Providing Services as a Monolingual Provider in a Multilingual Community

1

Providing Services as a Monolingual Provider in a Multilingual Community

Presented by:

Jessica L. Schwab, M.Ed., CCC-SLPLauren Piccillo, M.Ed., CCC-SLP

Literature Reviewed by:Jessica L. Schwab, M.Ed., CCC-SLP

Lauren Piccillo, M.Ed., CCC-SLP

Contributions from:Kristen West, M.A., CCC-SLP

Patricia Ramos Cole, M.A., CCC-SLP

2

Infant-Toddler Connection of

Fairfax-Falls Church

Annandale Office 7611 Little River TurnpikeAnnandale, VA 22033

Fairfax Office3750 Old Lee HighwayFairfax, VA 22030

Chantilly Office14150 Parkeast CircleChantilly, VA 20151

South County Office8350 Richmond HighwayAlexandria, VA 22309

3

Our County’s Demographics

Fairfax County, located in Northern Virginia, has a population of 1.1 million people.

29% of county residents were born in another country.

36.4% of the population of Fairfax County speaks a language other than English.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US51059&-qr_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_S1603&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_

Fairfax County and Virginia Census Data

4

Fairfax County VirginiaPopulation (2012) 1,118,602 8,185,867

White Persons (2011) 68.1% 71.3%

Black Persons (2011) 9.9% 19.8%

Asian Persons (2011) 18.0% 5.8%

Hispanic or Latino Persons (2011)

15.8% 8.2%

Language other than English spoken in home (age 5+) (2007-2011)

36.4% 14.4%

Median household income (2007-2011)

$108,439 $63,302

Persons below poverty level (2007-2011)

5.5% 10.7%

US population: Language other than English spoken in home: 20.3%

5

Language Universals (Cummins 1984, 2000)

“Every child is being taught language differently in every home and that has

to be recognized.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_hypothesis#cite_note-0

6

Language Acquisition is Dynamic

(“Difference or Disorder”, 2010) Language is in a state of flux and this is

especially evident in children who have been immersed in two cultures & languages.

A child acquiring 2 or more languages simultaneously will inadvertently mix elements of the languages.

Structure, syntax & articulation will comingle until the child discriminates & categorizes the differences into distinct and separate languages or categories.

Common Definitions

Bilingualism Simultaneous Bilingual Development Sequential Bilingual Development

Code Switching

Code Mixing

Bilingualism (Goldstein, et. al., n.d.)

Defined: The native-like control of two languages (Bloomfield, 1933)

Bilingualism is NOT the coexistence of two monolingual individuals in one person “The coexistence and constant interaction between two

languages in the bilingual (individual) has produced a different but complete linguistic identity” (Grosjean, 1989).

Bilingual children (an operational definition): children who receive regular input in 2+ languages during the most dynamic period of communication development (somewhere birth-adolescence) (Kohnert, 2010) This definition includes simultaneous and sequential bilingualism

8

Simultaneous Bilingual Development (Seitel & Garcia, 2009) The development of two languages before the age of 3 Phases of simultaneous bilingual development:

One lexical system with words from both languages Use of mixed language utterances but a single

language system forming the basis for acquisition of L1 and L2.

Child has two lexical systems but continues mixing utterances, indicating two linguistic codes and differentiated lexicon and syntax

Two languages with distinct grammars (Damico and Hamayan, 1992)

9

Sequential Bilingual Development(Seitel & Garcia, 2009) Second language is learned in early childhood (after age

3), either formal or informal exposure; school-age (after age 5), usually in academic setting

Sequence of development: Silent period: child is comprehending language with limited output. May

last 3-6 months Language loss: as child acquires L2 and uses L1 less frequently, L1

skills will begin to be lost Language transfer: syntax, morphology, pragmatics, semantics are

carries over from L1 to L2 Interlanguage: inconsistent errors in L2 may continue as child begins to

communicate more. These are typical for L2 learning process Codeswitching: child may substitute forms, structures, or lexical items

from L1 to L2 for items that have not yet been learned in L2

10

Code Switching (Daniel, n.d.)

