Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:26:09.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative study of the use of pictures and objects in assessing children's receptive and productive language*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Rodney R. Cocking  and
Susan McHale
Rodney R. Cocking
Affiliation:
Educational Testing Service
Susan McHale
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A methodological study was designed to investigate two aspects of children's language knowledge and children's uses of pictures and objects when demonstrating their language skills. Sixty-eight 4- and 5-year-olds were randomly assigned to one of six treatment groups, matched for SES, sex, and age. Subjects were individually tested with one of the six measures: language comprehension using object stimuli; comprehension with picture stimuli; comprehension where there were choices among object stimuli; language production using object stimuli; production with picture stimuli; or production with choices among the object stimuli. Main effects for stimulus medium and response mode were both significant, as well as the interaction. The discussion is oriented towards the developmental controversy around receptive and productive language skills and the impact of the representational medium upon performance in assessment tasks.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , February 1981 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

Presented at the Third International Symposium on Educational Testing, 27–30 June 1977, Leyden, The Netherlands. The second author was supported by predoctoral summer internship funds from the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center Research Training Program, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill. Address for correspondence: Dr R. R. Cocking, Institute for Research in Human Development, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J. 08540, U.S.A.

References

REFERENCES

Bellugi-Klima, U. (1971). Comprehension test of grammatical structure. In Lavetelli, C. S. (ed.), Language training in early childhood education. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L. (1974). Talking, understanding, and thinking. In Schiefelbusch, R. & Lloyd, L. (eds), Language perspectives: acquisition, retardation, and intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1957). Linguistic determinism and the part of speech. JAbSocPsychol 55. 1–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. (1958). Words and things. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cazden, C. B. (1972). Child language and education. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. & Miller, J. (1973). Word-order in early two- and three-word utterances: does production precede comprehension? Paper presented to Stanford Child Language Research Forum.Google Scholar
Chittenden, E. (1970). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test response analysis (ETS Interim Report). Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Clark, R., Hutcheson, S. & van Buren, P. (1974). Comprehension and production in language acquisition. JLing 10. 39–54.Google Scholar
Cocking, R. (in press). Preschool education and representational thinking: the impact of teacher ‘distancing’ behaviors on language and cognition. In Proceedings of the 5th Biennial Conference of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development.Google Scholar
Cocking, R. & Potts, M. (1976). Social facilitation of language acquisition: the reversible passive construction. GenetPsycholMonogr 94. 249–340.Google Scholar
Dale, P. S. (1976). Language development (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & WinstonGoogle Scholar
Deregowski, J. B. & Serpell, R. (1971). Performance on a sorting task: a cross-cultural experiment. IJPsychol 6. 273–81.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1971). Discussion in Huxley, R. & Ingram, D. (eds), Language acquisition, models, and methods. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, C., Bellugi, U. & Brown, R. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension, and production. JVLVB 2. 121–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, S. & Klaus, R. (1965). An experimental preschool program for culturally deprived children. ChDev 36. 887–98.Google ScholarPubMed
Huttenlocher, J., Eisenberg, K. & Strauss, S. (1968). Comprehension: relation between perceived actor and logical subject. JVLVB 7. 300–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, D. (1974). The relationship between comprehension and production. In Schie-felbusch, L. & Lloyd, L. L. (eds), Language perspectives: acquisition, retardation, and intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, R. (1968). Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1962). Understanding language without ability to speak: a case report. JAbSocPsychol 65. 419–25.Google ScholarPubMed
Lovell, K. & Dixon, E. (1967). The growth of the control of grammar in imitation, comprehension, and production. JChPsycholPsychiat 8. 31–9.Google Scholar
Mackworth, N. H. (1972). Verbal and pictorial comprehension by children with reading or speech disorders. Paper presented at the 20th International Congress of Psychology,Tokyo.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1970). The acquisition of language: the study of developmental psycholinguistics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P. (1971). The acquisition and development of language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monogr. Soc. Res. Ch. Dev. 38 (serial no. 149).Google Scholar
Potts, M., Carlson, P., Cocking, R. R. & Copple, C. (1979). Structure and development in child language: the preschool years. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Reynell, J. (1969). Developmental language scales. Windsor: N.F.E.R.Google Scholar
Shipley, E., Smith, C. & Gleitman, L. (1969). A study in the acquisition of language: free responses to commands. Lg 45. 322–42.Google Scholar
Sigel, I. E. (1970). The distancing hypothesis: a causal hypothesis for the acquisition of representational thought. In Jones, M. R. (ed.), The effects of early experience. Miami: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Sigel, I. E. & McBane, B. (1967). Cognitive competence and level of symbolization among five-year-old children. In Hellmuth, J. (ed.), The disadvantaged child, Vol. 1. Seattle: Special Child Publications.Google Scholar
Sigel, I. E., Anderson, L. M. & Shapiro, H. (1966). Categorization behavior of lower and middle class Negro preschool children: differences in dealing with representation of familiar objects. Journal of Negro Education 35. 218–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, H. & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation: an organismic-developmental approach to language and the expression of thought. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wysocki, A. B. & Wysocki, A. C. (1969). Cultural differences as reflected in Wechsler-Bellevue intelligence (WBII) test. Psychological Reports 25. 95–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed