An exploratory study was conducted to compare 2 naturalistic language intervention methods: milieu teaching and responsive interaction. Classroom teachers implemented the treatment methods in 6 classrooms. Thirty-six children were matched on 4 pretreatment language measures and assigned to 1 of the 2 treatments. No main effects for treatment were found. However, milieu teaching was more effective than responsive interaction in facilitating receptive language and expressive vocabulary, if the children began intervention with relatively low receptive or expressive language levels. In contrast, responsive interaction was more effective than milieu teaching in facilitating receptive language and expressive vocabulary if the children began intervention with relatively high receptive or expressive language levels. The explanations for these results suggest several directions for future research and highlight the increasingly common finding that no 1 intervention is superior for all children.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bloom, L. & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders.New York: Wiley & Sons.
2.
Brown, R. (1973). First language: The early stages.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
3.
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1988). Theory, assessment, and intervention in language disorders: An integrative approach.Philadelphia: Grune & Stratton.
4.
Cole, K., Dale, P., & Mills, P. (1990). Defining language delay in young children by cognitive referencing: Are we saying more than we know?. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 291–302.
5.
Cole, K. N., Dale, P. S., & Mills, P. E. (1992). Individual differences in language delayed children's responses to direct and interactive preschool instruction. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11, 99–124.
6.
Connell, P. J. (1987). An effect of modeling and imitation teaching procedures on children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 105–113.
7.
Cronbach, L. J. (1976). Research in classrooms and schools: formulation of questions design, and analysis.Stanford, California: Stanford University.
8.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L.M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised. Circle Pines, MN. American Guidance Service.
9.
Ezell, H. K., & Goldstein, H. (1989). Effects of imitation on language comprehension and transfer to production in children with mental retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 49–56.
10.
Friedman, P., & Friedman, K. (1980). Accounting for individual differences when comparing the effectiveness of remedial language teaching methods. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 151–170.
11.
Gardner, E. (1979). Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test.Novato, CA: Academic Therapy.
12.
Guess, D., Sailor, W., & Baer, D.M. (1976). Functional speech and language training for the severely handicapped.Lawrence, KS: H & H Enterprises.
13.
Hart, B. (1985). Naturalistic language training techniques. In S. F. Warren & A. K. Rogers-Warren (Eds.), Teaching functional language: Generalization and maintenance of language skills (pp. 63–88). Austin: Pro-Ed.
14.
Hart, B. M., & Risley, T.R. (1975). Incidental teaching of language in the preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 411–420.
15.
Hart, B. M., & Rogers-Warren, A. K. (1978). A milieu approach to teaching language. In R. L. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Language intervention strategies (Vol. 2, pp. 192–235). Baltimore: University Park Press.
16.
Hedrick, D. L., Prather, E. M., & Tobin, A. R. (1984). Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development: Test manual.Seattle: University of Washington Press.
17.
Hopkins, K. D. (1982). The unit of analysis: Group means versus individual observations. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 5–18.
18.
Kaiser, A. P., & Alpert, C.L. (1994). Milieu teaching: Strategies for functional language intervention. Manuscript submitted for publication.
19.
Kaiser, A. P., Yoder, P. J., & Fischer, R., & Keefer, M., Hemmeter, M.L., & Ostrosky, M. M. (1994), A comparison of milieu teaching and responsive interaction implemented by parents. Manuscript in preparation.
20.
Kaiser, A. P., Yoder, P. J., & Keetz, A. (1992). Evaluating milieu teaching. In S. F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (Vol. 1, pp. 9–47). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
21.
Lindquist, E. G. (1940). Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education.New York: Houghton-Mifflin.
22.
Mahoney, G. (1975). An ethological approach to delayed language acquisition. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 80, 139–148.
23.
Mahoney, G., & Powell, A. (1988). Modifying parent-child interaction: Enhancing the development of handicapped children. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 82–96.
24.
Miller, J. F. (1981). Assessing language production in children: Experimental procedures.Baltimore: University Park Press.
25.
Miller, J., & Chapman, R. (1983). SALT: System analysis of language transcriptions.Baltimore: University Park Press.
26.
Mitchell, S. K. (1979). Interobserver agreement, reliability, and generalizability of data collected in observational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 276–390.
27.
Nelson, K. E. (1989). Strategies for first language teaching. In M. Rice & R. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), The teachability of language (pp. 263–310). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
28.
Owens, R. E. (1984). Language development: An introduction.Columbus: Merrill.
29.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction.New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.
30.
Rogers, S., Herbison, J. M., Lewis, H. C., & Pantone, J., & Reis, K. (1986). An approach for enhancing the symbolic, communicative, and interpersonal functioning of young children with autism or severe emotional handicaps. Journal of the Division of Early Childhood. 10, 135–148.
31.
Scollon, R. (1976). A real early stage: An unzippered condensation of a dissertation on child language. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 215–227). New York: Academic Press.
32.
Snow, C. E., Perlmann, R., & Nathan, D.C. (1987). Why routines are different: Toward a multiple- factors model of the relation between input and language acquisition. In K. Nelson & A. van Kleeck (Eds.), Children's language (Vol. 6, pp. 281–296). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
33.
Stremel-Campbell, K., & Campbell, C. R. (1985). Training techniques that may facilitate generalization. In S. F. Warren & A. K. Rogers-Warren (Eds.), Teaching functional language: Generalization and maintenance of language skills (pp. 251–288). Austin: Pro-Ed.
34.
Tannock, R., & Girolametto, L. (1992).Reassessing parent-focused language intervention programs: Outcome, limitations and potential. In S. F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (Vol. 1, pp. 49–79). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
35.
Warren, S. F., & Bambara, L.M. (1989). An experimental analysis of milieu language intervention: Teaching the action-object form. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 448–461.
36.
Warren, S. F. & Gazdag, G. (1990). Facilitating early language development with milieu intervention procedures. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 62–86.
37.
Warren, S. F., & Kaiser, A.P. (1986). Generalization of trained language by young language delayed children: Longitudinal analysis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 239–251.
38.
Warren, S. F., & Rogers-Warren, A. K. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of language generalization among adolescents with severely handicapping conditions. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 8(4), 18–31.
39.
Weiss, R. S. (1981). INREAL intervention for language handicapped and bilingual children. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 4, 40–52.
40.
Yoder, P. J. (1992, December). Summary of three studies that compare language interventions for preschoolers with disabilities. Paper presented at the Division for Early Childhood, Washington, D.C.
41.
Yoder, P. J. & Davies, B. (1990). Do questions and topic continuations elicit replies from developmentally delayed children: A sequential analysis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 563–573.
42.
Yoder, P. J., & Davies, B. (1992). Greater intelligibility in verbal routines with young children with developmental delays. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 77–91.
43.
Yoder, P. J., Kaiser, A. P., & Alpert, C. (1991). An exploratory study of the interaction between language teaching methods and child characteristics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 155–167.
