Effect of language program on behavior.

Abstract

A quasi-experimental design was used to compare the social adjustment (i.e., behavior) of 21 children who received the Language for Learning program with those of 24 children enrolled in a comparison school. Results indicated that instruction with the Language for Learning program produced both statistically and educationally significant effects on the social adjustment of children.

**********

The chief instrument of integration and order in human mental life is language (Vygotsky, 1962). Its importance to success in school cannot be overstated. Children with language deficits face an increased likelihood of negative long-term outcomes including depressed academic achievement, grade retention, reading disabilities, and emotional and behavioral disorders (Beitchman, Cantwell, Forness, Kavale, & Kauffman, 1998; Benner, Nelson, & Epstein, 2002; Catts, 1993). Language deficits have a devastating effect on the peer and interpersonal relationships of children (Baker & Cantwell, 1985; Benner, Nelson, & Epstein, 2002; Gallagher, 1999). Aggressive children, for example, may use less verbal communication and more direct physical actions to solve interpersonal problems due to limited language skills (Gallagher, 1999). Such language deficits may serve as catalysts for ongoing problematic interactions between caregivers, peers, and teachers and children who exhibit problem behaviors (Benner, Nelson, & Epstein, 2002).

The Language for Learning program is designed to teach young children the language skills and concepts necessary for the understanding of oral and written language. Two studies to date (Benner et al., 2002; Waldron-Soler et al., 2002) have investigated the effects of Language for Learning on the language and/or social adjustment of children. Benner and colleagues (2002) examined the effects on receptive language skills of kindergarten children in separate schools. A pre-post quasi-experimental design (Martella, Nelson, & Marchand-Martella, 1999) was used, with the experimental condition (N=21) receiving the complete Language for Learning program over the course of a school year, and the comparison condition (N=24) receiving a typical instructional program (i.e., language development activities designed by the teacher). Children in the experimental condition demonstrated significantly higher receptive language scores than those in the comparison condition.

Waldron-Soler and colleagues (2002) examined the effects on the language and social skills of preschoolers with and without disabilities. A nonequivalent control group design (Martella, et al., 1999) was used, with the experimental condition (N=16) receiving the Language for Learning curriculum for 15 weeks, and the comparison condition (N=20) receiving a typical preschool program devoid of explicit language instruction. Children in the experimental condition outperformed those in the comparison condition on measures of receptive language and social skills. Researchers have found that the Language for Learning program has been effective in improving the receptive language skills of preschoolers and kindergarten children (Benner et al., 2002; Waldron-Soler et al., 2002). Furthermore, researchers of one study (Waldron-Soler et al., 2002) have demonstrated that the Language for Learning program can impact the social adjustment of preschool children between the ages of 3 and 5 years. However, it remains unclear whether the Language for Learning program can improve the social adjustment of kindergarten children. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of the Language for Learning program on the social adjustment of a general sample of kindergarten children.

Method

Participants Forty-five kindergarten children (27 males and 18 females) enrolled in two elementary schools (i.e., participating and comparison schools) in a small rural Midwest town participated in this study. The participating school served 21 kindergarten children (14 males, 7 females) while the comparison school served 24 children (13 males, 11 females). The mean pretest ages of children in the participating and comparison schools were 5.50 (SD = .65) and 5.61 years (SD = .45), respectively. With one exception, the ethnic background of the children was Caucasian.

Setting The staffing was consistent across all four (two participating and two comparison) classrooms. Each of the classrooms was staffed with a teacher and a paraprofessional. The two kindergarten teachers in the participating school had 8 and 7 years of teaching experience, respectively. The two kindergarten teachers in the comparison school had 20 and 3 years of teaching experience, respectively. The two paraprofessionals in the participating school had 3 and 4 years of experience, respectively. The two paraprofessionals in the comparison school had 1 and 12 years of experience, respectively.

