Nuffield Early Language Intervention (20 weeks)
The Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) (20 weeks) is an oral language programme. It is a targeted programme for children between the ages of 4 and 6. It is delivered in the first year of primary school (reception).
The programme is targeted at children who show weakness in their oral language skills and are, therefore, at risk of experiencing difficulty in education.
The intervention is delivered by trained teaching assistants. Sessions focus on improving children’s vocabulary, developing narrative skills, encouraging active listening and building confidence in independent speaking.
EIF Programme Assessment
Child outcomes
This programme can affect outcomes for children in Active and healthy, physical and mental wellbeing.
According to the best available evidence for this programme's impact, it can achieve the following positive outcomes for children:
Enhancing school achievement & employment
Improved oral language
based on study 1
- Statement: Increase in oral language ability (measured using a composite of vocabulary, grammar, and listening scales)
- Score: 8
- Timeframe: Immediately after the intervention
- Statement: Increase in oral language ability (measured using a composite of vocabulary, grammar, and listening scales
- Score: 8
- Timeframe: 6 months later
based on study 2
Improved taught vocabulary
based on study 1
- Statement: 3.22-point improvement on the picture naming task
- Score: 35
- Timeframe: Immediately after the intervention
- Statement: 1.94-point improvement on the picture naming task
- Score: 23
- Timeframe: 6 months later
based on study 3
based on study 1
- Statement: 1.67-point improvement on the definition asking task
- Score: 17
- Timeframe: Immediately after intervention
- Statement: 1.17-point improvement on the definition asking task
- Score: 12
- Timeframe: 6 months later
Improved expressive grammar
based on study 3
Improved early reading
based on study 2
This programme also has evidence of supporting positive outcomes for couples, parents or families that may be relevant to a commissioning decision. Please see About the evidence for more detail.
Who is it for?
The best available evidence for this programme relates to the following age-groups:
Primary school
How is it delivered?
The best available evidence for this programme relates to implementation through these delivery models:
- Individual
- Group
Where is it delivered?
The best available evidence for this programme relates to its implementation in these settings:
- Primary school
How is it targeted?
The best available evidence for this programme relates to its implementation as:
- Targeted indicated
Where has it been implemented?
- United Kingdom
Ireland provision
Ireland evaluation
About the programme
What happens during the delivery?
How is it delivered?
- Nuffield Early Language Intervention (20 weeks) is delivered by one trained teaching assistant in 100 sessions, comprising three 30-minute group sessions (to groups of 3–5 children) and two 15-minute individual sessions each week.
What happens during the intervention?
- The mixture of small group and individual sessions focus on improving children’s vocabulary, developing narrative skills, encouraging active listening and building confidence in independent speaking.
- In the second half of the programme, activities promoting phonological awareness and letter-sound knowledge are introduced.
- Children develop their vocabulary and language skills within a structured framework that follows established principles for teaching listening, vocabulary and narrative.
- Narrative work gives children the opportunity to practise taught vocabulary in connected speech and introduces them to key story elements and the sequencing of events while encouraging expressive language and grammatical competence.
What are the implementation requirements?
Who can deliver it?
- The practitioner who delivers this programme is a teaching assistant with NFQ-5 level qualifications.
What are the training requirements?
- Practitioners have two days of programme training. Booster training of practitioners is not required.
How are the practitioners supervised?
- Practitioner supervision is not required.
What are the systems for maintaining fidelity?
Programme fidelity is maintained through the following processes:
- Training manual
- Other printed material
- Face-to-face training.
Is there a licensing requirement?
There is no licence required to run this programme.
How does it work? (Theory of Change)
How does it work?
- Oral language skills are a critical foundation for educational success as well as for wider psycho-social wellbeing.
- This targeted intervention improves the oral language skills of children entering school with poor language.
- In the short term, children improve both expressive and receptive language skills.
- In the longer term, lasting improvements in oral language places the children at lower risk of reading failure and enables them to benefit fully from their education.