Code switching: alternation of codes (languages) across sentence boundaries

Difficulties with code switching may be indicated by (Daniel, n.d.): Rough transitions between languages with false starts Marked awareness of alternation between languages Alternations at noun/word level only Alternations used for communicating untranslatable

items only

CONSIDER: in our population, would these be indicators for a disorder?

11

Code Mixing (Daniel, n.d.)

The alternation of codes (languages) within a sentence

Code mixing and switching are typical patterns seem in ESL/ESOL classrooms

Code switching is more common However, code mixing is often seen as children

attempt to embed L2 into L1 while acquiring L2 (Brice, 2000)

12

Expectations for Language Development in Bilingual Children Words in both languages act as a bridge between the

dominant and less dominant languages at ages 18-30 months (Daniel, n.d.)

Children as young as 18 months can understand and use two languages independently of one another

Skills may not be equally distributed across languages (Kohnert & Derr, 2004)

Words and functions in each language vary by topic, context, and communication partners

Some skills will be present only in the relatively weaker language, and some only in the relatively dominant language (presumably more there)

13

14

Hurdles for Monolingual Providers

(Laing & Kamhi, 2003) Norm-referenced tests are not appropriate for bilingual children due to: Content bias

Linguistic bias

Disproportionate representation in normative samples

15

Content Bias (Laing & Kamhi, 2003)

Content Bias Test stimuli, methods and procedures assume

that all children have been exposed to the same concepts and vocabulary or have similar life experiences.

Typically, assessment stimuli focus on concepts and vocabulary utilized in white middle class settings which puts culturally and linguistically diverse children at a disadvantage.

16

Linguistic Bias (Laing & Kamhi, 2003)

Linguistic Bias Refers to disparity between language/dialect

used by the examiner and the language or dialect expected in the child’s response.

Bias can still be present with the use of an same language speaker, interpreter, when you consider dialect or regional/national differences in language usage or vocabulary of the two same language speakers.

17

Disproportionate Representation in Normative Sample

(Laing & Kamhi, 2003) Why do we have a disproportionate

representation in normative sample? Culturally and linguistically diverse populations are

seldom included in normative samples of standardized tests.

Testing results are invalid because culturally and linguistically diverse children are not being compared to similar peers.

Standardized tests do not test the full range of bilingual skills, even for tests that included bilingual children in the normative population. (Goldstein, et al., n.d.)

Culture and Bias (Goldstein, et al., n.d.) Culture: a shared agreement on values,

knowledge, and communication Tests, teachers, and examiners presume that

these social conventions are mutually shared with test takers

What can differ? Families socialize children to learn according the family’s

values and beliefs Teachers expect children to be socialized to the mainstream

culture All cultures have expectations for appropriate behavior in

testing, social, and school contexts

18

Assessment of Bilingual Children(Goldstein, et al., n.d.)

To complete a valid assessment, you must: Understand the construct you are assessing Identify the question you are trying to answer Gather data from a variety of sources

Questions to consider: What are the child’s strengths/weaknesses? What is the child’s learning style? What is the child’s ability to learn? What type of progress is the child making?These questions sum to help answer the BIG question: is the child typically

developing, or does he/she have a language impairment?

19

Assessment of Bilingual Children(Goldstein, et al. n.d.) For bilingual children, information should

gathered on: Socio-cultural characteristics of their community Family socio-economic status Structure of their non-English language (lexicon,

syntax, phonology) Age of acquisition (of both languages): sequential

or simultaneous acquisition. Language history Opportunities for and proficiency of use of both

languages

20

21

Current Goal

(insert photo of bilingual child)

Our goal is to create a working protocol that monolingual providers can use to more accurately and continuously evaluate children who are culturally and linguistic diverse.

22

Parent Questionnaire

23

Parent Questionnaire (Restrepo, 1998) Examined tools to identify 5-7 year-old children with

language impairment who were predominantly Spanish-speaking. 31 with language impairment 31 with typically developing language

Study looked at four measures: Parental report of the child’s speech and language skills Number of errors per *T-unit Mean length of utterance (MLU) per *T-unit Family history of speech and language problems

24

Terminal Units (TU) (Restrepo, 1998)

T-unit = terminable unit The spontaneous language samples are broken

down into “terminal units” (T-units). T-units are defined as any clause and its

subordinate clauses.

Example: The cat who ate the mouse is here. El gato que se comio el raton esta aqui.

