BERA
Developing the Spoken Language Skills of Reception Class Children in Two Multicultural,
Inner-City Primary Schools
Author(s): Jeni Riley, Andrew Burrell, Bet McCallum
Source: British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 30, No. 5, Early Years Education (Oct.,
2004), pp. 657-672
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of BERA
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1502098 .
Accessed: 28/09/2011 09:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and BERA are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
British Educational Research Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
BritishEducationalResearchJournal
Vol. 30, No. 5, October2004
CarfaxPublishing
&Francis
Taylor
Group
Developing the spoken language skills
of reception class children in two
multicultural, inner-city primary
schools
Jeni Riley*, Andrew Burrell and Bet McCallum
Universityof London, UK
This article describes a small-scale study which emanated from the concern of the head teachers
and staff of two primary schools serving deprived, multicultural areas of an inner city. The concern
of the staff related to the level of their pupils' spoken language skills through the schools and the
perceived impact that this has on pupils learning more widely. The article explores the nature and
importance of oral language development in the early years and describes an intervention designed
to enhance the spoken language skills of the reception children. The pre-intervention scores of the
children at school entry indicated that the language skills of the children were less well developed
than those of the general population. The findings suggest that the intervention had a positive effect
on the speaking and listening skills of the reception children and that the teachers' involvement in
the research contributed to their professional development.
Introduction
In many countries, including the UK, there has been increasing concern about the
level of oral language competence with which children enter school (Chaney, 1994;
Whitehurst, 1997; Locke et al., 2002). A recent survey carried out in Wales and
undertaken by the Government's Basic Skills Agency (2003) found that two-thirds of
teachers questioned believed that the speaking and listening skills of children on entry
to early education had deteriorated in the past five years. According to the survey, half
of the five-year-olds starting school lack the speaking and listening skills required to
cope in the classroom. Furthermore, findings from a small-scale survey of head
teachers' perceptions regarding children's levels of language competence strongly
suggest that professionals are concerned that children are entering school with poor
*Corresponding author. Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London,
WC1H 0AL, UK. Email: j.riley@ioe.ac.uk
ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/04/050657-16
@ 2004 British Educational Research Association
DOI: 10.1080/0141192042000234638
658 J. Riley et al.
speaking and listening skills (National LiteracyTrust, 2001). The Chief Inspector of
Schools, David Bell, has also expressed concern about children starting school less
well prepared and lacking in verbal skills. The concern arises from awareness that
children experiencing difficulties will find the demands of school challenging both
academicallyand socially (see, for example, Dockrell et al., in press).
Language and learning
The importance for individuals to possess well-developed spoken language skills is
well documented (Wells, 1987). Success in the educational system and language
competence is positively correlated.Government documentation states that, 'Pupils'
use of language is a vital skill which influences their progress in every area of the
curriculum' (School Curriculumand Assessment Authority [SCAA], 1997, p. 2). It
would seem, therefore, that fluency, competence in and comprehension of spoken
language are the keys to being able to learn effectively. Associated with this is that
there is also a close relationship between the development of language and the
development of thought (Vygotsky, 1986). Language enables communication;
through language the individual can represent feelings, beliefs, desires and knowledge. The relationship between the ability to express oneself and the ability to
integrate socially and to establish and maintain personal relationships is clear
(Leonard, 1997). The result of having language difficultiesis that the children have
problems in three areas: accessing the curriculum on language-related tasks,
interaction and social skills, and attention span and approaches to learning
(Dockrell & Lindsay, 2001).
Speaking and listening in the primary school curriculumAll lessons in the primary
school include, and largely depend on, oral communication. For example, the
teacher's role in explaining, questioning, describing, organizing and evaluating in
the classroom is mostly conducted through talk' (SCAA, 1997 p.6).
Speaking and listening is one key area of the National Curriculum for English
(Department of Education and Science [DES], 1990). However, it receives little
attention within the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) (Department for Education
and Employment [DfEE], 1998), which was introduced into English primaryschools
in 1998. This strategyhas sought to bring about widespreadchanges in the teaching of
literacy in primary schools. Although it is possible to identify areas where speaking
and listening skills are promoted, the frameworkdoes not list specific objectives for
these skills. Within the NLS (DfEE, 1998), speaking and listening take on a
functional quality, as they are perceived as a means by which literacy skills can be
enhanced. The NLS (DfEE, 1998) may have unintentionally inhibited, through
relatively less emphasis, the development of children's oral skills.