Intended outcomes
- Active and healthy, physical and mental wellbeing
- Achieving in all areas of learning and development
Contact details
Professor Charles Hulme
University of Oxford
charles.hulme@education.ox.ac.uk
http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/nuffield-earlylanguage-intervention
https://services.elklan.co.uk/neli
https://global.oup.com/education/content/primary/series/nuffield-intervention/?region=uk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10q6WMFnmzo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTrCEaW52Jw
About the evidence
Nuffield Early Language Intervention (20 weeks) has evidence from at least one rigorously conducted RCT along with evidence from an additional comparison group study.
Consequently, the programme receives a 3+ rating overall.
Study 1
| Citation: | Fricke et al., 2017 and Sibieta, Kotecha, & Skipp, 2016 |
| Design: | RCT |
| Country: | United Kingdom |
| Sample: | 394 pupils with an average age of 3.8 years and standardised language scores in the low-average range. 49% were female and 29% were eligible for free school meals. |
| Timing: | Post-test; 6-month follow-up |
| Child outcomes: |
|
| Other outcomes: | |
| Study rating: | 3 |
Fricke, S., Burgoyne, K., Bowyer-Crane, C., Kyriacou, M., Zosimodou, A., Maxwell, L., Lervåg, A., Snowling, M.J., Hulme, C. (2017). The efficacy of early language intervention in mainstream school settings: a randomized control trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58:10, 1141–1151.
Available at:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcpp.12737
Sibieta, L., Kotecha, M., & Skipp, A. (2016). Nuffield Early Language Intervention: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation.
Available at:
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581138
Study design and sample
This study is a rigorously conducted RCT.
This study involved random assignment of children to Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) (20 weeks), a 30-week version of NELI and a waiting control group.
This study was conducted in the UK, with a sample of children who showed weakness in their oral language skills. The sample recruited had standardised language scores in the low-average range with a high proportion having clinically significant language difficulties. The average age of the full sample was 3.8 years, 49% were female and 29% were eligible for free school meals.
Measures
- Oral language was measured using a composite measure consisting of vocabulary, grammatical and listening comprehension tests (direct assessment). These included, for vocabulary: the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF) Expressive Vocabulary subtest, the Information Score from the Renfrew Action Picture Test (APT) and the British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS); for grammar: the CELF Sentence Structure subtest and the APT Grammar Score; for listening comprehension, children were asked to listen to two short stories adapted from the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (YARC) and answer questions about them.
- Taught vocabulary was measured by using picture naming and asking children for definitions of words, based on a random selection of the vocabulary taught during the programmes (direct assessment).
- Early literacy skills were measured using the Letter-Sound Knowledge subtest from the YARC (direct assessment).
- Word-level reading: Word level reading accuracy was measured using the YARC Early Word Reading subtest (direct assessment).
- Reading comprehension was assessed using two beginner passages from the YARC Passage Reading test (direct assessment).
Findings (for NELI 20 weeks)
This study identified statistically significant positive impact on a number of child outcomes.
This includes:
- Oral language (at post-test and at 6-month follow-up)
- Taught vocabulary (at post-test and at 6-month follow-up).
Study 2
| Citation: | Dimova et al., 2020 |
| Design: | RCT |
| Country: | United Kingdom |
| Sample: | 1,156 children aged 4-5. 34% were eligible for free school meals. |
| Timing: | Post-test |
| Child outcomes: |
|
| Other outcomes: |
|
| Study rating: | 3 |
Dimova, S., Ilie, S., Brown, E. R., Broeks, M., Culora, A., & Sutherland, A. (2020). The Nuffield Early Language Intervention: Evaluation Report.
Available at:
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/projects-and-evaluation/projects/nuffield-early-language-intervention-1/
Study design and sample
This study is a rigorously conducted RCT.
It involved random assignment of children to an oral language group (the Nuffield Early Language Intervention) and a control group (business as usual and, as an incentive, financial compensation of £1,000). This study was conducted in the UK with a sample of children who were aged between 4 and 5.
