Milieu Language Teaching

Milieu Language Teaching

In-setting Language Intervention Procedures

The contribution of environmental factors to the course of a child's language development has long been emphasized by behavior analysts (e.g., Skinner, 1957). Given this emphasis on environmental factors in language acquisition, a number of related intervention procedures based on behavioral principles have been developed. These procedures include incidental teaching, mand modeling, and delayed prompt or time-delay.

Incidental teaching. Incidental teaching (Hart & Risley, 1968, 1974) involves the use of normally occurring situations and the child's interest to facilitate language learning. In incidental teaching, the teacher or caregiver takes advantage of naturally occurring situations in which to provide language-learning opportunities for the child. The situation or activity is "child selected" (Hart & Risley, 1975, p. 412), with the teacher or caregiver following the child's lead or interest. Incidental teaching strategies are designed to maximize reinforcement and facilitate generalization (D. M. Baer, personal communication, May 30, 1996).

Once a teacher or caregiver identifies naturally occurring situations in which a child expresses interest, she or he then uses a series of graduated prompts to encourage the child's responses (Hart & Risley, 1974, 1975). Hart and Risley (1974) identified four levels of prompts associated with incidental teaching. A Level 1 prompt involves instituting a 30-second delay when a child displays an interest in a specific object or material. At Level 2, the caregiver prompts the child to ask for the desired object. At Level 3, prompts involve a more elaborate request by the caregiver (e.g., the caregiver shows the child the toy and asks "what is this?"). Finally, at Level 4, the correct response is modeled by the caregiver and the child prompted to imitate the response. Caregivers are taught to use the lowest level of prompt that would encourage the correct response by the child.

In one of the first studies of incidental teaching procedures, Hart and Risley (1968) successfully increased preschool children's use of adjective-noun combinations. Children were first taught adjective-noun combinations (e.g., "red truck") in a structured group setting. To increase the "spontaneous" use of adjective-noun combinations in the free play settings, access to desired classroom materials (e.g., paints) was made contingent on the appropriate use of these combinations. Teachers used graduated levels of prompts similar to those described above to shape the children's verbal behavior.

In a follow-up study, Hart and Risley (1974) used incidental teaching procedures to shape preschool children's use of compound sentences during free play. Children were progressively required to increase the complexity of their statements. At first, children were required to simply name the objects, then they were to add a descriptive word. and finally they were required not only to name the object but also to describe how they would use that object (compound sentence). Children participating in this study increased their use of nouns, adjective-noun combinations, and compound sentences. These skills generalized to other non-training situations in the classroom as well.

Mand-model. The mand-model procedure (e.g., Rogers-Warren & Warren, 1980; Warren, McQuarter, & Rogers-Warren, 1984) is an extension of the incidental teaching model (essentially prompt Levels 2, 3, and 4 of Hart and Risley, 1974). The mand-model procedure involves the teacher or caregiver modeling and/or manding (requesting) a response from the child. In modeling, sometimes known as child-cued modeling (Alpert & Kaiser, 1992; Kaiser, 1993), the teacher or caregiver observes the focus of the child's interest (e.g., a toy train) and models the correct verbalization (e.g., "that's a choo choo train"). If the child makes the correct verbal response (e.g., "choo choo train"), the teacher or caregiver then praises the child and provides the object of interest.

The mand-model procedure builds upon the modeling procedure. In this procedure the teacher or caregiver observes the focus of the child's interest (e.g., the toy train) and mands a response from the child (e.g., "tell me what you want"). If the child makes an incorrect response (e.g., "boat!"), the teacher or caregiver models the correct response (e.g., "say choo choo train").

Rogers-Warren and Rogers (1980) successfully trained teachers to use the mand-model procedure and contingent praise. Child participants showed an increase in their rates of verbalization in general, as well as in their rates of novel words and novel word combinations. Similarly, Warren, McQuarter, and Rogers-Warren (1984) demonstrated the effectiveness of this procedure in promoting generalization and maintenance.

One difference between incidental teaching (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1975) and the mand-model procedure is that, as originally conceived, incidental teaching is dependent upon the child's initiations; in the mand-model procedure the teacher or caregiver more directly controls the number of opportunities for the child to engage in the language interaction (Rogers-Warren & Warren, 1980). This procedure may be useful, then, for children with very low rates of initiation (Rogers-Warren & Warren, 1980).

Time-delay. Another extension of incidental teaching is the time-delay or delayed prompt procedure (e.g., Halle, Baer, & Spradlin, 1981). Time-delay has been defined as "nonvocal cues for vocal language" (Halle, Baer, & Spradlin, 1981, p. 390). In the time-delay procedure, the teacher or caregiver identifies a situation in which the child wants an object or assistance and then waits for the child to make a response. If the child does not respond appropriately, another delay is usually instituted. If this is unsuccessful, the caregiver or teacher will then use the mand-model procedure. The time-delay procedure is useful for teaching children to initiate verbal interaction (Noonan & McCormick, 1993).