Relationship between spoken language and literacyThere is a close relationship
between children's oral language skills and their ability to use written language
Developing spoken language skills 659
effectively to serve their own purposes, particularlyin writing (Lindsay & Dockrell,
2002). Not only are there benefits in developing oracy but because spoken and
written language are interdependent, the development of literacy will also be
enhanced. Goodman and Goodman write, 'Written language development draws
on competence in oral language, since, for most learners, oral language competence
reaches a higher level earlier. As children become literate, the two systems become
interactive, and children use each to support the other when they need to' (1979,
p. 150). Recent research evidence supports this view. Catts and Kamhi (1999)
suggest that delayed language development can adversely affect the acquisition of
written language. The development of comprehension reading skills as children
move beyond the earliest stages of reading is dependent on the strength of their
grammatical and semantic language competence. It would appear that children
with poor skills of language processing are weak at the literal and inferential
comprehension of texts and this holds them back as they reach upper primary
school.
Language, literacy and children for whom English is an additional languageAnother
manifestation of the same issue is that levels of overall English language
competence depress the functioning of populations of children for whom English is
an additional language. At Key Stage 1 (KS1), bilingual children attain scores at
around the national average at aged 7 years, but by 11 years old at Key Stage 2
(KS2) their scores plummet (Kotler et al., 2001). Explanations vary but the most
plausible is the one mentioned above, that in the early stages of reading, children
can be effectively taught to be competent decoders. However, 'higher order'
comprehension skills require the kind of reflection, understanding and reasoning
that needs to be supported by well-developed oral language competence (Sticht &
James, 1984; Geva, 1997). Ironically, the NLS (DfEE, 1998), implemented to
raise literacy standards, with its great emphasis on whole-class and group teaching
does little to promote the development of spoken language skills.
Some researchers,however, argue that children speaking English as an additional
language (EAL) are not seriouslydisadvantaged.For example, Gregoryand Williams
(2000) highlight the wealth of literacypractices in the lives of those often considered
'deprived' of literacy. They argue that 'access to contrastingliteraciesgives children
strength, not weakness;that our childrenhave a treasuretrove upon which to draw as
they go about understandingthe literacy demands of the school' (2000, p. 203).
Language skills and deprivationIt is now accepted that there are differences in the
levels and types of language use between cultures and across the range of socioeconomic backgrounds. There is convincing evidence that children reared in
poverty tend to have poorer spoken language skills than children brought up in
more favourable circumstances (Locke et al., 2002). Hart and Risley (1995) found
great diversity in the quantity of language addressed to children from different
socio-economic backgrounds in the first two and half years of life. Children from
660 J. Riley et al.
professional families received approximatelyfour times the number of interactions
compared with those children living in families on welfare benefit. The nature and
quality of the language input is also important (Pearson et al., 1997). Links made
between disadvantage and school failure (Whitehurst, 1997) also have suggested
that lower levels of spoken language competence at pre-school begin the cycle of
underachievement (Peers & Locke, 1999; Locke & Peers, 2000).
Language skills and genderIn addition to social class differences, there are also
gender differences in language performance. Girls appear to develop verbal abilities
earlier than boys (Resnick & Goldfield, 1992) and learn to read earlier than boys
(Halpern, 1992). It can be speculated that the less impressive performance of boys
in English Standard Assessment Tasks (SATs) at the end of KS1 and KS2 is, at
least, contributed to by their relative underperformance in spoken language on
entry to school and before.
Research design
The head teachers and staff in two primaryschools serving deprived, multicultural
areas of an inner city were concerned about the level of their pupils' spoken language
skills throughout the whole school and the perceived impact this has on pupils'
learning more widely. This small-scale project was funded by the two reception
teachers receiving DfES Best Practice Research Scholarships (BPRS) of ?5000 in
total. The BPRS aim to support classroom-based research in partnership with a
nominated higher education institution (which in this case was the Institute of
Education, London). The present study took the form of an interventionand entailed
the recruitmentof the closest neighbourhood school to provide a comparison.
The project addressed the following research questions:
1. Are the spoken language skills of the reception children at school entry depressed
in comparison with the general population in the two intervention and the one
comparison school?
2. What is the pattern of the children's language development across the various
language skills and in which skills are these children experiencing difficulties?
3. Is it possible to enhance the languagedevelopment of the reception childrenin the
two intervention schools through a teacher-led enrichment programme?
