higher order thinking questions speech therapy

5 Easy Steps for Teaching When Questions for Speech Therapy

• October 19, 2022
• Speech Therapy Planning , Teaching Speech Therapy Skills , Therapy Materials , Uncategorized , WH Questions

Sharing is caring!

Teaching when questions for speech therapy intervention can be a challenge, especially when there is never enough time in your day to plan effective therapy. I’m here to simplify your therapy by giving you an easy-to-follow plan when it comes to teaching when questions.

After reading this post, you will have a structured speech therapy intervention plan for teaching when questions that you can implement tomorrow. Here is an overview of the 5 steps that will make you the expert at your school when it comes to writing and addressing those when question IEP goals.

• Step 1: Start with pre-intervention data collection for when questions.
• Step 2: Analyze the data from Step 1 to determine where to start your intervention.
• Step 3: Using the information from Step 2, write your student’s speech therapy goals.
• Step 4: Implement therapy.
• Step 5: Complete your post-intervention data collection.

Note: This easy 5-step process is included in my When Questions Flashcards resource. If you would like to skip the rest of this article and jump right into your intervention, click the picture below.

Step 1. Start with pre-intervention data collection for when questions.

Determining IEP goals and planning speech therapy intervention depends upon knowing how the student is currently performing with a specific skill. Using an informal WH question test for data collection in speech therapy is a must.

If you don’t have a data collection tool for WH or WHEN questions, don’t worry. Download my FREE WH Questions Baseline Assessment today!

Here is a completed when questions baseline from my wh questions for speech therapy resource.

Step 2. Analyze the data from Step 1 to determine where to start your intervention.

Knowing where to start when questions speech therapy intervention can sometimes be tricky. After completing the baseline assessment from step 1, use this free flow chart to help you analyze your data. This will help you determine your therapy plan.

If you would like a free copy of this flow chart, click on the picture above and print.

There are four columns on the flow chart. Here is what each column means.

• Left Column: Focus on teaching prelinguistic skills and building receptive language.
• Left Middle Column: Work on teaching early developing WH questions- who, what, where.
• Right Middle Column: Work on teaching when questions.
• Right Column: Work on increasing vocabulary. Making IEP accommodations might also be appropriate.

Step 3. Write your student’s speech therapy goals based on the information from step 2.

First, keep in mind normal when question development..

For planning when question speech therapy goals, it is important to keep in mind normal when question development. Here are the norms that I use from the resource Guide to Communication Milestones (Lanza, J. R. & Flahive, L. K., 2012).

WHEN Question Development

• Answers WHEN questions: 4 years of age.

Keep in mind that this norm is most likely referring to simple when questions that don’t require a great deal of background knowledge.

Then, determine a starting point for speech therapy intervention.

Using the flow chart from step 2, while keeping in mind normal when question development, determine your IEP goals.

1. Left Column: Focus on prelinguistic goals and receptive language goals. If your student is on this side of the flow chart, you should not introduce when questions.

Prelinguistic Goal for Joint Attention : The student will demonstrate joint attention in 8/10 trials when the adult points to/shows an object or talks about an immediate event (something that is happening in the child’s present environment).

Click here for more information on joint attention .

Prelinguistic Goal for Attending : The student will attend to a reading and/or play activity for ___ minutes with minimal adult support in 4/5 trials.

Receptive Language Goal for WH Questions (Play Based) : The student will respond to WHO, WHAT, and/or WHERE questions during a play activity in 8/10 trials by pointing.

Early Developing WH Questions Goal (Skill Based) : The student will answer basic WHO, WHAT, and/or WHERE questions by pointing to or stating the answer with 80% accuracy. (i.e., Where is your nose? What is this?)

2. Left Middle Column: Focus on teaching early developing wh questions- who, what, where. After these questions are mastered, move on to when questions.

WHO Questions Speech Therapy Goal : The student will answer WHO questions with 80% accuracy when picture choices are presented.

WHO Questions Speech Therapy Goal: The student will answer WHO questions with 80% accuracy. (no picture choices)

WHAT Questions Speech Therapy Goal : The student will answer WHAT questions with 80% accuracy when picture choices are presented.

WHAT Questions Speech Therapy Goal : The student will answer WHAT questions with 80% accuracy. (no picture choices)

WHERE Questions Speech Therapy Goal : The student will answer WHERE questions with 80% accuracy when picture choices are presented.

WHERE Questions Speech Therapy Goal : The student will answer WHERE questions with 80% accuracy. (no picture choices)

3. Right Middle Column: Focus on teaching when questions.

Although you can get very detailed with your IEP goals, I recommend keeping things simple. It’s important that other team members understand the student’s goals. Here are two simple when questions example goals.

WHEN Questions Goal : The student will answer WHEN questions with 80% accuracy when picture choices are presented.

WHEN Questions Goal : The student will answer WHEN questions with 80% accuracy. (no picture choices)

If your student is working on generalizing when questions to conversational and reading comprehension tasks, these are some suggestions.

WHEN Questions Conversational Speech Therapy Goal : The student will answer WHEN questions during conversation with 80% accuracy.

WHEN Questions Reading Comprehension Speech Therapy Goal : The student will answer WHEN questions for reading comprehension tasks with 80% accuracy.

4. Right Column: Increasing vocabulary to support answering when questions might be the best course of treatment. Considering IEP accommodations for addressing language complexity might also be appropriate.

You might find that it is more appropriate to focus on accommodations and modifications to decrease the barriers that might exist when answering questions. Here is a list of possible accommodations and modifications.

• Simplify questions by decreasing the amount of complex language used in the question.
• Supplement your verbal question with a picture scene or picture cue.
• Give the student visual or verbal choices of answers.

Step 4. Implement therapy.

Now that you have your student’s IEP goals written, it’s time to get your speech therapy intervention tools ready. You might already have a resource that works well for addressing when question goals. However, if you are looking for a more comprehensive resource for teaching when questions, I have created a set of when questions flashcards that you can purchase. The flashcards featured in this section are from that resource.

First, teach the skill.

Explicit instruction.

Consider starting with explicit instruction when teaching a student to answer when questions. This is how I begin each session. There is research in the area of grammar intervention that suggests combining explicit instruction with implicit instruction is more efficient than just implicit instruction alone. (Calder, S.D., Claessen, M., Ebbels, S. & Leitao, S., 2020)

Directly teach your students that when they hear the word when in a question it refers to an event, time, or reason for doing something.

Then, practice the skill.

There isn’t much research that I’ve come across in regards to a hierarchy for how to teach when questions. The following is based on my clinical experience and what I’ve found to be effective in teaching when questions for speech therapy intervention. Although this learning ladder provides a general hierarchy, you should always consider the student’s language profile when planning intervention.

Note: I only practice when questions with elementary-age students (5K+). When questions require higher level language skills to answer because the questions/answers require more abstract thinking than early developing WH questions (who, what, where). Instead of focusing on concrete objects or people, as we do with early developing WH questions, many when questions/answers are based upon the understanding of cultural norms, time, or the reasons we demonstrate certain behaviors.

Here is the scope and sequence of my when questions flashcard resource.

If the student is old enough, I use flashcards between turns of an open-ended game. The game motivates students to participate in a flashcard activity that would otherwise be a nonpreferred task. 

1. Basic-Intermediate When Questions

If your student does not need to work on foundational WH question skills, start with basic-intermediate when questions. (These WH question examples are from sets 1-4 of my when questions flashcards resource .) If your student can already answer intermediate when questions, move on to advanced when questions.

For the basic-intermediate level of when questions, I decided to start with when questions that refer to events. I then proceeded to when questions that focus on time. In reality, there isn’t that much of a divide in complexity between the two types of when questions. You might find that sets 3 and 4 are easier for some students than sets 1 and 2.

Examples : When do you open presents? When is your birthday?

Prerequisite Skills : The student needs to understand cultural norms and time.

First, I start by using flashcards with picture choices. Before moving on to the next set of cards, I might use these cards again but not show the picture choices. If the student has difficulty answering the question, I show the picture choices.

Although the research is mixed on the efficacy of using picture choices to teach questions, I find that pictures minimize frustration with teaching when questions. It is a perfect strategy for students who need to take baby steps when learning a new skill.

Then, I move on to flashcards without picture choices.

2. Advanced When Questions

Next, address when questions that require the student to state a reason. (This WH question example is from sets 5-6 of the when questions flashcards resource .)

Example : When do you go to the doctor?

Prerequisite Skills : The student needs to understand the reason we demonstrate certain behaviors.

Step 5. Complete your post-intervention data collection.

When your session data suggests that the student has learned how to answer when questions, update the original baseline assessment. This provides you with data to report at the IEP meeting and/or on the progress report. If the student has met his or her goal, move on to the next skill.

What is the ultimate goal for working on when questions?

It is important to note that during this process of teaching when questions for speech therapy, it’s essential to incorporate when questions into conversational and read-aloud activities. This is the overarching goal of working on questions- to be able to participate in a conversation and answer questions for academic tasks.

If you are unsure of what your student’s accuracy is with answering WH and WHEN questions, get a free baseline tool . This will help you determine where you should start with intervention.

Wondering where you can get the WH question examples featured in this post? Get your own set of when question flashcards to complement your therapy at my Teachers Pay Teachers store.

Other Related Posts:

4 Things To Consider Before Writing Speech Therapy WH Question Goals

5 Steps for Effectively Teaching Who Questions for Speech Therapy

5 Steps for Effectively Teaching What Questions in Speech Therapy

5 Simple Steps for Teaching Where Questions for Speech Therapy

Calder, S.D., Claessen, M., Ebbels, S., & Leitão, S. (2020). Explicit grammar intervention in young school-aged children with developmental language disorder: An efficacy study using single-case experimental design. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools . https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-19-00060

Calder, S. D., Claessen, M., Ebbels, S., & Leitão, S. (2020). The efficacy of an explicit intervention approach to improve past tense marking for early school-age children with developmental language disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00132

Ebbels, S., & Owen Van Horne, A. (2020). Grammatical concepts of English: Suggested order of intervention. The Informed SLP . https://www.theinformedslp.com/review/the-grammar-guide-you-never-knew-you-always-wanted

Gaertner et al., (2008) Focused Attention in Toddlers: Measurement, Stability, and Relations to Negative Emotion and Parenting. Journal of Infant Child Development . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607062/pdf/nihms-81608.pdf

Lanza, J. R. & Flahive, L. K. (2012) Guide to Communication Milestones. LinguiSystems. ( https://www.carolinatherapeutics.com/wp-content/uploads/milestones-guide.pdf )

2 Responses

Thanks for reading!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More blog posts...

How to Teach Why Questions for Speech Therapy: 5 Essential Steps

Teaching why questions for speech therapy intervention can be a challenge, especially when there is never enough time

Enhancing Communication Skills through Joint Attention in Speech Therapy

Enhancing communication skills through joint attention in speech therapy is often the primary goal for young students. For

Teaching who questions for speech therapy intervention can be a challenge, especially when there is never enough time

4 Things To Consider Before Writing Speech Therapy WH Questions Goals

In speech therapy, WH questions can be a challenge for many special education students. Before writing speech therapy

Teaching when questions for speech therapy intervention can be a challenge, especially when there is never enough time

Teaching where questions for speech therapy intervention can be a challenge, especially when there is never enough time

Hi, I'm Catherine!

I provide itinerant speech-language pathologists with valuable content and travel friendly resources. I specialize in providing lessons and activities for preschool students with language and articulation disabilities, but I also have resources for older students. 

I live and work as an itinerant speech-language clinician in Wisconsin. In my spare time, I enjoy traveling with my husband and son.

I’m so grateful that you’ve found my online home. I can’t wait to help you!

Get your free preschool speech therapy lesson plan here!

Copyright 2021 | The Itinerant Clinician | All Rights Reserved

• Grades 6-12
• School Leaders

Get our FREE Mother's Day Printable 💐!

50+ Higher-Order Thinking Questions To Challenge Your Students

50+ lower order thinking questions too!

Want to help your students make strong connections with the material? Ensure you’re using all six levels of cognitive thinking. This means asking lower-order thinking questions as well as higher-order thinking questions. Learn more about each here, and find plenty of examples for each.

What are lower-order and higher-order thinking questions?

Source: University of Michigan

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a way of classifying cognitive thinking skills. The six main categories—remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create—are broken into lower-order thinking skills (LOTS) and higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). LOTS includes remember, understand, and apply. HOTS covers analyze, evaluate, and create.

While both LOTS and HOTS have value, higher-order thinking questions urge students to develop deeper connections with information. They also encourage kids to think critically and develop problem-solving skills. That’s why teachers like to emphasize them in the classroom.

New to higher-order thinking? Learn all about it here. Then use these lower- and higher-order thinking questions to inspire your students to examine subject material on a variety of levels.

Remember (LOTS)

• Who are the main characters?
• When did the event take place?
• What is the setting of the story?

• Where would you find _________?
• How do you __________?
• What is __________?
• How do you define _________?
• How do you spell ________?
• What are the characteristics of _______?
• List the _________ in proper order.
• Name all the ____________.
• Describe the __________.
• Who was involved in the event or situation?

• How many _________ are there?
• What happened first? Next? Last?

Understand (LOTS)

• Can you explain why ___________?
• What is the difference between _________ and __________?
• How would you rephrase __________?
• What is the main idea?
• Why did the character/person ____________?

• What’s happening in this illustration?
• Retell the story in your own words.
• Describe an event from start to finish.
• What is the climax of the story?
• Who are the protagonists and antagonists?

• What does ___________ mean?
• What is the relationship between __________ and ___________?
• Provide more information about ____________.
• Why does __________ equal ___________?
• Explain why _________ causes __________.

Apply (LOTS)

• How do you solve ___________?
• What method can you use to __________?
• What methods or approaches won’t work?

• Provide examples of _____________.
• How can you demonstrate your ability to __________.
• How would you use ___________?
• Use what you know to __________.
• How many ways are there to solve this problem?
• What can you learn from ___________?
• How can you use ________ in daily life?
• Provide facts to prove that __________.
• Organize the information to show __________.

• How would this person/character react if ________?
• Predict what would happen if __________.
• How would you find out _________?

Analyze (HOTS)

• What facts does the author offer to support their opinion?
• What are some problems with the author’s point of view?
• Compare and contrast two main characters or points of view.

• Discuss the pros and cons of _________.
• How would you classify or sort ___________?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of _______?
• How is _______ connected to __________?
• What caused __________?
• What are the effects of ___________?
• How would you prioritize these facts or tasks?
• How do you explain _______?
• Using the information in a chart/graph, what conclusions can you draw?
• What does the data show or fail to show?
• What was a character’s motivation for a specific action?

• What is the theme of _________?
• Why do you think _______?
• What is the purpose of _________?
• What was the turning point?

Evaluate (HOTS)

• Is _________ better or worse than _________?
• What are the best parts of __________?
• How will you know if __________ is successful?
• Are the stated facts proven by evidence?
• Is the source reliable?

• What makes a point of view valid?
• Did the character/person make a good decision? Why or why not?
• Which _______ is the best, and why?
• What are the biases or assumptions in an argument?
• What is the value of _________?
• Is _________ morally or ethically acceptable?
• Does __________ apply to all people equally?
• How can you disprove __________?
• Does __________ meet the specified criteria?

• What could be improved about _________?
• Do you agree with ___________?
• Does the conclusion include all pertinent data?
• Does ________ really mean ___________?

Create (HOTS)

• How can you verify ____________?
• Design an experiment to __________.
• Defend your opinion on ___________.
• How can you solve this problem?
• Rewrite a story with a better ending.

• How can you persuade someone to __________?
• Make a plan to complete a task or project.
• How would you improve __________?
• What changes would you make to ___________ and why?
• How would you teach someone to _________?
• What would happen if _________?
• What alternative can you suggest for _________?
• What solutions do you recommend?
• How would you do things differently?

• What are the next steps?
• What factors would need to change in order for __________?
• Invent a _________ to __________.
• What is your theory about __________?

What are your favorite higher-order thinking questions? Come share in the WeAreTeachers HELPLINE group on Facebook .

Plus, 100+ critical thinking questions for students to ask about anything ..

You Might Also Like

What Is Higher-Order Thinking and How Do I Teach It?

Go beyond basic remembering and understanding. Continue Reading

Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved. 5335 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32256

• Members Sign Up
• Members Login

Toddler Talk 2.0

Toddler talking 2.0.

• Preschool Talk 2.0
• Late Talker
• Speech Disorders
• Language Disorders
• Reading and Writing
• Development
• Speech Therapy
• Read, Talk, Play Tips!
• Speech-Language Activities

Story Companions

• Baby Activities
• Toddler Activities
• School-Aged Activities
• General Speech-Language
• Articulation

WH Questions

• Social Language
• Receptive Language
• Grammar Games
• Story Grammar
• Speech Therapy Toys
• Holiday Activities
• Free Home Therapy ideas
• High Frequency Words
• Teletherapy
• Augmentative Alternative Communication (AAC)
• Documentation
• Back To School
• Spanish Materials
• Bilingual Development
• Bilingual Therapy
• Accent Modification
• Zero Prep Articulation

Everything You Needed To Know

WH Questions! Speech therapists LOVE to worry about WH questions!

You might be thinking...

• What’s the big deal? 
• How can I help?

Well, if I just read your mind, I will answer all three of these questions here. 

Now, this page is for Kindergarten and early elementary students. However, if you have an older child with a WH question goal, there is good information for you too. 

First, why do SLPs care so much about WH questions? I actually had to stop and think about this for a second. I’m so used to assessing this ability, worrying about children’s progress, planning goals and activities that I even had to stop and say…. why in the world do I care so much? 

However, the answer is both simple and complicated. Answering WH questions takes a lot of different language skills. A child must:

• Understand the question word 
• Know the grammar of the question
• Understand each vocabulary word (not just the question word)
• Makes sense of the information and the social context
• Formulate a response
• Put the words together (syntax & semantics)
• Give a response

This is A LOT of language skills!

Why is it so important?

Being able to answer WH questions is crucial for: 

• Participating in conversations with friends and family
• Answering questions in class
• Demonstrating knowledge on tests
• Being able to follow directions & stay safe
• Demonstrating an understanding of school material
• The list goes on...

What is the root of the problem?

Why can’t a child answer WH questions? This can be difficult to tease out.

The main questions to consider are, does the child have trouble:

• Understanding question words?
• Comprehending the grammatical structures?
• Understanding the vocabulary words?
• Formulating a grammatically correct response (demonstrating knowledge)?
• Formulating a semantically correct response (demonstrating knowledge)?
• Attending long enough to hear and understand the question?

How you work on the ability to answer WH questions will depend on the reason the child is having difficulty.

To figure this out, a consultation or evaluation by a qualified SLP is the best starting point.  

Ready to help? Here we go!

If you need some no-print, evidence-based materials, check out:  WH question materials  (answer and explain why) and  WH Questions (create your own).

If you need functional materials, please keep reading!

Expectations

1–2 years  

• Answers “where”  questions by looking/pointing at the correct place and/or using words
• Answers “what”  questions by choosing an object or responding verbally 
• Answers  age-appropriate  y es/no questions  with words or gestures
• Asks  “what’s that”  questions?
• Answers   “where,” “what,” “what-doing,”  and  “who”  questions.
• Answers  age-appropriate  critical thinking questions  (i.e., what do you wear when it is cold?)

Functional Game

Reading is one of THE best ways to develop language and even speech skills. You will see “reading” for the functional game on this page. Why mess with what works best, right?! The only difference will be HOW you read to your child.

How:  Sit down with your child and pick a favorite book (preferably one with pictures and of interest to your child). Read the book with lots of animation and excitement. After reading for a bit...

• Ask “what is this?” and point to an object. See if your child can answer. If he/she can’t, say the answer and see if he/she can repeat. 
• Ask “where is....?” about a pictured person/object/animal (the picture helps tremendously with the learning process). Wait to see if your child can answer. If not, answer your own question while pointing to the pictures.
• Ask “who” and “what-doing” questions (for 2-3 years old) as well as the questions listed above. If your child can’t answer a question, answer your own question by pointing to the picture and/or thinking OUT LOUD. By using these strategies, you teach your child HOW to answer a question and not just simply the answer.

Preschool (ages 3-5)

Age 3 

• Answers “who,” “why,” “where,”  and  “how”  questions
• Answers “if-what”  questions (i.e., “If you are hungry, what do you do?)
• Answers “when” and “how many”  questions (new)
• Answers “who,” “why,” “where,”   “how,” and “if-what”  questions
• Asks “why,” “what,” “where,” “when,” and “how”  questions

WH Questions & Story Retell Materials

• 104 pages of materials
• Functional and great for the teaching phase of treatment!
• Learn more here
• Free samples for story companions that target WH questions and more!

FREE SAMPLE!