25

Parent Questionnaire (Restrepo, 1998)

Sensitivity & specificity measures were obtained for

Parent Report

Sensitivity: 73.91%

Percentage of time parent identified children with language impairment.

Specificity: 95.65%

Percentage of time parent identified children with typically developing language.

26


Sensitivity & specificity measures were obtained for

Family History of Speech & Language Problems

Sensitivity: 73.91%

Percentage of time family history of S&L problems identified children with language impairment

Specificity: 91.30%

Percentage of time no family history of S&L identified children with typical language.

27


Sensitivity & specificity measures continued.

Combined parent report with number of errors per T-Unit.

Sensitivity: 91.3%

Percentage of time combined information identified children with language impairment.

Specificity: 100%

Percentage of time combined information identified children with typically developing language.

28

Parent Questionnaire (Restrepo, 1998)Conclusion: Parent interviewing and language sampling

procedures were most accurate in discriminating between children who had typically developing language skills versus language impairment.

Preschool population – suggested use MLU-m

School Age Population – suggested use MLTU as it best reflects syntactic complexity in highly inflected language.

29


Clinical Implications

Reporting family concerns and obtaining family history is a valuable part of the evaluation process.

Combining an analysis of a language sample with parent interviewing and family history is a clinically strong tool for identifying children with language impairment.

For school-aged children, a teacher questionnaire provides valuable clinical information for the SLP.

30

Questionnaires (Restrepo, 1998)

Appendix A Questionnaire for teachers about the child’s

language at home and at school.

Appendix B Translation of the parent interview.

31

Appendix A – Teacher Questionnaire

32

Appendix B – Parent Interview Translation

33

Appendix B – Parent Interview Translation

34

Parent Questionnaire/Teacher Questionnaire

BilingualLanguageDevelopment& DisordersIn Spanish-EnglishSpeakers

Brian A. Goldstein

35

Parent Questionnaire (Anderson, 2004) Areas of inquiry when interviewing parents:

Language use by the child at home, school, with peers,

Use of language across topics, contexts, situations,

Language used with the child at home by each family member, at school, by peers,

Changes in use of Spanish & English across time by the child,

Changes in language input for Spanish & English across time,

Parental concern about the child’s language learning ability, &

Parental attitude toward maintenance of Spanish skill.

36

Teacher Questionnaire (Anderson, 2004) Areas of inquiry when interviewing teachers:

Present educational placement,

Changes in educational placement across time,

Instruction in each language,

Time spent using each language during class work,

Areas taught in each language,

Literacy (and pre-literacy) skills in each language,

Academic concerns,

Language use by child within school setting, &

Language input to the child within school setting.

37

Lexical Inventory/Vocabulary Checklist(Patterson, 2000)

38

Lexical Inventory/Vocabulary Checklist(Patterson, 2000) Investigated parent reports of vocabulary and

word combinations of 12 children, ranging from 21-27 months old, who were exposed to English & Spanish (mean age = 23 months).

Each child was exposed to each language a minimum of 8 hours per week.

Estimated that each child was exposed to English 20%-75% of the time, and

Spanish 25%-80% of the time.

39


The Spanish-English Vocabulary Checklist (SEVC) was used by the author (Patterson, 1998).

The SEVC is an adaptation of the Language Development Survey (Rescorla, 1989).

Compared parent report on SEVC to 30-minute language sample of parent playing with child.

40

Lexical Inventory/Vocabulary Checklist(Patterson, 2000) SEVC is a list of 564 words –

half in English & half in Spanish

English & Spanish words were listed in categories,

side-by-side

apple – manzana

banana – platano (banano, guineo)

Clinicians also asked questions regarding word combinations used in both English & Spanish.

Parents were asked to designate the words they heard the child say out loud.

41


It is important to gather lexical knowledge in both languages as this is a better reflection of child’s word knowledge and use.

The total number of expressive vocabulary words in both languages is the closest measurement of expressive vocabulary words compared with monolingual children.

42


Bilingual The author compared

reported SEVC vocabulary size to a transcription of a

30-minute language sample.

Observed expressive vocabulary ranged from

3– 163 words with

a mean of 50 words.

Monolingual Dale (1991) reported the

observed expressive vocabulary words for monolingual children in a 20-minute language sample.