Participants
In the present study we focused on the classes of reception pupils (41 children) in the
two intervention schools, Windsmoor Primary School and Copeland Primary School,
along with one class of reception pupils (10 children) in a comparison school,
Vintners Primary School. Pseudonyms have been used for the three schools The three
schools were situated within half a mile of each other in an inner-city area of high
Developing spoken language skills 661
social and economic deprivation(as indicated by all of the pupils being entitled to free
school meals) and which served a multiculturalpopulation living in council-owned
accommodation. Two-thirds of the pupils had EAL. Parental consent was obtained
for the childrento participate.One child in the comparisonschool was referredfor the
language delay to the educational psychology service during the study but was not
excluded from it as his mother did not manage to attend any of the arranged
appointments at the speech therapy clinic.
Method
Pre- and post-testsToassess the children's spoken language skills and in order to
compare them with the general population, the Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals (CELF) Assessment Preschool UK (Wiig et al., 1998) was used. All
the reception children in the two intervention schools and the one comparison
school were assessed within three weeks of school entry in September 2002 and
retested in July 2003 on the CELF-Preschool assessment.
The CELF-Preschool assessment is designed to providemeasuresof both receptive
and expressive language skills in the areas of phonology, syntax, semantics and
memory, and word finding and retrieval. The test aims (1) to assist in the
identification of children with language disabilities, (2) to provide a differential
diagnosis of the areas of weakness, and (3) to identify areasfor follow up for language
intervention. The test is designed for use with children aged from three to six years.
Raw scores were used for the purposes of both diagnosis and to measure progress.
The test assesses a range of receptive language and expressive language skillsreceptive language refers to what is heard or understood and expressive language
refers to what is said or articulated.The results of the CELF-Preschool assessment
enabled the teachersto targetspecific areasof languageperformancefor attention and
support.
The six subtests were administeredto each pupil; three assess receptive language
and three assess expressive language. The subtests are:
Receptivelanguage.The following three subtests evaluate receptive language:
1. Linguistic concepts. This subtest evaluates a child's ability to comprehend
directions that:
"*contain early acquired linguistic concepts such as 'either ... or' and 'not';
"*involve quantifiersand ordinals such as 'some' and 'first';
"*increase in length from one- to three-level commands.
2. Basic concepts. This subtest assesses a child's knowledge of modifiers. It can be
used to evaluate a child's ability to interpret one-level oral directions that contain
references to:
* attributes (e.g. understanding of 'cold', 'dry', 'alone', hard');
* dimension/size;
* direction/locality/position;
662 J. Rileyet al.
"*number/quantity;
"*equality(e.g. understanding'same'and 'different').
3. Sentence structure.This subtest evaluates comprehensionof early-acquired
sentenceformationrules.It evaluatesa child'sabilityto comprehendandrespond
to spokensentencesthatincreasein lengthand structuralcomplexity.
language.The followingthreesubtestsevaluateexpressivelanguage:
Expressive
4. Recallingsentencesin context. This subtest evaluatesrecall and repetitionof
spokensentences.It is in the formof a storyandchildrenarerequiredto recalland
repeatlines fromthe story.As the storyprogresses,the numberof morphemes,
syntacticcomplexityandnumberof prepositionsin eachitem increase.
5. Formulatinglabels.This subtestexaminesa child'sabilityto namepicturesthat
wordknowledge/naming).
representnouns andverbs(referential
6. Word structure.This subtest evaluatesa child's knowledgeand use of earlyrulesand forms.
acquiredmorphological
awarenessof teachers,support staff and parent/
The intervention
programmeThe
volunteerhelperswas raisedand their capacityand expertisedevelopedregarding
the most effective ways of supportingspoken languagedevelopmentof pupils
withina receptionclassroomprogrammeof teaching.
An enrichmentlanguageprogramme
wasdesignedconsistingof effectiveandactive
learningexperiencesand targetedteachingfor the receptionchildrenin orderto
facilitateboth their comprehensionand use of spokenlanguage.The enrichment
programmewasdevelopedalongsidesupportedstaffstudyandreadingof the relevant
backgroundliteraturecoupled with advice and support from the Institute of
Education.The projectalso incorporatedthe systematicsharingof good practice
acrossthe wholeof the interventionprimaryschools.