If you would like a free sample of my WH questions materials and ONE YEAR of FREE materials, please fill out the form below!

You'll receive a complimentary language material every month for an entire year! This is an excellent opportunity to sample the materials available at Speech Therapy Talk and add a touch of joy to your inbox.

FREE WH Question & Story Retell Material

Fill out the form below to grab your free worksheets

Functional Game

• Ask “what” and “where” questions as naturally as possible. These type of questions are easier so start here. If your child doesn’t know the right answer, point to the correct response (if possible) and talk through your reasoning. This “talking through” is the most important part.
• Ask “why,” “how,” and “when” questions while reading. These type of questions require higher level language reasoning skills. Therefore, they are tougher. To make this easier, relate the story to a real-life experience. For example, if you ask “why is George feeling sad?” and your child doesn’t know the answer. You might say, "George is feeling sad because he lost his toy. Look at the previous page, he lost his toy. Remember when you lost your toy and you cried? How did you feel? (child answers sad). That is how George feels." 

Key Strategies:

• Point to pictures to help answer questions
• Talk through your reasoning
• Relate the story to real-life experiences

Early Elementary

In the early elementary years, students should be able to  answer and ask  "who," "where," "what," "what-doing," "why," “if-what” and "how" questions. 

Even at this age, reading continues to be one of the best ways to learn how to answer WH questions.

How:  Sit down with your child and pick a favorite book (preferably one with pictures and of interest to your child). Read the book with lots of animation and excitement (you know the drill)

Ask your child questions, any of the questions listed above in the “expectations section” as naturally as possible. If your child can’t answer one, try some strategies below:

• Point to pictures to help answer questions:  Point to pictures as you answer questions. Any visual is a great thing in the learning process!
• Direct Teaching: If your child is having trouble with a question word such as “where,” open a book and say “where means place. Let’s find all the ‘places’ in this book.” Then, take turns pointing to different places such as a school, car, park, city, etc...
• Relate Story To Real Life:  To teach higher level reasoning skills such as “what-if” and “why,” it can help to relate the story to a real-life experience. 
• Talk Through Reasoning:  For questions such as “what will happen next,” talk through your response. For example, if you say “what do you think will happen next?” listen to your child’s response and applaud ANY answer. If your child is way off, that is actually a good thing. You now have the opportunity to talk through how to answer prediction questions. You can say, "I think the paint will spill. See how the paint is on the edge of the table and the cat jumped on the table (while pointing). I think the cat will make the table shake and the paint will fall. Look it is already tipping! What do you think?"

Want more FUNCTIONAL ideas for your child?

We have step-by-step guides for both parents and professionals that provide FUNCTIONAL and NATURAL ways to learn language at home.

Check out the books below to see if one is the right fit for you

Encourage those precious first words

Expand those first words into a conversation

Preschool Talk

Build a strong foundation  of language skills!

References:

• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). How does your child hear and talk? from https://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/chart/
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Your child’s communication: Kindergarten. from https://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/kindergarten/
• Lanza, J., & Flahive, L. (2008). Guide to communication milestones. East Moline, IL
• WH Questions & What You Need To Know

Session expired

Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.

Excellent Language Skills Can Open Doors

• Parent Information
• Your Middle Schooler
• Administrators: Know Your SLP’s
• Workshops/Conferences Review
• Apps I Can Use
• Advertise On The School Speech Therapist
• Modify That Game
• TBS Speech Therapy, LLC Consulting Services
• Professional Liability for SLPs
• My Book “The School SLP”

Lively Letters

Understanding higher order language skills.

Mar 4, 2012 by Teresa Sadowski MA CCC-SLP

This article was originally posted in Your Middle Schooler: A Unique Age in February 2008.  It was the first in a series of articles on Higher Order Language Development.  The importance of higher order language development and what to do to foster higher order language development.  In following articles I will address strategies to foster understanding and use of higher order language development.  If you have a specific concern in this area contact me .

Develop Those Higher Level Language Skills!

During the middle school years, students are beginning to develop higher level language abilities. Most students do this so naturally we do not even notice. Teachers do their best to help students gradually develop mature language skills. However, students with language disabilities or just weak academic habits may have difficulty acquiring these higher level language skills.

What are some higher level language skills?

• Development of mature vocabulary • Understanding of word relationships such as homophones and homographs • Understanding and use of figurative expressions • Organization of mature sentences (oral and written) • Understanding and use of mature grammatical structures (oral and written) • Ability to draw conclusions and inferences • Ability to paraphrase and rephrase with ease • Ability to reason • Looking at things from another’s perspective

Concerns when Students do not attain higher level language skills. • Difficulty with comprehension (oral and written) • Unable to understand and make connections and associations • Difficulty understand jokes, riddles and humor in general • Inability to organize language • Writing skills will suffer • Poor problem solving skills • Inability to be flexible with language ( I will explain more about that later) • Academic success is effected • Immature pragmatic abilities (social speech skills)

   Misunderstandings in social situations

Many simple activities can help foster development of higher level language skills. Keep an eye on my blog. I will continue to provide information and suggestions for intervention. If you need me to address an area ASAP or you have specific questions drop me a comment.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Buy my book!

Buy the marshalla guide.

Shop through Amazon

Subscribe to the school speech therapist.

[email protected]

Delivered by FeedBurner

My TPT products

Try Amazon Prime

Welcome to The School Speech Therapist

This site provides information on speech and language development and remediation, for parents, teachers and administrators. This is also a place where therapists can network, share ideas, consult with each other and express concerns.

Strong language skills will not only aid success in school but in life as well.

Teresa Sadowski MA/SLP-ccc

Educational Supplies Amazon

Speech teacher’s handbook, the school speech therapist.

• Thinking about COVID 19, Schools and Speech Language Pathologists
• Schools have to get back to normal in the fall….not the “new normal”

Written by SLPs

Products i love, tsst policies and disclaimer.

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by WordPress

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Origins of Higher-Order Thinking Lie in Children’s Spontaneous Talk Across the Pre-School Years

Rebecca r. frausel.

a The University of Chicago, United States of America

Catriona Silvey

b University College London, United Kingdom

Cassie Freeman

c The College Board, United States of America

Natalie Dowling

Lindsey e. richland.

d University of California Irvine, United States of America

Susan C. Levine

Steve raudenbush, susan goldin-meadow.

Higher-order thinking is relational reasoning in which multiple representations are linked together, through inferences, comparisons, abstractions, and hierarchies. We examine the development of higher-order thinking in 64 preschool-aged children, observed from 14 to 58 months in naturalistic situations at home. We used children’s spontaneous talk about and with relations (i.e., higher-order thinking talk, or HOTT) as a window onto their higher-order thinking skills. We find that surface HOTT, in which relations between representations are more immediate and easily perceptible, appears before—and is far more frequent than— structure HOTT, in which relations between representations are more abstract and less easy to perceive. Child-specific factors (including early vocabulary and gesture use, first-born status, and family income) predict differences in children’s onset (i.e., age of acquisition) of HOTT and its trajectory of use across development. Although HOTT utterances tend to be longer and more syntactically complex than non-HOTT utterances, HOTT frequently appears in non-complex utterances, and a substantial proportion of children achieve complex utterance onset prior to the onset of HOTT. This finding suggests that complex language is neither necessary nor sufficient for HOTT to occur; other factors above and beyond complex linguistic skills are involved in the onset and use of higher-order thinking. Finally, we found that the trajectory of HOTT, particularly structure HOTT—but not complex utterances—during the preschool period predicts standardized outcome measures of inference and analogy skills in grade school, which underscores the crucial role that this kind of early talk plays for later outcomes.

1. Introduction

As children acquire language, they also develop the ability to use higher-order thinking, which is the cognitive capacity to make inferences and generalizations, use classifications and taxonomies, and broadly go beyond the information given ( Bruner, 1973 ; Resnick, 1987 ). It is a crucial part of children’s emerging cognitive development, and higher-order thinking is increasingly highlighted as a focal goal for education in the 21 st century ( Koenig, 2015 ).

Despite its importance, little is known about the developmental trajectory of children’s higher-order thinking communication in naturalistic contexts (as opposed to experimental contexts, where far more is known), nor about individual variation in its use. In addition, although the human capacities for both generative, symbolic language and higher-order cognitive skills have been argued to differentiate humans from other animals ( Gentner, 2003 ; Penn, Holyoak, & Povinelli, 2008 ; Gentner & Christie, 2008 ), the relations between their development are not well understood.

In this paper, we examine the early foundations of higher-order thinking by examining children’s engagement in talk about and with relations, which we define as higher-order thinking talk (HOTT). We use longitudinal observations of 64 children, videotaped at home every 4 months from 14 to 58 months, to determine the age in development when children begin to regularly display higher-order thinking in their spontaneous talk (their HOTT onset), and we chart the trajectory of this talk over time ( Section 3.1 ). We also explore child-specific factors (e.g., first-born status, family income, early vocabulary and gesture use) that have the potential to influence the onset and developmental trajectory of HOTT ( Section 3.2 ). Furthermore, because HOTT utterances may be longer and more syntactically complex than non-HOTT utterances, we investigated the extent to which HOTT use can be disentangled from complex language use ( Section 3.3 ). Finally, we ask whether children’s early HOTT is related to their performance on standardized measures of higher-order thinking (including verbal and non-verbal analogical reasoning and text-based inferencing ability) administered years later during grade school ( Section 3.4 ). If so, this relation would validate the role of HOTT as an early index of, and potential training opportunity for, children’s higher-order thinking.

1.1. Defining Higher-Order Thinking

Higher-order thinking is, in the words of educational psychologist Lauren Resnick (1987) , “difficult to define but easy to recognize when it occurs” (pg. 44). There are as many different ways to define it as there are researchers studying it, but what most definitions have in common is that higher-order thinking involves rearranging or extending knowledge in novel ways. As Lewis and Smith (1993) say, “Higher-order thinking occurs when a person takes new information and information stored in memory and interrelates and/or rearranges and extends this information to achieve a purpose or find possible answers in perplexing situations” (pg. 136). In this paper, we use the definition of higher-order thinking offered by Resnick (1987) : Higher-order thinking involves “elaborating the given material, making inferences beyond what is explicitly presented, building adequate representations, [and] analyzing and constructing relationships” (pg. 45).

More specifically, we operationalize higher-order thinking as talk in which an individual’s utterance (a unit of speech; see the Methods section) includes reference to an inference or explanation, a comparison, an abstraction/generalization, or a hierarchy/taxonomic relationship. We identified these four types of higher-order thinking on the basis of literature reviews and pilot analyses. Together, they constitute a broad category of speech we call ‘higher-order thinking talk,’ or HOTT. We also differentiate between HOTT that references more immediate and perceivable relationships (surface) versus deeper, underlying relationships (structure), a distinction that the literature on reasoning and transfer has clarified to require different levels of skill (see Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999 ; Gentner & Markman, 1997 ; Gick & Holyoak, 1983 ).

1.2. Importance of Higher-Order Thinking

The ability to use higher-order thinking is increasingly recognized as critical to academic and employment success in the 21 st century ( Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010 ; National Research Council, 2001 ; 2007 ; 2012 ; 2013 ). As technology has advanced, today’s students have fingertip access to wide Internet knowledge and information resources. At the same time, students are increasingly challenged by how best to attend to and use this information, and to organize it effectively so it can be applied to novel situations.

This dilemma is acute: students in the United States, one of the wealthiest and most well-connected countries in the world, frequently lag behind their international peers in standardized assessments of math and science ( Gonzales, 2001 ; Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez, & Chrostowski, 2004 ). Differences in teaching instruction can partially explain these gaps ( Richland, Zur, & Holyoak, 2007 ; Hiebert et al., 2003 ). For example, although American teachers use conceptually rich problems and comparisons at similar rates as teachers from higher-achieving regions such as Hong Kong or Japan, they differ in their use of visuo-spatial supports that draw students’ attention to relevant abstract relations ( Richland, Zur, & Holyoak, 2007 ). Richland and colleagues (2007) suggest that these differences might reflect different cultural orientations to relational reasoning. Developing the ability to attend to relations between representations may therefore be fundamental to supporting abstract thought and developing domain-general thinking skills, which are critical areas of concern for the modern student.

1.3. Developmental Origins of Higher-Order Thinking

Educational and developmental psychologists question when in development children ‘start’ using higher-order thinking (e.g., Walker & Gopnik, 2014 ). We take the position, however, that there is no one particular moment of onset, as children’s capacity for complex relational thinking depends on domain, context, and the specific demands of the task at hand; for example, whether or not the tasks use language. Studies using looking-time or simple physical problem-solving tasks suggest that higher-order and relational reasoning capacity at a basic level emerges very early in development. Pre-linguistic infants as young as 7 months demonstrate generalization of the same-different relation, and generalize this relation to novel pairs ( Ferry, Hespos, & Gentner, 2015 ). Paradigms exploring early causal thinking similarly show that young infants grapple with relational thinking ( Wang & Baillargeon, 2008 ). For example, 13-month-olds learned to transfer a pulling relation (where a cloth could be pulled to reach a toy) to a novel situation ( Chen, Sanchez, & Campbell, 1997 ). The fact that pre-linguistic infants can identify and transfer relationships provides some evidence that higher-order reasoning cannot be entirely dependent on language.

Researchers have found evidence of relational reasoning in experimental tasks that use language beginning around 2 years of age ( Loewenstein & Gentner, 2005 ; Christie & Gentner, 2014 ), suggesting this might also be the age at which children first use higher-order thinking in their spontaneous talk. By ages 3–4, children are much more reliable in their skills even when assessed with language-based tasks ( Richland, Morrison, & Holyoak, 2006 ), and are able to use higher-order relational reasoning when they have adequate knowledge of a task and the task demands are minimized.

Although children begin cultivating higher-order reasoning abilities very early in development, at this young age, they are still challenged by increasing relational complexity, and show susceptibility to errors related to perceptually-similar foils ( Richland, Morrison, & Holyoak, 2006 ). Early in development, children largely attend to surface-level perceptual relationships between representations (as in surface HOTT) when these are salient and available. For example, children might state that a plant stem is similar to a drinking straw because both are long and skinny. As they grow and become more knowledgeable, and as their cognitive resources expand, children more often attend to deeper functional similarities (as in structure HOTT). They begin to make adult-like judgments such as explaining that a plant stem is similar to a drinking straw because both are used to deliver nourishment to a living thing, and both use differential pressure to move liquid up the shaft ( Gentner, 1988 ). This change has been frequently described as the ‘relational shift’ ( Gentner, 1988 ; Gentner & Ratterman, 1991 ), although the nature of children’s developmental changes in relational reasoning is debated (e.g., see Goswami, 2002; Simms, Frausel & Richland, 2018 ). Whatever the cause of the change, the early prioritization of salient object-level and perceptual information may pave the way for more complex and abstract relational structures later in development.

At the same time that children are developing these more robust higher-order skills, they are simultaneously acquiring more complex language abilities. Next, we discuss relations between language and higher-order thinking development, including how specific language features (e.g., vocabulary, syntax) may be useful, or even necessary, for higher-order reasoning.

1.4. The Role of Language in Higher-Order and Relational Reasoning

Gentner and Goldin-Meadow (2003) described three models for how language could support thinking: (1) the language as lens view, or linguistic determinism, which theorizes that language shapes speakers’ perceptions of the world; (2) the language as category shift view, or linguistic relativism, which theorizes that while conceptual categories are universal, language can influence their boundaries; and (3) the language as toolkit view. Our approach best fits under this third view, which postulates that language provides concepts and strategies to support representation and reasoning skills, but does not supplant them. Language may serve to ‘bootstrap’ relational reasoning, and provide the tools for children to extract and formulate relational representations in the world. Consequently, language may also serve as a ‘bottleneck,’ preventing children who lack adequate linguistic skills from engaging in and communicating their higher-order thoughts.

1.4.1. Evidence from Experiments

The experimental literature has provided some indication that language is interrelated with reasoning proficiency. One well-documented phenomenon is that adding useful lexical items to task instructions can improve children’s proficiency. For instance, providing spatial ( in , on , under ) and relational ( top , middle , bottom ) words made 3- and 4-year-olds more proficient at a spatial mapping task ( Loewenstein & Gentner, 2005 ). Children given a challenging mapping task perform better even when provided with more abstract relational labels— Daddy , Mommy , and Baby —that convey monotonic changes in size ( Gentner & Ratterman, 1991 ; Ratterman & Gentner, 1998 ; see also Christie & Gentner, 2014 ). These studies suggest that relational reasoning can be supported by the introduction of linguistic labels denoting relational concepts; the use of relational language may invite children to form deeper relational representations.

1.4.2. Evidence from Naturalistic Studies

We turn next to the relatively few studies of spontaneous language and higher-order thinking development. Özçalışkan, Goldin-Meadow, Gentner, and Mylander (2009) asked whether being exposed to a conventional linguistic system—one that contains explicit terms to highlight comparison such as ‘like’—is essential for children to make different types of similarity comparisons. Özçalışkan and colleagues (2009) compared spontaneous comparisons made by 1-to-3-year-old typically-developing children to spontaneous comparisons made by 2-to-4-year-old deaf children who lacked exposure to a usable language model. The hearing losses of the deaf children prevented them from benefiting from spoken linguistic input, and their hearing parents had not exposed them to sign language. Nonetheless, these deaf children and their hearing families invented gesture systems called homesigns to communicate with their hearing family members ( Feldman, Goldin-Meadow, & Gleitman, 1978 ; Goldin-Meadow, 2003 ). These homesign systems are structured in language-like ways ( Goldin-Meadow & Mylander, 1984 ), but, importantly for our purposes, lack an explicit comparison term, such as ‘like.’

Özçalışkan and colleagues (2009) found that the homesigners expressed similarity relations in their gestures (e.g., point at cat + point at tiger; point at train + point at car), even though none had spontaneously developed a sign for the term ‘like.’ However, their comparisons were always between objects from the same superordinate category that shared multiple features (as in the cat-tiger and train-car examples), and thus were more limited in scope. In contrast, the typically-developing children not only used these broad comparisons, but also used more focused comparisons between objects from different superordinate categories that revolved around a single feature (e.g., highlighting the similarity in color between a red apple and a red book, or the similarity in shape between a lollipop and a balloon). Interestingly, they did so only after acquiring the word ‘like’ around 30 months.

The fact that the typically-developing children began producing these more focused comparisons, based on specific features, after they acquired the word ‘like’—and that the homesigners who lacked the word ‘like’ did not produce focused comparisons—suggests that learning and using a word for similarity may be instrumental in expressing more complex relationships between representations. Certain lexical items may be necessary for children to engage in higher-order reasoning, as when making comparisons. However, less is known about whether other aspects of language (e.g., certain types of syntactic structures) facilitate higher-order thinking use.

1.5. The Current Study

Despite the importance of higher-order and relational reasoning, and its development in tandem with other important linguistic skills in early childhood, the emergence of higher-order cognitive skills in everyday home contexts is not well understood (though see Callanan & Oakes, 1992 , who used diary records from parents to record how preschoolers’ causal questions in everyday interaction contributes to their understanding of causal knowledge structures). The current project bridges this gap through analysis of an unusually rich set of longitudinal data on children’s early talk and later thinking and reasoning skills. Sixty-four typically-developing, monolingual English-acquiring children were videotaped in their homes every 4 months between 14 and 58 months while engaging in regular, everyday activities, yielding over 1,000 hours of video. These same children were visited years later in grade school and administered standardized reasoning outcome measures.

Although early language is known to vary by socioeconomic status (SES) and to predict differences in children’s long-term school and career success, researchers have not yet examined whether these same disparities are present for higher-order reasoning development. Furthermore, little previous research has examined how the development of higher-order reasoning is related to the development of complex language abilities—in part, because the majority of studies of children’s thinking and reasoning have been conducted cross-sectionally using experimenter-derived tasks (e.g., Loewenstein & Gentner, 2005 ; Richland, Morrison, & Holyoak, 2006 ). Moreover, studies of language development using naturalistic data (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995 ; Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, & Lyons, 1991 ) have largely examined differences in language use, such as vocabulary diversity and syntactic complexity. Little previous research has explored the nature and complexity of the thinking embedded in the spontaneous talk produced by children early in development.

Despite these traditionally distinct research pathways, the spontaneous use of conceptually and linguistically complex language in early childhood may have long-term impacts on children’s later thinking and reasoning skills. The spontaneous home talk collected and coded in this study spans from 14 months to 58 months, a crucial period in which language emerges and grows in complexity, and which also represents a period of great growth in children’s thinking and reasoning development. These data thus allow for new insights into the development of children’s thinking and reasoning as expressed through their early language.

1.6. Research Questions

This paper addresses four research questions.

1.6.1. How do children from 14–58 months vary in their onset and developmental trajectory of spontaneous higher-order thinking talk (HOTT)?