Observed expressive vocabulary words had a mean of 70 words.

43

Validity of Parent Report Measure of Vocabulary & Syntax (Dale, 1991) Found parent report assesses a wider range of

vocabulary with validity than did direct observation.

Parents could report on communication in a wider range of settings and with numerous individuals.

Children may not provide correct responses due to: Poor attention to attention to task, Overall lack of cooperation, Poor pictures.

44

Clinical Implications (Patterson, 2000) Clinical

Expressive vocabulary sizes reported by parents are going to be larger than a language sample because they are reporting based on much more diverse and rich experiences outside of the clinic environment.

It is critical to include parent reported vocabulary in the clinical assessment process, especially in the case of children learning more than one language.

45

Checklists: Cultural Implications (Patterson, 2000) Cultural

Use of Parent Checklists provide reliable data.

Further research on greater range of parent backgrounds is necessary.

Further research on use of parent reports as tool of identification of risk of language impairment among young bilingual children.

46

Language Sampling

47

Language Sampling(Gutierrez-Clellen, Restrepo, Bedore, Peña, & Anderson, 2000)

Examined socio-linguistic influences.

Discussed obtaining language samples from Spanish-speaking children from different bilingual and dialectal backgrounds.

Investigated procedures currently available for researching and practicing clinicians.

48

Culture & Dialect (Gutierrez-Clellen et. al., 2000)

Spanish relies on

noun-verb agreement for understanding.

English relies on

word order for understanding.

Diverse cultural and dialectal backgrounds

Accurately assessing morphosyntax in Spanish of U.S. Spanish-English bilinguals is challenging due to heterogeneous population.

Measures used to assess English are not appropriate for Spanish.

49

Impact of Dialectal Differences (Gutierrez-Clellen et. al., 2000) Language sampling also affected by dialectal

differences.

Certain dialects, such as Caribbean, may omit or inconsistently use final consonants eliminating certain morphological endings; decreasing

MLU-m count.

Children with certain dialects may be penalized compared to their bilingual peers

(i.e. Mexican-Spanish speakers).

50

Clinical Implications (Gutierrez-Clellen et. al., 2000)

Language sampling is an important but timely assessment tool. Important to obtain language samples in both

languages. Most bilingual children codeswitch/codemix

Research which method of analysis to use depending on language use of the child.

51

Dynamic Assessment (DA)….

requires flexibility …

52

Dynamic Assessment(“Dynamic Assessment”, n.d.)

“Dynamic assessment is a method of conducting a language assessment which seeks to identify the skills that an individual child possesses as well as their learning potential. The dynamic assessment procedure emphasizes the learning process and accounts for the amount and nature of examiner investment. It is highly interactive and process-oriented.”

Dynamic Assessment(“Dynamic Assessment”, n.d.)

Traditional Assessment (Static) Passive participants Examiner observes Identify deficits

Standardized

Dynamic Assessment Active participants Examiner participates Describe modifiability Fluid, responsive

53

54

Dynamic Assessment (Laing & Kamhi, 2003),

(“Dynamic Assessment: Basic Framework”, n.d.) Test-Teach-Retest

Most familiar approach Differentiates strong and weak language learners. Test

Assess child’s current performance Teach

Use mediated learning experience (MLE) Teach, watch how child responds, adjust according

Help child develop strategies Observe child’s modifiability

Modifiability: description of how child responds to MLE Retest

Compare performance to original assessment Assess transfer of strategies

Dynamic Assessment (Laing & Kamhi, 2003) Approaches

Vary the task/stimulus Modify test presentation Embed language forms in realistic thematic

contexts Assess in naturalistic environment Allow child to perform task to demonstrate knowledge vs.

point to picture Better at identifying language difference vs. language disorder

Graduated Prompting

Child’s response helps determine which language forms and structures to target and how much improvement a child may make in intervention.

55

56

Dynamic Assessment (Peña, Quinn, & Iglesias, 1992) Administered EOWPVT to Puerto Rican children with and without

language impairment (LI) using a test-teach-retest approach to dynamic assessment.

No difference was found between the language impaired and typically developing children on pretest measures.