The enrichmentprogrammeinterventions
tookplacewithsmallgroupsof children
andwereledbyvolunteers.The volunteerswereparentsof childrenin thetwo schools
or adultswho enjoyedworkingwithyoungchildrenandwereinterestedin supporting
their learning.None of the volunteershad a formalteachingqualification.The
teacher-designedprogrammeused purposeful,concrete,motivatingactivitiesthat
stimulateda wideuse of languagein a developmentally
appropriate
wayforreception
children.They werebasedon a themeor topic (e.g. toys) and weresupportedby a
rangeof activitiesand resourcesincludingvisits.Eachtopic was taughtin one-hour
sessions per week over a period of 12 weeks at a time. The 12-week topics sometimes
spread over two half-termswith a vacation in the middle. Particularfocus was placed
on vocabularydevelopment, recounting or describing a situation through the use of
narrative language and involving the use of different tenses. The volunteers were
trained before each preparedsession with the children. Evaluationand feedback was
systematicallydone after each taught session.
Developing spoken language skills 663
Activity. The CarPark Languagefunction Language structures
Childrenarrangetrees Following
First, parkthe red car,
and houses arounda
instructions
second, parkthe blue
car parkplaymat.
car...
Parkthe red car...
Adult places five small
next to / between /
cars of different
beside /behind/ in
colours aroundthe
frontof anothercar.
mat.
Vocabulary
First, second,
third,fourth,
fifth
Next to,
between, beside,
behind, in front
Figure 1. A typicalactivityused in the interventionwhichwas designedto developordinalnumber
conceptsand languageuse
The following features of classroom interaction, identified as important by Kotler
et al. (2001) in their study, formed an integral part of our intervention:
"*opportunities for extended talk;
"*situations which require collaborative talk;
"*ground rules for task-oriented talk, e.g. waiting and turn-taking;
"*support, guidance and encouragement but not dominance by the adult/teacher;
"*contexts which build on prior experience and enable new learning to occur.
For each activity, the adults working with the children were asked to consider not only
what they were going to do, but also the desired vocabulary use of the children, the
language structures required and the overall function or area of language they were
working in. Figure 1 provides an example of a typical activity and is taken from the
toys theme.
Findings
Pre-intervention language assessment
The pre-intervention scores at school entry in the three schools showed that the
language skills of the children are less well developed than the general population,
with the majority of the children scoring less than a standardized score of 85 (the
lowest score was 64). A score of 85-110 is described in the CELF-Preschool manual
as being 'within the average range'. The range of scores for the two intervention
schools was 64-100 and 64-116. However the scores for the comparison school were
64-73. There was therefore a significant difference between the children's language
functioning in the intervention schools and the comparison school at the beginning of
the year. Only 10 children were admitted to the reception class in September 2002 in
the comparison school and two of these children with considerable language delay
reduced the mean score.
Differences in performance on the six subtests across the whole sample
Receptive language
Linguistic concepts. There was a wide range of scores evident, with a few very low
664 J. Rileyet al.
scores with the mean score of 11.2 (SD 4.4) out of a possiblescore of 20. The
childrenat Vintnersperformedless well than the other two schools, with a mean
score of 7.7 (SD 4.2). The children, whilst some were confused, generally
understoodsimple commandssuch as 'Point to one of the bears' or instructions
with two commands,e.g. 'Point to a dog but not the one who is eating'. The
greatest difficulty was with concepts of 'next to', 'except', 'middle', and 'some',
several children confused 'first'with 'last', and most did not understand 'either/or'.
Basic concepts.Most of the children were more successful on this subtest. The mean
across the sample was 12.4 (SD 4.3) out of a possible score of 18, with the childrenin
the comparison school scoring less well with a mean of 9.4 (SD 5.1). Most children
coped with concepts connected with dimensions of size ('tall' and 'long'), but 'full'
and 'empty' created difficultiesfor some. Lower scoring children did not understand
instructions such as 'Point to the one ... that is empty/who is tall'.
Sentencestructure.Childrenwho scored well on this subtest could use most of the rules
of sentence structure.Those who did poorly found it difficultto respond to sentences
using the interrogative'wh...?' as in 'Where does the boy play cricket?'to which the
child was expected to point to a picture of a cricket pitch. Another difficultywas the
use of complex sentences in which the response depended on understandinga main
clause at the end of the sentence, e.g. 'The man sitting under a tree is wearing a hat'.
The mean score for the whole sample was 13.9 (SD 4.5). The comparisonschool had
a lower score of 10.6, with a wider spread of functioning evident (SD 5.7). The
Vintners children showed a range of 3-18 out of a possible 22 points.
