Language intervention for causal adverbial production and science content learning

120 Pages·2017·3.19 MB·English

University of Iowa
Iowa Research Online
Theses and Dissertations
Summer 2017
Language intervention for causal adverbial
production and science content learning
Maura K. Curran
University of Iowa
Copyright © 2017 Maura K. Curran
This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/5742
Recommended Citation
Curran, Maura K.. "Language intervention for causal adverbial production and science content learning." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy)
thesis, University of Iowa, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.h6pripkh.
Follow this and additional works at:https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd
Part of theSpeech and Hearing Science Commons
LANGUAGE INTERVENTION FOR CAUSAL ADVERBIAL PRODUCTION AND
SCIENCE CONTENT LEARNING

by

Maura K. Curran

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Speech and Hearing Science in the
Graduate College of
The University of Iowa

August 2017

Thesis Supervisor: Associate Professor Amanda Owen Van Horne
Copyright by

MAURA KATHLEEN CURRAN

2017

All Rights Reserved
Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

____________________________

PH.D. THESIS

_________________

This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesisof

Maura Kathleen Curran

has been approved by the Examining Committee for
the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree
in Speech and Hearing Science at the August 2017 graduation.

Thesis Committee: ____________________________________________
Amanda Owen Van Horne, Thesis Supervisor

____________________________________________
Karla McGregor

____________________________________________
Susan Cook

____________________________________________
Renee Cole

____________________________________________
Megan Roberts
To Anne and Tom Shea, and MaryEllen and Sean Curran

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my mentor, Amanda Owen Van Horne, the rest of my committee including
Karla McGregor, Susan Cook, Renee Cole and Megan Roberts. I would like to acknowledge
Youjia Hua for his help with the design of the study. Cynthia Leung and Andrea Zukowski kindly
shared stimuli. I would also like to acknowledge Rebecca Howard, Heather Lindenberg, Emma
Porter and Julia Logan for the hours they spent scoring probes and reviewing treatment sessions. I
would like to thank the Scott County Public Library, Bettendorf Public Library, Davenport Public
Library, and Williamsburg Public Library for the use of their meeting rooms. I would also like to
thank the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County for assistance during the pilot phase of this
project. I am grateful for funding from the University of Iowa DeLTA Center, University of Iowa
College of Education, and the University of Iowa Communication Sciences and Disorders
Department, as well as for assistance from the College of Liberal Arts and Science for the writing
of this document.

iii
ABSTRACT
Language serves as an essential resource to learn about cause and effect throughout childhood. Causal
adverbial sentences use causal conjunctions (e.g., because, so) to join two clauses to express cause-effect
relationships (Diessel & Hetterle, 2011). Causal adverbial sentences are frequently used to explain causal
relationships in academic contexts, such as elementary school science and social studies classes (Kinzie et al., 2014;
Williams et al., 2014). Children with specific language impairment (SLI) are at risk for failure in these academically
relevant language skills. Here, a multiple probe design was used to examine the effect of language intervention
focused on causal adverbials on both causal adverbials and acquisition of academic content for
preschool/kindergarten children with SLI. Child performance on sentence elicitation probes of causal adverbials and
an untreated control structure were analyzed. Six of seven participants exhibited gains at some level in production of
causal adverbials containing because. Performance on daily probes of science content learning, and science unit tests
indicate that participants are able to learn science content, but the magnitude of gains may not relate to skill in causal
adverbial production. Language intervention for young children with SLI can effectively treat complex syntactic
targets such as causal adverbials in the context of science instruction, but it is unclear whether this can affect science
content learning.

