florida state university libraries · web viewfurthermore, a larger sample size that spans a...
Post on 05-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Story Language
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION
STORY LANGUAGE: MACROSTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN
By
KELLY SMITH
A Thesis submitted to theSchool of Communication Science and Disorders
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major
Degree Awarded:Spring, 2017
1
Story Language 2
Story Language
Abstract
This project investigated how macrostructure story language use varies among 3-to-5-
year-old preschool children when told to retell the story “Billy Bear & the Balloon”. The goal
was to see what macrostructure elements children this age use in their story retellings, and
furthermore, at what frequency they use them. This was done by having the participants each
watch the short movie “Billy Bear & the Balloon”, then retell the story while the clinician
collected their language sample using a simple recording device. The language samples were
then transcribed and coded for each macrostructure element being investigated. Upon
examination of their coded language samples, it became clear that there is a potential relationship
between both story language use and age, and story language use and gender. This research
highlights the importance of awareness of story language use norms, particularly as dependent on
both age and gender, as deviation from the norm could indicate a potential language impairment
that needs to be addressed in clinical therapy.
Keywords: story language, macrostructure, preschool, story retelling, gender, early childhood,
language development
3
Story Language
STORY LANGUAGE: MACROSTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN
Introduction
Narratives, as defined by Boudreau and Chapman (2000), are written and/or oral accounts
of a series of events, presented through that of fictional stories, scripts, or personal events. All
children possess the ability to tell both fictional (Gerrig, Berman & Slobin, 1995) and personal
event narratives (Bliss & McCabe, 2008) to an audience. When children can tell stories with
control over macrostructural elements of language (the narrative structure of a story), they
demonstrate important language growth and development milestones. The use of spoken
narration is an important language development milestone for children, because it further shows
a child’s ability to comprehend, analyze, organize, and produce language appropriately for his or
her age (Champion, Seymour, & Camarata, 1995).
As past research has shown, both personal and fictional narratives comprise a large part
of the spontaneous discourse produced by typical-developing children (Westerveld, Gillon, &
Boyd, 2012). Narrative storytelling in general is a complex use of language, because it requires a
certain level of narrative competence from the speaker, along with the ability to mentally
organize the account or recount of the past experience before producing the narrative itself, all
while using appropriate macrostructure elements (Bliss & McCabe, 2012). While telling a story,
speakers are also tasked with the ability to stay on track with the organizational framework of a
narrative, and to also be mindful of the reaction of their audience in terms of whether their
attention is being kept or not (Hughes, 2001).
4
Story Language
What is the Macrostructure of Story Language?
Macrostructure story language can be defined as the language used to move the listener
through the events of the story from the beginning, when the characters and the setting of the
story are first introduced, through the plot of the story to the end where the resolution occurs
(Hughes, McGillivray & Schmidek, 2009). Components of story language macrostructure
include: the characters (C), the setting (S), episodes—initiating event (IE), plot (PL), attempt
(A), consequence (K), reaction (R)—and an ending (E). Macrostructure use develops with age,
becoming more and more complex over time. For example, at around 4-6 years of age, children
should be using IE, A, and C episodes, along with being able to provide a setting and an ending
to their story (Hoffman, 2009). With age, children learn to add and develop more episodes into
their stories to make them more complex and in depth (McCabe & Rollins, 1994).
Narrative Language Influencing Factors
Past research states that there are a variety of different factors that can influence a child’s
narrative language. Two factors that are particularly relevant to this research project are that of
age and gender. In a past study held by of Hudson and Shapiro (1991), it was found that, as
children develop and age, they start to include a greater number of macrostructural elements in
their narratives, making their stories increasingly complex. This study also found that children in
preschool through third grade knew to provide their listeners with necessary character and setting
information, so as to immediately orient their listeners to the story at hand. Similarly, other
studies have shown developmental differences in narratives by age. Pre-school-aged children
tend to combine events in their narrations more than younger children, but may narrate out of
sequence or without acknowledging characters’ goals (McCabe & Rollins, 1994).
5
Story Language
Gender can also have an influence on a child’s narrative language development. This
particular developmental factor has been researched extensively with the overall conclusion that
female children have an accelerated ability in terms of language acquisition and development.
