The Research Behind Speakli
Speakli is a communication practice platform - not a licensed clinical treatment. Our design is informed by decades of peer-reviewed research on how children develop communication skills and what kinds of practice most reliably strengthen them. We are transparent about what the evidence says, what it doesn't say, and where our approach departs from what has been clinically trialed.
For each source below we include a short verbatim excerpt - taken directly from the publisher's abstract or from the ASHA Practice Portal page. Every excerpt names the exact section of the source it comes from, and every journal article links to a free, paywall-free abstract as well as its DOI. Where a source only partly fits our use, we say so in a scope note. Where a source's own conclusion cuts against us, we quote that too.
Every citation on this page was last checked against the published source on August 2026.
A note on evidence levels. ASHA's evidence hierarchy (Levels Ia–IV) applies specifically to studies of treatment efficacy in communication disorders. Only three of the sources below carry an ASHA level, because only three are the kind of study the hierarchy was built for. The rest are labelled with what they actually are: two ASHA clinical reference pages, a meta-analysis from education research, a motor-learning tutorial, a small single-subject study, a study of typical language development, a set of curriculum standards, and two speech-assessment instruments. Those sources tell you where our design and our feedback categories come from. They are not evidence that Speakli works, and we do not present them as such.
Conversational practice as a skill-building method
The core of Speakli is structured conversational practice: a child engages in a guided conversation, then receives detailed feedback. This structure reflects intervention designs that have an evidence base in speech-language pathology - while noting throughout that that evidence concerns practice guided by human therapists and teachers, not AI-guided practice.
Pico, D. L., Hessling Prahl, A., Biel, C. H., Peterson, A. K., Biel, E. J., Woods, C., & Contesse, V. A. (2021). Interventions designed to improve narrative language in school-age children: A systematic review with meta-analyses. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(4), 1109–1126. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_LSHSS-20-00160
“Our systematic search yielded 40 studies that included one or more narrative language outcomes as part of their assessment battery… The meta-analyses of 26 studies indicated overall positive effects of the interventions, with effect sizes of d = 0.51 and 0.54 in the group design studies and d = 1.24 in the SCD studies.”Where to find it: Results section, sentences 1 and 4 (first quote); Conclusions section, sentence 2 (second quote).
“Some common characteristics across these interventions include manualized curricula, opportunities to produce narrative language, verbal and visual supports, direct instruction of story grammar, and use of authentic children's literature.”
A 2021 meta-analysis in an ASHA journal covering 40 studies of narrative-language intervention with school-age children. It finds positive effects on both narrative production and comprehension, and lists “opportunities to produce narrative language” among the features shared by effective programmes - the closest published analogue to what Speakli asks a child to do.
Scope note: the review covers preschool and elementary-age children in the United States, so it reaches only the youngest part of Speakli's 8–18 range. Every included study used human-delivered instruction. “SCD” means single-case design; those effect sizes are computed differently from group designs and are not directly comparable to them.
Adams, C., Lockton, E., Freed, J., Gaile, J., Earl, G., McBean, K., Nash, M., Green, J., Vail, A., & Law, J. (2012). The Social Communication Intervention Project: A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of speech and language therapy for school-age children who have pragmatic and social communication problems with or without autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(3), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00146.x
Free abstract: PubMed PMID 22512510
“No significant treatment effect was found for the primary outcome measure of structural language ability or for a measure of narrative ability. Significant treatment effects were found for blind-rated perceptions of conversational competence, for parent-reported measures of pragmatic functioning and social communication, and for teacher-reported ratings of classroom learning skills.”Where to find it: Results section, complete (first quote); Conclusions section, sentence 1 (second quote).
“There is some evidence of an intervention effect on blind and parent/teacher-reported communication outcomes, but not standardized language assessment outcomes.”
A single-blind randomised controlled trial of 88 children aged 5;11–10;8 - the closest age match to the younger half of Speakli's range, and the strongest study design, of anything we cite. Targeted therapy for pragmatic and social communication difficulties improved independently rated conversational competence and parent- and teacher-reported communication.
