In vivo language intervention: unanticipated general effects.
Incidental teaching during play can spark broad language growth without direct drills.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Hart et al. (1980) watched low-income preschoolers during free play. When a child showed interest in a toy, teachers asked open questions like "What color is the truck?" This is called incidental teaching.
No drills. No flash cards. Just brief chats tied to what the child already wanted to do.
What they found
Kids talked more. They used longer sentences and richer words. Their language started to look like that of middle-class peers.
The gains showed up everywhere, not just when teachers asked questions.
How this fits with other research
Farmer-Dougan (1994) later used the same loose, child-led style with adults in a group home. Peers, not staff, gave the cues. Adults with ID still asked for items more often.
Parsons et al. (2019) and Ethridge et al. (2020) moved the idea to autistic children. They let typical classmates model and prompt during play. Both groups, autistic and typical, gained pragmatic language.
Baron et al. (1968) took the opposite path. They gave direct imitation drills and rewards. That worked too, but only in a lab. B et al. show you can get broad gains without drills if you weave teaching into play.
Why it matters
You do not need a table and flash cards to grow language. Watch what the child already wants, ask a quick question, then wait. The 1980 study proves this simple move can double overall talking. Later work shows it keeps working across ages, diagnoses, and peer partners. Use it in daycare, clinics, or homes. Let classmates, siblings, or housemates do the prompting. Everyone talks more, and you spend zero extra minutes on drills.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Place a favorite toy on a high shelf; when the child looks, ask "What do you want?" and wait.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
After observing the lack of generalization of language trained in highly structured training sessions using established behavior modification techniques, "incidental teaching" procedures were developed to change the use of specified language behaviors in the natural environment. This paper reports an analysis of the general changes in the language, other than that specifically targeted by the incidental teaching procedures, used by disadvantaged preschool children. The daily language samples of disadvantaged children involved in a previously reported experiment to increase compound sentence usage were reexamined and compared to comparable records of other disadvantaged children and of middle-class children of college parents in order to assess possible general effects of the intervention program. Whereas the language that both groups of comparison children used changed little across the preschool year, the amount of talking by the children in the experimental program increased markedly. Their use of more elaborate vocabulary and more elaborate sentences also increased in direct proportion to the increases in overall language use, such that both language use and language elaboration in the experimental group of children changed from a pattern simlar to the comparison group of disadvantaged children to a pattern similar to the comparison group of middleclass children. It is argued that some general features of the incidental teaching procedure--differentially attending to child overtures and responding relative to the child's selected topic (reinforcer)--contributed to the increase in overall language use beyond the specific language behavior targeted, and that this increase in the probability of children's talking itself resulted in the substantial increases in elaboration seen in the children's spontaneous language. Because, at least in children with fairly well-developed language repertoires, language use is contextually controlled, talking more involves talking in more varied and complex contexts, which inevitably produces the use of more elaborate language.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1980 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1980.13-407