Navigating the Path to Carryover in Speech Sound Intervention
Updated: Mar 13
Bridging therapy and everyday life in speech sound intervention
For speech-language pathologists (SLPs), the pursuit of carryover—the application of newly acquired speech skills in spontaneous communication—represents a critical milestone in speech sound intervention. This goal remains consistent across various therapeutic approaches, whether anchored in perceptual-motor learning (Ruscello, 1984; Van Riper, 1978; Weston & Irwin, 1971) or cognitive-linguistic theories (Hodson & Paden, 1983; McReynolds & Bennett, 1972; Weiner, 1981). Yet, achieving carryover is a nuanced process that extends beyond the clinical setting, involving intricate interplays between the therapist, child, and their environment.
The Complexity of Carryover
Carryover isn't a guarantee for all children, despite successful target establishment within therapy sessions. Some children transition their skills into daily life seamlessly, others with moderate effort, and some only after intensive and prolonged instruction. This diversity in carryover efficiency highlights a need for personalized strategies tailored to individual learning paths and challenges.
Factors Influencing Carryover Success
Research suggests that carryover's success is influenced by both environmental and within-child factors. Environmental factors encompass the therapeutic adjustments aimed at mirroring the child's natural communication settings—increasing linguistic complexity, changing practice environments, and utilizing naturalistic activities (McReynolds, 1987). Within-child factors, on the other hand, include innate qualities such as motivation, problem-solving abilities, and self-monitoring skills. Children who spontaneously exhibit carryover often demonstrate an "aha" moment, swiftly integrating speech targets into their everyday language with minimal guidance.
A Dual Approach: Behavioral and Cognitive Strategies
Traditional phonological training has leaned heavily on behavioral learning theories, emphasizing stimulus-response-reinforcement paradigms (Bankson & Byrne, 1972; Shelton, Johnson, & Arndt, 1972), and cognitive-linguistic learning theories, which focus on active mental processing and problem-solving (Johnston & Johnston, 1972; Ruscello & Shelton, 1979). While effective in establishing correct speech targets and facilitating transfer within therapeutic settings, these approaches sometimes fall short in promoting carryover (McReynolds, 1987; Shriberg & Kwiatkowski, 1990).
The Constructivist Strategy: Empowering Self-Regulated Learners
Constructivist strategies, advocating for learning through meaningful, real-life tasks, hold promise for enhancing carryover. By fostering a setting where children actively engage in their learning process, these strategies aim to cultivate metacognitive skills crucial for self-regulation (Ertmer & Newby, 1993; 1996). This involves children developing an awareness of their speech targets and employing strategies to use these skills autonomously in various communicative situations.
Embracing a Collaborative Mindset
Successful carryover necessitates a partnership approach, recognizing the invaluable insights and practices families bring from their interactions with the child at home. A reciprocal carryover model, emphasizing a bidirectional exchange of strategies between therapists and families, can enrich the intervention process (Padia, 2023). By observing family-child interactions, understanding their communication dynamics, and incorporating their established systems into therapy, SLPs can design more effective and meaningful intervention plans that resonate with the child's everyday life.
The Road Ahead
A collaborative approach, engaging both families and therapists in the intervention process, is pivotal for achieving carryover. Families possess unique insights into their child's communication habits and challenges, making their input invaluable for tailoring therapy to the child's real-world needs.
Assess Individual Needs: Begin by evaluating the child's specific strengths, needs, and the environmental contexts in which they communicate. This assessment should include both standardized testing and informal observations in various settings.
Incorporate Family Insights: Engage families in discussions about their child's communication habits, strategies they find effective, and challenges they face at home. Use these insights to adapt therapy goals and methods.
Select Meaningful Activities: Choose activities that mirror the child's interests and daily communication needs. Activities should be flexible enough to incorporate both the therapist's objectives and the family's insights.
Implement a Variety of Activities: Consider activities like storytelling, role-playing, and using technology-based apps that encourage spontaneous speech. Each activity can be tailored to address specific speech targets within engaging, real-life contexts. More on that below!
Practice in Natural Settings: Whenever possible, practice speech targets in settings where the child naturally communicates. This could include school environments, during playdates, or family gatherings, facilitating the application of skills in various contexts.
Encourage Self-Monitoring: Teach the child strategies for self-monitoring their speech. This could involve recording their speech during activities and reflecting on their performance, fostering awareness and autonomy in their learning process.
Foster Reflective Discussions: After activities, engage in discussions with the child about their performance, encouraging them to reflect on what strategies were effective and what they could do differently next time.
Reinforce Progress: Acknowledge and celebrate the child's efforts and achievements in applying their speech skills in real-life contexts, reinforcing their motivation and confidence.
Review and Adjust: Continuously review the effectiveness of strategies and activities, making adjustments based on the child's progress and evolving needs.