Scope note: we quote the null result on purpose. Structural language and narrative scores did not move. That is the honest shape of what conversational practice does - it changes how competently a child converses, not their score on a standardized language test, and we make no claim that Speakli raises test scores. The intervention was up to 20 sessions delivered by a specialist speech and language therapist, not by software, and participants were children with identified pragmatic and social communication needs.
Cirrin, F. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2008). Language intervention practices for school-age children with spoken language disorders: A systematic review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39(1), S110–S137. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/012)
Free abstract: PubMed PMID 18162642
“Eleven of the studies limited participants to children in kindergarten and first grade, and no studies were located that focused on students in middle grades or high school. The relatively high quality of the studies that met our criteria, and the moderate-to-high effect sizes we calculated for the majority of studies, suggests that clinicians can have some confidence in the specific language intervention practices examined.”Where to find it: Results section, sentences 2–3 (first quote); Conclusion section, sentence 1 (second quote).
“The fact that only 21 studies met our criteria means that there is relatively little evidence supporting the language intervention practices that are currently being used with school-age children with language disorders.”
A systematic review in an ASHA journal covering 21 school-age language-intervention studies, reporting moderate-to-high effect sizes and “some confidence” in the practices examined.
Scope note: we quote the authors' own conclusion because it cuts against us. They judge that there is “relatively little evidence” behind the language intervention practices currently used with school-age children, and that no study they found covered middle- or high-school students. The school-age evidence base is real but thin. We would rather you read that sentence here than discover it after clicking through.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Spoken Language Disorders [Practice Portal]. Retrieved 2026. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/spoken-language-disorders/
“The scope of this Practice Portal page is limited to spoken language disorders (listening and speaking) manifested in preschool and school-age children (3–21 years old) who use oral modes of communication.”Where to find it: Overview section, opening sentence of the page.
ASHA's authoritative clinical synthesis frames listening and speaking as the core oral-language domains for children aged 3–21 - the band that includes Speakli's users. It anchors the vocabulary and structure our practice targets in a recognised clinical reference. (This is a professional clinical resource, not itself a graded efficacy study.)
How we give feedback - detailed, and after the session
Two separate design choices sit behind Speakli's feedback: it is detailed rather than a simple score or a “well done”, and it arrives once the session ends rather than interrupting the conversation. Different literatures inform each, and neither is drawn from research on children's conversational practice specifically.
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
Free full text: PubMed Central PMC6987456
“Overall results based on a random-effects model indicate a medium effect (d = 0.48) of feedback on student learning, but the significant heterogeneity in the data shows that feedback cannot be understood as a single consistent form of treatment. A moderator analysis revealed that the impact is substantially influenced by the information content conveyed.”Where to find it: abstract, sentences 2–3.
“Feedback is more effective the more information it contains. Simple forms of reinforcement and punishment have low effects, while high-information feedback is most effective.”Where to find it: Discussion, under the subheading “Effects of Different Forms of Feedback”. We flag this because it is body text, not the abstract.
A meta-analysis of 435 studies, 994 effect sizes and more than 61,000 participants. It finds a medium overall effect of feedback on learning, and - more usefully for us - that detailed, information-rich feedback substantially outperforms simple praise or scores. This is the basis for Speakli giving a child specific observations about their speaking rather than a rating.
Scope note: this is education research on student learning generally, not speech-language pathology, so ASHA's treatment-evidence levels do not apply to it. It supports the content of our feedback - detailed beats simple - and says nothing about when feedback should be delivered. The authors also stress that feedback “cannot be understood as a single consistent form of treatment”: effects varied widely, and feedback is not automatically beneficial.