Studies have found that infant girls, on average, produce their first pointing gestures (a precursor
to spoken language) earlier than boys (Butterworth & Morissette, 1996). Furthermore, girls not
only produce their first words (Maccoby, 1966) and first sentences (Ramer, 1976) at a younger
age than boys, but they also have larger vocabularies (Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, &
Lyons, 1991) and use a greater amount of different sentence structure types than boys of the
same age (Ramer, 1976).
In a research study performed on five boys and five girls aged 4-5 years old, researchers
found 30% more of the gene FOX2P, one of the primary genes responsible for the production of
speech, in the female children than the male children (Bowers, Perez-Pouchoulen, Edwards, &
McCarthy, 2013). However, this study has not been without criticism, as other professionals
have claimed that a study of such a small sample size cannot be relied upon to generalize the
answer to gender differences in language. At this point in time, there is no single, clear indicator
as to why boys and girls differ in language development. It could be due to genetic differences
like that of FOX2P, hormone balance differences, socialization, or even a combination of many
different factors.
The Importance of Macrostructure Use, Both Developmentally and Academically
Developmentally speaking, use of proper macrostructural elements in story language
helps to distinguish children with language impairments from their typically developing peers
(Allen, Ukrainetz, Carswell, 2012). If a child is not using the proper amount of macrostructural
6
Story Language
elements while telling or retelling a story, when most of his or her peers are, it could be
indicative of a variety of developmental issues. For example, it could mean that the child is not
comprehending the original story, and so has trouble retelling the story to a listener. Poor
storytelling skills are also signs of a social pragmatic language impairment. According to the
2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition), one of the diagnostic
criteria for a social pragmatic communication disorder is that of difficulty in storytelling
(American Psychiatric Association). Narrative language, particularly narrative retelling, helps to
bridge oral and written language, and is important in overall reading and writing skill
development for young children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). If a child has poor discourse
and narrative language skills, he or she is at high risk for learning and literacy difficulties later on
in development if left without treatment or additional help (McCabe & Rollins, 1994).
In terms of academics, narration has practical significance for school-age children, due to
Common Core State Standards. These standards test children’s academic and mental
development in school on a yearly basis, requiring all children to meet benchmark milestones
depending on their age and grade. Florida is one of the states to have adopted this policy,
meaning all of the children observed during this research project are held to the same state-
mandated developmental standards. Narration is often included in these state benchmarks. For
example, by second grade, Common Core State Standards requires children to be able to tell or
retell a story with facts and relevant details using proper, coherent sentences (National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers,
2010). Furthermore, it has been found in past research that narrative telling is one of the best
predictors of future academic success, due to the fact that storytelling requires a number of
higher-level language and cognitive skills (Bishop & Edmundson, 1987).
7
Story Language
Why Do We Use Language Samples?
In this research project, and in past research done by professionals in the field, language
samples have been used to better evaluate a client’s—no matter his age—speech abilities. This
type of evaluation usually occurs in informal research assessment environments, in which the
therapist or researcher records what the client says or how he behaves (Hodgson, 2011). The
researcher will often record and transcribe these language samples during activities like
interviews or play based-assessments, in which the client is meant to act as natural as possible.
Language samples can provide a great deal of very detailed information on a client’s language
abilities. For example, it can show the researcher specific language areas, like syntax,
morphology, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics, that the client is or is not using. These
samples can be coded to better see, and count, how many cases of each area of language the
client uses in his natural speech (Hodgson, 2011). In the case of this experiment, the language
samples will be collected, coded, and then counted to get a better visual representation of what
types of, and how many, macrostructures pre-k students are using in their narrative speech. This
will give us an idea of how well-developed the students’ narrative languages are for their age.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to examine and describe the use of macrostructure
language components in narrative story retelling by 3-to-5-year-old preschool children within the
southeast region of the United States. The primary goal of the study was to determine what
different types of macrostructural components 3-to-5-year-old children use, and to what degree
of frequency. It is hypothesized that macrostructure use variety and frequency will increase with
age.
8
Story Language
Aims of this Research Project
This research project aims to examine and describe the macrostructural elements used in
story retelling by preschool children in a number of schools throughout the southeast region of
the United States. Specific questions included:
1. What, and how many different, macrostructures are the preschool children using in their
story retellings?