Expressive language
Receptive language is normally in advance of expressive language development and
this appearedto be the case with the majorityof children in the present study.
Recallingsentencesin context.The majorityof childrenfound this subtest very hard. In
Vintners four children were most uncomfortable about expressing themselves aloud
by recalling sentences in context. Children found most difficult those sentences set
within a story which representedtwo ideas, such as 'I am putting tomato sauce and
mustard on my burger'. These they often shortened to 'I am putting some on my
burger!' or even merely '... on my burger'. The mean for the whole group was low,
with the widest range of scores of all the subtests -21.9 (SD 12.3) out of a possible 52
points. The mean for the comparison class was 8.4 (SD 10.8).
Formulating labels. This subtest required the ability to label objects both animate and
inanimate and to know forms and tenses of verbs, e.g. participles. Again, as with the
first test of expressive language, the children in these three schools found this
challenging. They appeared to be unfamiliar with nouns such as 'buttons', 'a band'
(musician type), 'bridge' and verbs such as 'cutting', 'sewing' and 'riding'. The mean
Developing spoken language skills 665
Table la
COPELAND STANDARDIZED SCORES (an intervention school)
Total Language Scores
The table compares standardized scores on first and second tests
First Test
Second Test
Name
(October 2002)
(July 2003)
Cisel
Cheyanne
Annette
Keith
Sina
Renee
Malique
Christopher
Janet
Imam
Shafik
Talek
Nafisa
Amin
Max
Ahlam
Oliver
Mark
Jennifer
Ayca
Tahifa
Abdul
70
96
77
79
73
73
92
73
93
64
64
64
64
77
83
73
92
64
83
64
70
83
84
101
64
84
83
70
100
73
78
99
64
64
64
104
98
77
101
85
102
97
80
83
Mean scoresare 75.9 at pre-testand 84.3 at post-test.
for the sample was 15.3 (SD 8.5), out of a possible 40 points, and for Vintnerswas a
lower mean score 12.7 (SD 4.2), with a much narrower(half) spread of scores.
Wordstructure.This was anotherproblematicsubtest. Many childrenhad trouble with
all aspects of tense and pronouns. Possessive pronouns were a complete mystery.
Children confused 'his' and 'hers' or did not even attempt them. Simple prepositions
such as using 'on' ratherthan 'up' were also confused. The mean was low at 6.9 (SD
4.1) out of a possible 20 points and an even lower mean score at Vintners of 4.4 and
narrow spread of scores (SD 2.8). See Tables la, ib, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b.
The interventionprogramme
The programmewas planned, discussed and evaluated during the four study days at
the Institute of Education, with the teachersbeing replacedby supply teachersin their
reception classes in orderto provide 'qualitytime' awayfrom the school environment.
666 J. Riley et al.
Table lb
COPEIAND Age equivalents(an interventionschool)
Name
Age equivalentof
Age at second test
total languagescores
Years& Months
Cisel
5.7
Cheyanne
5.6
5.6
Annette
Keith
5.8
5.9
4.1*
4.11
Sina
Renee
Malique
5.9
5.9
5.5
5.3
4.6*
5.2
4.8
Christopher
5.5
4.3*
Janet
Imam
Shafik
5.8
5.5
5.4
5.0
5.2
3.5*
Taiyeb
5.9
3.8*
Nafisa
Amin
Max
5.6
5.5
5.5
3.7*
5.3
5.5
Ahlam
5.5
4.4*
Oliver
Mark
Jennifer
Ayca
Tahifa
Abdul
5.6
5.5
5.6
5.9
5.8
5.6
5.2
4.10
5.7
5.5
4.8
4.7
These study days, supported by the lead author, took the form of seminar-type
activities as the higher education coordinator of the project. The teachers undertook a
course of reading. Careful and thoughtful analysis of the CELF-Preschool assessments informed the teachers about their own pupils and the projects, ideas were
shared and many improvements made to the intervention throughout the year. These
study days proved to be a valuable form of in-service training for the teachers, allowing
time for reflection, sharing and mutual encouragement in order to keep on the agreed
time schedule. The four-day course appeared to have a powerful professional
development element for those involved.
Windsmoor Primary School was quicker to implement the intervention programme. The Fruit project was planned with 12 volunteer-led sessions and ran
through the autumn term 2002 and into the spring term 2003. Copeland used many
of the same materials and their first project with 12 sessions ran in the spring term.
