Oral language enrichment in preschool improves children's language skills: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral language skills provide the foundation for formal education, yet many children enter school with language weaknesses. This study evaluated the efficacy of a new language enrichment programme, the Nuffield Early Language Intervention-Preschool (NELI Preschool), delivered to children in the year before they enter formal education. METHODS: We conducted a preregistered cluster randomised controlled trial in 65 nursery schools in England (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN29838552). NELI Preschool consists of a 20-week whole-class language enrichment programme delivered by a teacher each day for 20 min. In addition, children with the weakest language skills in each class are allocated to receive additional targeted support delivered by classroom assistants (whole-class + targeted). The language skills of all children (n = 1,586) in participating classrooms were assessed using the LanguageScreen automated app (https://oxedandassessment.com/languagescreen/). Settings were then randomly allocated to an intervention or control group. The children with the weakest language in each class (whole-class + targeted children n = 438), along with four randomly selected children in each class allocated to the whole-class only programme (n = 288) were individually tested on a range of language measures. RESULTS: Children receiving NELI Preschool made larger gains than children in the control group on an oral language latent variable (whole-class children d = .26; whole-class + targeted children d = .16). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides good evidence that whole-class intervention delivered in preschool can produce educationally significant improvements in children's language skills. The intervention is scaleable and relatively low cost. These findings have important implications for educational and social policy.

Early language screening and intervention can be delivered successfully at scale: evidence from a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It is well established that oral language skills provide a critical foundation for formal education. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) programme in ameliorating language difficulties in the first year of school when delivered at scale. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 193 primary schools (containing 238 Reception classrooms). Schools were randomly allocated to either a 20-week oral language intervention or a business-as-usual control group. All classes (N = 5,879 children) in participating schools were screened by school staff using an automated App to assess children's oral language skills. Screening identified 1,173 children as eligible for language intervention: schools containing 571 of these children were allocated to the control group and 569 to the intervention group. RESULTS: Children receiving the NELI programme made significantly larger gains than the business-as-usual control group on a latent variable reflecting standardized measures of language ability (d = .26) and on the school-administered automated assessment of receptive and expressive language skills (d = .32). The effects of intervention did not vary as a function of home language background or gender. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides strong evidence for the effectiveness of a school-based language intervention programme (NELI) delivered at scale. These findings demonstrate that language difficulties can be identified by school-based testing and ameliorated by a TA delivered intervention; this has important implications for educational and social policy.

Procedural and declarative learning in dyslexia.

The procedural deficit hypothesis claims that impaired procedural learning is at least partly responsible for the deficits in learning to read seen in children with developmental dyslexia. This study used a reading ability-matched design to examine group differences in both procedural and declarative learning. Both children with dyslexia and typically developing children demonstrated procedural learning on a serial reaction time task, although learning in the typically developing group increased at a greater rate towards the end of the task compared with children with dyslexia. However, these results do not provide strong evidence for the procedural deficit hypothesis, because poorer procedural learning in the group with dyslexia may reflect impairments in motor learning, rather than sequence specific procedural learning. In addition, neither group showed a relationship between procedural learning and reading ability.

The procedural learning deficit hypothesis of language learning disorders: we see some problems.

Impaired procedural learning has been suggested as a possible cause of developmental dyslexia (DD) and specific language impairment (SLI). This study examined the relationship between measures of verbal and non-verbal implicit and explicit learning and measures of language, literacy and arithmetic attainment in a large sample of 7 to 8-year-old children. Measures of verbal explicit learning were correlated with measures of attainment. In contrast, no relationships between measures of implicit learning and attainment were found. Critically, the reliability of the implicit learning tasks was poor. Our results show that measures of procedural learning, as currently used, are typically unreliable and insensitive to individual differences. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnvV-BvNWSo.

LanguageScreen: The Development, Validation, and Standardization of an Automated Language Assessment App.