Engaging Carryover Activities
Carryover activities are essential in phonological intervention to help children generalize newly learned speech skills into their everyday communication. These activities, supported by various research findings, facilitate the application of therapeutic gains in more naturalistic settings. Below is a list of engaging carryover activities, including "Would You Rather" as one potential option, each underpinned by principles drawn from speech and language research:
Would You Rather Game: This game encourages decision-making and provides a fun platform for practicing speech targets in a question-answer format. Its effectiveness is supported by research emphasizing the importance of interactive and meaningful communication in enhancing language skills (Ertmer & Newby, 1993).
Storytelling and Retelling: Encourages the use of narrative skills and target sounds in a structured yet flexible context. This activity aligns with findings that narrative-based interventions can significantly impact children's language development (Weston & Irwin, 1971).
Picture Description Tasks: Children describe scenes or actions in pictures, using specific speech targets. This visual support aids in the generalization of speech sounds, as visual cues have been shown to enhance speech production accuracy (Hodson & Paden, 1983).
Role-Playing: Simulating real-life situations where children can practice speech sounds in dialogue. Role-playing activities mirror the cognitive-linguistic theory by embedding speech practice in meaningful linguistic and social contexts (McReynolds & Bennett, 1972).
Scavenger Hunts: Integrating speech practice with physical activity, children search for items that contain their target sounds. This method supports the engagement and motivation aspects crucial for carryover, as suggested by Ruscello (1984).
Crafts and Art Projects: Completing a craft or art project while discussing it allows for repeated practice of target sounds in a creative setting. Creativity in tasks has been linked to increased engagement and speech sound use in natural contexts (Shriberg & Kwiatkowski, 1990).
Cooking and Baking: Following a recipe offers a sequence of steps for practicing target sounds, with the added motivation of a tangible reward. The structured yet practical nature of cooking activities supports language development within a functional activity (Fey, 1986).
Board Games and Card Games: Playing games that require verbal interaction or reading cards aloud. Such activities provide a low-pressure environment for practicing speech targets, promoting spontaneous use of language skills (Lowe & Weitz, 1992).
Singing Songs and Chants: Incorporating target sounds into songs or chants can make practice enjoyable and memorable. Music and rhythm have been shown to facilitate speech sound production and retention (Van Riper, 1978).
Digital Apps and Online Games: Utilizing technology-based activities that target specific speech sounds. The interactive and often customizable nature of digital games can offer immediate feedback and engagement, critical for motivating children to practice outside therapy sessions (Ertmer, 1995).
As we navigate the path to carryover in phonological intervention, it's clear that a multi-faceted approach, incorporating both traditional and innovative strategies, holds the key to success. By understanding the complexities of carryover, embracing constructivist strategies, and fostering a collaborative partnership with families, SLPs can significantly enhance the impact of their interventions. The journey towards effective carryover is both challenging and rewarding, requiring us to continuously adapt and refine our practices to meet the diverse needs of the children we serve. By integrating engaging carryover activities into our therapy plans, we not only reinforce the skills learned but also make the learning process enjoyable and meaningful for the child. Ultimately, our goal is to empower the voices of those we support, enabling them to communicate confidently and effectively in every aspect of their lives.
References
Bankson, N. W., & Byrne, M. C. (1972). The effect of a timed correct sound production task on carryover. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 15, 160–168.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 88–101). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Bernthal, J. E., & Bankson, N. W. (1993). Articulation and phonological disorders. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bruer, J. T. (1994). Schools for thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ertmer, P. A. (1995). Learning in case-based instruction: The role of perceived value, learning orientation, and reflective self-regulation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ertmer, D. J. (1998). Constructivist Strategies in Phonological Intervention: Facilitating Self-Regulation for Carryover. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 29, 67-75.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24(1), 1–24.
Fey, M. E. (1986). Language intervention with young children. Boston, MA: College-Hill Press.
Hodson, B., & Paden, E. (1983). Targeting intelligible speech: A phonological approach to remediation. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Johnston, J. M., & Johnston, G. T. (1972). Modification of consonant speech-sound articulation in young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 233–246.
McReynolds, L. V. (1987). A perspective on articulation generalization. Seminars in Speech and Hearing, 8, 217–239.
McReynolds, L. J., & Bennett, S. (1972). Distinctive feature generalization in articulation training. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 37, 462–470.
Ruscello, D. M. (1984). Motor learning as a model for articulation instruction. In J. Costello (Ed.), Speech disorders in children: Recent advances (pp. 129–156). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Ruscello, D. M., & Shelton, R. L. (1979). Planning and self-assessment in articulation training. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 44, 504–512.
Shelton, R. L., Johnson, A. F., & Arndt, W. B. (1972). Monitoring and reinforcement by parents as a means of automating articulatory responses. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 35, 759–767.
Shriberg, L. D., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1990). Self-monitoring and generalization in preschool speech-delayed children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 157–169.
Van Riper, C. (1978). Speech correction: Principles and methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Weston, A. D., & Irwin, J. V. (1971). Use of paired-stimuli in modification of articulation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32, 947–957.
Weiner, F. (1981). Treatment of phonological disability using the method of meaningful minimal contrast: Two case studies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 97–103.