The contributions of immediate retrieval and spaced retrieval to word learning in preschoolers with developmental language disorder

Abstract

Background and Aims Children with developmental language disorder (DLD) benefit from word learning procedures that include a mix of immediate retrieval and spaced retrieval trials. In this study, we examine the relative contribution of these two types of retrieval. Methods We examine data from Haebig et al. (2019) in their study that compared an immediate retrieval condition and a condition of spaced retrieval that also included immediate retrieval trials. Participants were 4- and 5-year old children with DLD and same-age peers with typical language development. Each child learned novel (made-up) words referring to unusual plants and animals in both conditions. We examined the phonetic accuracy of the novel words used during the final learning trial and during recall tests 5 min and 1 week after learning. Results On the final learning trial, the children were more phonetically accurate in using the novel words learned in the immediate retrieval condition. However, recall tests after the learning trials revealed a decrease in accuracy, especially for the children with DLD. After one week, accuracy was much lower for words in the immediate retrieval condition than for words in the mixed spaced-plus-immediate retrieval condition. For words learned in the mixed spaced-plus-immediate retrieval condition, accuracy was very stable across time for both groups. Conclusions Immediate retrieval boosts the phonetic accuracy of new words in the short term but spaced retrieval promotes stability and increases the likelihood that short-term gains are maintained. Implications: When novel word learning is assessed at the level of phonetic accuracy, children with DLD can show declines over time not characteristic of children with typical language development. Spaced retrieval procedures augmented by immediate retrieval opportunities during learning appear to prevent such declines, leading to longer-lasting gains.

Does the public know what researchers know? Perceived task difficulty impacts adults’ intuitions about children’s early word learning

“…As such, domain-general tasks, like the cross-situational word learning paradigm, have been used to study developmental language disorder, apraxia of speech, aphasia, and late talking (Ahufinger et al, 2021 ; McGregor et al, 2022 ; Peñaloza et al, 2017 ). Moreover, several domain-general theory principles (e.g., spaced and variable learning) have been effectively applied to intervention work in clinical research settings (Desmottes et al, 2017 ; Haebig et al, 2019 ; Leonard et al, 2021 , 2022 ; Levlin et al, 2022 ; Plante et al, 2014 ). Why did SLPs nonetheless demonstrate similar alignment with the other participant groups?…”

“…For instance, parents use pointing and eye-gaze in real-world settings, which has been linked to better language outcomes in children (e.g., Cartmill et al, 2010 ). Spaced schedules and variable contexts benefit learning in classrooms and clinical settings (e.g., Leonard et al, 2021 , 2022 ; Sobel et al, 2011 ). Finally, cross-cultural studies have shown that children acquire language from overheard speech in their environment (e.g., Shneidman & Goldin-Meadow, 2012 ).…”

“…In brief, researchers have identified several robust learning mechanisms and heuristics underlying children’s word mapping and learning, which have been observed outside of the laboratory (e.g., Cartmill et al, 2010 ; Leonard et al, 2021 , 2022 ; Shneidman & Goldin-Meadow, 2012 ; Sobel et al, 2011 ).…”

A lack of retrieval practice effects in children's recognition and recall memory of novel words during storybook reading

“…One explanation for this finding is that the frequency of retrieval attempts was increased, but not the spacing between learning and retrieval practice; that is, children engaged in retrieval practice immediately after hearing the novel words and not at a delay. Prior work has demonstrated that spacing out retrieval opportunities improves retention in comparison to providing immediate retrieval practice (Karpicke and Roediger, 2007;Haebig et al, 2019;Leonard and Deevy, 2020;Leonard et al, 2021Leonard et al, , 2022. Spacing out retrieval practice in time might have engaged the retrieval processes necessary to successfully retrieve the words at test.…”

“…Retrieval practice should also be embedded in laboratory-based tasks (e.g., paired-associates task) and organic learning environments (e.g., preschool classrooms, parent-child dyads) to determine how the implementation of retrieval practice influences memory performance. Finally, this work should be conducted in a broad age and language ability range to account for developmental differences in retrieval practice effects (see Haebig et al, 2019;Leonard and Deevy, 2020;Leonard et al, 2021Leonard et al, , 2022 for work on retrieval practice in children with developmental language disorder). These endeavors will contribute to theoretical accounts that can explain developmental differences in retrieval practice effects.…”