Results of post-test measures indicated: Typically developing children earned significantly higher posttest

scores than the children with LI. Observations of the following significantly differentiated LI and

typically developing children. Ease of a child’s ability to learn and use new skills presented

in structured and novel environments (specifically vocabulary).

Effort required by clinician to teach new skills to child.

57

Dynamic Assessment Clinical Implications

For bilingual children, Dynamic Assessment may provide better diagnostic data than standardized assessments.

Clinicians must examine the child’s ability and ease to learn new skills.

If the child takes more effort in learning new skills, it may be an indicator of a language disorder.

Assessment is ongoing and responses to intervention need to be tracked in order to correctly identify bilingual children with language disorders.

Authentic Assessment

Authentic Assessment(Schraeder, T. & Quinn, M., 1999)

Assessment of skills that represent realistic learning demands in real-life settings and without standardized conditions

Adds context to analysis of child’s communication skills How much effort does it take for the child to learn a new

skill? Can the child generalize the skill to new situations? How much change is there over time? Does the disorder exist in both languages? It SHOULD.

Do not focus on determining which language is dominant Focus on describing skills in ALL domains across BOTH languages Identify behaviors/characteristics of language use

59

Authentic Assessment: Why?(Schraeder, T. & Quinn, M., 1999) 20-30% of children may fail current screening tests Reasons:

Normative populations include larger percentage of middle-income people than low-income people (regardless of race)

Lack of natural environment and requirements of testing interactions and behavior may impact results

Variables such as communication partner, setting, task, and conversational parameters are included

60

Authentic Assessment: Options(Schraeder, T. & Quinn, M., 1999) Proposed protocol: Minimal Competency

Core (MCC) The LEAST amount of linguistic skill or

knowledge that a typical speaker should display for given age and context

Goal is to separate children with language delays or disorders from those with the LEAST proficient age-appropriate communication skills

Minimal Competency Core (Schraeder, et al., 1999)

Research and development: Children ages 3;0-3;11 in Early Head Start program in

Dane County, WI all completed first-level screening (hearing testing, PDI or DIAL-R)

30 children who failed the SPELT-P (when administered twice, once by SLP student examiners and once by a certified SLP) were given yet another screening; 8 of 30 were recommended for MDE, and 4 of 8 were enrolled in ST services SPELT-P over-identified children


MCC administered to 30 children who failed mass screening (PDI or DIAL-R)

Given by student examiners at child’s Head Start Center, using materials or ongoing activities in classroom

Required at least 40 complete and intelligible spontaneous utterances to calculate MLU

Each item of MCC was counted as communicative strength if observed at least once in evaluation session

Results from screenings were cross-checked by certified SLP who re-administered MCC in a new observation

21/30 children passed, exhibiting 80% of semantic, pragmatic, and phonologic core features

63


MLU appeared to be deciding factor Average of 3.79 (range of 3.1-4.43) in children who passed

MCC Average of 2.2 (range of 1.0-3.84) in children who did not

pass MCC All 9 children who failed the MCC scored at least 1.5 SD

below mean on at least one of two standardized tests administered by SLP (PPVT-R and GFTA)

Follow-up revealed 100% of children referred for MDE were identified as demonstrating a reasonable cause for referral

7/9 (78%) who completed MDE were identified as eligible for intervention

Minimal Competency Core

Over time: All 7 children identified by MCC were still

receiving language services None of the additional 23 children who completed

MCC had enrolled in language services 4 children identified initially by SPELT-P were also

receiving services None of the additional 26 children who completed

SPELT-P had enrolled in services

65

66

Other Means of Assessment(Crais, 2011)

Infants and toddlers should be using the following major communicative functions by 12 months of age: Social interaction: initiate or maintain a social game or

routine, provide comfort, show off, tease Behavior regulation: regulate the behavior of others to

obtain and object, get them to carry out an action, stop someone from doing something

Joint attention: direct other’s attention in order to comment upon, provide information about, or acknowledge shared attention to an object or event

67

Other Means of Assessment(Crais, 2011)

The rate of intentional communication is predictive of language outcomes in children with developmental delays

Higher rates of nonverbal intentional communication are associated with improved language outcomes

Norms: 12-month olds communicate intentionally 1x/minute 18-month olds communicate intentionally 2x/minute 24-month olds communicate intentionally 5x/minute