Austermann Hula, S. N., Robin, D. A., Maas, E., Ballard, K. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (2008). Effects of feedback frequency and timing on acquisition, retention, and transfer of speech skills in acquired apraxia of speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(5), 1088–1113. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/06-0042)
Free abstract: PubMed PMID 18728115
“Motor-learning research shows that delaying or reducing the frequency of feedback promotes retention and transfer of skills. By contrast, immediate or frequent feedback promotes temporary performance enhancement but interferes with retention and transfer.”Where to find it: Purpose section, sentences 2–3. These sentences describe the existing motor-learning literature the authors set out to test - they are not this study's own results.
“Reduced-frequency or delayed feedback enhanced learning in 3 participants with AOS. Feedback manipulation was not an influential variable in 3 other cases in which stimulus-complexity effects may have masked treatment effects.”Where to find it: Results section, complete (both sentences).
An experiment that directly tested feedback timing on speech-skill learning. We quote the Results section in full so the mixed outcome is visible: delayed or reduced feedback helped 3 participants, and made no difference for 3 others.
Scope note: this is a very small single-subject study - two experiments with N = 4 and N = 2, so 6 adults in total - in adults with acquired apraxia of speech, a motor speech disorder unrelated to children's conversational skill. Its authors describe the finding as “qualified support” for reduction and delay of feedback that interacts with stimulus complexity and task difficulty. It is the reasoning behind our timing choice, not proof that the choice is right for Speakli.
Maas, E., Robin, D. A., Austermann Hula, S. N., Freedman, S. E., Wulf, G., Ballard, K. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (2008). Principles of motor learning in treatment of motor speech disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(3), 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/025)
Free abstract: PubMed PMID 18663111
“The purpose of this tutorial is to introduce principles that enhance motor learning for nonspeech motor skills and to examine the extent to which these principles apply in treatment of motor speech disorders… Whereas few studies have directly examined these principles in speech motor (re)learning, available evidence suggests that these principles hold promise… Further research is necessary.”Where to find it: Purpose section, sentence 2; Conclusions section, sentences 2–3. The final two quotes are shortened - in full they read “…hold promise for treatment of motor speech disorders” and “Further research is necessary to determine which principles apply to speech motor (re)learning in impaired populations.”
A widely cited tutorial synthesising motor-learning principles - including how the timing and frequency of feedback affect retention - and their potential application to speech. It is the basis for our choice to summarise feedback after a session rather than interrupt mid-conversation.
Scope note: this is a tutorial, not a controlled trial (so not an ASHA Level Ia source), and it concerns motor speech treatment, not conversational communication. Its own authors note “few studies have directly examined these principles in speech motor (re)learning.” We use it as design rationale, not as proof that Speakli's feedback improves outcomes.
The dimensions our feedback addresses
Speakli's feedback focuses on the conversational and pragmatic dimensions of communication - taking turns, staying on topic, telling a story someone else can follow, and adjusting to a listener. These are the skills that keep developing well past early childhood, which is why they suit our 8–18 age range. We do not assess speech-sound accuracy or screen for articulation and phonological disorders; where our feedback comments on how clearly a child is speaking, that is an ordinary listener's judgement, not a clinical articulation measure.
Feedback is organised into six skill areas - structure, content, verbal delivery, tone, listening and responding, and clarity - each with a handful of named sub-skills. Not every skill area applies to every session. A casual conversation is assessed on delivery, tone, clarity, and listening and responding only; structure and content are reserved for the sessions where they make sense, such as explaining something, telling a story, presenting, or debating. Judging a relaxed chat on whether it had a clear opening and closing would measure the wrong thing, so we don't.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Social Communication Disorder [Practice Portal]. Retrieved 2026. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/social-communication-disorder/
“Social communication disorder (SCD) is characterized by persistent difficulties with the use of verbal and nonverbal language for social purposes. Primary difficulties may be in social interaction, social understanding, pragmatics, language processing, or any combination of the above (Adams, 2005).”Where to find it: Overview section, opening two sentences (first quote); the bulleted list immediately below it (second quote), items 1 and 2.
The page lists specific challenges that “may become apparent when difficulties arise in the following”, among them “changing communication to match the context or needs of the listener” and “following rules for conversation and storytelling”.