Based on the experimental literature (e.g., Loewenstein & Gentner, 2005 ; Christie & Gentner, 2014 ), we predict that HOTT will emerge with regularity around the beginning of the second year of life. Furthermore, we predict that children will vary widely in their onset and trajectory of HOTT, just as they exhibit great variability in their early lexicons ( Huttenlocher, et al., 1991 ), syntax ( Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, Cymerman, & Levine, 2002 ), and other linguistic skills. Finally, we predict that, due to the different levels of skill required when identifying deeper, more abstract relationships in contrast to simpler, more immediate relationships, onset of structure HOTT will occur later in development than onset of surface HOTT.

1.6.2. What child-specific factors, such as family income, birth order, and early language use, are associated with the onset and trajectory of HOTT?

We expect that HOTT might be another language area, similar to vocabulary (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995 ), where we find socioeconomic disparities. Children whose parents have higher incomes may use HOTT earlier and more often overall. In addition, we might expect birth order to influence input and use, since the oldest or only child may receive more individualized input from his or her parents, resulting in earlier or more frequent HOTT use. Finally, early language use might influence HOTT. Children with larger vocabularies early in development, or who use a wider variety of gestures to communicate, may elicit richer input from their caregivers, which may result in earlier onset of HOTT and more HOTT use across development.

1.6.3. What is the relation between HOTT and complex language?

Previous research has focused on relations between higher-order thinking and vocabulary. We expand this inquiry to explore two related questions concerning the extent to which HOTT use can be disentangled from complex language use.

Our first question is whether HOTT utterances are longer and more complex than non-HOTT utterances. To answer this question, we assessed the linguistic form (utterance length and verbs per utterance) of surface HOTT, structure HOTT, and non-HOTT utterances. If HOTT utterances are comprised primarily of complex utterances (which we define as utterances containing two or more verbs), this would suggest that our measure of HOTT largely reduces to being another measure of language complexity. Furthermore, it would suggest that describing complex relationships in the world necessarily requires speakers to use complex language—not just certain kinds of words, but lengthier speech and more complex syntax. If, however, HOTT appears in non-complex utterances as well as complex utterances, this would suggest that HOTT and complex language, although perhaps related, are not redundant. Complex language may provide speakers with strategies to support complex representation and reasoning, but may not be necessary for it to occur.

Our second question is whether the onset of HOTT coincides with the onset of complex utterances. Complex utterances allow the expression of two or more propositions within a single utterance, and thus have the potential to foster an understanding of relations between those propositions; children may start using HOTT at the same time they start using complex language. But if onset of complex language precedes onset of HOTT, we would have evidence that, although having complex language may relate to higher-order thinking development, complex language alone is not sufficient. The ability to identify and articulate relations between representations in the world using HOTT may call upon additional cognitive and linguistic skills beyond the ability to construct a complex utterance.

1.6.4. How is HOTT use from 14–58 months related to reasoning outcomes in grade school, including analogical reasoning and inferencing ability?

We explore, for the first time, whether higher-order thinking skills are related across development, as are skills in domains such as math (e.g., Mazzocco, Feigenson, & Halberda, 2011 ; Stevenson & Newman, 1986 ; Case, Griffin, & Kelly, 1999 ). Finding that relationships across development are weak would suggest that factors later in development (e.g., schooling) are needed to explain individual differences in higher-order thinking outcomes.

Overall, the current manuscript focuses on research questions pertaining to identifying HOTT as an important characteristic of children’s early spontaneous language, mapping its developmental trajectory and relations to individual characteristics such as family income, and assessing its predictive validity for future higher-order thinking skills. Determining contributions and mechanisms underlying these patterns, including the role of parent HOTT input, is beyond the scope of this manuscript, though future analyses will be important in exploring these questions.

2.1. Participants

Sixty-four typically-developing children and their primary caregiver(s) participated as part of a larger study of language development ( Goldin-Meadow, et al., 2014 ). Participants were recruited from the greater Chicago area. In order to recruit children and families, direct mailings were sent to approximately 5,000 families living in targeted zip codes, and advertisements were placed in a free, monthly parenting magazine. Responding parents were asked to confirm that they were raising their children in an English-only language environment (approximately 85–90% English, based on parent report). Given that they met this criterion, families were then interviewed for information on their background characteristics in order to create a sample that was demographically representative of the greater Chicago area, as reported in the 2000 U.S. Census.

The resulting final sample has 31 girls and 33 boys, including 34 first-born or only children. The sample was ethnically diverse, including 14 African American, 9 Latino, 35 White, and 6 children of mixed race. At the beginning of the study period, 5 families reported incomes of less than $15,000; 13 had incomes between $15,000 and $34,999; 8 had incomes between $35,000 and $49,999; 13 had incomes between $50,000 and $74,999; 11 had incomes between $75,000 and $99,000, and 14 reported incomes greater than $100,000. Using the midpoint of each income category as an estimate, the sample had an average income of $61,000 ( SD = $32,000).

Parents were asked to report who was primarily responsible for childcare. This person was asked to be home during filming of the home visits. The majority of children ( n = 56) had the mother as the primary caregiver, two children had the father as the primary caregiver, and six families reported that both parents equally shared the role (referred to as dual caregivers). Primary caregivers had an average of 15.6 years ( SD = 2.2 years, range 10 to 18 years) of education, the equivalent of slightly less than a Bachelor’s degree (the mother’s education level was used for the dual caregiver families).

2.2. Procedure

Children were videotaped interacting with the primary caregiver(s) during twelve 90-minute home visits conducted every 4 months from 14 to 58 months. This age range was selected because it represents the period during which children first began to produce language until they entered school. Parents and children were recorded engaging in ordinary, everyday activities such as playing with toys, reading books, and having meals. Not all participants completed every session; on average, subjects completed 11.3 sessions ( SD = 1.8 sessions, range 4 to 12 sessions). Out of a possible 768 session visits (64 subjects x 12 visits each), a total of 726 visits were completed; i.e., only 5.5% of visits were missing.

In addition, children were visited in their homes annually or bi-annually beginning in grade school and continuing through late adolescence. We examine whether children’s early HOTT is related to longer-term reasoning outcomes. The reasoning outcome measures are standardized measures of text-based inferencing given to children at age 9 and verbal and non-verbal analogy given at age 11. When children were 10, their parents completed IQ measures, which we use as a covariate. These measures will be discussed below in Section 2.6 , Standardized Measures.

2.2.1. Transcription of Speech in Spontaneous Interactions

All spontaneous speech by children was transcribed, including all dictionary words, onomatopoeic sounds (e.g., woof-woof), and evaluative sounds (e.g., uh-oh). Ritualized or memorized speech, such as song (e.g., singing the ABC’s) and prayer (e.g., reciting the Lord’s Prayer), was not transcribed. Although a small number of utterances consisting of verbatim reading from books was initially transcribed ( n = 375), these utterances were removed from analyses to more accurately capture children’s use of spontaneous language. Transcribed speech was divided into utterances, defined as any sequence of words preceded and followed by a pause, a change in intonational pattern, or a change in conversational turn ( Rowe & Goldin-Meadow, 2009 ; Rowe, 2012 ). A total of 368,509 child utterances were analyzed, distributed across the 726 visit transcripts.

One out of every three transcripts was checked for transcription agreement; agreement was calculated at the utterance level and the word level, and transcribers had to be at least 90% in agreement for both measures. Ten minutes of each video (randomly selected from the whole video) were transcribed by a second coder. If the first 10 minutes was not at least 90% in agreement, a second 10 minutes were transcribed by the second coder. If the transcript was still not at least 90% in agreement, the transcript was sent back to the coder to be re-transcribed. After re-transcription, another 10 minutes would be transcribed by the second coder. This process continued until all reliability transcripts were at least 90% in agreement for both words and utterance boundaries.

2.3. Coding Higher-Order Thinking Talk in Spontaneous Interactions

Each parent and child utterance was coded for the presence of HOTT, although this paper only examines child utterances. HOTT is talk that indexes two or more representations and constructs a bridge or link between them. HOTT was coded when the child’s utterance contained both representations and the link between them; for example, “They’re laughing because he fell down.” In this example, the representations indexed are two events—people laughing and a person falling down—and the link between them, the word ‘because,’ implies causality. HOTT was also coded when the child responded to a HOTT-eliciting question; for example, a parent asks, “Why were they laughing?” and the child replies, “Because he fell down,” where the question provides one representation and the response provides the second representation. HOTT was also coded when the child asked the HOTT-eliciting question; for example, if the child asks, “Why were they laughing?”

Reliability analyses were performed for parent and child speech combined due to the interdependent nature of the coding, which relied on surrounding talk. Ninety-seven transcripts (approximately 8 from each time point), constituting 13.3% of the transcripts, were coded by two or more people. The mean interrater percent agreement for identification of utterances as HOTT or not was 98.1% (range: 96.0–99.3%).

We also computed Cohen’s kappa ( Cohen, 1968 ), which assesses the reliability of assigning observations to mutually exclusive categories while correcting for chance agreement. It has values ranging from −1 to 1, though Cohen (1968) notes that values less than 0 are unlikely in practice, so it generally ranges from 0 to 1; values 0.40–0.59 are regarded as moderate, values 0.60–0.79 are regarded as substantial, and values over 0.80 are regarded as almost perfect ( McHugh, 2012 ). The mean Cohen’s kappa for identification of utterances as HOTT or not was 0.81 (range 0.73–0.87). Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by the more experienced coders.

2.3.1. Coding the Four Types of HOTT

For this study, four types of links or relationships between representations were included in HOTT: inference, comparison, abstraction, and hierarchy. Although many types of relations could be considered ‘higher-order,’ these four related skills are particularly useful for educational application ( Anderson, Greeno, Reder, & Simon, 2000 ; Dumas, Alexander, & Grossnickle, 2013 ; Halford, Wilson, & Phillips, 2010 ; Speed, 2010 ). The four types of HOTT that we coded are defined and illustrated below. Due to the relative infrequency of HOTT within spontaneous discourse, we analyze the types of HOTT as a combined set.

We calculated reliability for each HOTT type independently. Mean interrater percent agreement was 99.3% (range 99.1–99.7%; M kappa = 0.86; range kappa 0.79–0.92) for inferences; 99.4% (range 99.0–99.9%; M kappa = 0.71; range kappa 0.58–0.82) for comparisons; 99.8% (range 99.4–99.9%; M kappa = 0.62, range kappa 0.41–0.81) for abstractions; and 99.9% (range 99.8–100%; M kappa = 0.72; range kappa 0.40–1.0) for hierarchies.

Inference is defined as deriving a conclusion not otherwise given by using known (or logical) premises. The bridge between representations in inferences is cause-and-effect, a conditional, or speculation based on reasoning. For example, one 54-month-old child said, “If I didn’t have teeth, then I couldn’t eat candy.” This utterance arose as part of a conversation about the child’s favorite part of her body. In this example, the child uses conditional reasoning to infer, in a situation where she had no teeth [representation 1], what might happen—she would be unable to eat candy [representation 2].

Comparison:

Comparison is defined as demonstrating similarities or differences between entities by analogy or by example. The bridge between representations in comparisons is of similarity or difference. For example, the utterance, “A tornado is a like a mean monster” indexes the representations of ‘tornado’ and ‘monster’ and links them through the word “like.” An utterance such as, “The blue stick is longer than the red stick” also illustrates a comparison between two representations—the blue stick and the red stick—based on a featural difference (in this example, length).

Abstraction:

Abstraction is defined as pointing out mental frameworks or models that could facilitate thinking, or making definitions that attempt to describe the meaning of a word or concept, beyond giving a label. In abstractions, representations are bridged through generalizations or definitions. One sample abstraction utterance is, “Every Halloween you can be something new.” Here the two representations, ‘Halloween’ and ‘what you can be,’ are linked through the use of the term “every,” invoking a generalization about Halloween. Abstractions can also take the form of generalizing or generic statements that ascribe defining characteristics to a concept, such as “Big kids carry their own plates.” In this example, carrying one’s own plates is defined as a quality of big kids. Abstractions could also take the form of word definitions, as in the utterance, “‘Spa’ means there’s a new place that has a bath.”

Finally, hierarchy is defined as an arrangement of categories with a superordinate or subordinate framework. An utterance such as, “A hammer is a type of tool,” demonstrates a hierarchical relationship by indexing the representations of ‘hammer’ and ‘tool,’ which are linked through the use of the word ‘type,’ stating that hammers belong to a broader category of tools. More rarely, families used more abstract classifications to denote hierarchies, as in the utterance, “Killer whales are in the dolphin family.”

2.3.2. Coding Surface and Structure HOTT

In addition to coding the type of higher-order relationship, each HOTT utterance was coded for conceptual complexity. Surface HOTT is defined as a single-level mapping where the relationship between the referents is not complex, and not dependent on a deep understanding of the referents indexed; the types of correspondences identified were often easy to perceive and more immediate ( Richland & Simms, 2015 ). For example, a surface inference is, “You knocked it so it fell down,” and a surface comparison is, “Those are both red.” In contrast, structure HOTT is defined as more complex mapping at a systemic level, and requires a deeper understanding of the ideas being linked. The types of correspondences identified are often relatively abstract ( Richland & Simms, 2015 ). For example, a structure inference is, “She’s sad because she misses her momma,” and a structure comparison is, “I want to be brave like Piglet.” Appendix A contains additional criteria and further examples of surface and structure HOTT for each of the four types of HOTT.

Utterances that contain multiple types of HOTT were automatically coded as structure. For example, one child describes a drink she was having at a restaurant by saying, “It was just like Coke because it was spicy.” She illustrates the similarity between the unknown drink and Coke using the word ‘like,’ and justifies their similarity using the word ‘because.’ Multiple types were found in only 3% of children’s HOTT utterances; the remaining 97% of HOTT utterances contained only one type of relationship.

Two coders coded the surface/structure distinction on all HOTT utterances after achieving a mean 98.3% agreement ( κmean = 0.84) on 126 transcripts (which comprised 17% of the 726 transcripts in the corpus). Appendix B reports the frequency of each HOTT type across development. As noted above, for the remainder of this paper, we collapse across HOTT types, and instead focus our analyses on the two levels of HOTT complexity (surface vs. structure).

2.4. Coding Language Complexity in Spontaneous Interactions

2.4.1. utterance length.

The number of words in each utterance was coded to calculate mean length of utterance (in words rather than morphemes; MLU-w) for each child at each session ( Demir, Rowe, Heller, Goldin-Meadow, & Levine, 2015 ). We calculate the average MLU-w for surface HOTT, structure HOTT, and non-HOTT utterances at each timepoint in the corpus.

2.4.2. Syntactic Complexity

Each word of each utterance was also tagged for part of speech using CLAN tools ( MacWhinney, 2000 ). The number of verbs in each utterance was used as a measure of syntactic complexity, because it correlated strongly ( r = .88, p < 0.001) with number of clauses per utterance that were coded manually on a subset of the data. Any utterance containing two or more verbs was classified as a complex utterance.

2.5. Early Child Word and Gesture Types in Spontaneous Interactions as Covariates

2.5.1. child word types at 14 months.

We used the number of different word types children produced at 14 months to control for early vocabulary and linguistic skill. Child word types at 14 months ranged from 0 to 59 ( M = 14.0, SD = 14.5).

2.5.2. Child Gesture Types at 14 Months

The spontaneous communicative gestures that children produce can serve as an early index of variation in subsequent linguistic skill ( Iverson, Capirci, Volterra, & Goldin-Meadow, 2008 ; Rowe & Goldin-Meadow, 2009 ). Therefore, in addition to speech transcription, gestures were isolated from parents’ and children’s motor behavior, and lexical meanings were attributed to the gestures using coding criteria reported in previous studies ( Goldin-Meadow & Mylander, 1984 ). We use the number of gesture types that children produced at 14 months as another indicator of early linguistic skill. Gesture types was defined as the number of different meanings conveyed by gesture. We counted each conventional and representational gesture used by children associated with a different meaning (e.g., shake head no to convey no ; arms flapping to convey flying ), as well as each deictic gesture that indicated a different object as a distinct gesture type. Child gesture types at 14 months ranged from 4 to 54 ( M = 21.7, SD = 12.5).

2.6. Standardized Measures

2.6.1. child higher-order thinking outcome measures.

At ages 9 and 11, participants were administered four standardized outcome measures of higher-order thinking in their homes, including text-based inferencing ability and analogical reasoning. Ten children dropped out of the study in the early period and thus were not given any of the outcome measures. Out of the 54 participants who took the outcome measures, 48 had all four measures; two children were each missing a single measure (one from age 9 and one from age 11), and four were missing both measures at age 11. The four measures are described below.

Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Comprehension:

To assess inferential ability, participants took the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Comprehension (DARC; August, Francis, & Calderón, 2002 ) at age 9. The DARC has 164 multiple choice items designed to test reading comprehension components, including text memory, text inferencing, knowledge access, knowledge integration, and inference, while controlling for background knowledge. Fifty-three children completed this measure. The mean was 33.9 questions correct ( SD = 7.1, range 14 to 45) on the 45 questions that tested knowledge integration and text inferencing (components of higher-order thinking).

Gates-MacGinitie:

To assess inferencing in a school-like task, and to complement the DARC, we administered the Gates-MacGinitie (GM; MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, & Dreyer, 2002 ). This norm-referenced assessment contains vocabulary and reading comprehension sections with both literal and inferential questions, and is widely used in school settings. We administered the measure to the participants in both the fall and spring at ages 8 and 9. For this paper, the age 9 fall and spring scores were analyzed (averaged together, after finding that these two outcome measures were highly correlated; r = 0.80, p < 0.001) in order to complement the DARC, also administered at age 9. Fifty participants completed this outcome measure both times, and four children completed either the fall or spring outcome measure (3 were missing the fall score, and 1 was missing the spring score). The mean score was 512.1 ( SD = 39.7; range 425.5 to 590.5) for the 54 children.

Ravens Progressive Matrices:

The Ravens Progressive Matrices (Ravens; Raven, Raven, & Court, 2004 ), a nonverbal measure of relational reasoning, was administered at age 11. The 60 items on this measure have complex black-and-white patterns that participants must use to determine the missing item that completes the visual pattern. The mean score on the Raven’s was 44.5 ( SD = 7.0, range 28 to 58) for the 49 children who completed the measure.

Woodcock-Johnson III Verbal Analogies:

Participants took the Woodcock-Johnson III Verbal Analogies (WJ-VA; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001 ) subtest at age 11. Analogical reasoning in this measure involves both vocabulary knowledge and relational reasoning in 13 items. The mean performance on the WJ-VA was 9.3 ( SD = 1.9, range 5 to 13) for the 50 children who completed the age 11 visit.

2.6.2. Parent IQ Measures Used as Covariates

When children were 10 years old, mothers completed the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, which is linked to the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III used to determine IQ scores. There are two scales: Verbal (WASI-V) and Perceptual (WASI-P). Of the 64 participants, 14 (22%) were missing these measures.

The verbal comprehension component (WASI-V) contains vocabulary and similarities subtests, with 55 items, yielding t -scores and scaled scores based on age ( Maccow, 2011 ). The WASI-V mean score for the 50 participants who completed it was 112.1 ( SD = 16.6, range 80 to 149).

The perceptual reasoning component contained matrix reasoning and block design subtests with 43 items, yielding t -scores and scaled scores based on age ( Maccow, 2011 ). For the 50 participants who completed the WASI-P, the mean score was 103.7 ( SD =13.4, range 67 to 133).

2.7. Analytic Approach

We use several statistical analyses, all of which used the utterance as the elementary unit of analysis, to address our research questions. This is an exploratory study (as this is the first paper on this specific phenomenon using a naturalistic sample), so any statistical associations should be taken as suggestive rather than definitive. For some descriptive analyses, we transformed raw numbers of utterances to number of HOTT utterances per hour to capture variations in session length when transcripts were not exactly 90 minutes. On average, sessions were 88.6 minutes long ( SD = 4.8 minutes, range 44 to 97 minutes). In the models, we used session length (in hours) as a time variable to account for differences in session length. We use HOTT and age as within-subjects factors, and child-specific factors (such as family income, first-born status, and early child word and gesture types) as between-subjects factors in our hierarchical linear growth models to describe early HOTT development in children.

3. Results and Discussion

In order to ensure reader clarity, and due to the complex nature of these longitudinal data and analyses, we have integrated some discussion of the results with the presentation of the data themselves. We report analyses to address each of our four research questions in turn.

3.1. Onset and Growth of HOTT Between 14 and 58 Months

We first report the frequency of HOTT and non-HOTT utterances produced each hour across early childhood. As a baseline, Figure 1a presents the mean number of child utterances produced per hour that do not contain HOTT from 14 to 58 months. Children greatly increase the quantity of speech they produce, but tend to level out at around 400–450 utterances per hour at 34 months (the slight reduction in quantity of utterances between 38 and 58 months may reflect less direct interaction between children and others in the home as they age). Figure 1b presents the mean number of HOTT utterances produced per hour between 14 and 58 months (note that the scale is different from the scale in Figure 1a ). Children increase their HOTT during this period, but generally level off at 46 months, when they are producing approximately 20 HOTT utterances per hour.

