Modifying a naturalistic language intervention for use in an elementary school classroom
Naturalistic language teaching in class helps older minimally verbal students, but watch for uneven gains.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Lane and team moved a naturalistic language program into a real second-grade classroom.
Three minimally verbal children with autism and intellectual disability joined circle time, centers, and recess.
Teachers followed the child’s lead, waited for looks or gestures, then modeled two-word phrases like “my turn” or “more bubbles.”
What they found
All three kids used more two-word phrases during class routines.
One child’s growth bounced up and down and may not have mattered day-to-day.
The other two kept their new words after the study ended.
How this fits with other research
Spriggs et al. (2016) ran the same style intervention in preschool and saw steady gains.
Lane moved the program up to late elementary, showing the idea still works but can wobble.
Delprato (2001) reviewed ten studies and found naturalistic teaching beats discrete trials for preschoolers.
Lane’s mixed results hint the edge may shrink when kids are older and already behind in language.
Why it matters
You can run naturalistic language teaching right in class without pulling kids out.
Start with short, play-based routines you already do—snack, lining up, morning meeting.
Track each child daily; if progress hops around, add extra practice or simpler targets.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one routine—snack—and model two-word phrases every 30 seconds while waiting for the child to echo or reach.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We evaluated a naturalistic language intervention (NLI) targeting expanded forms of expressive communication (e.g., two-word phrases) for elementary-aged children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and/or intellectual disability (ID). This study extends the findings of a previous study that evaluated an NLI for preschool-aged children who displayed social communication delays. In the previous study, one child was considered a non-responder to the original intervention; children with similar pre-intervention profiles to the non-responder were recruited for this study to evaluate a modified version of the NLI with a new participant group. The NLI was evaluated within the context of a multiple probe design across children, with sessions conducted in a public school classroom. The modifications to the NLI resulted in varying dosages of the intervention provided across sessions and children. To analyze the moderating influence of the variation in dosage, we graphed each dosage variable to allow for a formative analysis of changes within and across study conditions. Results indicated increases in the target behavior for all three children when compared to probe sessions; however, for one child the consistency of changes were variable and, as such, may not be socially significant. This study extends the literature on conducting NLIs with minimally verbal children with ASD and ID in dynamic settings, like classrooms. Educators and related professionals can capitalize on natural opportunities for social communication in children who are minimally verbal but imitative by using naturalistic procedures to promote verbalizations during age-appropriate activities.
Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 2020 · doi:10.1177/2396941519896925