The toy project ran through the rest of the academic year in both schools. Appealing
resources were purchased and made to accompany the themes, including picture
books with supporting materials such as finger puppets to aid the retelling of stories.
The volunteersThe volunteer parents and helpers were vital to the research design.
Both schools had difficulties recruiting the volunteers initially, and inducements
Developing spoken language skills 667
Table 2a
WINDSMOOR STANDARDISED SCORES (an intervention school)
Total Language Scores
The table compares standardised scores on first and second tests
First Test
Second Test
Name
(October 2002)
(July 2003)
Abraham
Moet
Yassin
Aliyah
James
Jagdeep
Mason
Nasmin
Donus
Marta
Kristoff
Shannon
Onemaka
Sujey
Anisa
Jack
Hatice
Shaniqua
Lilian
73
81
91
107
92
64
99
70
82
81
81
108
73
98
64
75
64
82
100
97
103
107
130
101
87
110
70
94
106
101
115
87
121
64
98
64
111
125
Mean scoresat pre-test83.4 and at post-test115.6.
were offered, such as a certificate to be awarded by the Institute of Education at
the end of the year for those who had reliably helped the project. Copeland
struggled most. Windsmoor kept also a register of attendance to encourage
reliability of the seven adults recruited to lead the weekly sessions. Copeland
recruited three people and also used a teaching assistant. Early difficulties included
experimenting with the timing of the training for the sessions and when the
feedback was most effective. The volunteers suffered from lack of confidence
initially but this built up once it became clear that the children would be amenable
and would cooperate fully. The format of the sessions was amended to allow more
activity-based work and a play break for the children halfway through, and then a
recap of what had been done in the first part of the session was built in. This
allowed for recounting/narrativeskills to be used. Furthermore, it provided an
opportunity for a recasting of the happenings in each session in the past tense. The
volunteers became keener, took their sessions conscientiously and appeared to
enjoy the experience.
LessonslearnedThereliability of the volunteers is a key issue. Also, a tension exists
between those parents who would benefit from being involved and those who
668 J. Rileyet al.
Table 2b
WINDSMOORAge Equivalents
Name
Age at second test
Years& Months
Age equivalentof
total languagescores
4.9
5.8
5.9
Abraham
Moet
Yassin
5.5
5.7
5.4
Aliyah
5.5
6.10*
James
5.9
5.11
Jagdeep
5.4
4.2*
Mason
5.5
6.4
Nasmin
Donus
Marta
5.8
5.6
5.5
4.0*
4.11
4.10
Kristoff
5.8
5.4
Shannon
Onemaka
Sujey
Anisa
5.7
5.6
5.0
5.9
6.6
4.3*
6.2*
3.6*
Jack
5.7
5.6
Hatice
Shaniqua
Lilian
5.4
5.7
5.7
3.2*
6.2
7.4*
Table 3a
VINTNERS STANDARDIZEDSCORES (the comparisonschool)
Total LanguageScores
First Test
Name
Second Test
(October2002)
(July2003)
Ezra
Shaikul
Annabel
Darren
Christopher
Henry
Gokhan
Imam
Abdul
Khalik
70
70
64
64
70
73
73
64
64
64
78
64
64
64
70
64
64
64
64
64
Mean scoresat pre-test67.6 and at post-test66.
would lead the sessions effectively. Due to the nature of the catchment area there is
also the issue of parents and their own levels of spoken English and their ability to
be able to offer a good model to the children. The end of project certificate was
seen as recognition and a reward and proved to be a motivator for the volunteers.
Developing spoken language skills 669
Table 3b
VINTNERS AGE EQUIVALENT SCORES (the comparison school)
Name
Age at second test
Age equivalent of
Years & Months
total language scores
Ezra
Shaikul
Ann
Darren
Christopher
Henry
Gokhan
Imam
Abdul
Khalik
5.4
5.7
5.4
5.4
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.4
5.7
5.8
4.4
3.10
3.2
2.7
4.7
4.3
3.5
3.9
3.4
3.7
In June2003, no Vintnerschild was performingat the level of his/her
chronologicalage. All wereat least one year behind.
Training is also vital. Both schools undertook this very seriously. Windsmoor gave
the supporters half an hour (3.00-3.30 pm every Thursday afternoon) before their
own children were collected from school. Copeland trained the volunteers during
assembly immediately before the teaching took place.
Grouping the children was more of an issue at Windsmoor due to the fact that the
intervention took place outside the classroom. Also, the advisability of parents
working with their own children was also a consideration.