2. If macrostructure use varies among the examined children, what could be the potential
reason(s) or factor(s)? Specifically, do narrative skills differ by gender and/or age?
Methods
The purpose of this study was to examine and describe the use of macrostructure
language components in narrative story retelling by preschool children within the southeast
region of the United States. Furthermore, the participant group containing children aged 3-to-5-
years-old were compared to one another as a whole, by gender, and by age. The participants of
this study were randomly sampled at a variety of preschools throughout the southeast region of
the country.
Participants
Thirty-seven children participated in this study, ranging in age from 3-to-5-years-old.
Some of the participants may have had language impairments and/or underdeveloped language
skills. These factors were not controlled for during the study due to their high occurrence in the
overall population (Quick Statistics, 2016). These conditions are likely to influence expressive
9
Story Language
language outcomes and present more generalizable productions of speech (General Information,
2017). The participants came from a variety of early learning environments in their communities.
Each of the participants was found through a larger grant funded project. Language samples were
taken from children of all genders, races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic statuses.
Assessment Instrument and Administration Videos
The participants of this research project were shown a short movie chosen to elicit a
narrative from the child. For this study, the short movie “Billy Bear & the Balloon” was shown
to each participating child. “Billy Bear & the Balloon” tells the story of Billy who, while walking
through the park with his friend Penguin, gets distracted by a hot air balloon, crashing into a
trashcan as a result. In doing so, Billy accidentally drops his ice cream cone on his friend,
upsetting him and causing him to lose his balloon. In order to rectify the situation, Billy tries
repeatedly to use balloons he bought in order to fly his makeshift hot air balloon made with a
trashcan into the sky in order to catch the lost balloon. Billy is unsuccessful, until he finally uses
a very big balloon to achieve lift off. This short movie was two minutes and thirty-five seconds
long.
Language Sampling
Language samples from each of the participants were taken using a digital recording
device. Participants were asked to watch the movie in its entirety, and then retell the story they
had just watched to the examiner. It was this retelling that was recorded for further
macrostructure usage analysis. Along with the language sample, the child’s birthday and gender
were also recorded. In order to maintain confidentiality, the child was also assigned a unique ID
10
Story Language
number.
After all samples were collected from the participants, each sample was transcribed by
the researcher. In order for the sample to be an accurate portrayal of the child’s language use, the
sample was transcribed as the child told the story, including grammar mistakes and improper
pronunciation of words. Worth noting is that, if a student unnecessarily repeated a portion of the
story that did not actually occur multiple times in the movie, the student was not given credit for
those repetitions in the language transcription.
Coding
The coding process of this research project involved inputting the transcribed samples into
the SALT (Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts) program for coding of the
macrostructure elements used in the participants’ utterances. This program utilized a previously
created code to label the transcriptions for further analysis by the researcher. The codes used for
this project comprised of:
1. Character (C) - Includes main character’s name or description of main character;
Introduces characters in the story by ANY proper name (may be a made-up name) or
generic label (e.g., he, she) in an attempt to identify character(s).
2. Setting (S) - Tells where the story or events take place. Introduces or sets the context
3. Plot (PL) - A description of the activity that was occurring prior to character’s
recognition of the problem/goal. May also include any dialogue that occurs prior to the
initiating event.
4. Initiating Event (IE) - Initiating events cause a response in the main character that sets the
story in motion. Tells about problems that came up. Statement of problem/goal.
11
Story Language
5. Reaction (R) - How everyone felt during the events. Thoughts/Dialogue in response to
problem. Affective responses related to the chain of events related to the initiating event
6. Attempt (A) - Attempt of main character(s) to fix the problem (may include what one
character said to another character). Actions in pursuit of the goal/ an attempt to solve the
problem.
7. Consequence (CO) - Explain what happened as a result of the Attempt. The result of the
attempt or action; an outcome; What the secondary character does to help/not help the
main character; Cannot be a general consequence – must be related to the attempt; (CO)
was used to denote consequence usage, so as not to confuse it with character usage, as
both labels begin with the letter “c”.
8. Ending (E) labels - Description of event that occurs after the problem is fixed; A
resolution of the problem/initiating event; A step beyond the consequence (can be a
summary statement).