Mean number of (a) non-HOTT utterances and (b) HOTT utterances produced during the spontaneous interactions from 14 to 58 months. Dashed line in both graphs represents the mean age of HOTT onset. Error bars represent ±2 standard errors.

Age of onset of HOTT was coded as the age at which a child produced at least one HOTT utterance in two consecutive sessions (e.g., a child who produced no HOTT utterances at 14- and 18-months, but did produce HOTT utterances at 22- and 26-months, was given a HOTT onset of 22 months). Using this criterion, the mean age of HOTT onset was 27.0 months ( SD = 6.7 months, range 14 to 42 months) 1 , indicated with a dashed line on both graphs. Given the 4-month gap between sessions we cannot be more precise, but HOTT appears to emerge in spontaneous speech at approximately 23–27 months, which is in line with prior literature indicating that children begin showing evidence of relational reasoning in language-based tasks around the second year of life (e.g. Loewenstein & Gentner, 2005 ; Christie & Gentner, 2014 ). Note that the onset of HOTT occurs several months after the steep increase in non-HOTT utterances, suggesting that the ability to produce HOTT calls upon cognitive skills that go beyond language production.

Figure 2 presents the mean number of surface and structure HOTT utterances produced during the 14–58 month period 1. All children produced surface HOTT utterances, and the onset of surface HOTT was almost identical to overall HOTT onset ( M = 27.7, SD = 6.8, range = 14 to 42 months; indicated with the dark gray dashed line in Figure 2 ), simply because the majority of HOTT utterances early in development were surface. In contrast, only 54 of the 60 relevant children 2 used structure HOTT two sessions in a row and thus achieved the criterion for onset. 3 For these children, the mean age of structure HOTT onset was 34.7 months ( SD = 7.8, range 14 to 54 months; indicated with the light gray dashed line in Figure 2 ).

Mean number of surface and structure HOTT utterances produced during the spontaneous interactions from 14 to 58 months. Dashed lines represent the mean onset age of surface HOTT (in dark gray) and structure HOTT (in light gray). Error bars represent ±2 standard errors.

Onset of structure HOTT was significantly later than onset of surface HOTT ( t (53) = −7.1, p < 0.001), but the two onsets were correlated ( r = 0.50, p < 0.001). At an individual level, 43 of the 54 children with measurable surface and structure HOTT onsets (80%) began producing surface HOTT before structure HOTT. Eight children (15%) had surface and structure HOTT onset within the same session. Only three children (5%) had structure HOTT onset prior to surface HOTT onset; these children produced only a small number of structure HOTT (fewer than three utterances per session).

3.2. Using Child-Specific Factors to Predict the Onset and Trajectory of HOTT

3.2.1. predicting hott onset.

We next examined relationships between the onset of surface and structure HOTT and child-specific factors, including parent characteristics (family income, education, and WASI-V and WASI-P scores), child characteristics (gender and first-born status), and early child language covariates (word and gesture types at 14 months). Table 1 presents the data. Using Pearson’s correlations, we found a significant relation between family income and HOTT onset—children from higher-income families began using both levels of HOTT earlier than children from lower-income families. Note, however, that early child language use—both word types and gesture types—relates to surface HOTT onset, but not structure HOTT onset, which is particularly interesting given that the two HOTT onsets strongly correlate.

Pearson’s correlations between child-specific factors and age of onset of children’s surface and structure HOTT.

Using a series of simple two-sample t -tests, we also investigated whether there were differences in surface or structure HOTT onset between boys and girls, and between first-born and later-born children. We found no significant differences (0.19 < p < 0.78), suggesting that boys and girls, and first- and later-born children, do not differ in the age at which they begin using surface or structure HOTT.

3.2.2. Predicting HOTT Trajectories from 14 to 58 Months

We next examine relationships between the trajectory (i.e., intercept, slope, and acceleration) of surface and structure HOTT and child-specific factors (e.g., family income, first-born status, early child word and gesture types). This analysis allowed us to move beyond simply onset or overall quantity of use, but rather rates of growth and acceleration. We used a two-level, hierarchical linear model (HLM) with number of child HOTT utterances at a given age as a Poisson outcome (appropriate when examining counts of rare events whose average rate is small and always positive, and where the distribution is positively skewed) and session length in hours as a time variable. In longitudinal HLM models, time points (level 1) are nested within individuals (level 2); the level 1 model accounts for variation over time within each child (i.e., within-subjects), and the level 2 model represents variation between children (i.e., between-subjects) ( Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002 , chapter 10). At level 1, we include age in months centered at 36 months, the middle of the 14–58 month period. A quadratic term for age was also used to examine differences among individuals in rates of change. A cubic age term was tested but did not improve the model, and thus is not included in the model that follows:

In this model, the outcome ( Y ti ) at level 1 is the number of child HOTT utterances for child i at time t . The λ ti term represents the latent event rate per hour and the l ti term represents the session length in hours, for child i at time t . The η ti term is the link function, and represents the natural logarithm of child’s rate of HOTT utterances. Finally, the a ti term represents the child’s age in months, which has been centered at 36 months. Because we centered age at the middle of the study period, the intercept ( π 0 ), or status, represents average use at 36 months, as well as average use over the entire study period, and the growth term ( π 1 ) represents both the velocity at 36 months, as well as the average velocity over the entire study period (the acceleration term, π 2 , is not impacted by centering). Centering at the middle of the study period enables the intercept and growth to have conceptual significance, and also represents approximately the mean onset of structure HOTT (34.5 months). At level 2, the intercept ( π 0 ), growth ( π 1 ), and acceleration ( π 2 ) terms are predicted by each p in n different child-specific factors ( C i ). The three trajectory parameters vary by the individual i , as each parameter has an r i random effect term.

Figure 3 presents plots of empirical trajectories (left graphs) for surface and structure HOTT, along with unconditional (i.e., with no child-specific factors) predicted trajectories after exponentiating log transformations (right graphs), demonstrating great variability in children’s use, growth, and rate of change of growth of HOTT. The steep drop-off at the end of the study period in the predicted graphs reflects a decline in children’s total number of utterances (and HOTT utterances) at the end of the study period (see Figure 1 above).

Plots of empirical (a,c) and predicted (b,d) trajectories from quadratic model (after exponentiating log transformations) for surface (a,b) and structure (c,d) HOTT. Thick black lines in left (empirical) graphs represent mean usage, and thick black lines in right (predicted) graphs represent the average fitted growth trajectories from the quadratic models.

We modeled surface and structure HOTT trajectories separately. After running the unconditional growth models, we added child-specific factors at level 2 stepwise to the models. The level 2 variables that we tested include family income, parent education, parent verbal and perceptual IQ, child gender, child first-born status, and child word and gesture types at 14-months. We assessed the ability of these variables to explain variation between individuals in intercept, growth, and acceleration of surface and structure HOTT. The estimates of the fixed and random effects are reported in Table 2 (for surface HOTT) and Table 3 (for structure HOTT).

A series of hierarchical linear models predicting child surface HOTT over development. We report fixed effects with robust standard errors. CWT14 = Child Word Types at 14 months.

A series of hierarchical linear models predicting child structure HOTT over development. We report fixed effects with robust standard errors. CGT14 = Child Gesture Types at 14 months.

For surface HOTT, we first entered income to the model to examine whether income-based disparities present in other measures of early child language (e.g., vocabulary development) are likewise present in HOTT development. Early child word types were next added, to examine effects of children’s early linguistic skill. Child status as the first- or only-born child in his or her family was added next, which could reflect differences in individualized input that first- or only-born children, in contrast to later-born children, receive from caregivers. Model comparison tests found that including other characteristics—child gender, child gesture types at 14 months, parent verbal and perceptual IQ, and parent education—did not explain any additional variation in surface HOTT trajectories (all p ’s > 0.50).

The final model for surface HOTT (Model 4 in Table 2 ) shows that income, child word types, and child first-born status all relate to surface HOTT use at 36 months (intercept), and child word types at 14 months relates to both how surface HOTT changes over development (growth), as well as its rate of change (acceleration).

We next modeled structure HOTT ( Table 3 ). As with surface HOTT, adding family income to the model explained variation in children’s structure HOTT use at 36 months. There were no effects of income on structure HOTT growth or acceleration. Because child word types at 14 months predicts surface HOTT, it was added next to the structure model. This model (not shown) marginally improved fit over a model including only income, ( χ 2 (3) = 8.99, p = 0.08), showing that child word types at 14 months also predicts structure HOTT at 36 months, with income remaining significant. Neither income nor child word types predicts growth or acceleration rates of structure HOTT.

Because child word types only marginally improved model fit, we compared a model containing income against another model including income and child gesture types at 14 months (which serves as an earlier index of children’s language abilities than word types). The model containing income and child gesture types at 14 months was a significant improvement over the model containing only income ( χ 2 (3) = 13.06, p = 0.005). As a result, we use child gesture types at 14 months as a proxy for children’s early language abilities to model trajectories of structure HOTT.

Child first-born status was next added to the model, which predicted the intercept (along with income and child gesture types at 14 months). Model comparison tests showed that no other level 2 variables significantly improved model fit (all p ’s > 0.50). Thus, the final model for child structure HOTT (Model 4 in Table 3 ) includes family income, child gesture types at 14, and child first-born status as predictors of the intercept, growth, and acceleration.

Figure 4 depicts model graphs (after exponentiating log transformations), showing predicted trajectories in surface and structure HOTT use over development for different kinds of hypothetical children: those at the 25 th and 75 th percentiles of income, and the 25 th and 75 th percentiles of child word types at 14 months (for surface HOTT) and child gesture types at 14 months (for structure HOTT). These figures show the income-based disparities in child surface and structure HOTT trajectories. Although producing a greater variety of word types at 14 months does not interact with income-based disparities in surface HOTT, producing a greater variety of gesture types at 14 months does interact with income-based disparities in structure HOTT. Lower-income children who are in the upper quartile with respect to gesture types have a structure HOTT trajectory that is comparable to upper-income children who are in the lower quartile with respect to gesture types (see two middle lines in right graph).

Model graphs (after exponentiating log transformations) of (a) surface HOTT and (b) structure HOTT over the early period, as a function of family income and 14-month child word types for surface HOTT, and family income and14-month child gesture types for structure HOTT.

3.3. Relations Between Complex Language and HOTT Development

Our findings thus far indicate significant variation among children in the age at which they begin to produce HOTT (onset) and their change over development (trajectory). Next, we examine two questions concerning the extent to which HOTT use can be disentangled from complex language use. First, we examine whether HOTT utterances differ systematically from non-HOTT utterances in terms of linguistic complexity. Second, we examine whether the onset of complex language precedes the onset of HOTT.

3.3.1. Length and Syntactic Complexity of HOTT and Non-HOTT Utterances

We compared children’s surface and structure HOTT utterances to non-HOTT utterances on two measures of linguistic complexity: mean length of utterance in words and number of verbs per utterance (see Table 4 , columns 1 and 2; see Appendix C for results reported for each child age). These results indicate that HOTT utterances are, on average, linguistically more complex than non-HOTT utterances, and that structure HOTT utterances are, on average, linguistically more complex than surface HOTT utterances. Thus, describing relationships in the world using HOTT is associated with using more complex language, and patterns are stronger when describing more conceptually complex relationships as in structure HOTT.

Mean length of utterance, mean number of verbs per utterance, and proportion complex utterances for non-HOTT, surface HOTT, and structure HOTT utterances produced over 14–58 months.

Given the strong association between HOTT and complex language, a potential concern is that the development of complex language is all we are measuring. To address this concern, we investigated the proportion of HOTT utterances expressed using complex utterances , defined as utterances containing two or more verbs (see Table 4 , column 3; see Appendix C for results by child age). Here, too, we find that a greater proportion of structure HOTT utterances contain two or more verbs than surface HOTT utterances, which, in turn, contain a greater proportion of two or more verbs than non-HOTT utterances. It is important to note that even for structure HOTT, two-thirds of utterances are non-complex (i.e., they contain one or even no verbs), which means that it is both possible, and relatively common, for children to produce HOTT using non-complex utterances. These findings suggest that HOTT does not reduce to being just another measure of language complexity, and that HOTT can be produced without complex language.

3.3.2. Onset of Complex Utterances Relative to Onset of HOTT

Next, we investigated whether the onset of HOTT preceded the onset of complex utterances. We coded children’s age of onset of complex utterances (using the same criterion described earlier for HOTT onset, i.e., use of complex utterances in two consecutive sessions). On average, children began using complex utterances at 25.4 months ( SD = 5.32 months, range 14 to 42 months), which was significantly earlier than the onset of surface HOTT (27.7 months; t (62) = 2.47, p = 0.016). On average, 2.2 months elapsed between children’s complex utterance onset and their surface HOTT onset ( SD = 7.1, range −16 to 16). On an individual level, 30 children (48%) had complex utterance onset before using surface HOTT; 19 (30%) had their complex utterance and surface HOTT onsets during the same session; only 14 (22%) had their complex utterance onset after the onset of surface HOTT. One child who dropped out of the study at 26 months had no surface HOTT onset, but he did have a measurable complex utterance onset at 22 months.

Onset of complex utterances (25.4 months) was also earlier than onset of structure HOTT (34.7 months; t (53) = 9.12, p < 0.001). On average, 9.4 months elapsed between children’s complex utterance onset and their onset of structure HOTT ( SD = 7.6, range −8 to 24). Among the 54 children with a measurable structure HOTT onset, 47 children (87%) had complex utterance onset before structure HOTT onset; 3 children (6%) had complex utterance onset during the same session in which they had structure HOTT onset; and only 4 children (8%) had complex utterance onset after their structure HOTT onset. Taken together, these findings suggest that the onset of HOTT does not reduce to the onset of complex language. The onset of HOTT, particularly structure HOTT, requires additional cognitive and/or language skills above and beyond the ability to construct a complex utterance.

3.3.3. Trajectories of Complex Utterances Relative to Trajectories of HOTT

We next analyzed the developmental trajectories of complex utterances, and compared them to the developmental trajectories of surface and structure HOTT. First, we determined the child-specific factors that relate to development of complex utterances, using the same procedure described in Section 3.2.2 . We found that child word types at 14 months predicts the intercept and growth of complex utterances ( β intercept = 0.018, SE intercept = 0.007; β growth = −0.0008, SE growth = 0.003), and family income predicts the intercept ( β intercept = 0.008, SE intercept = 0.0003); no other child-specific factors predicted the complex utterance trajectories nor improved model fit (all p ’s > 0.50).

Next, we extracted empirical Bayes estimates ( Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002 ; Rowe, Raudenbush, & Goldin-Meadow, 2012 ) for each individual child’s intercept, growth, and acceleration of the three types of speech: complex utterances, surface HOTT (derived from Model 4 in Table 2 ) and structure HOTT (derived from Model 4 in Table 3 ). We performed Pearson’s correlations among the trajectory parameters, which are reported in Table 5 . This table demonstrates that the trajectories for complex utterances positively correlate with the trajectories for both surface and structure HOTT. Children who use more, and grow more quickly in their use of, complex utterances also tend to use more, and grow more quickly in their use of, surface and structure HOTT. These findings underscore the tight relation between language form (complex utterances with two or more verbs) and language content (HOTT). These findings also set the stage for our analyses in section 3.4.2 , where we investigate whether children’s early complex utterance trajectories predict grade-school higher-order thinking outcomes as well as the early HOTT trajectories.

Correlations among empirical Bayes estimates for complex utterances, surface HOTT, and structure HOTT trajectory parameters. Italicized cells highlight correlations among parameters within the same type of speech (e.g., complex utterances). Bolded cells highlight correlations between the same parameter (e.g., intercept) among different types of speech.

3.4. Does HOTT during 14–58 Months Predict Higher-Order Thinking in Grade School?

In this section, we examine the relation between early spontaneous HOTT and later higher-order thinking outcomes, as assessed by standardized measures of text-based inferencing ability at age 9 (DARC and GM), and non-verbal (Ravens) and verbal (WJ-VA) analogical reasoning ability at age 11. We first report correlations among standardized higher-order thinking outcomes (1–4), early child language covariates (5–6), and parent characteristics (7–10) (see Table 6 ). After finding that parent education and income (9–10) correlated strongly with many of these measures, we also performed partial correlations among the remaining measures (1–8) controlling for parent income and education (reported in the lower left of Table 6 ).

Pearson’s correlations among outcomes and child-specific factors. Cells on lower left report partial correlations controlling for parent income and education. DARC = Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Criteria. GM = Gates-MacGinitie. WJ-VA = Woodcock-Johnson Verbal Analogies. Ravens = Ravens Progressive Matrices. WASI-P = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Perceptual. WASI-V = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Verbal. Significant values ( p < 0.05) are bolded.

This table shows that the four standardized higher-order thinking outcomes (1–4) are all related, suggesting we are tapping a unified skill area. Children’s word and gesture types at 14 months are both related to the verbal higher-order thinking outcomes (1–3), but not to the nonverbal outcome (i.e., Ravens, 4). Turning to parent and family characteristics (7–10), we see that family income, parent education, and parent IQ correlate with the higher-order thinking outcomes. However, even after controlling for family income and parent education (see lower left portion of Table 6 ), the higher-order thinking outcomes are still generally related to each other, and early word types and gesture types still significantly relate to the higher-order thinking outcomes.

3.4.1. Using HOTT Onset to Predict Higher-Order Thinking Outcomes in Grade School

Next, we explored whether the onset of surface HOTT, structure HOTT, or complex utterances relates to later higher-order thinking assessed in grade school at ages 9 and 11. Table 7 presents the findings, revealing that HOTT onset was a significant predictor of standardized higher-order thinking outcomes, with some variation due to the role of language contributions. Higher performance on the DARC is associated with earlier onset of surface and structure HOTT, as well as complex utterances. The GM is only associated with earlier surface and structure HOTT, and is not predicted by earlier onset of complex utterances. The non-verbal analogical reasoning test, the Ravens, is associated only with earlier surface HOTT onset, while the WJ-VA is weakly associated with an earlier surface HOTT onset, but is most strongly predicted by the complex utterance onset. Together, these findings provide the first set of data showing that early HOTT is related to later standardized higher order thinking outcomes, particularly for outcomes that have greater reliance on language skills.

Pearson’s correlations between grade-school higher-order thinking outcomes and children’s age of onset of surface and structure HOTT.

3.4.2. Using HOTT Trajectories to Predict Higher-Order Thinking Outcomes in Grade School

We next evaluated whether children’s trajectories of surface and/or structure HOTT use across development predict later standardized higher-order thinking outcomes at ages 9 and 11. We used empirical Bayes estimates (as described in section 3.3.3 ), derived from Model 4 in Table 2 (including family income, child word types at 14 months, and child first-born status to predict surface HOTT) and Model 4 in Table 3 (including family income, child gesture types at 14 months, and child first-born status to predict structure HOTT) to estimate each child’s individual intercept (i.e., status), growth, and acceleration of surface and structure HOTT. These trajectory parameters were then used to predict the grade school higher-order thinking outcomes in a series of simple linear regressions.

We follow the procedure outlined in Rowe, Goldin-Meadow, and Raudenbush (2012) , and fit several models containing one or two of the trajectory parameter estimates at a time. Our aim is to determine which aspects, if any, of children’s trajectories of surface and/or structure HOTT use relate to the grade school higher-order thinking outcomes. We did not fit a model including all three parameters because of the collinearity between the intercept, growth, and acceleration ( Rowe, Raudenbush, & Goldin-Meadow, 2012 ; see also Table 5 ). In all models, we include the controls used to derive the original parameters: for surface HOTT, family income, child word types at 14 months, and child first-born status; and for structure HOTT, family income, child gesture types at 14 months, and child first-born status. In Table 8 , we report results for each of the four outcomes in columns (a) for surface HOTT and (b) for structure HOTT, for (1) the control-only model and (2) the ‘best’ model using the HOTT growth trajectory parameters (see Appendix D for additional models that were run).

A series of regression models using (a) surface and (b) structure HOTT parameters (and controls) to predict grade school higher-order thinking as assessed by standardized measures. All coefficients are standardized. Bolded numbers highlight best overall model for each outcome. DARC = Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Criteria. GM = Gates-MacGinitie. WJ-VA = Woodcock-Johnson Verbal Analogies. Ravens = Ravens Progressive Matrices. CWT14 = Child Word Types at 14 months. CGT14 = Child Gesture Types at 14 months.