It now seems that work should be linked and embedded into the ongoing work of
the class. The fruit theme was very successful. It was multisensory and enabled a
memorablevisit at the beginning of the teaching phase to the local marketto buy fruit.
Language was used for a genuine purpose to ask for a particularpurchase.
The accompanying children's literature has to be carefully chosen. Obviously,
relevant, appropriatefor child retelling, colourful and good quality literarystories are
essential. Story props such as finger puppets are valuable.
The content of the sessions is most effective if linked to the class teaching but
flexible enough if the enrichment sessions fall behind for unavoidable reasons. The
resources, once made, if systematicallylabelled and stored, are useful materialsfor use
across the school to support particularbut often repeated projects and topics. The
quality of these is crucial. See Table 4.
Post-intervention language assessment
The findings of the study are encouraging.All the childrenhad made progressin their
language skills. The greatest gains seen are in expressivelanguage. The largest mean
gains were seen in the Recalling Sentences in Context and Word Structuresubtests.
In the first subtest, the group as a whole made 12 points of progresson the test out of a
possible 52. In Word Structure, Windsmoor gained significantly more than the
670 J. Riley et al.
Table 4. Comparingschools
Increase in or maintenance of scores
Vintners
(N= 10)
Copeland
(N=22)
Windsmoor
(N= 19)
No of children who had increased
or maintained their Receptive Language
standardized scores
No of children who had increased or
maintained their Expressive Language
standardized scores
No of children who had increased or
maintained their Total Language
standardized scores
No of children performing at a level
at or above their chronological age in
both Receptive and Expressive language
5 (50%)
19 (86%)
19 (100%)
8 (80%)
17 (77%)
16 (84%)
1 (10%)
19 (86%)
16 (84%)
0
3 (13.6%)
9 (47%)
comparison school. The two intervention schools gained 13 points compared to the
comparison school, which only moved 8 points. Although only one subtest reached
the level of statistical significance, it would appear that the language enrichment
programmemade a difference to these reception children.
The second largest gain made across the three schools was observed in the
Formulating Labels subtest, with the mean gain being 8 points. Although the
comparison school did not make significantlyless progress, the spread of the scores
are less in both intervention schools where all the children made progress. In other
words the intervention supported all the children to make progress.
Conclusion
Overall, the intervention had a positive effect on the oral language skills of the
reception children;all of them had made progress.However, by the end of the year the
majority of the children were still over a year behind the level of what might be
expected for their chronologicalage. In the comparisonschool all the childrenwere at
least a year behind, with six children 18 months to two yearsbehind. One intervention
school, Copeland, had only 3% of childrenfunctioning at or above the level expected
for their chronologicalage and the other, Windsmoor, had 9% by the end of the year.
These findings indicate the level of need for the intervention in the first place. With
improvements to the materials, further training, and a longer and more intensive
period of intervention there is every reason to expect that this could be further
improved.
The pre-interventiontest scores indicated that the spoken language skills of these
childrenat school entry are depressedin comparisonwith the generalpopulation. The
teachers and the enrichmentprogrammein the interventionschools made a difference
Developingspokenlanguageskills 671
to more of the childrenin their classes than the comparisonschool. However, as a neat
experiment this study was not successful in that the children who received the
enrichmentprogrammedid not make statisticallymore progressthan the comparison
school whose school population was different on several counts.
In the interventionliteraturethe patternand intensity of interventionsis crucial.We
were convinced that with a complex cognitive area of functioning such as spoken
language the children needed a broad, rich and active programme with which they
could engage. This was not narrow skills teaching. Nevertheless, it may be that the
programme was too diffuse and spread out with only one session a week.
Furthermore, it is recognized that the scope of the research is limited because of
the small number of schools involved and the study's overall design. The two
intervention schools were self-selected and the limited funding did not allow for a
matched comparison group to be a possibility. Whilst acknowledging these limitations, the study offers a case study of professional development through action
research and addresses an effort to improve language skills through the use of
volunteers within the school system.
These two teachers wanted to improve their teaching and were motivated to apply
for a BPRS funding and were supportedand encouragedby the local higher education
institution. They put in a great deal of extra effort to make this happen at all. The
comparison school was the closest neighbourhood school. The greatest value of the
year was the benefit that the teachers gained from the project. This provided
opportunity for learning about the acquisition of spoken language, its various facets
and complexity through self-study and discussion. The teachers became more aware
about what appears to support development of spoken language in a classroom
situation. The childrenbenefited from languageenrichmentand greateradult support
for their learning than previously.