Data Analysis
The analysis consisted of two components: Descriptive analysis and comparative
analysis.
Descriptive analysis
After coding the transcriptions using the SALT program, each macrostructure use event
in the language samples was counted and recorded on an Excel chart, used to accumulate all of
the collected data into one document. Each instance of character, setting, plot, initiating event,
reactions, attempt, consequence, and ending usage were tallied for every participant’s language
12
Story Language
sample. After each individual element was counted, the total number of macrostructural elements
used by each child was also recorded. Additionally, the number of different macrostructural
elements each child used was recorded. After each individual coded transcription was analyzed,
the total number of each element, the total number of macrostructural usage overall, and the total
number of different elements used by all of the participants was counted. For each
macrostructure component (including macrostructure total and macrostructure differences), the
mean and standard deviations were calculated.
Comparative analysis
For this study, we were primarily interested in how the group results compared to one
another when separated by age, and then when separated by gender. After compiling all of the
data into one table, the data was then resorted into additional tables depending on the
independent variable in question.
For age, all of the participants were separated into 3-year-old, 4-year-old, or 5-year-old
groups depending on their age at the time that their language sample was taken. For each
individual age group, the means and standard deviations were calculated for each macrostructure
component.
In order to compare the data in terms of gender, the participants were separated into a
female group and a male group. For each group, the means and standard deviations were
calculated for each macrostructure component.
From these comparative groups, further judgements on the similarities and differences
were made depending on the calculated data.
13
Story Language
Results
This particular study set out to look at the inclusion of eight macrostructure components
within the participants’ oral narrative retell tasks. The total number of macrostructure features
(MacroTotal) of all 37 participants ranged from a maximum of 19 components to a minimum of
one components with an average of 7.05 macrostructure elements (SD=4.59).
Descriptive Group Results
Character
The element of character was coded into the child’s narrative transcription if they
included the main character’s name or a description of the main character. The majority of
participants, 59%, included 1 to 3 character elements, while only 4% of participants completely
omitted the character element. On average 3.03 (SD=2.65) character components were included,
making it the most frequent occurring story element in comparison to the 7 others assessed in
this study. This higher frequency outcome may be a direct result of how character was defined
and coded in the macrostructure scoring. If the child introduced characters in the story by any
proper name, a made up name, or generic label, then character was coded into that utterance.
Some children were very specific in their character identification while some included a non-
specific pronoun, he or she, which accounts for the flexibility of this particular macrostructure
story element.
14
Story Language
Table 1. The Use of Character in NarrativesNumber of Characters Number of Participants Percentage of Children
0 3 8.1
1 10 27.0
2 6 16.2
3 6 16.2
4
5
5
2
13.5
5.4
6
7
8
9
12
1
1
1
1
1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
Setting
Along with reaction, setting was the least common macrostructure element included in
the narrative retell task with an average of 0 (SD=0) setting components. Setting was defined in
the coding schema as an introduction to the context. An example of setting in the movie “Billy
Bear & the Balloon” would be “park”.
Plot
15
Story Language
Roughly half the participants (48.6%) incorporated one or more elements of plot. Plot
was coded in an utterance if the child included a description of the activity that was occurring
prior to the character’s recognition of the problem. A total of 29.7% of participants included only
one plot element in their narrative retell, accurately representing the simplistic story structure for
that appropriate for a kindergarten child.
Table 2. The Use of Plot in NarrativesNumber of Plots Number of Participants Percentage of Children
0 19 51.4
1 11 29.7
2
3
6
2
3
2
5.4
8.1
5.4
Initiating Event
An initiating event sets the story in motion by serving as a statement of the problem or
goal. For example, in the movie “Billy Bear & the Balloon”, if the child stated one of the
following in their oral narrative retell task, then initiating event was coded for that particular
utterance: “Penguin’s balloon floated away”, “The balloon floated away towards the hot air
balloon”, “Saw Lizzy selling balloons”, “BB got an idea”, “Trashcan too heavy”, “Trashcan was
full”. The average use of an initiating event was 0.49 (SD=1.10) with a range of 1 to 6. Over half
of the participants (54%) omitted elements of an initiating event in their stories, however, 44% of
participants included at least one.