Materials and Training The direct language instruction program used in this study was Language for Learning (Englemann & Osborn, 1999). The Language for Learning program is based on the presentation of predetermined language instruction formats. The program teaches syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic language skills believed to be necessary for success in school. The materials are organized in a sequence designed to provide maximum benefit from teacher-directed instruction (i.e., children respond to prompts from the teacher to initiate an utterance or produce a response to a stimulus). The two teachers participating in the present study were trained during a four day workshop at the beginning of the academic year. The trainer had 20 years of experience in training teachers on language and reading programs including Language for Learning. The predetermined sequence of teaching activities, based directly on the published materials, was followed for all children within an instructional group. The groups consisted of 6 to 8 children, with the children's respective classroom teacher presenting the materials. To set up instruction, children were seated in a curved row. Each child was assigned a seat based upon instructional needs (e.g., seating an easily distracted child directly in front of the teacher) and the teacher sat close to the children so that all children could see the pictures. During instruction, teachers presented each exercise as it appears in the presentation book.

Dependent Measure Social adjustment was measured using the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS: Elliott & Gresham, 1990). Teachers rate student behaviors on a three-point, Likert-type scale in two areas: How often behaviors occur and how important each behavior is to the respondent. The SSRS is composed of three domains (i.e., Social Skills, Problem Behaviors, and Academic Competence), and six subtests (i.e., Cooperation, Assertiveness, Self- Control, Externalizing, Internalizing, and Hyperactivity). The social skills domain comprises and measures the Cooperation, Assertiveness, and Self-Control subscales. The Problem Behaviors domain includes and measures the Externalizing, Internalizing, and Hyperactivity subscales. The Academic Competence domain measures reading and mathematics performance, motivation, parental support, and general cognitive functioning. The SSRS has demonstrated content, construct, concurrent and factor analysis validity (Conoley & Impara, 1995).

Evaluation Design A pre-post quasi-experimental design (Martella et al., 1999) was used to examine the effects of the Language for Learning program on the social adjustment of a general sample of kindergarten children. All kindergarten children in the participating school received the complete Language for Learning program over the course of the academic year, while all of those in the comparison school continued to receive their typical instructional program (i.e., language development activities designed by the teachers). The teachers in the comparison schools did not use a specified language program to teach language skills explicitly.

Procedures The SSRS was administered as a pretest at the beginning of the school year (i.e., September) and as a posttest following intervention at the end of the school year (i.e., May). The SSRS was completed by the children's classroom teacher. Each teacher received the same written and verbal instruction for accurately completing the SSRS recommended by the authors. The teachers received no information about the purpose of the study. The forms were completed and returned to the researchers within two weeks from the time the teachers received the forms.

Results

To examine whether there were statistically significant differences in the posttest means of the social skills ratings of children, t-tests were used with school (i.e., participating and comparison) as the independent variable. Statistically significant differences between the schools were obtained in the case of the Social Skills scale (p<.01) and the Cooperation (p<.01) and Self-Control (p<.01) subscales. In addition, statistically significant differences were found in the case of the Problem Behaviors Scale (p<.05) and the Externalizing subscale (p<.05). Estimated effect size was calculated by subtracting the posttest mean of the comparison group from that of the participating group then dividing the result by the posttest standard deviation for the control group (Glass, McGraw, and Smith, 1981).

Posttest mean scores obtained by children receiving the Language for Learning program were larger than those from the comparison school in all cases. Children at the participating school scored 15.2 standard score points higher on the Social Skills scale posttest than those at the comparison school. Children at the participating school scored 3.4, 2.5, and 4.2 raw score points higher on the posttest than those from the comparison school on the Cooperation, Assertiveness, and Self-Control subscales, respectively. Further, the obtained effect sizes ranged from .57 (i.e., Cooperation) to .83 (i.e., Social Skills) across the Social Skills scales of the SSRS. Children at the participating school scored 10.6 standard score points lower on the Problem Behaviors scale posttest than those at the comparison school. Children at the participating school scored 2.1, 1.1, and 1.7 raw score points lower on the posttest than those from the comparison school on the Externalizing, Internalizing, and Hyperactivity subscales, respectively. Further, the obtained effect sizes ranged from -.40 (i.e., Hyperactivity) to -.63 (i.e., Problem Behaviors) across the Problem Behavior scales of the SSRS. Children at the participating school scored 2.3 standard score points higher on the Academic Competence scale posttest than those at the comparison school. The obtained effect size was. 15 on the Academic Competence scale of the SSRS.