These models show that the controls associated with surface HOTT (family income, child word types at 14 months, and child first-born status) on their own explain 14–27% of the variation in children’s grade school higher-order thinking outcomes. The controls associated with structure HOTT (family income, child gesture types at 14 months, first-born status) offer slightly more explanatory power, and explain 18–33% of the variation in children’s grade school higher-order thinking outcomes.

For the DARC, the surface HOTT trajectory parameters explain no additional variation in children’s performance, as the model reported in the table illustrates. However, including the structure HOTT trajectory parameters accounts for up to an additional 7.8% of variation, although only in the model containing the intercept and acceleration were any parameters—in this case, the intercept—statistically significant ( p = 0.033). We highlight this model as the ‘best’ overall model for the DARC, which represents a marginal improvement ( p = 0.088) over the control-only model.

For the GM, the pattern of results for surface HOTT and structure HOTT were largely parallel; the best models contained the intercept (either alone, or with growth or acceleration) or both the growth and acceleration. However, the surface HOTT trajectory parameters only explain up to 6.7% additional variation between children beyond the controls (as when including the growth and acceleration), whereas the structure HOTT parameters explained up to 12.9% additional variation beyond the controls (as when including the intercept and acceleration). This latter model, which we highlight as the ‘best’ overall model for the GM, represents a significant improvement ( p = 0.006) over the control-only model.

Interestingly, for the Ravens, the ‘best’ model contains the surface, and not the structure, HOTT trajectory parameters. Including the structure HOTT trajectory parameters only explained up to an additional 2.3% of variation beyond the controls; including the surface HOTT growth ( p = 0.024) and acceleration ( p = 0.087) explains an additional 9.7% of variation between children above and beyond the controls (which represents a marginal improvement over the control-only model, p = 0.077). Trajectories of HOTT that involve less verbal complexity, i.e., surface HOTT, may play a more central role for nonverbal measures of analogical reasoning such as the Ravens.

Finally, for the WJ-VA, the structure HOTT parameters explained up to 12.2% additional variation above and beyond the controls, with each individual parameter offering some explanatory power in different models; the ‘best’ model, as reported in the table, contains both the intercept ( p = 0.026) and growth ( p = 0.028) of structure HOTT, and offered significantly more explanatory power ( p = 0.018) beyond the control-only model. The surface HOTT trajectory parameters, in contrast, only explained up to 5.8% additional variation beyond the controls (as when including the intercept and growth), with no significant effects of the surface HOTT trajectory parameters and no improvement to model fit ( p = 0.185).

These results suggest that the rate at which children use, grow, and change in their use of HOTT, particularly structure HOTT, between 14 and 58 months is associated with both text-based inferencing and analogy performance up to five years later. Early structure HOTT during the preschool years is particularly important in predicting language-based measures of higher-order thinking in grade school; early surface HOTT during these years is better at predicting non-verbal analogical reasoning, at least as it was measured by the Ravens.

3.4.3. Using Complex Utterance Trajectories to Predict Higher-Order Thinking Outcomes in Grade School

Given the tight relation between the use of complex utterances and HOTT, we tested whether the complex utterance trajectory parameters (using empirical Bayes estimates extracted from the model for complex utterance trajectories, described in Section 3.3.3 ) explain additional variation in later higher-order thinking above and beyond the variation accounted for by child-specific factors (family income and child word types at 14 months), using the same procedure outlined above.

The analyses demonstrate that, despite the strong correlations observed between the complex utterance and HOTT trajectory parameters, the complex utterance trajectory parameters do not explain additional variation in later higher-order thinking above and beyond the variation accounted for by the child-specific factors. Furthermore, no complex utterance parameters were significant. For example, the controls—family income ( β standardized = 0.297, p = 0.029) and child word types at 14 months ( β standardized = 0.193, p = 0.151)—explained 12.5% of variation between children’s DARC scores ( F (50,2) = 3.59, p = 0.035). Including the complex utterance growth and acceleration, although producing a significant model ( F (48,2) = 2.57, p = 0.050) and explaining an additional 5.1% of DARC-score variation beyond the controls, did not significantly improve model fit ( p = 0.24). Furthermore, none of the complex utterance trajectory parameters were significant (all p ’s > 0.27); in this model, only family income remained significant ( β standardized = 0.332, p = 0.016).

The model just described represents the largest relative improvement over the control-only models when including the complex utterance trajectory parameters; the findings from the other models are reported in Appendix D . Ultimately, this suggests, that although the ability to produce complex utterances may facilitate children’s expression of HOTT, it is not the linguistic form itself that predicts later higher-order thinking outcomes, it is the higher-order content expressed in that form.

4. General Discussion

4.1. mechanisms underlying the onset and trajectory of hott.

Our study is the first to describe how children use higher-order thinking in spontaneous talk at home during the preschool years. We found that HOTT emerged as a regular feature in children’s speech at around 23–27 months, first as surface HOTT in which relations between representations are immediate and easily perceptible. The onset of structure HOTT, in which the relations between representations are more abstract and less easy to perceive, emerged significantly later, at around 30–34 months. At every age, surface HOTT was more common than structure HOTT, suggesting that identifying and expressing deeper relations between representations is challenging for children during this period.

We also found that children vary in the age at which they first produce HOTT, as well as in the trajectories they follow during the 14–58 month period. As in other aspects of language, family income was related to both the onset of HOTT and its intercept; children from higher-income families began using HOTT earlier and used more HOTT at 36 months, but did not differ from their lower-income peers in HOTT growth and acceleration. In addition to income, child status as the first-born or only child was a significant predictor of the HOTT intercept. Although these data do not pinpoint the mechanism through which first-born and only children use more HOTT at 36 months, the findings are compatible with the hypothesis that first-born and only children are exposed to more adult conversation—and those conversations may be better fit to their level of understanding—than those later-born children experience. There was no effect of other family traits—parental education, verbal IQ, or perceptual IQ—on child HOTT development, nor did boys and girls differ in HOTT onset or trajectories across development.

Child word types produced at 14 months correlated with surface HOTT onset and predicted surface HOTT intercept, growth, and acceleration, and child gesture types at 14 months predicted structure HOTT intercept. These findings highlight the importance of early language and gesture use in the development of higher-level cognitive skills, suggesting a larger repertoire of early vocabulary and gesture may support children’s burgeoning higher-order thinking skills.

Moreover, structure HOTT utterances, and to a lesser extent surface HOTT utterances, were longer and syntactically more complex (i.e., they contained more verbs) than non-HOTT utterances. Thus, HOTT is associated with using more complex language. This may be because using longer utterances makes it easier to index two representations and the link or bridge between them, and also because utterances with multiple verbs allow for multiple propositions to appear within the same utterance, and consequently are an ideal vehicle for HOTT. At the same time, the majority of children’s surface and structure HOTT utterances were expressed using one or even no verbs, providing evidence that, although using complex language may provide speakers with strategies for describing relations between representations in the world, it is not necessary for complex reasoning to occur.

Furthermore, the onset of complex utterances preceded by several months the onset of both surface and structure HOTT. The ability to produce complex utterances may foster a deeper understanding between ideas in talk, but this ability clearly is not sufficient for the onset and use of HOTT, suggesting that other factors above and beyond linguistic skills (such as executive functions, e.g., Richland & Burchinal, 2013 ; Simms, Frausel, & Richland, 2018 ) are involved.

4.2. The Function of Early HOTT with Respect to Later Higher-Order Thinking

Our early measures of HOTT predicted children’s performance on later outcome measures of higher-order thinking as assessed by standardized measures, above and beyond the variation explained by child-specific factors. This finding underscores the relevance of these pre-school talk measures, particularly structure HOTT, for later higher-order reasoning outcomes. HOTT onset was correlated with the four grade school higher-order thinking outcomes, and the trajectories of structure HOTT in the early period predicted the verbal-based higher-order thinking tasks at ages 9 and 11. This finding suggests that it is not just the amount of HOTT produced when children are young, but also how they change across development in their ability to produce HOTT, that may affect their future school success.

Finally, our findings suggest that HOTT development is related to, but not redundant with, complex language proficiency. That is, although the trajectories of surface and structure HOTT over the 14–58 month period strongly correlate with the trajectories of complex utterances, it was the trajectories of structure HOTT (and to a lesser extent surface HOTT), not the trajectories of complex utterances, that predicted performance on standardized measures of higher-order thinking taken in grade school. Thus, although complex linguistic skills may support higher-order thinking talk across the preschool years, it appears that the content of that talk, not its form , is what paves the way for higher-order thinking in grade school.

4.3. Study Limitations

This study has several limitations. Given that this is the first analysis of naturally-occurring and spontaneous higher-order thinking in the talk of young pre-school aged children, the results are intended to be exploratory rather than confirmatory. We set out to describe the development of higher-order thinking and generate hypotheses about developmental relations between higher-order thinking and language development. Thus, the statistical associations described in this paper should be taken as suggestive rather than definitive, particularly given the correlational nature of the data.

Another limitation is that it is not clear whether these findings will generalize to other populations. All of the participants were typically-developing monolingual English speakers; it is therefore not clear whether the same patterns will be found in other populations of children, such as bilingual children or children with specific language impairments.

Finally, the observational nature of this study is based on the assumption that the sample of children’s experiences captured on the videotapes is representative of the children’s cumulative experiences. Although we told the families to do what they would typically do during the time of day of our visits, the presence of the experimenter might have led the families to behave in ways that are not typical. Moreover, the 90-minute taping sessions might have constrained the types of talk that children and their parents produce. Nevertheless, most studies of video data find that videotaped subjects are unable to maintain unusual patterns of behavior for extended periods of time ( Jewitt, 2012 ), and we conducted these 90-minute sessions three times per year for four years, so the tapes are likely to have captured a range of typical experiences within each home context. Regardless, this limitation is important to consider, particularly when interpreting the onset results.

4.4. Theoretical and Practical Implications

In spite of these limitations, our study has theoretical and practical implications. This paper increases our theoretical grasp of the relation between language form (complex utterances) and content (higher-order thinking talk). Our findings suggest that complex language—lengthier utterances and more complex syntax—is neither necessary nor sufficient for higher-order thinking talk to occur. Although complex language provides tools and strategies that support children’s relational representation and reasoning skills, it is not redundant with these skills. The ability to identify and articulate relational representations in the world calls upon additional cognitive skills (e.g., executive functions, content knowledge) beyond complex linguistic skills.

The current research also enhances our understanding of the origins of abstract higher-order and relational reasoning. While the majority of analyses on children’s early language environments focus on individual differences in language abilities and the implications of these differences for later outcomes, our findings explore individual differences in thinking , as expressed through early language, and show that these differences are related to later higher-order thinking skills. Children who regularly engage in the deeper, relational thinking represented by higher-order thinking talk may be at the cutting edge of the development of a ‘relational mindset’ ( Vendetti, Wu, & Holyoak, 2014 ; Simms & Richland, 2019 ), and more attuned to identifying abstract relations in the world.

Our findings also have practical implications, particularly with regard to the finding of relations between early spontaneous HOTT and later inferencing and analogy outcomes in grade school. These correlational findings can guide researchers in developing and testing interventions that support children’s early higher-order thinking talk at home and in school, to test the causal relation between early HOTT and later higher-order thinking. Developing interventions that can effectively support the development of higher-order thinking is of vital concern given the importance of higher-order thinking to academic success, particularly in the 21 st century.

Moreover, the income-related disparities observed with HOTT onset and use suggests intervening on HOTT during the early years may help close income-related achievement gaps. Interventions with low-SES families have been successful in increasing the quantity and quality of the language that families use ( Engle et al., 2011 ; Marulis & Neuman, 2010 ; Roberts & Kaiser, 2011 ). Our findings highlight the importance of focusing not only on the form of the language that parents use, but also on its content . In fact, interventions have successfully heightened parents’ use of decontextualized talk (Leech, Wei, Harring, & Rowe, 2016), where parents are encouraged to discuss ideas and events removed from the present environment. It may be the case that interventions targeting families’ use of HOTT could enhance children’s early reasoning and thinking skills, potentially affecting their later success in school.

4.5. Future Research

This paper presents the first look at child HOTT in spontaneous conversations at home prior to school entry. Our next step will be to examine the linguistic models for HOTT that parents provide to their children. The children in our study were scaffolded and supported by questions, prompts, and statements from their parents (e.g. Crowley, Callanan, Jipson, Galco, Topping, & Shrager, 2001 ). We plan to examine how parents use HOTT in spontaneous speech with their children, and whether parent linguistic input, including parent use of HOTT, is associated with children’s early HOTT and later higher order thinking. If so, we plan to examine the timing of input—whether early parent HOTT input is more important for later child higher-order thinking abilities than later input; whether later input is more important than early input; or whether there are cumulative effects of parent HOTT input.

In addition, there may be certain contexts in which children and their parents are particularly likely to invoke HOTT. For example, personal narrative, talk in which individuals recount stories of personal experience about past or future events (e.g., Rowe, 2012 ; Demir et al., 2015 ), may serve as a rich ‘breeding ground’ for HOTT, particularly inferences and comparisons. Personal narrative talk is structured in story-like forms, and theoretically defined ‘good’ narratives require storytellers to coherently link story elements in a cause-and-effect framework ( Stein & Albro, 1997 ); essentially, to make inferences. Additionally, parents in informal conversational contexts have been shown to enhance their children’s overall comprehension of novel scientific concepts by using analogy or comparisons to link their children’s past experiences to the concepts they are discussing ( Valle & Callanan, 2006 ). Personal narrative talk may encourage the use of higher-order thinking. Future research will examine whether certain types of HOTT are more likely to be invoked in particular speech contexts such as personal narrative.

Finally, the broader study of language development from which this study’s typically-developing (TD) participants come has a parallel sample of children with early brain injuries (BI), who were also observed in spontaneous interactions with their parents from 14- to 58-months. Other work (e.g., Rowe, Levine, Fisher, & Goldin-Meadow, 2009 ; Demir, et al., 2015 ; Özçalışkan, Levine, & Goldin-Meadow, 2013 ) has examined differences and similarities between the BI and TD children in terms of spontaneous language and gesture use and relations to later outcomes. For example, Rowe, et al. (2009) found that the linguistic input children received from their parents played the same role in BI and TD children with respect to vocabulary development, but played a different, and more central, role for BI than TD children with respect to syntactic development. Future work will examine whether TD and BI children differ in their use of HOTT over development, and whether the relations between early HOTT and later higher-order thinking for BI children are similar to, or different from, the relations reported here for TD children.

4.6. Conclusion

In sum, we have demonstrated that spontaneously-produced higher-order thinking in children’s early talk grows over development from 14–58 months, and that it becomes increasingly more conceptually and linguistically complex. Furthermore, early production of HOTT is associated with higher performance on standardized measures of higher-order thinking in grade school. Our findings highlight how studies of children’s language development based on naturalistic data can explore not only differences in language development and outcomes, but also the nature and complexity of the thinking embedded in children’s early talk. Moreover, our findings suggest that intervening to support early talk about and with relations may lead to increases in children’s later relational reasoning and higher-order thinking.

Acknowledgements:

We thank the participating families for sharing their children’s language and reasoning development with us; the research assistants who helped to collect, transcribe, and code the data; and Kristi Schonwald, Jodi Khan, Michael Hochman, Richard Williams, Jason Voigt, and Nick Pentella for administrative and technical assistance.

Funding : The research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health [Award P01HD040605]; by the Institute of Education Sciences [Award R05A190467]; by a grant from the Spencer Foundation; and by a grant from the Successful Pathways from School to Work initiative of the University of Chicago, funded by the Hymen Milgrom Supporting Organization. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, the Institute of Education Sciences, or the Department of Education.

Appendix ACriteria Used to Distinguish Between Surface and Structure HOTT for Each of the Four Types of HOTT

1. inference:.

Surface inferences discuss relationships that are more cut-and-dry, that are more easily perceived, that refer to physical sensations, or that are based on knowledge of concurrent or immediate events (e.g., “You bumped it so it fell down”). Structure inferences describe relationships where the cause-and-effect are separated in time; where the inference contains multiple, complex, or unstated links; where the speaker brings in outside knowledge; or where the speaker uses theory of mind or evidence that is not immediately obvious (e.g., “This little girl is sad because she misses her mom”).

2. Comparison:

Surface comparisons concern basic parallels and differences, and easily perceivable features such as color (e.g., “Those are both red”), while structure comparisons describe deeper underlying characteristics such as function or emotional states (e.g., “I want to be brave like Piglet”), or that compare along multiple dimensions, such as size and shape.

3. Abstraction:

Surface abstractions discuss simple associations, such as a letter with its sound, or an animal with the noise it makes (e.g., “Sheeps go ‘baaa’”), or providing the English translation for a foreign word. Structure abstractions describe associations that are more complex, including describing concepts or defining words (e.g., “Winking is looking with one eye”).

4. Hierarchy:

Surface hierarchies were coded when people create their own categories that could apply in multiple situations (e.g., describing cars as different ‘kinds’ when differentiating them by features such as size or color), or when people are providing descriptions that happen to use hierarchical language (e.g., “I’m going to make a kitty kind of puppet show”). Other utterances with hierarchies were coded as structure, as long as both the superordinate and subordinate category were provided (e.g., “A tiger is a kind of animal”).

Appendix BFrequency of HOTT Types across Development

This section describes describe development trends among the four types of HOTT. Figure B.1 shows the mean number of utterances produced per hour each of the four HOTT types across development. Inferences were by far the most commonly used type of higher-order reasoning, and comparisons were used second most frequently. At the end of the study period at 58 months, children used an average of 13.6 inferences per hour ( SD = 8.5, range 2 to 47), and 4.4 comparisons per hour ( SD = 3.5, range 0 to 16). Abstractions and hierarchies, in contrast, were used very rarely; even at 58 months, children only used, on average, two or fewer abstractions per hour ( M = 1.8, SD = 2.4, range 0 to 12), and one or fewer hierarchies per hour ( M = 0.60, SD = 0.87, range 0 to 3). However, all four types of HOTT became more common as children developed.

Figure B.1.

Mean number of inferences, comparisons, abstractions, and hierarchies produced by children between 14 and 58 months per hour. Error bars represent ±2 standard errors.

In Figure B.2 , we report the proportion of each HOTT utterance type categorized as surface or structure for each child visit age. At 14-months, the only HOTT type used was abstractions, of which an average of 87.5% of children’s utterances were surface. By 18-months, children were using each of the four HOTT types, although most utterances were surface (however, one hierarchy utterance produced by one child was structure-level). Across development, the majority of inference and comparison HOTT utterances were surface, although as children grew, an increasingly greater proportion were categorized as structure. At 58 months, 20% of inferences were structure, and 12% of comparisons were structure. In contrast, most abstractions were structure; more than 50% of abstraction utterances were structure-level starting around 34 months, and by 58 months, about 75% of abstraction utterances were structure. The proportion of hierarchy utterances categorized as surface or structure varied across development, likely due to the small number of hierarchy utterances produced by children.

Figure B.2.

Mean proportion of (a) inference, (b) comparison, (c) abstraction, and (d) hierarchy utterances categorized as surface (gray) or structure (black) for children between 14 and 58 months. Error bars represent ±2 standard errors.

Appendix CComplex Language and HOTT Across Development

This section reports our analyses of the linguistic complexity of children’s HOTT utterances over development. For each child at each session, we calculated their mean length of utterance in words and mean number of verbs in their non-HOTT, surface HOTT, and structure HOTT utterances, which we then averaged across each session. Figures C.1 (mean length of utterance) and C.2 (verbs per utterance) report the mean child value at each visit age.

Our findings suggest that children’s HOTT utterances were indistinguishable from their non-HOTT utterances in terms of length for the first four sessions (14–26 months) (see Figure C.1 ). At 30- and 34-months, non-HOTT utterances were shorter than HOTT utterances, but there was no difference between surface and structure HOTT. Beginning at 38-months, structure HOTT utterances were, on average, longer than surface HOTT utterances, which in turn were longer than non-HOTT, with the gap between the three increasing over time. By session 12 (58 months), structure HOTT was on average 7.97 words long (95% CI [7.2, 8.7]), while surface HOTT was on average 6.6 words long (95% CI [6.1, 7.1]), and non-HOTT was on average 3.5 words long (95% CI [3.36, 3.60]). Estimates for structure HOTT are less precise because there are fewer structure HOTT utterances.

Figure C.1.

Mean utterance length in words for structure HOTT, surface HOTT, and non-HOTT speech over sessions. Error bars represent ±2 standard errors.

Turning to number of verbs per utterance, our measure of syntactic complexity, we see that HOTT utterances are not more syntactically complex than non-HOTT utterances at and before 34 months (see Figure C.2 ). However, from 38 months onwards, surface and structure HOTT utterances begin to grow in complexity, with the gap between the three increasing over development. Structure HOTT utterances reach 1.38 verbs per utterance (95% CI [1.24, 1.52]), on average, by 58 months, compared to an average of 1.08 verbs per utterance (95% CI [0.98, 1.17]) for surface HOTT utterances, and 0.625 verbs per utterance (95% CI [0.60, 0.65]) for non-HOTT utterances. These results suggest that from the age of around 38 months and onward, using HOTT is, on average, regularly associated with using more complex language, and that structure HOTT generally involves more complex language than surface HOTT.