16
Story Language
Table 3. The Use of Initiating Event in NarrativesNumber of Initiating Events Number of Participants Percentage of Children
0 26 70.3
1 8 21.6
2 2 5.4
6 1 2.7
Reaction
Only two of the 37 participants included generated reactions in their story retellings. For
each movie, the scoring schema was the same in regards to coding for reaction. There were no
right or wrong emotions, but if the child included any related thought, dialogue, or emotion in a
response to the initiating event, it was coded as a reaction.
Table 4. The Use of Reaction in NarrativesNumber of Reactions Number of Participants Percentage of Children
0 35 94.6
1 1 2.7
2 1 2.7
Attempt
An attempt can be described as actions in pursuit of a goal or an attempt to solve the
problem. On average, 1.22 (SD=1.29) elements of attempt were included in the narratives of all
17
Story Language
37 participants. The majority of children either did not include an attempt (35%) or included only
one element (32%). Participants in this study included between 0 to 5 elements of attempt.
Within the context of each story, examples of dialogue that could be scored as an attempt within
the narrative retell were provided. For example, in the story “Billy Bear and the Balloon”, if the
child included any of the following, that utterance was coded as an attempt: “bought balloons”,
“tied balloons to trash can”, “Billy Bear got stuck in the trash can”, “throw the items out of the
trash can”, etc.
Table 5. The Use of Attempt in NarrativesNumber of Attempts Number of Participants Percentage of Children
0 13 35.1
1 12 32.4
2 7 19.0
3 2 5.4
4 2 5.4
5 1 2.7
Consequences
The majority of participants, 43.2%, failed to include any consequences in their narrative
retell task. However, a total of 35.1% of participants included one aspect of a consequence
element within their narrative retell task. Consequences were coded into the transcriptions if the
children explained what happened as a result of the attempt. However, consequence was not
coded if it was a general consequence that was stated because it had to be related to the attempt,
which possibly explains why such a large number of participants completely omitted the element
18
Story Language
of consequence. Furthermore, on average, there were only 0.89 (SD=0.99) consequences
included in all of the transcribed narratives.
Table 6. The Use of Consequence in NarrativesNumber of Consequences Number of Participants Percentage of Children
0 16 43.2
1
2
13
4
35.1
10.8
3 4 10.8
Ending
Over half of the participants (59.5%) did not include any ending in their narrative retell
task. An ending could have been a summary statement, a resolution of the problem or initiating
event, a step beyond the consequence, or a description of the event that occurs after the problem
is fixed. While the majority of participants failed to include an ending piece, 40.5% of
participants included one element of ending. This slightly higher frequency around one ending
component could be because in a story, there is usually only one ending or one concluded phrase.
On average, 0.41 (SD=0.50) ending elements were used in the participants’ story retells.
Table 7. The Use of Ending in NarrativesNumber of Endings Number of Participants Percentage of Children
0 22 59.5
1 15 40.5
19
Story Language
Figure 1: Depicts the average use of each macrostructure component, including total use and
differences, in the participant pool of 3-5 year olds.
Comparative Group Results:
20
Story Language
To address the second research question, we examined differences among children by
gender and age, and reported descriptive statistics split by these factors of interest.
Gender:
Figure 2: Depicts the average use of each macrostructure component, including total use and
differences, in comparative groups of 3-to-5-year-old boy and girls.
Age:
21
Story Language
Figure 3: Depicts the average use of each macrostructure component, including total use and
differences, in comparative groups of 3-to5-year-olds.
Discussion
22
Story Language
The present study was designed to compare the components of functional pragmatic
communication among children with HL and those children with typical hearing.