Joint attention skills have been shown to predict comprehension and production skills

Alternative Means of Assessment(Crais, 2011) Factors that can help distinguish late talkers from children

with language disorders (other than vocabulary size): Rate of vocabulary growth - Children whose vocabulary growth

was slowest between 24 and 36 months of age had poorer grammatical outcomes at age 3 than other late talkers

Sound development Comprehension Social skills Cognitive development Gesture skills - Gesture use can help predict which children will

eventually “catch up” to peers Play skills Imitation skills

69

The Importance of Play(Crais, 2011)

Play skills: the level of symbolic play exhibited by young children predicts their later language skills Ex. Symbolic play skills at 14 months were predictive of receptive and

expressive language at 24 and 42 months

Play also impacts types of interactions and opportunities a child may have

Helping young children develop play skills gives both children and caregivers increased opportunities for interactions and expanded context for communication

Profiling play skills along with other developmental areas helps identify the child’s strengths and challenges and can support diagnostic and intervention planning decisions Ex. Comparing play as a non-linguistic benchmark against

expressive/receptive language skills

Assessing Play(Crais, 2011)

Informally: observation of parent/child interaction Checklists: Carpenter’s Play Scale (1987), Casby’s Developmental

Assessment of Play Scale (2003), Westby’s 7 stages of symbolic play, CSBS (more formal means of assessing combinatorial play, such as stacking blocks, and symbolic play and gestures to allow comparison across domains, such as play vs. gestures vs. words)

Note: play skills will vary based upon characteristics of play partners, type of toys available, and type of play

Cultural differences in play: what is the purpose of play? To learn For entertainment Parent participation in play varies

labeling and describing child’s play vs. directing child’s play

71

72

Primary Language Impairment andBilingual Language Learners (Kohnert, 2010)

If primary language impairment (PLI) occurs at the same rate in bilingual children as monolingual children, then 7% of bilingual language learners at PLI.No difference in severity between 6-10 year old monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual children with PLI (comparison for each group was typically developing children matched for age and language background) (Windsor, et al, 2009)

Comparing monolingual and bilingual children’s performance, monolingual children with PLI and typically developing bilingual children demonstrate similar grammatical errors and poor scores on single-language vocabulary measures.

Comparing a bilingual child with suspected PLI vs. typically developing bilingual peers with similar cultural and language learning experiences there are significant and variations due to expected variation in any group of children as well as differences in levels of language proficiency.

73

Characteristics Shared by Students

with LD and ELL (Kohnert, 2010) Uses gestures rather than words Speaks infrequently Speaks in single words or phrases Has poor recall Has poor comprehension Has poor syntax Has poor vocabulary Has poor pronunciation Has difficulty sequencing ideas and events Has short attention span For English Language Learners without disabilities, these

characteristics will appear ONLY when L2 is being used. These are typical characteristics of L2 acquisition process.

74

A Brief Look at Intervention

Intervention in the Home Language(Kohnert, et. al., 2005)

Systematic support for home language of children with language impairment (LI) is critical to long-term success of language intervention

Quality and quantity of positive, reciprocal language-based interactions supports child’s success in processing /acquisition of forms unique to each language

Promotion of use of home language is motivated by: Social, emotional, cognitive development within cultural

context of family Language as major vehicle for communicating family’s

values and expectations, expressive care and concern, providing structure and discipline, and interpreting world experiences

76

Intervention in the Home Language(Kohnert, 2005) Typically developing second generation children of immigrant parents

have social-emotional and educational advantages when they have learned home language in addition to English Higher self-esteem Better relations with family members Greater academic aspirations

Young children who have not had sufficient opportunities to develop cognitive skills in L1 before learning L2 are at greater risk for academic delays than peers who developed L1 more fully

Learning and retention of L1 (home language) is based upon: Opportunities to learn and use it Motivation to speak it Degree of prestige associated with L1 use in immediate cultural and majority

communities L1 learning may backslide or be incompletely acquired without support