Figure C.2.

Mean number of verbs per utterance for structure HOTT, surface HOTT, and non-HOTT speech over sessions. Error bars represent ±2 standard errors.

Next we report the mean proportion of utterances (non-HOTT, surface HOTT, and structure HOTT) that are complex, or that contain two or more verbs. The results demonstrate that even though HOTT utterances are, on average, more complex than non-HOTT, the majority of HOTT utterances are not complex (i.e., contain one or no verbs) (See Figure C.3 ). This pattern holds for both surface HOTT (27.5% complex at 58 months; 95% CI [23.4, 31.7]) and structure HOTT (38.0% complex at 58 months; 95% CI [30.5, 45.6])). As expected, the percentage of complex forms in HOTT utterances is higher than the baseline rate for non-HOTT utterances (7.6% complex at 58 months; 95% CI [6.9, 8.4]). Nevertheless, across development, it is both possible, and relatively common, to produce HOTT without producing complex language.

Figure C.3.

Mean proportion of utterances that were complex utterances (defined as containing 2 or more verbs), by speech type (Structure HOTT, Surface HOTT, and non-HOTT). Error bars represent ±2 standard errors.

We also examined by individuals the HOTT utterances produced at 54–58 months to assess the proportional complexity of HOTT utterances in the most mature state that we examined. On average, 25.6% of surface HOTT utterances were complex (with a minimum of 0% and a maximum of 82.8%), while 38.4% of structure HOTT utterances were complex (with a minimum of 0% and a maximum of 100%). 4 Even though the proportion of complex utterances was higher than the baseline rate for non-HOTT utterances (7.5% on average, with a minimum of 1.1% and a maximum of 18.2%), the average child was still producing almost two-thirds of their structure HOTT utterances using one or no verbs.

Table C.1 shows examples, all drawn from session 12 (58 months), of each type and level of HOTT expressed using utterances that are complex or non-complex.

Examples of HOTT of each type and level expressed in non-complex utterances (with 0 or 1 verbs, top two rows) and complex utterances (with 2 or more verbs, bottom two rows). N/A = no examples found in corpus.

Appendix DPredicting Grade School Higher-Order Thinking Outcomes Using Surface HOTT, Structure HOTT, and Complex Utterance Trajectory Parameters

A series of regression models using surface HOTT trajectory parameters (and controls) to predict grade school higher-order thinking as assessed by standardized measures. All coefficients are standardized. Bolded cells highlight ‘best’ overall model for Ravens (as described in text). DARC = Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Criteria. GM = Gates-MacGinitie. WJ-VA = Woodcock-Johnson Verbal Analogies. Ravens = Ravens Progressive Matrices. CWT14 = Child Word Types at 14 months. Acc. = Surface HOTT Acceleration.

A series of regression models using structure HOTT trajectory parameters (and controls) to predict grade school higher-order thinking as assessed by standardized measures. All coefficients are standardized. Bolded numbers highlight ‘best’ overall model for DARC, GM, and WJ-VA (as described in text). DARC = Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Criteria. GM = Gates-MacGinitie. WJ-VA = Woodcock-Johnson Verbal Analogies. Ravens = Ravens Progressive Matrices. CGT14 = Child Gesture Types at 14 months. Acc. = Structure HOTT Acceleration.

A series of regression models using complex utterance trajectory parameters (and controls) to predict grade school higher-order thinking as assessed by standardized measures. All coefficients are standardized. Bolded numbers highlight model described in text. DARC = Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Criteria. GM = Gates-MacGinitie. WJ-VA = Woodcock-Johnson Verbal Analogies. Ravens = Ravens Progressive Matrices. CWT14 = Child Word Types at 14 months. Acc. = Complex Utterance Acceleration.

The authors report that they have no conflict of interest to declare.

1 One child is eliminated from the HOTT onset analysis and the surface onset analyses because he dropped out of the study at 26-months, before his age of HOTT onset could be determined.

2 Four children dropped out of the study before structure HOTT onset could be established: one child in addition to the one described in the previous footnote, who both dropped out after the 26-month visit, and two who dropped out after the 34-month visit. Three of these children never produced any structure HOTT at all.

3 Six children with sufficient data nevertheless did not meet our criterion for structure HOTT onset and were coded as ‘no measurable onset.’ Their structure HOTT onset likely occurred outside the study period (14–58 months), a phenomenon known as ‘censoring.’

4 Across the two sessions, there are six occasions where participants’ structure HOTT utterance are 100% complex. However, these participants produced 3 or fewer structure HOTT utterances, suggesting this high value is an artifact of small samples rather than a deterministic relationship. Eliminating these six occasions results in an individual’s average complexity of structure HOTT utterances of 34.7%, ranging from 0% to 85.6%.

• Anderson JR, Greeno JG, Reder LM, & Simon HA (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity . Educational Researcher , 29 ( 4 ), 11–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• August D, Francis DJ, & Calderón M (2002). Diagnostic assessment of reading comprehension (DARC) . Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bransford JD, Brown RL, & Cocking RR (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school . Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruner J (1973). The relevance of education . New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Callanan MA, & Oakes LM (1992). Preschoolers’ questions and parents’ explanations: Causal thinking in everyday activity . Cognitive Development , 7 ( 2 ), 213–233. [ Google Scholar ]
• Case R, Griffin S, & Kelly WM (1999). Socioeconomic gradients in mathematical ability and their responsiveness to intervention during early childhood In Keating DP and Hertzman C (Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological, and educational dynamics (pp. 125–152) . New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Z, Sanchez RP, & Campbell T (1997). From beyond to within their grasp: The rudiments of analogical problem solving in 10-and 13-month-olds . Developmental Psychology , 33 ( 5 ), 790–801. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Christie S, & Gentner D (2014). Language helps children succeed on a classic analogy task . Cognitive Science , 38 ( 2 ), 383–397. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit . Psychological Bulletin , 70 ( 4 ), 213–220. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics . Washington, D.C: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crowley K, Callanan MA, Jipson JL, Galco J, Topping K, & Shrager J (2001). Shared scientific thinking in everyday parent-child activity . Science Education , 85 ( 6 ), 712–732. [ Google Scholar ]
• Demir ÖE, Rowe ML, Heller G, Goldin-Meadow S, & Levine SC (2015). Vocabulary, syntax, and narrative development in typically developing children and children with early unilateral brain injury: Early parental talk about the “there-and-then” matters . Developmental Psychology , 51 ( 2 ), 161–175. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dumas D, Alexander PA, & Grossnickle EM (2013). Relational reasoning and its manifestations in the educational context: A systematic review of the literature . Educational Psychology Review , 25 ( 3 ), 391–427. [ Google Scholar ]
• Engle PL, Fernald LCH, Alderman H, Behrman O’Gara C, Yousafzai A, Cabral de Mello M, Hidrobo M, Ulkuer N, Ertem I, Iltus S, & the Global Child Development Steering Group (2011). Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low-income and middle-income countries . The Lancet , 378 ( 9799 ), 1339–1353. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feldman H, Goldin-Meadow S, & Gleitman L (1978). Beyond Herodotus: The creation of language by linguistically deprived deaf children In Lock A (Ed), Action, symbol, and gesture: The emergence of language (pp. 351–414) . New York, NY: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferry AL, Hespos SJ, & Gentner D (2015). Prelinguistic relational concepts: Investigating analogical processing in infants . Child Development , 86 ( 5 ), 1386–1405. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentner D (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift . Child development , 59 ( 1 ), 47–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentner D (2003). Why we’re so smart In Gentner D and Goldin-Meadow S (Eds), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 195–235). MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentner D, & Christie S (2008). Relational language supports relational cognition in humans and apes . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 31 ( 2 ), 136–137. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentner D, & Goldin-Meadow S (2003). Whither Whorf In Gentner D and Goldin-Meadow S (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 3–14). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentner D, & Markman A (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity . American Psychologist , 52 ( 1 ), 45–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentner D, & Ratterman MJ (1991). Language and the career of similarity In Gelman SA and Byrnes JP (Eds.), Perspectives on language and thought: Interrelations in development (pp. 225–277) . New York: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gick ML, & Holyoak KJ (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer . Cognitive Psychology , 15 ( 1 ), 1–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldin-Meadow S (2003). The resilience of language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language . New York, NY: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldin-Meadow S, Levine SC, Hedges LV, Huttenlocher J, Raudenbush S, & Small S (2014). New evidence about language and cognitive development based on a longitudinal study: Hypotheses for intervention , American Psychologist , 69 ( 6 ), 588–599. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldin-Meadow S, & Mylander C (1984). Gestural communication in deaf children: The effects and noneffects of parental input on early language development . Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 49 (serial no. 207 ). [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzales PA (2001). Pursuing excellence: Comparisons of international eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement from a US perspective, 1995 and 1999: Initial findings from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat . DIANE Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goswami U (1992). Analogical reasoning in children . Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halford GS, Wilson WH, & Phillips S (2010). Relational knowledge: The foundation of higher cognition . Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 14 ( 11 ), 497–505. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart B, & Risley TR (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young children . Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hiebert J, Gallimore R, Garnier H, Givvin KB, Hollingsworth H, Jacobs J, Chui AM-Y, Wearne D, Smith M, Kersting N, Manaster A, Tseng E, Etterbeek W, Manaster C, Gonzales P, & Stigler JW (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study (NCES 2003–013) . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huttenlocher J, Haight W, Bryk A, Seltzer M, & Lyons T (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender . Developmental Psychology , 27 ( 2 ), 236–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huttenlocher J, Vasilyeva M, Cymerman E, & Levine S (2002). Language input and child syntax . Cognitive Psychology , 45 ( 3 ), 337–374. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iverson JM, Capirci O, Volterra V, & Goldin-Meadow S (2008). Learning to talk in a gesture-rich world: Early communication in Italian vs. American children . First Language , 28 ( 2 ), 164–181. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jewitt C (2012). An introduction to using video for research . National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper (unpublished) . Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2259/4/NCRM_workingpaper_0312.pdf
• Koenig JA (2015). Assessing 21st Century Skills: Summary of a Workshop . Retrieved August 5, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/159080/ [ PubMed ]
• Leech K, Wei R, Harring JR, & Rowe ML (2018). A brief parent-focused intervention to improve preschoolers’ conversational skills and school readiness . Developmental psychology , 54 ( 1 ), 15–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis A, & Smith D (1993). Defining higher order thinking . Theory Into Practice , 32 ( 3 ), 131–137. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loewenstein J, & Gentner D (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping . Cognitive Psychology , 50 ( 4 ), 315–353. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maccow G (2011). Overview of WASI-II . [PDF Slides] Retrieved from http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/ca/Webinars/WASI-II-Webinar-Handout-12-8-2011.pdf
• MacGinitie WH, MacGinitie RK, Maria K, & Dreyer LG (2002). Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests - Technical report (4th ed.). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacWhinney B (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk (3rd Edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marulis LM, & Neuman SB (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , 80 ( 3 ), 300–335. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazzocco MM, Feigenson L, & Halberda J (2011). Preschoolers’ precision of the approximate number system predicts later school mathematics performance . PLoS One , 6 ( 9 ), e23749. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McHugh ML (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic . Biochemia Medica , 22 ( 3 ), 276–282. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mullis IV, Martin MO, Gonzalez EJ, & Chrostowski SJ (2004). TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades . TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics In Kilpatrick J, Swafford J, and Findell B (Eds.), Mathematics learning study committee, center for education, division of behavioral and social sciences, and education . Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future . Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century . Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states . Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Özçalışkan Ş, Goldin-Meadow S, Gentner D, & Mylander C (2009). Does language about similarity play a role in fostering similarity comparison in children? Cognition , 112 ( 2 ), 217–228. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Özçalışkan Ş, Levine SC, & Goldin-Meadow S (2013). Gesturing with an injured brain: how gesture helps children with early brain injury learn linguistic constructions . Journal of Child Language , 40 ( 1 ), 69–105. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Penn DC, Holyoak KJ, & Povinelli DJ (2008). Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 31 ( 2 ), 109–130. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ratterman MJ, & Gentner D (1998). More evidence for a relational shift in the development of analogy: Children’s performance on a causal mapping task . Cognitive Development , 13 ( 4 ), 453–478. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raudenbush SW, & Bryk AS (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods . New York, NY: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raven J, Raven JC, and Court JH (2000, updated 2004). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. Section 3: The Standard Progressive Matrices . San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Resnick LB (1987). Education and learning to think . Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Richland LE, & Burchinal MR (2013). Early executive function predicts reasoning development . Psychological Science , 24 ( 1 ), 87–92. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richland LE, Morrison RG, & Holyoak KJ (2006). Children’s development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems . Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 94 ( 3 ), 249–273. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richland LE, & Simms N (2015). Analogy, higher order thinking, and education . Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 6 ( 2 ), 177–192. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richland LE, Zur O, & Holyoak KJ (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom . Science , 316 ( 5828 ), 1128–1129. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts MY, & Kaiser AP (2011). The effectiveness of parent-implemented language interventions: A meta-analysis . American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 20 ( 3 ), 180–199. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe ML (2012). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child-directed speech in vocabulary development . Child Development , 83 ( 5 ), 1762–1774. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe ML, & Goldin-Meadow S (2009). Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities in child vocabulary size at school entry . Science , 323 ( 5916 ), 951–953. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe ML, Levine SC, Fisher J, & Goldin-Meadow S (2009). Does linguistic input play the same role in language learning for children with and without early brain injury? Developmental Psychology , 45 ( 1 ), 90–102. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe ML, Raudenbush SW, & Goldin-Meadow S (2012). The pace of vocabulary growth helps predict later vocabulary skill . Child Development , 83 ( 2 ), 508–525. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simms NK, Frausel RR, & Richland LE (2018). Working memory predicts children’s analogical reasoning . Journal of experimental child psychology , 166 , 160–177. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simms NK, & Richland LE (2019). Generating relations elicits a relational mindset in children . Cognitive Science , 43 ( 10 ), e12795. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stein NL, & Albro ER (1997). Building complexity and coherence: Children’s use of goal-structured knowledge in telling stories In Bamberg M (Ed.), Narrative development: Six approaches (pp. 5–44) . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Speed A (2010). Abstract relational categories, graded persistence, and prefrontal cortical representation . Cognitive Neuroscience , 1 ( 2 ), 126–137 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevenson HW, & Newman RS (1986). Long-term prediction of achievement and attitudes in mathematics and reading . Child Development , 57 ( 3 ), 646–659. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A, & Callanan MA (2006). Similarity comparisons and relational analogies in parent-child conversations about science topics . Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 52 ( 1 ), 96–124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vendetti MS, Wu A, & Holyoak KJ (2014). Far-out thinking: Generating solutions to distant analogies promotes relational thinking . Psychological science , 25 ( 4 ), 928–933. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker CM, & Gopnik A (2014). Toddlers infer higher-order relational principles in causal learning . Psychological Science , 25 ( 1 ), 161–169. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang SH, & Baillargeon R (2008). Can infants be “taught” to attend to a new physical variable in an event category? The case of height in covering events . Cognitive Psychology , 56 ( 4 ), 284–326. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodcock RW, McGrew KS, & Mather N (2001). Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities (3rd Edition). Itasca, IL: Riverside. [ Google Scholar ]

WH Questions for Speech Therapy: How to Target

Tips for targeting WH questions in speech therapy. This post covers: where to start, the hierarchy of teaching WH skills, and a list of ways to target in therapy or at home!

How to Target WH Questions: Where do I Start?

If you are a speech-language pathologist (SLP) like us, you are probably familiar with targeting WH questions ( who , what , when , when , and why ) in therapy. WH questions are some of the most important linguistic areas to target because of their use and frequency in our day-to-day lives. The ability to ask and answer WH questions effectively allows us to be active participants in conversations and gain information. Many individuals with language disorders require explicit instruction to improve their ability to ask and answer WH questions. So where do we begin?

I begin with who , where , and what questions because they are usually easier for the individual to learn. When we are answering questions about people ( who ), places ( where ), and things/actions ( what ), we can often label and find concrete examples of what is being talked about. For example, “ Who is this?” is usually easier to answer than, “ Why are they happy?” When and why questions tend to elicit more abstract answers and may require inferencing, which is a more complex skill.

⭐ Want No Prep WH Question Resources?

Inside our Premium Community , we provide over 60 pages of resources related specifically to WH questions. Get these a la carte resources in our TPT store OR get them, plus our 250+ other resources, inside the Premium Community for one flat price.

These resources, which are available in our TPT store , are also included in our Premium Community .

Targeting WH Questions: Considerations

1.understanding wh questions (a receptive language skill).

The first thing to consider is: How well does the individual understand the WH word/question? The individual needs to have receptive knowledge of what the WH question means before they can properly use (express) it.

If the individual you are working with cannot identify the differences between different types of WH question words, they cannot be expected to use them when asking questions.

A receptive treatment goal example may look like: [Client] will identify (i.e., point to) the correct photo/symbol in response to a “who” question, during a structured drill activity, with 80% accuracy.

2.Using WH questions (an expressive language skill)

Once the individual has developed an understanding of the WH word/question, they will be better prepared to express or use the word themselves when engaging with others.

An expressive treatment goal example may look like: [Client] will respond to a variety of “who” questions, during a conversational task, with 80% accuracy.

3.Examining the communication profile of the client

Is the individual you are working with a reader or non-reader? This may change the type of materials and visuals you use to teach. If I am working with someone who is a pretty fluent reader, I try to limit visuals unless it is during the initial instruction of the concept.

Is the individual you are working with an AAC user? Consider using visuals for your instruction consistent with the visuals or symbols in their device or following the color key used in their AAC system (e.g., people/pronouns in yellow).

Is the individual you are working with a child, teen, or adult? If you are working with a young adult, it may be appropriate to incorporate questions relating to vocational concepts and/or activities of daily living (e.g., “ Where do you go for your internship?”).

Does the individual you are working with already have a foundation/understanding of some WH questions already? Assess their current knowledge and work from there.

Targeting WH Questions: Approaches

Depending on the individual's current understanding/use and skill level of WH questions, your starting point may be different. Remember, it is key that your client understands the WH word/question before there is an expectation to use it/respond accordingly.

If I am starting from the ground up with WH instruction, this is usually the skill hierarchy I begin with:

Who , where , & what questions (for non or emerging readers)

• Understanding the words  who ,  where , and  what  in isolation.

This includes teaching the individual that  who  corresponds to people,  where  corresponds to a place/location, and  what  usually corresponds to a thing or action.

• “Show me who cooks food": The therapist shows the individual visuals with a person, place, and a thing related to food preparation
• Sorting activity: The therapist makes 3 columns and has the individual sort pictures of people, places, and things into separate columns
• Understanding the words who , where , and what in basic questions with familiar items and people.
• “Where do you live? [show me]”: The therapist shows the individual a visual with a person (e.g., parent), a place (e.g., house), and a thing (e.g., bathtub)
• Responding to basic WH questions (e.g., “ Who/where/what is it?”) relating to their immediate vicinity or a picture.
• The therapist points to a familiar teacher and asks, “Who is it?”
• The therapist shows the individual a picture of their school and asks, “Where do you learn?”
• The therapist holds up a familiar object (e.g., pencil)* and asks, "What is it?"

*Note: often, the question “What is it?” is introduced earlier on because it is asked when working on labeling vocabulary. It is common for an individual to associate this question with labeling something. They may not fully understand the function of the word “what” within a variety of questions (e.g., "What are they doing?" or "What do you eat with?").

• Responding to personal basic WH questions ( who, where, what ) without visual supports.
• “Where do you go to school?”
• “Who is your teacher?”
• “What do you eat for lunch?”

When & why questions

• When questions require an understanding of conditional concepts, like time . Instruction of when questions can greatly vary depending on the individual. For someone younger, I may start with concepts like morning, afternoon, and night , and go from there. Similar to who, where, and what questions, I usually begin with some sort of receptive task before I move on to an expressive task.
• The therapist asks: “When do you eat breakfast [show me]?” and shows the individual a visual with pictures depicting the morning, afternoon, and nighttime.
• Why questions (I find) can be the most abstract of them all! However, they are really important for inferencing and building higher-level language skills. When I begin instruction, I try to give my client an understanding of the “expectation” of a why question. I explain that a why question is looking for a reason and we usually begin our response with “ because _____. ” I will usually focus on concrete why responses and go from there.
• The individual reads a short passage that clearly states why he was late for school.
• The therapist asks, “Why was the boy late for school?”
• The therapist provides 3 to 4 multiple choice options to choose from. For non-readers, you can show the client a picture scene that illustrates this scenario.