Key Findings
One of the key findings was in relation to the frequency of use of macrostructure
narrative components as age increased. The results of the present study showed that 4-year-olds,
in comparison to 3-year-olds, used significantly more macrostructure components in their
retellings. These results coincide directly with that of Hudson and Shapiro’s research in which it
was found that, as children age and develop their language abilities, their stories become
increasingly more complex. As seen by Figure 2, the 3-year-old participants had the most
success in identifying and focusing on the characters of their story. All other forms of
macrostructure use were very low in comparison. While there’s no one definite reason as to why
this may be, it’s worth mentioning that, overall, the 3-year-olds were most successful in
identifying characters and attempts (story action). It could be argued that these two
macrostructure components are more apparent on the surface to listeners or viewers, whereas
components such as reaction and consequence require a deeper level of thinking, as they are
more implied, rather than stated outright. Interestingly enough, within our sample of preschool
children, the 5-year-old group of children were the most unsuccessful in using macrostructure
components in their stories, consistently scoring lower than both the 3-year-old group and the 4-
year-old group, except in a couple of instances in which they scored nearly exactly the same as
the 3-year-old group. This directly contradicts the findings of Hudson and Shapiro (1991). The
different findings from this study might be due to the sample size of 5-year-olds that participated
in this study. In Hudson and Shapiro’s study, a close to equal amount of children from different
23
Story Language
ages were studied at once. This controlled amount of participants for each comparison group
might have contributed to more accurate recorded results. For our project, there was a very
unbalanced amount of 5-year-olds in comparison to 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds. The 4-year-old
group was the largest with 18 participants, the 3-year-old group was close behind with a total of
14 participants. The 5-year-old group, on the other hand, comprised of 5 participants. This
drastic discrepancy in amount of comparative participants in each group could be the reason
behind the extremely skewed results. If the 5-year-old group were to be increased to at least 14
participants, or if only five children were sampled from the 3-year-old and 4-year-old groups
each, it is possible that the results of this case would coincide with past research and knowledge
of language development. Also worth noting is that, in the groups of 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds,
there were a couple cases of extremely high outliers that were affecting the group averages. This
could be another explanation as to why the recorded averages were so much higher in the 3- and
4- year-old groups than the 5-year-old group.
Another interesting finding of this study was in relation to the frequency of use of
macrostructure narrative components in relation to gender. The results of the present study
showed that the females and male participants’ macrostructure use, when compared, did seem to
point toward an increased proficiency among the females relative to the males. These results
coincide with past research, like that of Hutternlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, & Lyons’ (1991)
study and Ramer’s (1976) study on the differences in language development amongst male and
females, which found that females typically excel in language development and use over males.
As seen in Figure 3,we found that though the male participants excelled in some areas, like that
of character, reaction, and attempt use, the females used plot, initiating event, consequence, and
ending components more frequently. Furthermore, the female group had a higher average
24
Story Language
macrostructure use total than their male counterparts. However, the male group had a slightly
higher average of macrostructure differences total than the female. It’s important to note that, for
this particular study, the ratio of male to female participants was severely unbalanced. Though
our male pool comprised of only 13 males, the female pool was comprised of a total of 24
participants (a little over a third more than the male participant group). This discrepancy in
comparison group sizes could have easily skewed the group averages of the study, giving us
inaccurate comparison results.
An unexpected finding of the present study was the consistent lack of setting component
use in every participant’s retelling of “Billy Bear & the Balloon”. None of the participants of the
current study, despite their age or gender, succeeded in incorporating the setting of the park into
their retelling of the story. This is interesting, because setting is as much of a surface structure
component as characters, meaning the setting is explicitly stated and depicted in the film. While
there is no definite reason at this time for as to why all 37 of the participants of the study failed
to mention the setting in the story retellings, I think it’s important to consider the fact that in the
short movie clip, the setting was only very quickly mentioned once at the beginning of the story,
never to be mentioned again. It’s also important to note that the setting didn’t have a significant
impact on the events of the story itself, and that the plot and action could take place in any
setting at all without changing the events or the outcome of the story. For this reason, it could
potentially be theorized that the setting did not have enough of an impact on the participants
while viewing the film for them to remember to reiterate it in their retellings.
Limitations
25
Story Language
There are a number of limitations that were found in the present study that are important
to consider when interpreting the findings. First, the environments in which the samples were
taken were limited to preschools. A structured setting like that of a preschool can skew the
results of the study, because preschool is a preparatory environment for kindergarten and
beyond. Not all children attend preschool before kindergarten, which could mean that stay-at-
home children are not exposed to the same academic and social environments that preschool
children are by the time they reach kindergarten. For example, children who attend preschool
may have increased language development, and therefore increased macrostructure element use
in their story retellings, in comparison to children that do not attend preschool, which means
these results can’t necessarily be applied to the general population of 3-to-5-year-olds.