Halle, Marshall, and Spradlin (1979) used a time-delay procedure to increase children's "opportunity to respond" for two groups of institutionalized children. Initially, meal trays were withheld for 15 seconds. Of the first set of three children, only one appropriately requested the meal tray and then only on a very limited basis. Next, modeling of the correct response was added to the delay resulting in an increase in appropriate responding by children in the first group. A second group of three children, who had observed the contingencies implemented for the first three, then participated in the delay condition. All children in the second group responded appropriately to the delay contingencies and their results indicated that some children generalized across meal settings and servers. Halle and his colleagues (1981) reported two experiments in which they successfully taught preschool teachers to identify opportunities in which time-delay procedures would be effective with their students. It is interesting to note that in this study teachers were required to drop back to a more teacher-directed modeling procedure if the time-delay was ineffective. Both Charlop, Schreibman, and Thibodeau (1985) and Ingenmey and Van Houten (1991) have successfully used time-delay procedures to increase spontaneous speech in children with autism.

Milieu Teaching. Incidental teaching, the mand-model procedure, and the time-delay technique have been combined with other strategies to encourage child language in the natural environment (Hart & Rogers-Warren, 1978; Alpert & Kaiser, 1992). Hart and Rogers-Warren (1978) have termed this approach "milieu language teaching." Kaiser (1993) defined milieu language teaching as "a naturalistic, conversation-based teaching procedure in which the child's interest in the environment is used as a basis for eliciting elaborated child communicative responses" (p. 77). Naturalistic teaching approaches have been increasingly viewed as the treatment of choice for children with disabilities or children at risk (Noonan & McCormick, 1993; Tannock & Girolametto, 1992). Noonan and McCormick (1993) characterize naturalistic teaching approaches as "structured approaches that use the natural routines and activities in natural environments as the teaching context" (p. 22). These "in-setting" natural environments may be the child's home, classroom, or day care.

There are a number of common features among milieu or incidental teaching procedures. As listed in Kaiser, Yoder, and Keetz (1992, p. 9) these include: (a) language teaching that follows the child's lead or interest, (b) the use of multiple, naturally occurring examples, (c) explicitly prompting the child to use language, (d) the use of natural consequences to reinforce the child's verbal behavior, and (e) embedding milieu language teaching strategies in the ongoing interactions between caregiver and child.

Naturalistic teaching approaches have been very effective in promoting the generalization of children's language skills (e.g., Alpert & Kaiser, 1992; Angelo & Goldstein, 1990; Cavallaro & Bambara, 1982; Charlop, Schreibman, & Thibodeau, 1985; Hart & Risley, 1975; Hemmeter & Kaiser, 1994; Hunt et al, 1986; Kaiser, Yoder, & Keetz, 1992; McGee, Krantz, & McClannahan, 1985; Oliver & Halle, 1982 Rogers-Warren & Warren, 1980; Warren, 1992; Warren & Bambara, 1989; Warren & Gazdag, 1990; Warren & Kaiser, 1986; Warren, McQuarter, & Rogers-Warren, 1984; Yoder, Kaiser, & Alpert, 1991). Laski, Charlop, and Schreibman (1988) speculate that this may be due to the use of multiple exemplars and loose structure of this approach, two strategies identified by Stokes and Baer (1977) as more likely to promote generalization. It may also be that the language skills taught in this approach are more functional for the child and, therefore, may more readily facilitate generalization (Fey, 1986; Guess, Keogh, & Sailor, 1978).

The Role of the Interventionist. In the more traditional, trainer-oriented approach, language intervention is typically conducted in a speech therapy room and is highly structured by the interventionist (Fey, 1986). Approaches such as incidental or milieu teaching typically work with the child in his or her natural setting (i.e., classroom or home) and usually follow the child's lead or interest, not in terms of language skill goals but in relation to toys and objects of interest to the child. This requires the interventionist to respond more flexibly to naturally occurring language teaching opportunities as they occur throughout the day. The interventionist must also be able to identify potential reinforcing contingencies that will be functional for the client in other settings (D. M. Baer, personal communication, May 30, 1996).

In addition, in incidental teaching the role of the interventionist often changes from providing direct intervention with the child to acting as a consultant or trainer of the child's teacher or caregiver, who then implements the procedures (Achilles, Yates, & Freese, 1991; Bunker, McBurnett, & Fenimore, 1987; Cipani, 1989). This change in role can be an advantage in that the teacher or caregiver has far more opportunities throughout the day to engage in milieu language teaching than would a speech and language professional during a traditional pull-out program (Fey, 1986). Ideally, the use of these naturalistic language teaching procedures would become "automatic" to the teacher or caregiver and be used naturally throughout the day. Training across the day should also enhance the generalization and maintenance of the child's newly learned language skills. Perhaps the most difficult part of this training is teaching parents or caregivers how to identify naturally occurring opportunities for language interaction.

Suggestions for Further Research. Further research should be conducted to determine the types of circumstances in which milieu language teaching are most effective. Factors that might be considered include child characteristics, such as specific language disability (e.g., Fey, 1986; Yoder, Kaiser, & Alpert, 1991), and parent characteristics, such as the parent's ability to implement the procedures. Also, further research should examine factors that both promote and inhibit the generalization of language skills by the child and milieu language teaching skills by teachers and parents (Kaiser, 1993). Finally, the impact of milieu teaching on children's long-range language development should be studied, as well as non-language parent-child interaction outcomes (Kaiser, 1993).