PURPOSE: Oral language skills provide a critical foundation for formal education and especially for the development of children's literacy (reading and spelling) skills. It is therefore important for teachers to be able to assess children's language skills, especially if they are concerned about their learning. We report the development and standardization of a mobile app-LanguageScreen-that can be used by education professionals to assess children's language ability. METHOD: The standardization sample included data from approximately 350,000 children aged 3;06 (years;months) to 8;11 who were screened for receptive and expressive language skills using LanguageScreen. Rasch scaling was used to select items of appropriate difficulty on a single unidimensional scale. RESULTS: LanguageScreen has excellent psychometric properties, including high reliability, good fit to the Rasch model, and minimal differential item functioning across key student groups. Girls outperformed boys, and children with English as an additional language scored less well compared to monolingual English speakers. CONCLUSIONS: LanguageScreen provides an easy-to-use, reliable, child-friendly means of identifying children with language difficulties. Its use in schools may serve to raise teachers' awareness of variations in language skills and their importance for educational practice.

Early language intervention improves behavioral adjustment in school: Evidence from a cluster randomized trial.

Oral language skills are critical for psychosocial development and children with language difficulties are more likely than peers to experience behavioral problems. This study investigated the effects of an oral language intervention on behavioral adjustment. We collected teacher ratings of behavioral adjustment for 1173 children taking part in a cluster randomized trial of the Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) program in 193 primary schools. Ratings were collected before and immediately after the 20-week intervention. Children receiving the language program showed significantly greater improvements than the untreated control group on a latent variable reflecting behavioral adjustment (d = 0.23). However, the improvements in behavioral adjustment for children receiving language intervention were not mediated by improvements in language. We suggest that the improvements in behavioral adjustment are a consequence of the small group and individual teaching sessions in the language intervention program, which emphasizes the need to pay attention and regulate behavior. This emphasis appears to produce generalized improvements in children's behavior regulation outside of the targeted language teaching sessions.

Is a procedural learning deficit a causal risk factor for developmental language disorder or dyslexia? A meta-analytic review.

Impaired procedural learning has been suggested as a possible cause of developmental dyslexia (DD) and developmental language disorder (DLD). We evaluate this theory by performing a series of meta-analyses on evidence from the six procedural learning tasks that have most commonly been used to test this theory: the serial reaction time, Hebb learning, artificial grammar and statistical learning, weather prediction, and contextual cuing tasks. Studies using serial reaction time and Hebb learning tasks yielded small group deficits in comparisons between language impaired and typically developing controls (g = -.30 and -.32, respectively). However, a meta-analysis of correlational studies showed that the serial reaction time task was not a reliable correlate of language-related ability in unselected samples (r = .03). Larger group deficits were, however, found in studies using artificial grammar and statistical learning tasks (g = -.48) and the weather prediction task (g = -.63). Possible reasons for the discrepancy in results from different tasks that all purportedly measure procedural learning are highlighted. We conclude that current data do not provide an adequate test of the theory that a generalized procedural learning deficit is a causal risk factor for developmental dyslexia or developmental language disorder. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Is crossed laterality associated with academic achievement and intelligence? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Over the last century, sporadic research has suggested that people whose hand, eye, foot, or ear dominances are not consistently right- or left-sided are at special risk of suffering academic difficulties. This phenomenon is known as crossed laterality. Although the bulk of this research dates from 1960's and 1970's, crossed laterality is becoming increasingly popular in the area of school education, driving the creation of several interventions aimed at restoring or consolidating lateral dominance. However, the available evidence is fragmentary. To determine the impact of crossed laterality on academic achievement and intelligence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published since 1900. The inclusion criteria for the review required that studies used one or more lateral preference tasks for at least two specific parts of the body; they included a valid measure of crossed laterality; they measured the impact of crossed laterality on academic achievement or intelligence; and they included participants between 3 and 17 years old. The final sample included 26 articles that covered a total population of 3578 children aged 5 to 12. Taken collectively, the results of these studies do not support the claim that there is a reliable association between crossed laterality and either academic achievement or intelligence. Along with this, we detected important shortcomings in the literature, such as considerable heterogeneity among the variables used to measure laterality and among the tasks utilized to measure the outcomes. The educational implications of these results are discussed.