ASHA's clinical synthesis of social communication defines the pragmatic dimensions - following conversation and storytelling rules, adapting to the listener, staying on topic - that map onto what Speakli's feedback looks at: turn-taking, coherence, and clarity for a listener.
Scope note: this is a professional clinical reference, not a graded efficacy study, and it describes a disorder. We cite it for its definition of the pragmatic skill areas, not to suggest that Speakli identifies, diagnoses, or treats social communication disorder.
Heilmann, J., Miller, J. F., Nockerts, A., & Dunaway, C. (2010). Properties of the narrative scoring scheme using narrative retells in young school-age children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0024)
Free abstract: PubMed PMID 20008470 · Instrument: NSS Scoring Guide (SALT Software)
“The NSS is an efficient and informative tool for documenting children's development of narrative macrostructure. The relationship between the NSS and microstructural measures demonstrates that it is a robust measure of children's overall oral narrative competence…”Where to find it: Conclusion section, sentences 1–2.
“Scores based on the consistent and accurate use of antecedents and clarifiers throughout the story. Use of correct pronouns and proper names should be considered when scoring.”Where to find it: NSS Scoring Guide, scoring-category column, fourth category.
The Narrative Scoring Scheme is a seven-part measure of whether a child's story hangs together, validated here on 129 typically developing children. One of its seven parts is referencing: whether the listener can always tell who “he” or “it” refers to. That is a real and measurable way children lose their listeners, and it is the basis for the referencing sub-skill in our clarity feedback.
Scope note: the validation sample was 129 children aged 5–7 retelling a wordless picture book - younger than most Speakli users, and a story-retell task rather than a conversation. We take the construct from it, not a norm: we do not score children against NSS bands, and our feedback is not an NSS score.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. https://www.thecorestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/SL/
Free full text: Complete ELA standards (PDF, CCSSO) - speaking and listening standards begin at the “Comprehension and Collaboration” heading.
“Present claims and findings, emphasizing salient points in a focused, coherent manner with relevant evidence, sound valid reasoning, and well-chosen details; use appropriate eye contact, adequate volume, and clear pronunciation.”Where to find it: Grade 8 Speaking & Listening, standard 4.
“Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others' ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.”Where to find it: CCR Anchor Standards for Speaking and Listening, items 1 and 6.
“Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and communicative tasks, demonstrating command of formal English when indicated or appropriate.”
The speaking and listening standards used across most US states, defined continuously from kindergarten through grade 12. They name, as expectations for ordinary students, nearly every dimension our feedback addresses: logical sequencing, evidence and well-chosen details, focus on salient points, adapting to audience and register, building on what others say, and - explicitly - volume, pronunciation, and eye contact. The standards also state the case for practice itself: students “must have ample opportunities to take part in a variety of rich, structured conversations.”
Scope note: these are curriculum standards, not evidence. They tell you what educators across the country agreed students should be able to do; they are not a study showing that any particular practice improves those skills, and no ASHA evidence level applies. We cite them to show our skill areas are the conventional ones and to cover the teenage half of our age range, not as proof that Speakli works.
Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., Duthie, J. K., & Mansfield, T. C. (2005). Conversational versus expository discourse: A study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(5), 1048–1064. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/073)
Free abstract: PubMed PMID 16411795
“In this cross-sectional investigation, syntactic development was compared in conversational versus expository discourse in 120 typically developing children, adolescents, and adults, age 7 to 49 years… For both genres, growth in syntax continued throughout childhood and adolescence and into early adulthood (age 20–29 years) and remained stable into middle age (age 40–49 years).”Where to find it: abstract, sentence 1 and sentence 4 (first quote); sentence 7 (second quote).
“Despite the statistically significant group effects, there were wide individual differences.”
The one source we cite whose age range - 7 to 49 - fully spans Speakli's 8–18 band. It is direct evidence that spoken-language skill keeps developing right through adolescence rather than settling in primary school, which is why we think practice at 15 is worth as much as practice at 9. It also elicited discourse in two ways we use directly: everyday conversation about school, family and friends, and explaining the rules of a game or sport.