Discussion

Researchers of previous studies had not examined the effects of the Language for Learning program on the social adjustment of kindergarten children. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the Language for Learning program on the social adjustment of a general sample of kindergarten children. Two primary findings warrant discussion. First, the Language for Learning program produced both statistically and educationally significant effects on the overall social skills of kindergarten children. Statistically significant mean differences were found between the schools on the Social Skills scale, and the Cooperation and Self-Control subscale posttest scores. The obtained effect sizes for the SSRS Social Skills scale and the Cooperation, Assertiveness, and Self-Control subscale scores were .83, .57, .59, and .77, respectively. These moderate to large effect sizes suggest that the Language for Learning program had educationally significant effects on the social skills of children. An effect size of .25 is considered educationally significant, meaning that it is worth the expense and effort involved in learning to use a new instructional program or procedure (Adams & Engelmann, 1996). These findings align with previous research on the effects of the Language for Learning program on the social skills of preschool children (Waldron-Soler et al., 2002).

Second, statistically significant mean differences were found between the schools on the Problem Behaviors scale and the Externalizing subscale posttest score. Moreover, the Language for Learning program produced educationally significant effects on the problem behaviors of kindergarten children. The obtained effect sizes for the SSRS Problem Behaviors scale, and the Externalizing, Internalizing, and Hyperactivity subscales were -.63, -.58, -.44, and -.40, respectively. These moderate effect sizes suggest that the Language for Learning program had educationally significant effects on reducing the problem behaviors of kindergarten children. Taken together, these effects could be expected in other schools given the applied nature of this study. These findings corroborate with previous research on the effects of the Language for Learning program on the problem behaviors of preschool children (Waldron-Soler et al., 2002).

In sum, researchers have found that language deficits have a devastating effect on interpersonal relationships (i.e. peer, family, companionships) and are associated with antisocial behaviors (Benner, Nelson, & Epstein, 2002; Gallagher, 1999). Language deficits may serve as catalysts for ongoing problematic interactions between caregivers, peers, and teachers and children who exhibit problem behaviors (Benner, Nelson, & Epstein, 2002). Researchers of previous studies have found that the Language for Learning curriculum improves the language skills of young children (Benner et al., 2002; Waldron-Soler et al., 2002). The results of this study indicate that this curriculum appears to not only improve language skills, as intended, but appears to produce collateral improvements in social skills and reductions in the problem behaviors of kindergarten children. This study was limited in several ways. First, the kindergarten children sampled were not demographically representative of the general population. The generalizability of the findings of this study is therefore limited. Second, it remains unclear whether similar results would be found using other types of measures of social adjustment (e.g., behavioral observations) as opposed to the behavioral rating scale (i.e., the SSRS) used in this study. Third, given that the participating sample was not followed longitudinally, it is unclear whether their social adjustment improvement would be maintained. The effects of the Language for Learning program should be examined longitudinally to ascertain whether the positive effects found in this investigation would be maintained over time.