Though some therapy approaches have been provided, there is no “one-size-fits-all” to any therapy approach. Based on experience, this has been an effective guiding hierarchy of skills for my clients who are working on them.

Activities to Target WH Questions

• Reading books
• Using structured drills/trials
• Sorting activities
• Using picture scenes
• Playing games
• Asking/responding to conversational questions
• Responding to questions from a book or passage
• Matching questions with correct answers
• Talking about the day
• Using WH question picture cards
• Completing WH question workbooks

You might also like

Executive Functioning and Speech Therapy: Why is it Relevant to Treatment and Day-to-Day Life?

AAC Core Word of the Week Resource: Lesson Slides AND Companion Packet

How to Write Stuttering Goals [with goal bank]

10 Easy Spring-Themed Activities for Speech Therapy

Spring Short Stories with WH Comprehension Questions

Subscribe to new posts., subscribe to be notified of new content and support communication community, help keep this site independent..

• Portal Login

Developing Higher Order Language Skills for Preschoolers

by Amanda Pahl | Jan 4, 2022 | General information , Parenting , School , Speech & Language , Uncategorized

What is decontextualized language? Why is it important for your preschooler?

Decontextualized language is language that does not refer to the “here and now.” While lots of parents and professionals are aware of the importance of language skills such as vocabulary and syntax, previously, very little was known about how to support children with the development of decontextualized language.

Luckily, recent research has shown that one of the easiest ways to teach a child decontextualized language skills is for parents to model use of “higher order thinking talk.” You can do this by simply talking about personal experiences and explaining new concepts to them, both during everyday conversation and during book reading! Talking to your child about past or future events and explaining new concepts can help with the development of higher order thinking skills, such as inference, comparison, hierarchy, and abstraction.

Examples of how you can support development of each of these skills through conversation are below: 

• “He put the birds in the bucket so no cats could get to them.”
• “When it got hot, my cold ice cream started to melt.”
• “When the bee stung me, Grandma said I looked like a monster.”
• “The slides are the same size, but that one has a roof.”
• “What kind of bird did we have on Thanksgiving?”
• “We need to search for all of the different parts that we need to build a lego car!”
• “We’re going to the arboretum, which is where there’s trees and plants and flowers.”

Written by: Laura Strenk, MS, CCC-SLP

Leech, K., Wei, R., Harring, J.R., & Rowe, M.L. (2018). A brief parent-focused intervention to improve preschoolers’ conversational skills and school readiness. Developmental Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000411 

Frausel, R. R., Richland, L. E., Levine, S. C., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2021). Personal narrative as a “breeding ground” for higher-order thinking talk in early parent–child interactions. Developmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001166

• actividades de motricidad fina
• Adult Services
• Behavioral regulation
• Comida y bebida
• Crianza de los hijos
• Desarrollo infantil
• Días festivos
• Eating/Feeding skills
• Emerge programs
• Fine motor activities
• Floortime/DIR
• Food and Drink
• General information
• Gross Motor
• Habilidades para comer/alimentarse
• Habilidades sociales
• Habla y Lenguaje
• Handwriting
• Infant Development
• Información general
• Miología Orofacial
• Motricidad gruesa
• Occupational Therapy
• Orofacial Myology
• Physical Therapy
• Procesamiento sensorial/integración
• programas de verano
• Programas emergentes
• Regulación del comportamiento
• Sensory Processing/Integration
• Servicios para adultos
• Sin categorizar
• Social Skills
• Speech & Language
• Summer programs
• Terapia física
• Terapia ocupacional
• Tiempo de piso/DIR
• transgender voice
• Uncategorized

Recent Posts

• What Is DMI (Dynamic Movement Intervention)?
• Nasal Breathing vs Mouth Breathing
• Orofacial Myofunctional Disorders (OMDs)
• The Ultimate Sensory Toy Gift Guide
• 5 Unexpected Indicators for a PT Referral

higher order thinking questions 8th grade speech therapy

All Formats

Resource types, all resource types.

• Rating Count
• Price (Ascending)
• Price (Descending)
• Most Recent

Higher order thinking questions 8th grade speech therapy

Whose Snow Globe is This? Singular Possessive Nouns & Pronouns Christmas (Boom™)

• Internet Activities

Don't Be Nosy!- Social story

Context Clues Tier 2 Vocabulary 12 weeks Digital PDF Worksheets

READING COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS higher order thinking on any text 3rd-6th grade

Pre-K to 1st Grade Academic Skills Checklist BUNDLE - Editable Google Doc

Higher - Order Drama Questions

Editable Speech Forms Freebie: Weekly Note, IEP At A Glance, and Teacher Input

Parent & Teacher Input Forms for Speech & Language

• Google Docs™

Answer Others' Questions - Social Story

Bilingual English-Spanish Speech -Language Intake Form/Case History

Which One Doesn't Belong: Critical Thinking Activity For PK-2nd Grade

Speech Language Case History - Phone Intake Form

• Word Document File

Comprehensive Speech Language Swallowing Hearing Case History Questionnaire

Online Safety | Social Skills | Social Media WH- Questions Cards BUNDLE

48 Why Question Pairs with Visuals

Using Books for Speech and Language Development- COLOR- Level 1: Words

Synectics Questions for Get to Know You / Back to School / Critical Thinking

Therapy Question Cards For Teens, Counseling Flash Cards, conversation cards,

Parent Handout: AAC - How to Help Your Child Communicate At Home

DYSLEXIA INFORMATION & HANDOUTS (includes Phonological Awareness Skills List)

WH- Questions : St Patrick's Day

My Day at School Was...- Communication from School to Home

A Parent's Guide to Bilingualism | English

A Parent's Guide to Bilingualism | Spanish

• We're hiring
• Help & FAQ
• Privacy policy
• Student privacy
• Terms of service
• Tell us what you think

Your cart is currently empty.

Total: $0.00

Free your time. Fresh, ready activities.

Speech therapy activities designed for therapists and kids to love.

Engaging Resources

Engaged therapy sessions, here you come! Speech & language activities that are guaranteed to catch the attention of any child. Perfect for digital learning and in-person fun.

BUNDLE Executive Function

✨ As seen on Boom Cards Featured Bundles!

This BUNDLE of executive function cards includes problem solving stories, social stories, predicting stories, sequencing stories, and flexible thinking stories.

Multiple types of wh- questions, why and how questions, labeling exercises, multiple choice, and drag and drop categorizations   are included throughout this bundle to encourage an in depth understanding of each executive functioning skill.

⭐️ 80 Problem Solving

• Multiple choice question
• 2 labeling exercises

⭐️   52 Social Stories

• Topics of social skills to choose from (feelings, manners, listening, sharing & turns, making friends, being kind)
• Sorting exercise
• 2 wh- questions

⭐️   50 Predicting (✨ as seen on Top Premium Boom Cards ✨)

• What questions
• How questions

⭐️   50 Sequencing

• 3 different what questions per story

⭐️   40 Flexible Thinking (✨ as seen on Top Premium Boom Cards ✨)

• Why questions
• Labeling exercise

Each deck includes a teaching slide and visual to help your students better understand executive function skills before practicing! 

CLICK HERE for Boom Cards Preview.

To use Boom Cards, you must be connected to the Internet. Boom Cards play on modern browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Edge). Apps are available for modern Android, iPads, iPhones, and Kindle Fires. For security and privacy, adults must have a Boom Learning account to use and assign Boom Cards. You will be able to assign the Boom Cards you are buying with "Fast Pins," (a form of play that gives instant feedback to students for self-grading Boom Cards). For assignment options that report student progress back to you, you will need to purchase a premium account.If you are new to Boom Learning, you will be offered a free trial of our premium account.Read here for details: http://bit.ly/BoomTrial .

Wh- Questions & Short Stories

15 short stories to target wh- questions, auditory comprehension, reading comprehension, recall, and more!

Multiple levels of difficulty, including both shorter and longer paragraphs for a variety of length and detail in the stories.

⭐ Wh- Questions in Short Stories

• 15 Paragraph Short Stories
• 6 Wh- Questions for every story
• Stories are 4-9 sentences in length
• What, where, who, when, why, and how questions for every story

*This product contains the same activities as the Boom Cards version. If you would like the Boom Cards version, view   Wh- Questions & Short Stories, Auditory Comprehension, Boom Cards.

Compare and Contrast

Compare and contrast a variety of topics with 5 different activities and over 400 prompts! Improve understanding and use of similarities and differences using this comprehensive activity. 

This resource includes   5 different ways to practice comparing and contrasting , including stories, Venn diagrams, wh questions, short answers, pictures, graphs, and more. Real photos are included in this resource.

⭐️ Compare and Contrast:

• 5 stories with Venn diagrams
• 10 picture pairs with wh questions and Venn diagrams
• 10 picture pairs with wh questions and short answer questions
• 10 word pairs with wh questions and short answers
• 10 word pairs with graphs and word banks
• 2 blank templates

⭐️   Targeted Skills:

• Improve use of compare and contrast
• Increase comprehension of similarities and differences
• Expand skills for answering questions

Topics & Questions

80 unique topics with 4 wh- questions and a story prompt to improve expressive and receptive language skills, with REAL pictures. Questions and story prompts improve story telling and sentence generation skills. What, where, who, when, why, and how questions are included, with 4 different questions for each picture.

✨ As featured on Boom Cards Top Premium Decks ✨

⭐ 80 Topics & Categories

• 5 activities for each topic
• Real picture for every topic
• 4 wh-/how questions for every topic
• 1 story prompt for every topic
• What, where, who, when, why, and how questions included

⭐  Targeted Skills

• Improve receptive & expressive language
• Enhance skills for   answering questions
• Boost   story telling skills
• Develop   noun labeling and describing

Practice describing topics and categories, by answering questions and discussing a story prompt for each topic!

To use Boom Cards, you   must   be connected to the Internet. Boom Cards play on modern browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Edge). Apps are available for modern Android, iPads, iPhones, and Kindle Fires. For security and privacy, adults must have a Boom Learning account to use and assign Boom Cards. You will be able to assign the Boom Cards you are buying with "Fast Pins," (a form of play that gives instant feedback to students for self-grading Boom Cards). For assignment options that report student progress back to you, you will need to purchase a premium account.   If you are new to Boom Learning, you will be offered a free trial of our premium account.   Read here for details:   http://bit.ly/BoomTrial .

Conversation Starters

Conversation starters to improve commenting, asking questions, and answering questions during conversations. Conversation prompts has variety of ways to practice conversations, including questions, open response, fill in the blank, and more.

This resource includes   multiple ways to practice conversations , including pictures, comments, questions, asking questions, and more.

⭐️   All About Me Conversation Starters:

• 2 what questions
• 1 how question
• Open response opportunity

⭐️   Conversation Topics:

• 20 unique topics
• 3 open response opportunities to practice
• Practice asking questions and making comments

⭐️   Conversation Photos:

• 20 unique photo prompts
• 2 open response opportunities to practice

⭐️   Boom Cards include:

• 20 conversation topics
• 20 conversation starters with real photos
• Open response opportunities to practice

⭐️   Targeted skills:

• Improve conversation abilities
• Increase ability to ask and answer questions in conversations
• Expand commenting skills during conversations

NOTE: This resource includes 1 printable PDF with a Boom Cards companion. The Boom Cards contains part of the PDF resource, but does not include the "All About Me" conversation starters. Boom Cards are digital resources. PDF pages can be used digitally with PDF applications or can be printed for in person use.

To use boom cards, you must be connected to the internet. boom cards play on modern browsers (chrome, safari, firefox, and edge). apps are available for modern android, ipads, iphones, and kindle fires. for security and privacy, adults must have a boom learning account to use and assign boom cards. you will be able to assign the boom cards you are buying with "fast pins," (a form of play that gives instant feedback to students for self-grading boom cards). for assignment options that report student progress back to you, you will need to purchase a premium account. if you are new to boom learning, you will be offered a free trial of our premium account. read here for details: http://bit.ly/boomtrial ..

Problems & Solutions with Problem Size

Problem solving stories, problem size, solutions, common problems   and more are included in this set.   There are 80 unique problem solving and solution scenarios   for critical thinking. Open response questions and multiple choice questions are included in every story! You will receive problem size and common problem teaching pages, as well as multiple examples.

⭐️   80 Problem Solving Stories

• 80 unique problem scenarios
• Multiple choice question for every story
• 2 open response exercises for every story

⭐️   Problem Size Slides & Questions

• 5 in-depth teaching pages
• Problem size (small, medium, big) definitions
• Emotions related to problem sizes
• Color coordinated problem size visual
• 2 small problem exercises
• 2 medium problem exercises
• 2 big problem exercises

⭐️   Common Problems & Questions

• Teaching slide with definitions & examples
• 6 scenarios of common problems
• 2 free response problem & solution questions per scenario 

With 80 unique stories, 12 common problem scenarios, 6 problem size questions and multiple teaching pages, you will be able to use this resource for   many   teaching sessions. You won't need anything else!

Story Builders & Create A Story

Improve creative writing with these narrative and short story prompts! This set of   70 short story builders   comes with character, location, event and time learning targets.

Help your students improve their stories and increase their creative narrative skills. There is space for students to type or write their stories, as well as an organizing task for story parts. 

Your students will have all the tools they need to create unique and imaginative stories!

⭐️ Includes:

• 70 story builders
• 3 practice levels
• A combination of who (character), where (location), what (event) and when (time) story part targets
• 36 story builders that include 2 story parts
• 20 story builders that include 3 story parts
• 14 story builders that include 4 story parts
• Story parts organizing task with pictures
• Space for creative writing and narrative generation
• Instructions on each page 

⭐️ Teaching slides:

• In depth information about the 4 included story parts
• Descriptions
• Picture matching activities 

Save your time and energy, this set is NO PREP! Includes everything you need to elicit creative, engaging stories from your students.

Perfect for SLPs, teachers, or parents looking to expand language or writing in a fun and creative way!

Social Skills & Pragmatics

Social skills and pragmatic language set to improve executive functioning skills.   52 unique stories with sorting and wh- questions!

Social skills topic can be organized by category or practiced in random order, depending on your goals! Your students will sort each card into "appropriate" or "inappropriate" categories. They also will have an opportunity to explain how to improve social skills. Keep students engaged with interactive drag and drop!

⭐️   52 Social Skills short stories

• 2 scenarios per slide
• Drag and drop sorting for "appropriate" or "inappropriate" behavior
• What question to target improving behaviors
• Why question to target critical thinking

⭐️   Skills are able to be sorted by topic:

• Sharing & Turns
• Making Friends

BUNDLE for Executive Function Skills also available in Shine Speech Activities shop , which includes problem solving, predicting, flexible thinking, social skills, and sequencing/planning, too!

Use this deck to help teach and practice pragmatic skills - you won't need anything else!

Sentence Comprehension & Language Comprehension

Improve sentence comprehension, language and reading comprehension, and picture comprehension with 4 activities and over 125 prompts for speech therapy or classrooms! Target comprehending, receptive language, and more.

This resource includes   4 different ways to practice sentence comprehension , including wh questions, pictures, fill in the blanks, and more. Real photos are included in this resource.

⭐️ Sentence Comprehension:

• 40 sentence comprehension task cards with 3 questions each
• 30 real photo sentence comprehension prompts
• 30 multiple choice reading comprehension activities
• 30 fill in the blank language comprehension prompts
• Improve sentence comprehension skills
• Increase receptive and expressive language abilities
• Expand skills for understanding sentences and pictures

Categories with divergent naming, convergent naming, group, similarities, differences, and more! Words, cartoons, and real pictures included for a variety of ways to practice.

This resource includes   6 different ways to practice categories , including describing, naming, grouping, similarities, differences, and topics. Category cards include words, cartoon pictures to color, and real photos!

⭐️ Categories:

• 40 Describe the category
• 40 Name the category
• 40 Categories Grouping
• 24 Categories similarities
• 24 Categories differences
• 6 Categories Topics
• 10 Describe the category
• 15 Name the category
• 15 Categories Grouping
• 15 Categories similarities
• 15 Categories differences
• 5 Categories Topics
• Improve understanding categories
• Expand ability to describe categories
• Practice language with categories 

NOTE: This resource includes 1 printable PDF with a Boom Cards companion. The Boom Cards contains part of the PDF resource. Boom Cards are digital resources. PDF pages can be used digitally with PDF applications or can be printed for in person use.

Picture & Word Describing Webs

This set of 70 picture description webs targets describing pictures and words by color, shape, size, location, material, function, category and more. Includes 8 wh- questions for each word!

Teaching slides are also included to teach your students how to describe pictures.

⭐️ Picture Description Webs:

• 8 fill in the blank questions to target descriptions
• Color description targets
• Size description targets
• Shape description targets
• Location description targets
• Material description targets
• Function description targets
• Category description targets
• Who (who uses it?) description targets
• Color coded targets to improve memory of ways to describe

⭐️ Teaching Slides:

• Question example for each description target
• Concrete examples of each description type 

⭐️ Bonus Pages on PDF:

• Colored blank picture web template with 8 questions
• Black and white picture web template with 8 questions

BONUS! A blank PDF template for a color web and a black and white web are also included.   Your students have the opportunity to draw their own unique pictures and create webs.

70 trials, plus blank webs, allows for unlimited practice of picture and word describing. 

Help your students learn how to describe with this activity! PDF and Boom Cards versions are included.

Predicting in Short Stories

This activity includes   50 predicting stories . Unique and original scenarios for predicting practice!

✨ As seen on Boom Cards Top Premium Decks ✨

Each scenario   includes a "what" question and a "how" question   for further discussion and analysis for your students.

50 stories means you won't need any other activity for predicting! Use these randomized trials track data over multiple sessions.

⭐️   50 Predicting story slides

• Unique predicting scenarios
• What question for predicting
• How question for analyzing prediction

BUNDLE Figurative Language

This BUNDLE of figurative language cards includes idioms, metaphors, hyperboles, personification and similes. Over 255 practice targets with figurative language!

The set targets multiple skills so your students will have an in depth understanding of each type of figurative language! This set is a truly comprehensive approach to understanding and using figurative language.

⭐️ 60 Idioms

• Yes/no questions for every trial
• What questions for every trial
• Free response (students have an opportunity to create their own idioms) for every trial

⭐️ 40 Metaphors

• Free response (students have an opportunity to create their own metaphors) for every trial

⭐️ 40 Similes

• Free response (students have an opportunity to create their own similes) for every trial

⭐️ 45 Hyperboles

• Free response (students have an opportunity to create their own hyperboles) for every trial

⭐️ 40 Personification

• Free response to give students opportunity to create short stories with personification

⭐️ 35 Allusions

• 2 what questions for every trial
• Free response to encourage building allusions in sentences
• Allusions to Historical figures, literature, famous fictional characters, locations/landmarks, Greek mythology, movies and more

⭐️ Each deck includes a teaching slide

• Definitions
• Help your students understand and identify figurative language before practicing

Preview Boom Cards HERE.

Prepositions & Spatial Concepts

This set of   prepositions targets spatial and location concepts with 60 trials ! Teach your students prepositions and location with this robust, comprehensive deck.

You can pick which preposition to target, or practice with randomized slides. The teaching module will   teach your students everything they need to know about each preposition   before practicing! 

⭐️   Prepositions include:

⭐️   learning module includes:.

Use the practice slides to practice prepositions with multiple choice. Navigate between the learning module and practice cards using the buttons at the bottom of each slide.

CLICK HERE for Boom Card Preview.

To use Boom Cards, you  must  be connected to the Internet. Boom Cards play on modern browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Edge). Apps are available for modern Android, iPads, iPhones, and Kindle Fires. For security and privacy, adults must have a Boom Learning account to use and assign Boom Cards. You will be able to assign the Boom Cards you are buying with "Fast Pins," (a form of play that gives instant feedback to students for self-grading Boom Cards). For assignment options that report student progress back to you, you will need to purchase a premium account. If you are new to Boom Learning, you will be offered a free trial of our premium account. Read here for details: http://bit.ly/BoomTrial .

Main Idea & Supporting Details

Main idea and supporting details with 5 different ways to practice and 50 unique prompts! Improve reading comprehension and writing skills using this main ideas and detail resource.

This product contains a PDF version and a Boom Cards companion.

This resource includes   5 different ways to practice main idea and supporting details , including stories with questions, main ideas vs. details, create-a-story, grouping, and pictures with questions. Real photos are also included in this resource.

