomly assign participants to conditions (RCT) Random assignment controls for unknown differences between people that might produce differences in scores (counterfactual reasoning what else can account for effects of the two Interventions on Reading?)

Phonology

Language

Random

Assignment

Reading

SS 100

Reading

SS 100

Reading

SS 115

Reading

SS 100

Pre-testPost-test

The Nuffield

Early

Language

Intervention

Programme

A Work in

Progress

since 2008

Project Design

ƒThe Nuffield Early Language Intervention programme is a downward extension and modification of the oral language programme developed by Bowyer-Crane et al. (2008) ƒAn RCT where children with weak oral language skills in nursery were randomly allocated to one of two groups

ƒOral language intervention (OL)

ƒWaiting control group

ƒThe OL group received oral language intervention for 10 weeks prior to beginning school (Nursery) and for 20 weeks in Reception class (3 school terms) ƒThe waiting control group did not receive any additional teaching during that time

Design

An RCT 641 children screened in 19 nursery classes (Screening)

12 children from 15 schools (N=180, Mage4;0) selected based on

poor performance on standardised language measures (composite of 4 CELF subtests: recalling sentences, expressive vocabulary, sentence structure and word structure) Random assignment of children within each school to intervention or a waiting list control group

L4R Overview

ͻ3 x 15 min sessions per week

ͻGroup sessions (2-4 children)

ͻNarrative, vocabulary, listening

Nursery

(10 weeks)

ͻ3 x 30 min group sessions

ͻ2 x 15 min individual sessions

ͻNarrative, vocabulary, listening

Reception 1

(10 weeks)

ͻ3 x 30 min group sessions

ͻ2 x 15 min individual sessions

ͻadded letter sound knowledge

and phonological awareness

Reception 2

(10 weeks)

MeasureMeanSD

CELF EV Scaled7.82.7

CELFSS Scaled7.42.5

PSRepStandard82.917.0

Practicalities

TAs working in each school were trained to deliver the intervention

TAs played a vital role

Feedback to and liaison with Research Team

Liaison with parents/school/class teacher

Support from Research Team

Training, Manual and Resources, Fortnightly tutorials,

On-site tutorials, phone/email advice

Support from School

Time for teaching, tutorials, preparation and space

Language

Pre-Test

Language

Post-Test

Group Dummy .88 -.14 ns .63.65.73.72.81.69.73.64 .16.31 .46 CELF Vocab APT Info APT

Grammar

Listening

Comp APT Info APT

Grammar

Listening

Comp .42

X2 (20, N=180) = 36.58 p=0.013

RMSEA = .068 (90% CI 0.031

0.010)

CFI = 0.98

TLI = 0.96

.52 CELF Vocab y-

Effects on standardised measures of oral language

(primary outcome) at immediate posttest(d= .80)

Language

Pre-Test

Language

Maintenance

Test Group Dummy .83 -.10 ns .65.67.69.71.84.66.63.73 .16 .48 CELF Vocab APT Info APT

Grammar

Listening

Comp APT Info APT

Grammar

Listening

Comp .57

X2 (21, N=180) = 36.25 p=0.021

RMSEA = .064 (90% CI 0.025

0.098)

CFI = 0.98

TLI = 0.96

.33 CELF Vocab y-

Effects on oral language maintained at delayed

posttest(d= .83)

Possible Moderators of Response to Intervention?

It is important to know whether the intervention

works equally well for all children or does it differentially benefit the least able? Or the most able?

We can examine this statistically by looking for

interactions between initial Language Factor Scores and Group

Relate this to a graph of the data

Language Factor Scores for Each Group (pre-post)

No sign of an

interaction here slopes are equal

Relate to

ANCOVA

model

There are a

minority of children who do

Transfer Effects to Reading Comprehension

York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension administered at

Maintenance test (end of first term Year 1)

Intervention Mean: 4.80 (SD 1.58); Control Mean 3.91 (SD 1.83); d= 0.52 HLM with baseline word reading as a covariate, and school with random intercepts but fixed slopes, showed a highly significant effect of intervention on reading comprehension Difference in marginal means = 0.97 (95% CI 0.40-1.54; z = 3.31; p = 0.001) This effect remains unchanged when adding reading accuracy at maintenance test as an additional covariate Therefore, effect of intervention on reading comprehension is not a product of reading accuracy (which did not differ between groups: d = -.05) What accounts for this effect? Language comprehension!

Language

Post-Test (t5)

.86.67.67.63 t5 APT Info t5 APT

Grammar

t5 List Comp t5 CELF Vocab Group Dummy t6 Reading

Comprehension

.47X2(8, N=180) = 7.62, p= 0.471

RMSEA = 0.000 (90% CI = 0.00

0.085)

CFI = 1.000

TLI = 1.002

Indirect path here highly significant z = 23.68; p < .001 Complete mediation dropping the direct path has no effect on fit -X2(1, N=180) = 0.37 , NS

Effects on oral language transfer to Reading

Comprehension 6-months later

Summary and Conclusions

Oral language skills can be promoted in pre-

school/reception class to provide a better foundation for formal education and literacy development

School-based oral language interventions can be

successfully delivered by suitably trained and supported teaching assistants Oral Language intervention has a positive effect on by improvements in Language comprehension skills

Study aims

Replicate and extend Fricke et al. (2013) to evaluate Nuffield Early Language Interventionprogramme in a field trial Rather than the research team, I CAN was licensed to distribute the programme, and delivered training and support to TAs

Compare original 30-week programme (beginning in

nursery) with 20-week version (beginning in

Reception) to wait list control

Larger sample. N=394 (roughly 130 per arm)

Screening (

t0) Pre -test ( t1)

30-weeks

group:

10 weeks

Nursery

intervention

TA Training

Post -test (t2)

Summer breakSummer break

NurseryReceptionYear 1

TA Training

30-weeks

group:

20 weeks

Reception

intervention

20-weeks

group:

20 weeks

Reception

intervention

Delayed follow

-up (t3)

Waiting Control

Group:

Reading &

language intervention

TA Training

Christmas break

Timeline for assessments and interventions

Fricke, S., Burgoyne, K., Bowyer-Crane, C., Kyriacou, M., Zosimidou, A., Maxwell, L., Lervåg. A., Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (under

review). The efficacy of early language intervention in mainstream school settings: A Randomised Controlled Trial. JCPP

Results: Effects on standardised measures of oral

language (primary outcome)

Language

Pre-test

Group Dummy

20 weeks

.73.43.83.62 CELF EV CELF SS

BPVSAPT

Info APT Gram .64 APT

Pre-test

.77.51

Listening

Comp .61 Group Dummy

30 weeks

Language

Delayed

Follow-up

CELF SS BPVS CELF EV APT Gram APT

InfoAPTDelayed Follow

-up

Listening

Comp

Language

Post-test

CELF SS BPVS CELF EV APT Gram APT

InfoAPT

Post -test

Listening

Comp .48 .38 .82 .82 .30 .30 .21 .21 .75 .57 .76 .51 .54 .64 .57 .57 .72 .62 .81 .45 .37 .54 ..63 .75 .79 .31 .31 .30 .30 .44ʖ2(145) = 178.582,quotesdbs_dbs20.pdfusesText_26