Planning Abilities in Bilingual and Monolingual Children: Role of Verbal Mediation

Abstract

We examined the role of verbal mediation in planning performance of English–Spanish-speaking bilingual children and monolingual English-speaking children, between the ages of 9 and 12 years. To measure planning, children were administered the Tower of London (ToL) task. In a dual-task paradigm, children completed ToL problems under three conditions: with no secondary task (baseline), with articulatory suppression, and with non-verbal motor suppression. Analyses revealed generally shorter planning times for bilinguals than monolinguals but both groups performed similarly on number of moves and execution times. Additionally, bilingual children were more efficient at planning throughout the duration of the task while monolingual children showed significant gains with more practice. Children’s planning times under articulatory suppression were significantly shorter than under motor suppression as well as the baseline condition, and there was no difference in planning times between monolingual and bilingual children during articulatory suppression. These results demonstrate that bilingualism influences performance on a complex EF measure like planning, and that these effects are not related to verbal mediation.

The Relationship Between Language and Planning in Children With Language Impairment

“…As would be expected, articulatory suppression has been shown to affect EF performance (Gangopadhyay et al, 2018;Taylor, Maybery, & Whitehouse, 2012;Williams et al, 2016). Fatzer and Roebers (2012), for instance, found a significant detrimental effect of articulatory suppression on a WM task relative to the motor suppression and no secondary tasks in 9-year-olds and a marginal effect in 6-year-olds.…”

“…In our study, children with SLI with relatively better language ability spent less time planning-likely drawing on perceptual abilities of planning tasks rather than verbal abilities during planning time prior to execution of planning tasks (Kaller et al, 2008). Prior work links nonlinguistic strategies with performance on visuospatial planning tasks, which may explain the level of accuracy achieved by these children (Eichorn, Marton, Campanelli, & Scheurer, 2014;Gangopadhyay et al, 2018;Holland & Low, 2010). Conversely, children with SLI with relatively poorer language ability spent more time planning-possibly perseverating on using verbal strategies.…”

“…Articulatory suppression is presumed to disrupt language-based reflection, or verbal mediation, while motor suppression is presumed to control for the added cognitive demands of the secondary verbal task. Comparing EF performance between these conditions can reveal the influence of language on EF performance as distinct from a general increase in cognitive demand due to the secondary task (Gangopadhyay, MacDonald, Ellis Weismer, & Kaushanskaya, 2018;Holland & Low, 2010;Lidstone et al, 2010;Williams, Peng, & Wallace, 2016).…”

“…Lidstone et al (2012) used a global measure of percentage of accurately solved trials rather than directly measuring number of moves. On the other hand, studies that focus on planning performance often use consistent task difficulty (e.g., four-move problems); additional, more sensitive measures (e.g., number of moves and planning and execution time); and standard ToL administration (Gangopadhyay et al, 2018;Marton, 2008).…”

“…We selected trials for which the problem may be solved using exactly four moves with three differently colored beads and three pegs. This level of difficulty is age appropriate for our participants (Gangopadhyay et al, 2018;Kaller, Rahm, Spreer, Mader, & Unterrainer, 2008;Lidstone et al, 2012), and consistent difficulty level is associated with more optimal performance measurement (Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005). We normed 22 unique four-move problems on adults to ensure consistent difficulty level across trials.…”