Retrieval Practice and Word Learning in Children With Specific Language Impairment and Their Typically Developing Peers

Abstract

Purpose In this article, we review the role of retrieval practice on the word learning and retention of children with specific language impairment (SLI). Method Following a brief review of earlier findings on word learning in children with SLI and the assumptions behind retrieval practice, four experiments are described that compared novel words learned in a repeated spaced retrieval condition and those learned in either a repeated study condition or a repeated immediate retrieval condition. Preschool-age children with SLI and their same-age peers with typical language development were the participants in all experiments. The effects of repeated spaced retrieval were assessed through measures of recall of word form and meaning and, receptively, through both picture-pointing and electrophysiological measures. Results Repeated spaced retrieval resulted in greater recall of word form and meaning across the experiments. This advantage was seen not only for word-picture pairs used during the learning period but also when generalization of the word to new pictures was required. Receptive testing through picture pointing showed similar results, though in some experiments, ceiling effects rendered this measure less sensitive to differences. An alternative receptive measure-the N400 elicited during picture-word mismatches-showed evidence at the neural level favoring repeated spaced retrieval. The advantages of repeated spaced retrieval were seen in both children with SLI and their typically developing age mates. Conclusion Future efforts are warranted to refine and extend the experiments reviewed here. If these efforts prove successful, procedures that incorporate repeated spaced retrieval into more naturalistic clinical and educational activities might be an appropriate next step. Presentation Video https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13063730.

Figure 1.

(a) An example of the first block of the learning period in the study of Leonard, Deevy, et al. (2019). In this example, the novel word /nɛp/ is assigned to the repeated spaced retrieval (RSR) condition. In this block, /nɛp/ is retrieved in three instances. Retrieval is immediate in the first retrieval trial. This is designated “0” because there are no words intervening between the retrieval trial and the preceding study trial. For the second and third retrieval trials for /nɛp/, three other words intervened between the retrieval trial and the preceding study trial. For this reason, these retrieval trials are designated “3.” (b) An example of the first block showing a novel word /paɪb/ assigned to the repeated study condition. In this instance, three other words intervened between appearances of each word, but only study trials are employed.

Figure 2.

The (unconditional) mean number of items correct on the recall test at 5 min and 1 week for novel nouns in the repeated spaced retrieval (RSR) and repeated study (RS) conditions by children with specific language impairment (SLI) and children with typical language development (TD) in the study of Leonard, Karpicke, et al. (2019). Error bars are standard errors.

Figure 3.

The (unconditional) mean number of items correct on the recall test at 5 min and 1 week for novel nouns in the repeated spaced retrieval (RSR) and immediate retrieval (IR) conditions by children with specific language impairment (SLI) and children with typical language development (TD) in the study of Haebig et al. (2019, Experiment 1). Error bars are standard errors.

Figure 4.

Example of a drawing used to illustrate a novel attribute in the adjective study of Leonard, Deevy, et al. (2019). Copyright © Stephanie Funcheon. Reprinted with permission. This image does not fall under the Creative Commons license.

Figure 5.

The (unconditional) mean number of novel adjective items correct on the recall test for learned and generalization items in the repeated spaced retrieval (RSR) condition and the repeated study (RS) condition by the children with specific language impairment (SLI) and the children with typical language development (TD) in the study of Leonard, Deevy, et al. (2019). The figure reflects the similar behavior of the learned and generalization items when considered within each learning condition and participant group. Error bars are standard errors.