Scope note: this is a study of how typically developing speakers change with age, not a trial of any intervention. It shows the skills are still growing during our age range; it does not show that Speakli, or any practice programme, accelerates that growth. The authors also stress “wide individual differences” at every age - some younger children used elaborate syntax, some adults spoke quite simply - so age alone predicts an individual child poorly.
Morreale, S. P., Moore, M. R., Surges-Tatum, D., & Webster, L. (Eds.). (2007). The Competent Speaker Speech Evaluation Form (2nd ed.). National Communication Association. Full text (PDF)
“Chooses and narrows a topic appropriately for the audience & occasion… Provides supporting material (including electronic and non-electronic presentational aids) appropriate for the audience & occasion… Uses an organizational pattern appropriate to the topic, audience, occasion, & purpose… Uses language appropriate to the audience & occasion… Uses vocal variety in rate, pitch, & intensity (volume) to heighten & maintain interest… Uses pronunciation, grammar, & articulation appropriate to the audience & occasion… Uses physical behaviors that support the verbal message.”Where to find it: the evaluation form itself, competencies one and three through eight (competency two, on communicating a thesis, is omitted here only for length). Small-capitals in the original rendered as ordinary text.
The speech-assessment instrument published by the main US professional body for communication studies. It is the source that most directly matches the dimensions we grade in recorded sessions - organisation, supporting material, language fit, vocal variety, articulation, and the physical behaviours (eye contact, posture, gesture) that our video feedback comments on.
Scope note: this instrument is explicitly “to be used in assessing public speaking competency at the higher education level” - university students, not children, and prepared speeches, not conversation. We use it as a reference for which dimensions a recognised professional body considers worth assessing, not as evidence about children and not as a claim that our scoring matches theirs.
Schreiber, L. M., Paul, G. D., & Shibley, L. R. (2012). The development and test of the Public Speaking Competence Rubric. Communication Education, 61(3), 205–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.670709
Free abstract: ERIC EJ970753
“Study 1, which involved an assessment by five coders of 45 speeches, revealed a complex factor structure and a need to clarify two of the items.”Where to find it: abstract, the sentences describing Study 1 and the concluding sentence.
“The PSCR appears to be a consistent and accurate measure of public speaking ability.”
An 11-item speaking rubric that was actually put through reliability testing and factor analysis rather than simply asserted. Its items - engaging introduction, clear organization, well-supported ideas, closure in conclusion, clear and vivid language, suitable vocal expression, corresponding nonverbals, adapted to the audience - line up closely with our structure, content, clarity, and delivery skill areas. We cite it as precedent that a rubric of this shape can be measured consistently.
Scope note: the PSCR was developed and tested on undergraduate classroom speeches, scored by trained human coders. It says nothing about children, about conversation as opposed to prepared speeches, or about whether an AI can apply such a rubric reliably. That our rubric resembles a validated one is not the same as our rubric being validated - it is not.
What Speakli is - and isn't
We want to be transparent about the limits of this evidence and what it means for how Speakli should be used.
Speakli is a practice enrichment platform, not a clinical treatment.
Every study cited above tested practice delivered by a human - a speech and language therapist, a teacher, or a trained assistant - not by software. Speakli uses an AI conversational partner, a genuinely novel delivery mechanism, and no randomized controlled trial exists for AI-delivered conversational practice at school age. We cannot, and do not, claim that Speakli has been clinically validated as a treatment for communication disorders.
What the evidence does and does not show.
Read together, our sources support a narrow claim: structured conversational and narrative practice with feedback can improve how competently a child converses, and detailed feedback works better than a score. They do not show that it raises standardized language test results - the one randomised trial we cite at our age range found no effect on those measures - and they do not show that any of it transfers to an AI partner. Two of our sources conclude that the school-age evidence base is thinner than clinicians would like. We would rather state that plainly than imply more.