There were two primary implications of this study. First, the results of this study indicate that language curricula that center on explicit teaching procedures (e.g., Berliner & Rosenshine, 1976; Lloyd, Forness, & Kavale, 1998) and instructional design principles (Wanzek, Dickson, Bursuck, & White, 2000) appear to be more effective than those using traditional methodologies. Explicit teaching procedures include teacher-directed instruction, frequent low level questions, frequent teacher feedback, homogenous groups, and activities related to outcome measures. Effective design principles include strategic integration (i.e., linking skills across lessons), simple instructional strategies (i.e., user-friendly strategies held constant across lessons), mediated scaffolding (i.e., building upon prior knowledge), and judicious review (i.e., immediate practice, varied review activities, and intermittent review). Researchers of two meta-analyses of over 800 studies concluded that interventions using these procedures and principles produced the greatest gains in the academic performance and social adjustment of children (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1996; Lipsky, 1991). Second, most of the intricacies of what a child must learn with respect to complex social skills (e.g., cooperation, assertiveness, and self-control), emotional regulation, and language are acquired before the first grade (Kaiser, Hancock, Cai, Foster, & Hester, 2000; Vygotsky, 1962). As a result, a narrow window of opportunity exists to alter the course from chronic behavioral and language problems to behavioral and language competence. Thus, it is critical to take a proactive and preventative stance rather than a reactive stance to effectively build the social and language skills of children.

References

Adams, G. L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED413575).

Baker, L., & Cantwell, D. P. (1985). Psychiatric and learning disorders in children with speech and language disorders: A critical review. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 4, 1-28.

Beitchman, J. H., Cantwell, D. P., Forness, S. R., Kavale, K. A., & Kauffman, J. M. (1998). Practice parameters for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with language and learning disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 36s-62s.

Benner, G. J., Nelson, J. R., & Epstein, M. H. (2002). The language skills of children with emotional and behavioral disorders: A review of the literature. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 52-67.

Benner, G. J., Trout, A., Nordness, P. N. Nelson, J. R., Knobel, M. L., Epstein, A., Maguire, K., Birdsell, R., & Epstein, M. H. (2002). The effects of the Language for Learning program on the receptive language skills of kindergarten children. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(2), 67-74.

Berliner, D. C., & Rosenshine, B. (1976). The acquisition of knowledge in the classroom. Beginning teacher evaluation study. Technical Report IV-1. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED146158)

Catts, H. W. (1993). The relationship between speech-language deficits and reading disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36,948-958.

Conoley, J. C., & Impara, J. C. (1995). The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Elliott, S. N. & Gresham, F. M. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Cedar Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Englemann, S., & Osborn, J. (1999). Language for Learning: Teacher's guide. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Gallagher, T. M. (1999). Interrelationships among children's language, behavior, and emotional problems. Topics in Language Disorders, 19, 1-15.

Glass, G. V., McGraw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (1996). A national study of delinquency prevention in schools: Rationale for a study to describe the extensiveness and implementation of programs to prevent adolescent problem behavior in schools. Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates, Inc.

Gresham, F. M, & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Kaiser, A. P., Hancock, T. B., Cai, X., Foster, E. M., & Hester, P. P. (2000). Parent-reported behavioral problems and language delays in boys and girls enrolled in head start classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 26-41.

Lipsky, M. W. (1991). The effect of treatment of juvenile delinquents: Results from recta-analysis. In F. Losel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law. New York: Walter deGruyter.

Lloyd, J. W., Forness, S. R., & Kavale, K. A. (1998). Some methods are more effective than others. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 195-200.

Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (1999). Research methods: Learning to become a critical research consumer. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1962.

Waldron-Soler, K. M., Martella, R. C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Tso, M. E., Warner, D. A., & Miller, D. E. (2002). Effects of a 15-Week Language for Learning Implementation with Children. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(2), 75-86.

Wanzek, J., Dickson, S., Bursuck, W. D., & White, J. M. (2000). Teaching phonological awareness to students at risk for reading failure: An analysis of four instructional programs. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 226-239.

Gregory J. Benner, University of Washington--Tacoma

Paul Mooney, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Benner, M. Ed., is an Assistant Professor of education. His research interests include the prevention of emotional and behavioral disorders and effective instructional practices. Mooney, M. S., is currently Doctoral Candidate in Special Education.