⭐️ Main Idea & Details:

• 10 Stories & Questions
• 10 Main Ideas vs. Details
• 10 Create-A-Story
• 10 Grouping
• 10 Pictures & Questions
• Improve understanding main ideas and details
• Increase reading comprehension abilities
• Expand skills for creating stories

To use Boom Cards, you must be connected to the Internet. Boom Cards play on modern browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Edge). Apps are available for modern Android, iPads, iPhones, and Kindle Fires. For security and privacy, adults must have a Boom Learning account to use and assign Boom Cards. You will be able to assign the Boom Cards you are buying with "Fast Pins," (a form of play that gives instant feedback to students for self-grading Boom Cards). For assignment options that report student progress back to you, you will need to purchase a premium account.  If you are new to Boom Learning, you will be offered a free trial of our premium account.  Read here for details: http://bit.ly/BoomTrial .

Expanding Language with Wh Questions and Real Pictures

Expand expressive language using wh- questions and sentence generation prompts with real pictures.   Improve expressive language, answering questions, labeling verbs, and story generation!   What, where, and who questions are included for every picture!

⭐ Expanding Language with Real Pictures

• 80 real life pictures
• 3 wh- questions   for every story
• Free response prompt   for every story
• Large variety of actions and topics within pictures
• What, where, and who questions for every story
• Printable pages

⭐ Targeted Skills

• Improve expressive language
• Enhance skills for answering questions
• Boost sentence and story generation skills
• Develop verb describing and labeling

Sequencing and Planning

This set of 50 sequencing and planning activity deck will help your students improve their planning skills! The deck includes a variety of sequencing and planning scenarios and trials for your students.

Each open-ended short story includes 3 color-coded wh- questions to guide sequencing.

⭐️   50 Sequencing short stories

• Unique sequencing stories
• 3 wh- questions per story
• Color-coded questions, to match teaching slide

⭐️   Teaching slide

• 6 unique teaching  slides with visuals
• Color-coded information to match questions in trials
• Drag & drop activity
• Synonyms for key words
• Example of a story sequence

CLICK HERE for Boom Cards Preview

Flexible Thinking & Reframing

This set of 40 flexible thinking and reframing thoughts cards   teaches your students how to improve flexible thinking   in difficult situations.

Each unique scenario includes   multiple questions as well as a labeling exercise   to encourage flexible thinking and increasing creative problem solving.

⭐️   Each Flexible Thinking trial includes:

• Why question
• How question

⭐️   Teaching slides include:

• Flexible v. rigid thinking comparison
• Flexible thinking examples
• Strategies for use of flexible thinking in difficult moments

INCLUDES: Both a PDF version and a Boom Cards version!

BUNDLE for Wh- Questions also available in Shine Speech Activities shop , which includes short stories and sentences!

CLICK HERE for Boom Cards Preview .

*This product contains the same activities as the PDF version. If you would like the PDF version, view   Wh- Questions & Short Stories, Auditory Comprehension .

Inferencing & Context Clues

70 inferencing and context clues trials to improve critical thinking skills! Each trial comes with 4 unique clues to help your students make an inference. They can then provide their answer, and drag the cover away to see the correct answer and a picture.

⭐️   As featured on Boom Cards Top Premium Decks   ⭐️

⭐ 70 Inferencing & Context Clues Slides:

• 4 clues for every word
• Space to type an answer
• Drag to uncover the correct answer
• Pictures of the correct answer

⭐ Skills targeted:

• Improve inferencing
• Enhance ability to understand clues
• Increase critical thinking and executive function abilities
• Boost deductive reasoning skills
• Improve ability to draw conclusions

Shop Best Sellers

Thoughtfully designed, for you.

Aliceann R.

Free Resources

From our speech room to yours.

Get the latest & greatest activities right in your inbox.

Made with love in Austin, Texas

© 2020 Shine Speech Activities

Product Added To Your Cart

There are 0 Items In Your Cart

Total Price: $0.00

Compare Product

• WV App Login
• Site Search
• Report Templates
• Speech Helpers
• SLP Resources
• Top 10 Tips
• Getting an Eval
• Certified SLP
• How to Say the R Sound
• 0-18 Months
• 18-36 Months
• 18-30 Months
• 30-36 Months
• 10-11 Years
• Articulation
• Cleft Palate
• Phonological
• Dysphagia Causes
• Dysphagia Treatment

134 WH Questions for Speech Therapy Practice

As promised here are the words for your unlimited use .

If you know others who can use our lists ...

... please share this page using our site share buttons.

Explore Our Goal Reaching, Client Centered Products

SEE ALSO:  Speech Therapy Activities for WH Questions

Wh questions.

• When do we sleep? (at night)
• When do we eat breakfast? (in the morning)
• When do we take a bath? (when we're dirty or before bed)
• When do we wear sunglasses? (when it's sunny outside)
• When do we put on a bandaid? (when we're cut or bleeding)
• When do we use an umbrella? (when it's raining)
• When do we need to wear a coat? (when it's cold outside)
• When do we wear a swimming suit? (when going to the beach/swimming)
• When do we wear a seatbelt? (when riding in a car)
• When do we turn on a flashlight? (when it is dark)
• When did you last see a doctor?
• When was the last time you went swimming?
• When was the last time you played at a friend's house?
• When did you go on your last vacation?
• When was the last time you went out to dinner?
• Who puts out fires? (firefighter)
• Who do we go see when we're sick? (doctor)
• Who takes care of animals at the zoo? (zookeeper)
• Who teaches kids at school? (teacher)
• Who delivers mail? (mailman / mailwoman)
• Who checks our teeth for cavities? (dentist) 
• Who helps people in the store? (clerk)
• Who takes care of sick animals? (veterinarian)
• Who has a job of cutting people's hair? (hairdresser or barber)
• Who flies an airplane? (pilot)
• Why do we put gas in a car?
• Why does a giraffe have a long neck?
• Why do we mow the grass?
• Why do we wear sunglasses?
• Why do we take a bath?
• Why do we use an umbrella?
• Why does a bird have wings?
• Why do we have teeth?
• Why do we wear shoes?
• Why do children go to school?

SEE ALSO:   The Best Free App for Speech Therapy

• What can we wear on our back? (backpack / book bag)
• What do bees make (that we can eat)? (honey)
• What do dogs like to chew on? (bones)
• What do we need when it rains (to keep us dry)? (umbrella)
• What do we wear on our feet? (shoes or socks)
• What do cows give us (that we can drink)? (milk)
• What do spiders build? (web)
• What is a lawn mower for? (cutting grass)
• What do we use for eating cereal? (spoon)
• What does a red light mean? (stop)
• What reason did you last see a doctor?
• What do you like to do best when you get home from school?
• What was the most fun you ever had?
• What is one gift you have received in the last year?
• What does your house look like?
• What is the most foolish/silly thing you have ever done?
• What is the funniest thing that has ever happened to you?
• What is the best meal you've ever eaten?
• What makes you feel happy?
• What is the nicest thing you've ever done for someone else?
• What did you watch on TV last week?
• What things make you laugh?
• What is the loudest noise you've ever heard?
• What do you usually think about just before going to sleep at night?
• What things do some people do that you do not like?
• Where does milk come from? (cows)
• Where do horses, pigs, and sheep live? (farm)
• Where do we put a hat? (on our head)/
• Where do we go to buy food? (store)
• Where do you sleep? (in a bed)
• Where do we see clouds? (in the sky)
• Where do we put toothpaste? (on our toothbrush)
• Where do fish live? (in water)
• Where do we plants seeds? (in the ground / dirt)
• Where does a bird lay eggs? (in a nest)
• Where can we play? (outside / playground)
• Where do shoes and socks go? (closet)
• Where do a king and queen live? (castle / palace)
• Where can we see monkeys, bears, and elephants? (zoo)
• Where do bats live? (caves)
• Where do we go to learn ABC's? (school)
• Where do we bake cookies? (kitchen)
• Where do we keep milk and butter? (refrigerator)
• Where can we sit? (chair / bench / seat)
• Where do we put peanut butter? (on bread / lettuce)
• Where was the last place you went swimming?
• Where was the last place you went out to dinner?

This list of functional words was  professionally selected to be the most useful  for a child or adult who has difficulty with this language principle.

We encourage you to use this list when practicing at home.

Home practice will make progress toward meeting individual language goals much faster.

Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) are only able to see students/clients 30-60 mins (or less) per week.

This is not enough time  or practice for someone to strengthen their understanding of this important language concept.

Every day that your loved one goes without practice  it becomes more difficult  to help them. 

SEE ALSO:   The Best Books for Speech Therapy Practice

We know life is busy , but if you're reading this you're probably someone who cares about helping their loved one as much as you can.

Practice 5-10 minutes whenever you can, but try to do it on a consistent basis (daily).

Please, please, please use this list to practice.

It will be a great benefit to you and your loved one's progress.

Freebies, Activities, and Specials, Oh My! Sign up for Terrific Therapy Activity Emails

See Past Email Examples

Your information is 100% private & never shared .

Hi! We're Luke and Hollie.

We are both MS CCC-SLPs and fell in love while studying for our degrees. Since then we have done everything together - graduated, worked, and started a family. We spend most of our time with our family and the rest making this site for you.

Top Free Resources

Word Vault Essential

# 1 Chronological Age Calculator

Popular Materials

All in one printable flashcards.

Multiple Meaning Word Mega Pack

Complete Articulation Word Search

New! 111 Articulation Stories

Teaching the Sound Books

Multi-Syllabic Words Flashcards

Apps to Save You Time & Help Your Clients

Articulation therapy + pirate adventures = awesomeness.

This App Will Get Your Kids Talking

Image Credits

Copyright © 2010 –

HomeSpeechHome.com | All Rights Reserved

This website contains affiliate links, meaning if you buy something from them we may make some money (at no cost to you). By using our affiliate links, you are helping to support our site which is a U.S.-based, family-run small business :)

Any call to action with a link here?

50 Perfect (and Practical) Why Questions for Speech Therapy- Plus Activities

If you are a speech-language pathologist searching for why questions speech therapy lists and activities, check out this blog post! Many children in speech therapy address wh- questions as a way to target receptive and expressive language skills. Learning how to ask and answer WH questions is a key part of language development. Why questions occur in daily conversations, during explicit instruction, while watching movies or tv, when reading, or in the classroom. This article lists different types of WH questions. It also provides ideas for targeting why questions, a list of 50 free why questions to use during a speech therapy session, and 5 recommended why questions speech therapy activities. 

This post contains affiliate links, which means we could receive a commission if you click a link and purchase something that we have recommended.

‘Wh’ Question Words

There are different types of questions that can be asked that are considered ‘wh’ question words.

Here is a list:

WH questions can be basic or more complex.

Students might benefit from visuals to help them remember how to ask or answer wh questions.

For example, a picture of a person could be a visual reminder for a ‘who’ question, whereas a picture of a watch or calendar could represent ‘when’ questions.

​Scroll down to the “wh question visuals” for more specific examples.

Students might also benefit from picture-supported answer choices when learning how to answer WH questions.

Some students may need to focus on specific wh question words in speech therapy. For example, in one session, an SLP might focus exclusively on “why” question words.

The Different Types of WH Questions

There are different types of wh questions that SLPs might target in speech therapy. The question type targeted will depend on the individual student’s needs.

These can include (but are not limited to) the following:

• Yes/ No questions. A speech-language pathologist might ask, “Do you like the color pink?”
• Function questions. For example, SLPs targeting the skill of object function might ask, “What do you use a pencil for?”
• Hypothetical questions. A speech therapist might ask a child a hypothetical question such as, “Why might people want to live on Mars?”
• Open-Ended questions. SLPs might ask open-ended questions in therapy such as, “What did you do at school today?” These are often not the easiest questions to answer!
• Cause-and-effect questions. Speech-language pathologists often ask cause-and-effect questions in therapy. “Why did Sally take medicine?” These can be paired with causal conjunctions, such as  because ,  so , and  since . 
• Compare and contrast questions. A speech pathologist might ask a student to compare and contrast two characters in a story.
• Information Questions. An SLP might ask a student, “What is your favorite food?”
• ‘Pros and Cons’ Questions. Speech pathologists might ask students what the pros and cons are for a particular topic or event.

WH-Question Visuals

It can be beneficial to use visuals when targeting WH questions. 

SLPs might wish to pair a picture or image with a specific type of wh question word. 

Here are some possibilities:

• WHO: Use a picture of a person
• WHAT: Pair with a thing or an object, such as a box
• WHEN: Use something to represent time, such as a clock, watch, or calendar
• WHY: Pair with boxes and an arrow to represent a reason
• WHERE: Try a picture of a map, globe, or other place 
• HOW: Try using boxes to represent sequencing an event or activity

Ideas for Targeting Why Questions in Speech Therapy

There are many ways to target why questions in speech therapy!

Here are just a few ideas.

• Pair ‘why’ questions with a story read aloud. Check out questions 39-50 on the list below, and here is a  list of my favorite books to use in speech therapy .
• Want to use picture scenes or pictures to target why questions? This  Little Humans  book might be worth a try!
• Check out this magnetic wand and chips  conjunctions activity  that specifically addresses answering ‘why’ questions using complex sentences.
• Ask ‘why’ questions during or after a  simple science experiment . 
• Do your students like cooking or  making fun snacks ? Pair this activity easily with ‘why’ questions. 
• Go on a walk around the school while asking and answering ‘why’ questions.
• Research a variety of careers with your students. Have them think of ‘why’ questions they might ask a person in that career field. Perhaps another student could prepare possible answers to these questions.
• Answer why questions after reading short stories about specific events. I like news stories for kids, such as  Time for Kids .
• Check out National Geographic for Kid’s  history section  for some exciting articles that could be used in therapy.

Why Questions for Speech Therapy

Looking for why questions speech therapy lists? Here is a list of why questions that can provide a starting point for basic questions and higher-level complex why questions for therapy. These why questions may be beneficial for students with language disorders. 

The type of question asked will depend on the special needs of each child and a child’s ability to answer questions. SLPs may wish to pair these questions with a visual cue or some form of visual support that will help the child provide an appropriate response. 

Need more free wh questions? Check out these  ‘what’ questions for speech therapy .

• Why do we sleep at night?
• Why do we eat food?
• Why do we wash our hands before we eat?
• Why do we brush our teeth?
• Why do we use an umbrella?
• Why do we say “please” and “thank you”?
• Why do we wear mittens?
• Why do we wear boots?
• Why do we read books?
• Why do we wear coats?
• Why do we wear scarves?
• Why do we go to the grocery store?
• Why do we go to the dentist?
• Why do we go to the doctor?
• Why do we study for tests?
• Why do we do our homework?
• Why do we go on walks?
• Why do we share our toys?
• Why do we listen quietly when a teacher is talking?
• Why do we walk in a line in the hallway?
• Why do we have watches?
• Why do some people wear glasses?
• Why do some people wear hearing aids?
• Why do we go to the library?
• Why do we ride on a bus?
• Why do we fly in an airplane?
• Why do we mow the lawn?
• Why do we rake the leaves?
• Why do we carve pumpkins?
• Why do we have erasers?
• Why do we use microwaves?
• Why do we take naps?
• Why do we eat breakfast?
• Why do we fruits and vegetables?
• Why do we use a map?
• Why do we use a calculator?
• Why do we turn the volume down?
• Why do we turn a light on?
• Why did the main character decide to…?
• Why did the main character feel…?
• Why did the character say…?
• Why did that event happen?
• Why is …. important to this story?
• Why did (character) go to (place)?
• Why did (character) feel (emotion) when (event)?
• Why did (character) try to (action)?
• Why  wouldn’t  (character) (action)?
• Why  shouldn’t  (character) (action)?
• Why is it always important to…? 
• Why do you think there is (current event)?

WHY Questions Speech Therapy Activities

Are you looking why questions speech therapy activities? 

Check out these recommended different activities that address wh-questions for speech therapy! They provide easy ways to target asking and answering wh-questions in speech therapy.

Basic WHY Question Firefly Activity

This  firefly-themed speech therapy activity  targets answering basic who, what, when, where, and why questions. It is a wonderful choice for speech therapy and special education students.

It incorporates dough smash mat strips. The dough smash mats contain a field of 2 picture-supported answer choices.

After your student answers a basic why question, he or she can smash play dough on the smash mat in order to make the firefly “light up”.

WH Questions Digital Task Cards

Need a quick no-print activity to use with your students?

These  WH Question Digital Task Cards  provide a simple static display screen. 

Your student answers each wh question. 

Each question provides two picture-supported answer choices.

 After answering, you simply tap or click “next” as you build a pizza!

Valerie M reviewed, “I was able to use this activity to help engage and keep the attention of my students.  It was a great tool to use with them when practicing “wh” questions.”

Answering Why Questions using Causal Conjunctions

Are your students working on creating complex sentences?

 If so, this causal conjunctions speech therapy activity is a great way to target both answering why questions  and  creating complex sentences!

This resource is fantastic because it provides an example right in front of the student.

They get multiple trials to practice each type of causal conjunction.

Each page lists 6 ‘why’ cause-and-effect questions.

Your student will answer using a complete sentence.

I like to provide a written sentence starter for them on a dry-erase board: “____________________ because _________________________.”

Ashley M reviewed, “This resource is perfect for my students working on creating complex sentences! Learning to use conjunctions can be tricky, but this resource provides a clear way to target this skill!”

Historical WH-Questions and Main Idea

This fun  history-themed comprehension and main idea resource  provides short informational passages to read with your students about a variety of historical topics.

Speech-language pathologists can target answering comprehension questions and identifying the main idea with students.

Your students can discuss topics such as ancient Egypt, Tudor England, the American Revolutionary War, the Titanic, and World War II.

This speech therapy activity includes 5 historical-themed- themed informational passages. 

Each informational passage contains a page for comprehension questions and a page for stating the main idea and details. 

These activity sheets are perfect for mixed groups! 

Lauren R, SLP, reviewed, “I love this resource. I have used it a lot to work on identifying the main idea, comprehension, and finding details. I have even learned so much from these. We have looked up the areas on the map. I will continue to use this all the time.”

Travel-Themed Main Idea and Comprehension Passages

Although these engaging travel-themed speech therapy informational passages do not specifically focus on  only  ‘why’ questions, they do offer wonderful practice opportunities for answering wh-questions and finding the main idea and details.

4 passages are included, and your students will learn about Greece, Kenya, Jamaica, and the Netherlands.

Try pairing these activity sheets with dough or  magnetic chips  to make the lesson even more engaging!

Pear Tree Speech reviewed, “My older elementary students love these! The playdough mats keep them engaged throughout the activity. I really like how the information is split into four parts. It gives me a good opportunity to pause and talk about what we learned for each part.”

In summary, this article provided a list of 50 free why questions for speech therapy. Simply scroll up to access the questions.

SLPs may also be interested in this list of  free what questions for speech therapy . 

Need a great why questions speech therapy activity to try with your students?

Here is a list of 5 recommended wh question activities:

• Play Dough WH Questions Firefly Activity
• Digital WH Questions Activity
• Causal Conjunctions Magnetic Wand and Chips Activity
• Historical WH-Questions and Main Idea Activity
• Travel-Themed WH-Questions and Main Idea Activity 

Similar Posts

Best speech therapy games for elementary school.

Looking for speech therapy games to motivate your upper elementary school students? This age range is past the “babyish” stage, but most upper elementary school students definitely still love PLAYING while working on speech and language goals! Games don’t just need to be reserved for your preschoolers! Games can help keep our older students motivated…

Here’s How To Teach Multisyllabic Words in Speech Therapy

Younger children with speech sound disorders may have trouble saying multi-syllabic words. This may be the result of motor planning or phonological difficulties. Longer words can be more challenging to say. Speech-language pathologists might therefore wish to select multisyllabic targets during speech therapy sessions. A multisyllabic word list for speech therapy is included in this…

R Words for Speech Therapy (Lists and Activities)

Looking for R words for speech therapy? Speech-language pathologists looking for a quick list of initial r words, medial r, and final r target words to practice during speech therapy, make sure to bookmark this post. You’ll also find some great ideas for making r therapy more effective with a variety of engaging games, articulation…

Children’s Books for Speech Therapy: The Ultimate List

If you are a speech-language pathologist searching for the best children’s books for speech therapy, check out this blog post! Using books during speech therapy sessions provide a fun way to target articulation and language goals. This article explains why SLPs might use children’s books in speech therapy. Additionally, it provides suggestions for how to…

Read This Quick List of 9 Neither Nor Sentences Examples

Are you a speech-language pathologist, intervention specialist, or teacher searching for neither nor sentences examples? This blog post defines correlative conjunctions. It provides example sentences using a variety of different correlative conjunctions, as well as different ideas for teaching conjunctions. Understanding how to use conjunctions isn’t just important for formal writing skills. This is an…

Here Are 2 Simple Main Idea Examples Paragraph (+ Activities)

Are you a speech-language pathologist or teacher teaching the main idea of a passage to your students? Understanding the main idea of a paragraph is an important skill for language development. This blog post explains the components of a main idea passage and provides a main idea examples paragraph.  It is important to teach the…