On the older half of our age range.
The intervention studies we cite cluster at the younger end of 8–18 - Cirrin and Gillam found no qualifying studies of middle- or high-school students at all. Two later sources partly close that gap, but only partly. Nippold and colleagues show that spoken-language skill is still developing through adolescence and into the twenties, and the Common Core speaking and listening standards define expectations continuously through grade 12. Together these establish that the skills we work on are still growing in teenagers and that our skill areas are the conventional ones for that age. Neither is a trial. For teenage users, we have good grounds for saying the skills are still developing, and no trial evidence that practice of this kind moves them.
On the dimensions we grade.
Our feedback categories are drawn from recognised assessment frameworks - ASHA's description of social communication, the NCA's Competent Speaker form, the Public Speaking Competence Rubric, and the Narrative Scoring Scheme. Those frameworks were built for human raters assessing university students, or clinicians assessing children on standardised tasks. Resembling a validated instrument is not the same as being one: our rubric has not been through reliability or validity testing, and we have not published inter-rater agreement between our AI scoring and human raters. We think the dimensions are the right ones. We have not proven that we measure them accurately.
Who Speakli is designed for.
Speakli is designed for children who want to build confidence and fluency in everyday communication - not as a replacement for speech-language therapy for children with diagnosed disorders. If your child has been assessed by an SLP and has a clinical speech or language goal, that professional relationship should take precedence. Speakli can complement, but cannot substitute for, clinical care.
Our commitment.
We are actively monitoring outcomes and will publish data as it matures. If you are a researcher or SLP interested in partnering on a formal evaluation, we would welcome the conversation: hi@speakli.app
Full citation list (APA format)
- Adams, C., Lockton, E., Freed, J., Gaile, J., Earl, G., McBean, K., Nash, M., Green, J., Vail, A., & Law, J. (2012). The Social Communication Intervention Project: A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of speech and language therapy for school-age children who have pragmatic and social communication problems with or without autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(3), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00146.x · PMID 22512510
- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Social Communication Disorder [Practice Portal]. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/social-communication-disorder/
- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Spoken Language Disorders [Practice Portal]. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/spoken-language-disorders/
- Austermann Hula, S. N., Robin, D. A., Maas, E., Ballard, K. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (2008). Effects of feedback frequency and timing on acquisition, retention, and transfer of speech skills in acquired apraxia of speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(5), 1088–1113. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/06-0042) · PMID 18728115
- Cirrin, F. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2008). Language intervention practices for school-age children with spoken language disorders: A systematic review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39(1), S110–S137. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/012) · PMID 18162642
- Heilmann, J., Miller, J. F., Nockerts, A., & Dunaway, C. (2010). Properties of the narrative scoring scheme using narrative retells in young school-age children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0024) · PMID 20008470
- Maas, E., Robin, D. A., Austermann Hula, S. N., Freedman, S. E., Wulf, G., Ballard, K. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (2008). Principles of motor learning in treatment of motor speech disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(3), 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/025) · PMID 18663111
- Morreale, S. P., Moore, M. R., Surges-Tatum, D., & Webster, L. (Eds.). (2007). The Competent Speaker Speech Evaluation Form (2nd ed.). National Communication Association. Full text (PDF)
- National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. https://www.thecorestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/SL/
- Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., Duthie, J. K., & Mansfield, T. C. (2005). Conversational versus expository discourse: A study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(5), 1048–1064. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/073) · PMID 16411795
- Pico, D. L., Hessling Prahl, A., Biel, C. H., Peterson, A. K., Biel, E. J., Woods, C., & Contesse, V. A. (2021). Interventions designed to improve narrative language in school-age children: A systematic review with meta-analyses. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(4), 1109–1126. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_LSHSS-20-00160
- Schreiber, L. M., Paul, G. D., & Shibley, L. R. (2012). The development and test of the Public Speaking Competence Rubric. Communication Education, 61(3), 205–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.670709 · ERIC EJ970753
- Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087 · PMC6987456