Developmental kindergarten classroom intervention for spatial relational terms
Purpose: Relational ability is a key attribute of language. Knowledge of relational terms, including spatial terms, can facilitate development of relational ability. Acquisition of spatial terms can be challenging and necessitates experience and input due to the abstractness of the concepts. Service delivery models for school-based speechlanguage pathologists (SLPs) are changing from traditional “pull-out” therapy to intervention in the classroom. Response to Intervention (RtI) and multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) frameworks have expanded SLPs’ roles to working with all children at-risk for academic difficulties. Methods: Given the importance of spatial terms, and the changing roles and service delivery models for school-based SLPs, this investigation evaluated a six-week classroom-based intervention targeting spatial terms in a developmental kindergarten classroom of five-year-old children. Results: At post-test, more than half of the children who did not understand the targeted spatial terms at pre-test demonstrated understanding of the words first, front, last, behind, center, below, under, and right by correctly identifying pictures representing these words. Around and left were the only two words learned by fewer than half of the children. Conclusion: These findings augment research used by SLPs providing language support to children within the first tier of Response to Intervention or multi-tiered system of support
1. Gentner D. Bootstrapping children’s learning: analogical processes and symbol systems. Cogn Sci. 2010;34(5):752-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1551-6709.2010.01114.x. PMid:21564235.
2. Penn DC, Holyoak KJ, Povinelli DJ. Darwin’s mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behav Brain Sci. 2008;31(2):109-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08003543. PMid:18479531.
3. Gentner D, Asmuth J. Metaphoric extension, relational categories, and abstraction. Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2019;34(10):1298-307. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1410560.
4. Gentner D. Language as cognitive tool kit: how language supports relational thought. Am Psychol. 2016;71(8):650-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ amp0000082. PMid:27977235.
5. Pruden SM, Levine SC, Huttenlocher J. Children’s spatial thinking: does talk about the spatial world matter? Dev Sci. 2011;14(6):1417-30. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01088.x. PMid:22010900.
6. Hermer-Vazquez L, Moffet A, Munkholm P. Language, space, and the development of cognitive flexibility in humans: the case of two spatial memory tasks. Cognition. 2001;79(3):263-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0010-0277(00)00120-7. PMid:11165214.
7. Schraeder T. A guide to school services in speech-language pathology. 3rd ed. San Diego: Plural; 2017.
8. Loewenstein J, Gentner D. Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognit Psychol. 2005;50(4):315-53. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.09.004. PMid:15893523.
9. Sims N, Gentner D. Spatial language and landmark use: can 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds find the middle? In 30th Annual Cognitive Science Society; 2008; Washington, DC. Proceedings. Austin: Cognitive Science Society; 2008.
10. Dessalegn B, Landau B. More than meets the eye the role of language in binding and maintaining feature conjunctions. Psychol Sci. 2008;19(2):189- 95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02066.x. PMid:18271868.
11. Miller HE, Vlach HA, Simmering VR. Producing spatial words is not enough: understanding the relation between language and spatial cognition. Child Dev. 2017;88(6):1966-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12664. PMid:27859021.
12. National Research Council. Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2013.
13. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington: NGA Center for Best Practices; 2010.
14. Common Core State Standards Initiative. English language arts standards. Washington; 2021.
15. Paxton A, Roche JM, Ibarra A, Tanenhaus M. Predictions of miscommunication in verbal communication during collaborative joint action. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021;64(2):613-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00137. PMid:33502916.
16. Washington. U.S. Department of Education. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Washington; 2004.
17. ASHA: American Speech and Hearing Association. Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools: professional issues statement. Rockville: ASHA; 2010.
18. Troia G. Responsiveness to intervention: roles for speech-language pathologists in the prevention and identification of learning disabilities. Top Lang Disord. 2005;25(2):106-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00011363- 200504000-00004.
19. Spencer TD, Petersen DB, Adams JL. Tier 2 language intervention for diverse preschoolers: an early stage randomized control group study following an analysis of response to intervention. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015;24(4):619- 36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0101. PMid:26125951. Eising, Karasinski CoDAS 2022;34(6):e20210176 DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20212021176 6/8
20. Cirrin FM, Schooling TL, Nelson NW, Diehl SF, Flynn PF, Staskowski M, et al. Evidence-based systematic review: effects of different service delivery models on communication outcomes for elementary school-age children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2010;41(3):233-64. http://dx.doi. org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0128). PMid:20421615.
21. Throneburg R, Calvert L, Sturm J, Paramboukas A, Paul P. A comparison of service delivery models: effects on curricular vocabulary skills in the school setting. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2000;9(1):10-20. http://dx.doi. org/10.1044/1058-0360.0901.10.
22. Gillam SL, Olszewski A, Fargo J, Gillam RB. Classroom-based narrative and vocabulary instruction: results of an early-stage, nonrandomized comparison study. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2014;45(3):204-19. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-13-0008. PMid:24687097.
23. Lennox M, Westerveld MF, Trembath D. Evaluating the effectiveness of PrepSTART for promoting oral language and emergent literacy skills in disadvantaged preparatory students. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;20(2):191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2016.1229030. PMid:27643913.
24. Engelen JA, Bouwmeester S, Bruin AB, Zwaan RA. Perceptual simulation in developing language comprehension. Q J Exp Psychol. 2011;110(4):659- 75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.06.009. PMid:21803371.
25. Fischer MH, Zwaan RA. Embodied language: a review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Q J Exp Psychol. 2008;61(6):825- 50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470210701623605. PMid:18470815.
26. Michigan School Data. Our schools at a glance [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2021 July 9]. Available from: https://www.mischooldata.org/
27. Carrow-Woolfolk E. Comprehensive assessment of spoken language. Circle Pines: American Guidance Service; 1999.
28. Spaulding T, Plante E, Farinella KA. Farinella. Eligibility criteria for language impairment: is the low end of normal always appropriate? Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2006;37(1):61-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161- 1461(2006/007). PMid:16615750.
29. Grela B, Rashiti L, Soares M. Dative prepositions in children with specific language impairment. Appl Psycholinguist. 2004;25(4):467-80. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001225.