Parents' beliefs and ideas about children's early speech and language difficulties

How essentialist reasoning about language acquisition relates to educational myths and policy endorsements

How people conceptualize learning is related to real-world educational consequences across many domains of education. Despite its centrality to the educational system, we know little about how the public reasons about language acquisition, and the potential consequences for their thinking about real-world issues (e.g., policy endorsements). The current studies examined people's essentialist beliefs about language acquisition (e.g., that language is innate and biologically based), then investigated how individual differences in these beliefs related to the endorsement of educational myths and policies. We probed several dimensions of essentialist beliefs, including that language acquisition is innate, genetically based, and wired in the brain. In two studies, we tested specific hypotheses regarding the extent to which people use essentialist thinking when reasoning about: learning a specific language (e.g., Korean), learning a first language more generally, and learning two or more languages. Across studies, participants were more likely to essentialize the ability to learn multiple languages than one's first language, and more likely to essentialize the learning of multiple languages and one's first language than the learning of a particular language. We also found substantial individual differences in the degree to which participants essentialized language acquisition. In both studies, these individual differences correlated with an endorsement of language-related educational neuromyths (Study 1 and pre-registered Study 2), and rejection of educational policies that promote multilingual education (Study 2). Together, these studies reveal the complexity of how people reason about language acquisition and its corresponding educational consequences.

Evidence-based intervention for preschool children with primary speech and language impairments: Child Talk – an exploratory mixed-methods study

Background

The Child Talk study aimed to develop an evidence-based framework to support the decision-making of speech and language therapists (SLTs) as they design and plan interventions appropriate to the needs of individual children with primary speech and language impairments and their families. The need for early identification and effective intervention for these children continues to be a government policy priority because of the link between children’s early speech and language skills and their broader well-being and outcomes in later life. The first phase of Child Talk sought to map and describe current SLT practice for these children; identify and summarise the existing research evidence relating to practice; and investigate the perspectives of parents, early years practitioners, preschool children and ‘underserved’ communities on speech and language therapy. The second phase of Child Talk focused on the development of a toolkit – assessment tools, outcome measures and a data set – to support future service and economic evaluations of the framework.

Methods

Child Talk adopted a mixed-methods design. Quantitative methods included surveys and investigated the prevalence and patterns of intervention usage; qualitative data collection methods included focus groups, interviews and reflection to investigate participants’ perspectives and understandings of interventions. Data analysis methods included descriptive and inferential statistics, thematic and content analysis and framework analysis. Participants were recruited nationally through six NHS sites, professional bodies, parent groups and advertising. Participants included SLTs (n = 677), parents (n = 84), preschool children (n = 24), early years practitioners (n = 31) and ‘underserved’ communities (n = 52).

Key findings

Speech and language therapy interventions were characterised in terms of nine themes, viewed as comprehensive and inclusive by practitioners. Relevant assessments, interventions and outcome domains were identified for the nine themes. Areas of tacit knowledge and underspecified processes contributed to variability in the detail of the framework. Systematic reviews identified 58 relevant and robust studies (from 55,271 papers retrieved from the initial literature search). The number of studies relevant to each theme varied from 1 to 33. Observational data on preschool children’s perspectives on speech and language therapy interventions revealed the dynamic nature of their interaction with different activities and people within therapy sessions. Parents’ experiences of speech and language therapy were generally positive although some reported that the rationale for therapy was not always clear. Parental perspectives in underserved communities suggested that, although parents were confident about how to support children’s language development, they were less informed about the nature of language impairments and the function of speech and language therapy. The availability of information regarding resources directed towards speech and language therapy services was poor. In particular, services lacked both a culture of collecting outcome data routinely and measures of professional input and costs associated with their activities.

Conclusion

A descriptive framework of SLT practice has been developed to support the discussions between therapists and families when making decisions regarding the selection of interventions and outcome measures. Further research is needed to address gaps in the intervention framework and evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in improving outcomes for preschool children with primary speech and language impairments.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006369.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.