Another limitation of the present study was the geographic location in which the samples
of the study were taken. For this particular study, all of the preschoolers whose language was
recorded were located throughout the southeast region of the United States. Educational
standards, requirements, and teaching methods vary in different regions of the country. For
example, Common Core, which is a set of K-12 state standards for English and mathematic
abilities, while used throughout the southeast, has not yet been adopted by a handful of
Midwestern and southwestern states, including Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas (Developmental
Process). This means that states in the Midwest are not necessarily teaching at the same level as
schools in the southeast, as they do not employ the same educational milestones as part of their
curriculum. Furthermore, Common Core can vary from one state to the next. This variation in
educational standards throughout the country means that samples taken strictly form the
southeast cannot be applied to 3-to-5-year-olds throughout the entire country.
26
Story Language
A final limitation of the study was the way in which each child’s language was sampled,
transcribed, and then coded. For the present study, each child was only recorded once. If that
child was particularly uncooperative that day, shy, or even just less talkative than usual, the
resulting calculations would be skewed, thus an inaccurate representation of that child’s true
language abilities. In terms of transcription, correctly transcribing a child’s utterances became
difficult at times when there was background noise, the child mumbled, or the recording device
was not able to pick up the child’s voice. A lot of times this resulted in the clinician being unable
to correctly transcribe what was being said during the recording, and this in turn affected the
coding and calculation steps of the study, potentially resulting in skewed data. Better equipment
or a quieter environment may be more appropriate in a future studying.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings from this study showed that variations in frequency and types of
macrostructure use are potentially dependent on a child’s age and gender, which coincides with
previous studies and research done on language development in children. However, as the results
were skewed and weakened by a number of limitations, more studies should be done to improve
the accuracy and generalization of these results. Several changes could be made for future
studies.
First, researchers should repeat the study as is with not only an increased sample size of
children from different areas of the country, but with a better balanced sample of 3-to-5-year-
olds, as well. As there is a very good chance that the 5-year-old group’s results were an
inaccurate representation of story language use in comparison to that of 3-year-olds and 4-year-
olds, the study should be repeated with an increased number of 5-year-old participants in order to
27
Story Language
achieve better results and descriptions for comparative analysis. This way, results might better
align with past research and findings done on the relationship between age and language
development. Furthermore, a larger sample size that spans a greater geographical distance could
potentially decrease standard deviation among group members and increase population
generalizability.
Second, researchers could control for intelligent quotient (IQ) levels. Different IQ levels
could impact a child’s rate of language development, including that of story language use. In the
present study, there were a number of extreme outliers in the data between both the 3-year-old
and 4-year-old groups. Though most children were using 10 or fewer macrostructure components
in their story retellings, a few children were recorded having used closer to 20 story language
components. This is not to say that these outliers were caused by higher IQ levels, as this was not
a factor that was recorded during data collection, but it is an extraneous factor that should be
further investigated. If a high correlative relationship is found between IQ levels and story
language use, IQ should be controlled for in further studies in order to achieve more accurate
results.
Third, future researchers should consider expanding their participant pool to 3-to-5-year
olds both inside and outside of preschool settings. As mentioned earlier, it is possible that by
limiting the participant pool strictly to 3-to-5-year-olds that attend preschools within their
community, the results were skewed and biased towards children who may have different story
language use because of their early exposure to academic and social environments in comparison
to stay-at-home children of the same age. Expanding the participant pool to include those
outside of preschool settings could change the results of the study, also making them more
generalizable to the population.
28
Story Language
Fourth, future studies that build upon the present study should investigate what types of
story macrostructure elements, and at what frequency, a child uses when they create and tell their
own story, rather when they retell a given story. With the present study, the language samples
were collected by having the child watch a short video, only to have them summarize exactly
what they had seen only minutes later. There’s a chance that, because they were shown a specific
story and told to repeat it exactly as they saw it, the child could have used a greater number of, or
even more complex, macrostructure elements in their retellings than they would use naturally in
spontaneously created personal narratives. With the freedom to create and tell their own stories,
it would be interesting to see if average discrepancies between groups separated by age or gender
would increase. For example, in regards to gender, it could be studied if boys use different story
macrostructure elements in their narratives than girls when told to create their own unique story.