Measures
- Oral language was measured using a composite measure consisting of vocabulary and grammatical tests (direct assessment). These included, for vocabulary: the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF) Expressive Vocabulary subtest and Recalling sentences subtest, and the Information Score from the Renfrew Action Picture Test (APT). For grammar, these included: the Grammar subtest from the Renfrew Action Picture Test (APT).
- Early reading was measured using the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (YARC) early word reading test.
Findings
This study identified statistically significant positive impact on a number of child outcomes. This includes:
- Improved oral language skills
- Improved early reading skills
Study 3
| Citation: | Bowyer‐Crane et al., 2008 |
| Design: | RCT |
| Country: | United Kingdom |
| Sample: | 160 children aged 4.09 years on average with poor oral language skills. |
| Timing: | Post-test; 6-month follow-up |
| Child outcomes: |
|
| Other outcomes: | |
| Study rating: | 2 |
Bowyer‐Crane, Claudine, et al. (2008) "Improving early language and literacy skills: Differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49, 4, 422-432.
Available at:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01849.x
Study design and sample
This study is an RCT.
It involved random assignment of children to an oral language group (the Nuffield Early Language Intervention) and a Phonology with Reading programme group. This study was conducted in the UK with a sample of children who were aged 4.09 years on average and showed weakness in their oral language skills. 50% of the overall sample was female and 50% was male. 24% of the overall sample was eligible for free school meals.
Measures
Phonological measures
- Phoneme awareness was measured using the initial phoneme detection component of the Sound Isolation Task (direct assessment).
- Phoneme Completion was measured using the Phonological Abilities Test (direct assessment).
- Children’s ability to segment and blend words was measured using Phoneme Blending, Segmentation and Deletion tasks from the Test of Phonological Awareness (direct assessment).
Language measures
- Expressive grammar was assessed using The Action Picture Test (direct assessment).
- Narrative skill was measured using The Bus Story test (direct assessment).
- Specific (taught) vocabulary was measured by assessing knowledge of words taught directly in the oral language programme (NELI), using a combination of picture naming and questions requiring one-word answers (direct assessment). Note that this outcome demonstrates that the programme taught the words it was designed to teach. However, we do not know whether this was enough to improve overall vocabulary as a general measure of vocabulary was not administered.
- Listening comprehension was assessed using recordings of stories taken from the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability II (direct assessment).
Literacy measures
- Letter identification was measured by asking children to identify by sound the letters in the English alphabet (direct assessment).
- Single word reading ability was measured using the Early Word Recognition Test, and the British Ability Scales II Word Reading scale for children scoring about a certain threshold (direct assessment).
- Reading comprehension was measured by asking children to read two short stories: the Level 1 passage taken from Form 1 of the NARA II, and Passage 1, Form 1 from the Gray Oral Reading Tests 4 (direct assessment).
- Prose reading accuracy was measured using the reading comprehension test (direct assessment).
- Nonword Reading was measured using the Graded Nonword Reading Test (a measure of decoding) (direct assessment).
- Spelling was measured by presenting children with five words as pictures to be named and spelled (direct assessment).
Behavioural measure
- Behaviour was measured using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (teacher / teaching assistant report).
Findings
This study identified statistically significant positive impact on a number of child outcomes.
The oral language (NELI) group performed significantly better than the Phonology with Reading group on the following outcomes:
- Specific (taught) vocabulary at post-test and follow up
- Expressive grammar at post-test and follow up (however, this result was no longer significant at post-test when social class was controlled for)
The Phonology with Reading group performed significantly better than the oral language group on the following outcomes:
- Phoneme blending, segmentation, deletion at post-test
- Letter identification at post-test and follow-up
- Prose reading accuracy at post-test
- Nonword reading at follow-up
- Spelling at post-test and follow-up.
The conclusions that can be drawn from this study are limited by methodological issues pertaining to unequivalent groups at baseline and a lack of clarity in terms of equivalence between groups after attrition, hence why a higher rating is not achieved.