iv
PUBLIC ABSTRACT
Language serves as an essential resource to learn about cause and effect throughout childhood. Causal
adverbial sentences use causal conjunctions (e.g., because, so) to express cause-effect relationships, such as by
saying “The kite flew because wind pushed it” (Diessel & Hetterle, 2011). Causal adverbial sentences are frequently
used to explain causal relationships in academic contexts, such as elementary school science and social studies
classes (Kinzie et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2014). Children with specific language impairment (SLI) are at risk for
failure in these academically relevant language skills. This study examined the effect of language intervention
focused on causal adverbials on both causal adverbials and acquisition of academic content for
preschool/kindergarten children with SLI. Language intervention was conducted during one-on-one science lessons.
Children improved their skills in saying sentences with because, but did not improve their skills with so sentences.
Children learned new science information, but this did not appear to be related to when or how well they showed
progress on because sentences. Language intervention for young children can focus on complex skills like causal
adverbial use in academically meaningful settings, but the effect on academic performance is not yet clear.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................................... x
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Children’s Understanding of Causal Relationships ................................................................................................... 1
Casual Relationships in Science Education ............................................................................................................... 3
Developmental Trajectory of Multi-Clause Utterances ............................................................................................. 5
Causal Adverbial Structures ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Disconnect Between Comprehension and Production ............................................................................................... 6
Other Complex Structures ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Multi-clause utterances in children with SLI .......................................................................................................... 11
Causal Adverbial Structures in SLI ......................................................................................................................... 12
Supportive Factors .................................................................................................................................................. 13
Language and Science Learning .............................................................................................................................. 13
Language Intervention For Young Children ........................................................................................................... 14
Current Interventions For Adverbials ...................................................................................................................... 15
Authentic Contexts for Therapy .............................................................................................................................. 17
Gap .......................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Research Questions ................................................................................................................................................. 18
PILOT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Goals ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Method .................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Causals: Typically Developing Monolingual Children ........................................................................................... 19
Causals: Children Who Are ELL ............................................................................................................................ 20
Participants.......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
METHODS AND OUTCOME MEASURES ............................................................................................................. 29
Justification of Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 29
Procedures ............................................................................................................................................................... 31
Baseline ............................................................................................................................................................... 31
Science Instruction .............................................................................................................................................. 32
Curriculum. ......................................................................................................................................................... 32
Session Plans....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Science Only. ...................................................................................................................................................... 33
Science Plus. ....................................................................................................................................................... 34
Fidelity .................................................................................................................................................................... 35
vi
Measures Used ........................................................................................................................................................ 36
Daily Probes ............................................................................................................................................................ 37
Science Content .................................................................................................................................................. 37
Causal Adverbials ............................................................................................................................................... 37
Control Structures. .............................................................................................................................................. 37
Pre-Test and Post-Test Measures. ........................................................................................................................... 38
Science Unit Tests .............................................................................................................................................. 38
Puppet Interview Scales ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Language Probes ................................................................................................................................................. 38
Expository Re-Tell .............................................................................................................................................. 38
Pre-Test Only ...................................................................................................................................................... 39
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Daily Probes. ....................................................................................................................................................... 39
Pre-Post Measures and Unit Tests ...................................................................................................................... 40
Participants .............................................................................................................................................................. 40
Cohort 1. ............................................................................................................................................................. 43
Cohort 2. ............................................................................................................................................................. 43
Differences Between Cohorts. ............................................................................................................................ 43
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Cohort One .............................................................................................................................................................. 44
Adam................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Breanna. .............................................................................................................................................................. 47
Connor. ............................................................................................................................................................... 48
Cohort One as a Group ....................................................................................................................................... 49
Cohort Two ............................................................................................................................................................. 49
David................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Edward. ............................................................................................................................................................... 52
Eli. ....................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Francesca. ........................................................................................................................................................... 53
Cohort Two as a Group ....................................................................................................................................... 54
Single Case Design ................................................................................................................................................. 55
Pre-Post Measures and Unit Tests ........................................................................................................................... 55
PISCES .................................................................................................................................................................... 58
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................................................. 60
Integration of Language Intervention and Science Teaching .................................................................................. 60
Authentic Context For Intervention. ................................................................................................................... 60
Cost-Benefit Analysis. ........................................................................................................................................ 60
vii