Do boys focus more on the characters and action of the story while the girls put more focus on
the reactions and consequences? If there are more obvious difference in story language use
between genders, what could be the cause? By allowing the participating child to tell their own
story, it may also be found that there are bigger discrepancies in macrostructure use between age
groups. When children are told to rely on their creativity, rather than their memory, there’s a
chance that their story language use changes, as well.
29
Story Language
References
Allen, M. M., Ukrainetz, T. A., & Carswell, A. L. (2012). The Narrative Language Performance of Three Types of At-Risk First-Grade Readers. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 43(2), 205. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2011/11-0024)
Bishop, D. V. M., & Edmundson, A. (1987). Language impaired 4-year-olds: Distinguishing transient from persistent impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 156–173. doi:10.1044/jshd.5202.156
Bliss, L. S., & McCabe, A. (2008). Personal narratives: Cultural differences and clinical implications. Topics in Language Disorders, 28(2), 162–177. doi:10.1097/01.tld.0000318936.31677.2d
Boudreau, D. M., & Chapman, R. S. (2000) Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 43.5. 1146-1159.
Bowers M. J., Perez-Pouchoulen M., Edwards S. N., & McCarthy M. M. (2013). Foxp2 Mediates Sex Differences in Ultrasonic Vocalization by Rat Pups and Directs Order of Maternal Retrieval. Journal of Neuroscience, 33 (8) 3276-3283; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0425-12.2013
Butterworth G., Morissette P. (1996) Onset of pointing and the acquisition of language in infancy. J Reprod Infant Psychol 14:219–231.
Champion, T., Seymour, H., & Camarata, S. (1995). Narrative Discourse of African American Children. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 5(4), 333-352. doi:10.1075/jnlh.5.4.03dis
Development Process. (n.d.). Retrieved March 30, 2017, from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders DSM-5. (2013). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
General Information About Speech and Language Disorders. (2017). Retrieved March 27, 2017, from http://www.ldonline.org/article/6336
Gerrig, R. J., Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1995). Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Language, 71(4), 806. doi:10.2307/415747
Hoffman, L. M. (2009). Narrative Language Intervention Intensity and Dosage. Topics in Language Disorders, 29(4), 329-343. doi:10.1097/tld.0b013e3181c29d5f
30
Story Language
Hodgson, A. (2011). Handouts. Giving a Lecture From Presenting to Teaching 106-16. Super Duper Inc. Super Duper Publications.
Hudson, J., & Shapiro, L. (1991). From knowing to telling: The development of children's scripts, stories, and personal narratives. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developing narrative structure (pp. 89-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hughes, D. L. (2001). Assessment of Narrative Abilities in Preschool and School-Age Children. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 8(2), 7. doi:10.1044/lle8.2.7
Hughes, D. L., McGillivray, L., & Schmidek, M. (2009). Guide to narrative language: procedures for assessment. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Huttenlocher J., Haight W., Bryk A., Seltzer M., Lyons T. (1991) Early vocabulary growth: relation to language input and gender. Dev Psychol 27:236–248.
Maccoby E. (1966) The development of sex differences (Stanford UP, Stanford, CA).
Mccabe, A., & Rollins, P. R. (1994). Assessment of Preschool Narrative Skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 3(1), 45. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0301.45
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. Common core state standards. (2010). Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/News_and_Events/Press_Releases/NATIONAL_GOVERNORS_ASSOCIATION_AND_STATE_EDUCATION_CHIEFS_LAUNCH_COMMON_STATE_ACADEMIC_STANDARDS_.html
Quickfacts: Tallahassee city, Florida. United States Census Bureau. (2010). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00
Quick Statistics About Voice, Speech, Language. (2016). Retrieved March 27, 2017, from https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics-voice-speech-language
Ramer A. (1976) Syntactic styles in emerging language. J Child Lang 3:49–62.
Schachter, R. E., & Craig, H. K. (2013). Students' Production of Narrative and AAE Features During an Emergent Literacy Task. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(3), 227. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0034)
Snow, C., Burns, M.S. & Griffin, P. (eds) (1998), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Commission on Behavioural and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Westerveld, M. F., Gillon, G. T., Boyd, L. (2012): National Library of Medicine. International journal of speech-language pathology. 14.2 130-140.
31
Story Language 32
top related