An interventional study of Science + Phonological Awareness and Science + Grammar Intervention in Specific Language Impairment, sponsored by Father Flanagan's Boys' Home. Terminated at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 4 Years to 7 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-09-14.
Sponsored by Father Flanagan's Boys' Home · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The sophisticated language of science can be a barrier to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) learning, especially for children who have specific language impairment (SLI). The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to test vocabulary and grammar interventions embedded in a small-group inquiry-based science instruction for their potential to ameliorate language deficits that impede science learning. Participants will be 54 preschoolers or kindergartners with SLI. Proximal and distal probes will reveal their mastery of taught and generalized language and science concepts.
In this study the investigators focus on a subset of at-risk students who find the language of science to be a barrier to the learning of science. These are the nearly 3 million children in the U.S. who have a learning disability called specific language impairment (SLI). Children with SLI present with deficits in spoken grammar and vocabulary and they are 3.9 to 8.1 times more likely to have reading deficits than children in the general population.
Specific Aim #1: To determine whether science-relevant language intervention enhances the learning of science concepts in young children who have SLI.
Specific Aim #2: To determine whether science-relevant language intervention facilitates generalization of science concepts and practices in young children who have SLI.
Fifty-four 4-to-7-year-olds who have not yet begun 1st grade, who are monolingual speakers of English, and who have SLI will participate. The investigators will adopt a Randomized Controlled Trial design, randomly assigning participants into three intervention conditions: science + phonological awareness practice (the control arm), science + vocabulary supports, and science + grammar supports, followed by a brief withdrawal phase in which all three groups receive science only instruction. Pre- and post-measures will reveal the extent of learning in each condition and comparisons between conditions will reveal whether the grammar and vocabulary supports improved learning.
The hypothesis is that the language and learning of science are integrally related. Therefore, the investigators will use evidenced-based language interventions to improve the children's science-relevant language skills, with the prediction that this will cascade into changes in the acquisition of science concepts and practices:
The first step is to document that the language supported interventions resulted in improved language abilities by comparing performance on probes of grammar and vocabulary at posttest to pretest performance. The expectations are significant changes in vocabulary knowledge for the vocabulary intervention condition as compared to the other two conditions, and significant changes in use of complement clauses for the grammar intervention condition as compared to the other two conditions. The next step is to test the predictions associated with the specific aims via a series of binomial mixed models. Mixed models are appropriate for designs with unbalanced cell sizes due to missing data (due to non-response and dropout). There will be one model for targeted science concept outcomes with condition (control arm, science + vocabulary, science + grammar), language support (present, withdrawn), and condition x language support as the independent variables (Predictions 1 and 2). If data plotting suggests that effects are specific to the type of concepts being taught (e.g., physical science vs biological science), then we will build a second model to explore differences related to concept type. There will also be one model each for generalized concepts and generalized practice outcomes with condition (control arm, science + vocabulary, science + grammar) and time (pretest and posttest) as independent variables (Prediction 3). Within-subject correlation will be accounted for with random subject effects. Additional random effects will be determined by selecting the model with the best model fit (lowest AIC value). In each of the three models, it is further expected that amount of improvement in grammar and vocabulary are moderators between the outcome and the other factors (Prediction 4). To assess this prediction, performance on the language tests will be included as covariates. The expectation is that performance on the language probes after instruction will be a significant predictor of science learning, and that including performance on the language probes as a covariate will eliminate the effect of condition because language performance will be the main factor predicting science performance. These models also allow comparison of the effectiveness of the grammar- and vocabulary-supported conditions (Prediction 5).
84 studies on the registry are indexed under Language Disorders; 18 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 36 is below the median of 51 across 66 interventional studies indexed under Language Disorders.
Browse Language Disorders studies →Father Flanagan's Boys' Home is the lead sponsor of 19 studies on the registry; 8 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
In all conditions, science is taught via the Full Option Science System Next Generation Edition (FOSS, 2015, https://www.fossweb.com/) curriculum that involves 1) Prediction, 2) Experiment, 3) Journal/Reflection, and 4) dialogic reading centered around a given theme such as plant life. In the control condition, a minimum of six phoneme identifications and five rhymes will be incorporated into each lesson of this curriculum. While these activities are likely to improve the children's awareness of the sounds of the language (a foundational skill for learning to read), they are not likely to improve their access to the science being taught. Therefore, this intervention constitutes a placebo.