References
Basic Skills Agency (2003) Youngchildren'sskills on entryto education(London, Basic Skills
Agency).
Catts, H. W. & Kamhi,A. G. (Eds) (1999) Languageand readingdisabilities
(Boston,MA, Allyn&
Bacon).
Chaney, C. (1994) Languagedevelopment,metalinguisticskills and emergentliteracyskills of
three-year-oldchildrenin relationto social class,AppliedPsycholinguistics,
15, 371-394.
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998) The National LiteracyStrategy:
frameworkfor teaching (London, DfEE).
and CurriculumAuthority(DfEE/
Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications
QCA) (1999) The National Curriculum:handbookfor primary teachersin England (London,
DfEE/QCA).
Department of Education and Science (1990) English in the National Curriculum(London, Her
Majesty'sStationeryOffice).
Dockrell, J. E. & Lindsey, G. (2001) Children with specific speech and language difficulties-the
teachers' perspectives, OxfordReview of Education, 27, 369-394.
Dockrell,J. E., Stuart,M. & King, D. (2003) Supportingearlyoral languageskills:rationaleand
evidence (in press).
672 J. Riley et al.
Geva, E. (1997) Issues in the development of second language reading: implications for instruction
and assessment, paper presented at the International Workshopon Integrating Literacy,
Researchand Practice, 13-14 March, London.
Goodman, K. & Goodman, Y. M. (1979) Learning to read is natural, in: L. Resnick & P. Weaver
(Eds) Theoryand practice in early reading (vol. 1) (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).
Halpern, D. F. (1992) Sex differencesin cognitiveabilities (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).
Hart, B. & Risley, R. R. (1995) Meaningful differencesin the everyday experienceof young American
children(Baltimore, MD, Paul Brookes).
Kotler, A., Wegerif, R. & LeVoi, M. (2001) Oracy and the educational achievement of pupils with
English as an Additional Language: the impact of bringing 'talking partners' into Bradford
schools, InternationalJournal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4, 403-419.
Leonard, L. B. (1997) Children with specific language impairment (Cambridge, MA, The MIT
Press).
Lindsay, G. & Dockrell, J. (2002). Meeting the needs of children with speech and communication
needs: a critical perspective on inclusion and collaboration, Child Language Teaching and
Therapy, 18(2), 91-101.
Locke, A. & Peers, I. (2000) Development and disadvantage: implications for the early years and
beyond, paper presented to the International Special Education Congress, University of
Manchester, July.
Locke, A., Ginsberg, J. & Peers, I. (2002) Development and disadvantage: implications for the
early years and beyond, InternationalJournal of Language and CommunicationDisorders,37, 315.
National Literacy Trust (2001) Early years language survey (London, National Literacy Trust).
Pearson, B. Z., Fernandez, S. C., Lewedeg, V. & Oller, D. K. (1997) The relation of input factors
to lexical learning by bilingual infants, Applied Psycholinguistics,18, 41-58.
Peers, I. S., Lloyd, P. & Foster, C. (1999) British standardisation of the CELF. The Psychological
Corporation's speech and language assessment.
Peers, I. & Locke, A. (1999) Teaching spoken language in the early years. Poster presentation to
the ThirdInternationalSymposium:Speechand LanguageImpairments-From Theoryto Practice,
University of York, 21-25 March.
Resnick, J. S. & Goldfield, B. A. (1992) Rapid change in lexical development in comprehension
and production, DevelopmentalPsychology,28, 406-413.
School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) (1997) Use of language: a commonapproach
(London, SCAA).
Semel, E. M., Wiig, E. & Secord, W. (1987) Clinical evaluation of languagefundamentals-revised
(San Antonio, TX, Psychological Corporation).
Sticht, T. G. & James, J. H. (1984) Listening and reading, in: P. D. Pearson (Ed.) The handbookof
readingresearch(New York, Longman).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986) Thoughtand language (3rd edn) (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press).
Wells, G. (1987) The meaningmakers:childrenlearninglanguageand usinglanguageto learn (London,
Hodder & Stoughton).
Whitehurst, G. J. (1997) Language processes in context: language learning in children reared in
poverty, in: L. B. Anderson & M. A. Romski (Eds) Communicationand language acquisition:
disordersfrom atypical development(Baltimore, MD, Paul Brookes).