References

Achilles, J., Yates, R. R., & Freese, J. M. (1991). Perspectives from the field: Collaborative consultation in the speech and language program of the Dallas Independent School District. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 154-155.

Angelo, D. H., & Goldstein, H. (1990). Effects of a pragmatic teaching strategy for requesting information by communication board users. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 231-243.

Alpert, C. L., & Kaiser, A. P. (1992). Training parents as milieu language teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 16, 31-52.

Bunker, V. J., McBurnett, W. M., & Fenimore, D. L. (1987). Integrating language intervention throughout the school community. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 11, 185-192.

Cavallaro, C. C., & Bambara, L. M. (1982). Two strategies for teaching language during free play. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 7, 80-92.

Charlop, M. E., Schreibman, L., & Thibodeau, M. G. (1985). Increasing spontaneous verbal responding in autistic children using a time delay procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 155-166.

Cipani, E. (1989). Providing language consultation in the natural context: A model for delivery of services. Mental Retardation, 5, 317-324.

Fey, M. E. (1986). Language intervention with young children. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Guess, D., Keogh, W., & Sailor, W. (1978). Generalization of speech and language behavior. In R. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Bases of language intervention. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Halle, J., Baer, D., & Spradlin, J. (1981). Teachers' generalized use of delay as a stimulus control procedure to increase language use in handicapped children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 389- 409.

Halle, J. W., Marshall, A. M., & Spradlin, J. E. (1979). Time delay: A technique to increase language use and generalization in retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 431-439.

Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Establishing the use of descriptive adjectives in the spontaneous speech of disadvantaged children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 109-120.

Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1974). Using preschool materials to modify the language of disadvantaged children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 243-256.

Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1975). Incidental teaching of language in the preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 411-420.

Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1980). In vivo language intervention: Unanticipated general effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 243-256.

Hart, B., & Rogers-Warren, A. (1978). A milieu approach to teaching language. In R. L. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Language intervention strategies (pp. 193-235). Baltimore: University Park Press.

Hemmeter, M. L., & Kaiser, A. P. (1990). Environmental influences on children's language: A model and case study. Education and Treatment of Children, 13, 331-346.

Hemmeter, M. L., & Kaiser, A. P. (1994). Enhanced milieu teaching: Effects of parent-implemented language intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 18, 269-289.

Hepting, N. H., & Goldstein, H. (1996). What's natural about naturalistic language intervention? Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 249-265.

Hunt, P., Goetz, L., Alwell, M., & Sailor, W. (1986). Using an interrupted behavior chain strategy to teach generalized communication responses. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 196- 204.

Ingenmey, R., & Van Houten, R. (1991). Using time delay to promote spontaneous speech in an autistic child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 591-596.

Kaiser, A. P. (1993). Parent-implemented language intervention: An environmental perspective. In A. P. Kaiser & D. B. Gray (Eds.), Enhancing children's communication: Research foundations for intervention (pp. 63-84). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Kaiser, A. P., & Hester, P. P. (1994). Generalized effects of enhanced milieu teaching. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 1320- 1340.

Kaiser, A. P., Yoder, P. J., & Keetz, A. (1992). The efficacy of milieu teaching. In S. F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp. 63-84). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Laski, K. E., Charlop, M. H., & Schreibman, L. (1988). Training parents to use the natural language paradigm to increase their autistic children's speech. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 391-400.

McGee, G. G., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1985). The facilitative effects of incidental teaching on preposition use by autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 17-31.

Noonan, M. J., & McCormick, L. (1993). Early intervention in natural environments: methods and procedures. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Oliver, C. B., & Halle, J. W. (1982). Language training in the everyday environment: Teaching functional sign use to a retarded child. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 8, 50-62.

Rogers-Warren, A., & Warren, S. F. (1980). Mands for verbalization. Behavior Modification, 4, 361-382.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Stokes, T.F., & Baer, D. M. (1974). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367.

Tannock, R., & Girolametto, L. (1992). Reassessing parent-focused language intervention programs. In S. F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp.49-76). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Warren, S. (1992). Facilitating basic vocabulary acquisition with milieu teaching procedures. Journal of Early Intervention, 16, 235-251.

Warren S. F., & Bambara, L. M. (1989). An experimental analysis of milieu language intervention: Teaching an action-object form. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 448-461.

Warren, S. F., & Gazdag, G. (1990). Facilitating early language development with milieu intervention procedures. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 62-86.

Warren, S. F. & Kaiser, A. P. (1986). Incidental language teaching: A critical review. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 291-299.

Warren, S. F., McQuarter, R. J., & Rogers-Warren, A. P. (1984). The effects of mands and models on the speech of unresponsive language- delayed preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 43-52.

Yoder, P. J., Kaiser, A. P., & Alpert, C. L. (1991). An exploratory study of the interaction between language teaching methods and child characteristics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 155-167.