Behavioral: Science + Phonological Awareness
In the science + grammar condition, focused stimulation, an intervention commonly used to target expressive language, will be used to treat complement clauses during the FOSS activities. The approach is incidental, rather than explicit. The active ingredients are models and recasts of the target structure. Recasts occur when an examiner responds to a child's naturally occurring utterance by expanding or extending the child's utterance to include a target grammatical structure. Recasts and/or models will be provided at an average rate of one per minute, an accepted therapeutic dose.
Behavioral: Science + Grammar Intervention
This arm involves Robust Vocabulary Instruction, an explicit approach that emphasizes multiple and rich encounters in authentic contexts to promote depth of semantic knowledge of 20 words that pertain to scientific practices applicable to the FOSS lessons. The children receive a cumulative exposure of at least 20 times per word (a minimum of 5 times per each of four lessons) and at least 4 chances to produce the word (a minimum of 1 chance per each of four lessons).
Behavioral: Science + Vocabulary Intervention
The goal is to facilitate phonological awareness during science lessons. Because phonological awareness does not relate to science learning, this is a placebo.
The goal is to facilitate science learning by providing models, prompts, and experiences with grammatical structures related to science processes.
The goal is to facilitate science learning by providing models, prompts, and experiences with vocabulary related to science processes.
Targeted science content outcome
The outcome relevant to aim 1 will be measured with eight 10-item, proximal concept assessments (to cover content taught during the intervention period) and two 10-item proximal assessments (to cover content taught after the intervention has been withdrawn). These will all be administered during the withdrawal week. These will be adapted from the FOSS I-check probes (e.g., Item 1: What is in the night sky? Stars? Sun? Moon?). From these, an accuracy score will result. The investigators will be able to determine whether the children learn more of the target science concepts in the language-supported conditions than in the control arm. Comparison of the performance on these assessments will allow determination of whether any improved access to the curriculum remains after the language supports are withdrawn.
Time frame: 1 week
Generalized Science Concepts and Processes
For science concepts and processes, the distal measure is the Lens on Science Assessment (https://ies.ed.gov/ncer/projects/grant.asp?ProgID=7\&grantid=805). A score reflecting mastery of science concepts will result. This will be administered to children in all three conditions in the three weeks before intervention and again in the three weeks after withdrawing the language supports in the active conditions.
Time frame: eleven weeks
Generalized Science Practices
For science practices, the distal measure is the retelling of a Sid the Science Kid episode (http://pbskids.org/sid/). A score reflecting completeness of the retelling will result. This measure will be administered to children in all three conditions in the three weeks before intervention and again immediately after withdrawing the language supports in the active conditions.
Time frame: eight weeks
Language Outcomes-Grammar
An investigator-created probe involving 20 complement clause elicitations will be administered to children in all three conditions in the three weeks before intervention and again in the three weeks after the withdrawal week. A score reflecting accuracy of production will result.
Time frame: eleven weeks
Language Outcomes-Vocabulary
An investigator-created probe involving 20 vocabulary definition and levels of knowing items will be administered to children in all three conditions in the three weeks before intervention and again in the three weeks after the withdrawal week. A score reflecting depth of knowledge will result.
Time frame: eleven weeks
Language Outcomes-Phonological Awareness
The rhyme detection-phoneme matching probes from Gillon (2005) http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/media/documents/education-and-health/gail-gillon---phonological-awareness-resources/assessment/PA-Assessment-probe-instructions-(1).pdf will be administered to children in all three conditions in the three weeks before intervention and again in the three weeks after the withdrawal week. A score reflecting accuracy of phonological awareness will result.
Time frame: eleven weeks
Plan to share: No — The University of Delaware IRB would not approve any of our proposals for safe data sharing.
This study is terminated, as verified in Sep 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Father Flanagan's Boys' Home