77

Intervention in the Home Language(Kohnert, 2005) For LI children, slower pace of language learning combined with

lower “starting point” when L2 (majority language) is acquired means that these kids will need more input into home (L1) language than TD peers to develop L1 appropriately KEY: facilitating home language should be fundamental objective in

intervention programs of preschool aged-children with LI Instruction in home language during preschool years supports later

academic achievement in majority language and generalization of skills Studies show that intervention in 2 languages revealed capacity of

bilingual kids with LI to learn 2 languages to a similar level of monolingual peers with LI (who used 1 language)

TD school-aged children who learned to read first in L1 (and then L2) had an advantage in academic achievement and reading compared to peers who learned to read only in L2

78

Intervention in the Home Language(Kohnert, 2005)

If we want young children to develop skills necessary to be successful communicators in all language environments, we should provide direct support for EACH language

Instructing caregivers to select 1 language of the 2 upon which to focus in intervention may result in increased effort and processing time on part of adult, and may negatively affect quantity and quality of interactions with child Codeswitching may be primary speech community of the

home This is typical! Children codeswitch at same proportion as their

caregivers

79

Parent Education (Kohnert, 2005)

So how do we provide intervention in languages we don’t speak? Train parents to use specific language facilitation strategies and use

multiple instruction methods (written materials, videotaping,demonstration, COACHING)

Suggest activities that are defined (singing, book reading) and that lend themselves to interactions in a single language (vs. mixing languages in conversation)

Peer-mediated strategies Pairing child with LI with TD child who uses same home language for play

and facilitated interactions

NOTE: Some strategies recommended to support language development are based

upon research in majority population in US. These may not be consistent with family’s cultural values (ex. “following the child’s lead”)

80

81

What’s the next step for us monolingual early intervention/education providers?

82

Monolingual Provider Recommended Protocol

Conduct thorough parent interview/teacher interview and collect family history of possible speech/language issues.

Consider the child’s cultural influences and level of acculturation.

Measure vocabulary skills in both languages.

Record & analyze language sample, and to the best of your ability analyze samples in both languages.

Use dynamic or authentic assessment strategies

Assess play skills

83

And last but not least…

Use

Your

Clinical

Judgment.

84

Questions?

85

Thank you for your time!

Bibliography

Aguado Alonso, G. (1989). TSA: El desarrollo de la morfosintaxis en el nino [The development of morphosyntax in children]. Madrid, Spain: Ciencias de la educacion preescholar y especial.

Anderson, R.T. (2004). First language loss in Spanish-speaking children. In B. Goldstein (Ed)., Bilingual language development & disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp 187-211). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Campbell, T, & Dollaghan, C. (2003). Reducing bias in language assessment: processing-dependent measures. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 40, 519-525.

Crais, E. R. (2011) Testing and beyond: Strategies and tools for evaluating and assessing infants and toddlers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 341-364.

Cummins, J. C. (1984). Bilingual and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Dale, P.S. (1991) The validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary and syntax at 24 months. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 565-571.

Daniel. M. (n.d.) Adapting tests for use with bilingual U.S. children. Powerpoint presented with Special Interest Division 14: Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations & Communication Disorders. Retrieved February 11, 2013.

Deevy, P, Weil, L.W, Leonard, L, & Goffman, L. (2010). Extending use of the NRT to preschool-age children with and without specific language impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 277-288.

Difference or disorder? New tool to identify bilingual children with language disorders. (2010, November 29). ADVANCE for Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, p. 14.

86

Bibliography

Dynamic assessment. (n.d.) In American Speech-Language-Hearing Association online.Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/issues/Dynamic-Assessment.htm.

Echeverria, M.S. (1979). Longitud del enunciado infantil: Factores ambientales e individuales [Children’s mean length of utterance: Environmental and individual factors]. In Estudio Generales I. Actas del 5o. Seminario de Investifacion y Ensenanza de la Lingüística y Universidad Tecnica del Estado (pp. 56-68). Santiago, Chile.

Goldstein, et al. (n.d.) Assessment practices: What we know today for linguistically diverse learners. Powerpoint presented with Special Interest Division 14: Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations & Communication Disorders. Retrieved February 11, 2013.

Gutierrez-Clellen, V, Restrepo, M.A., Bedore, L., Pena, E., &Anderson, R. (2000). Language sample analysis in Spanish-speaking children: Methodological Considerations. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 88-98.

Gutierrez-Clellen, V, & Simon-Cereijido, G. (2010). Using nonword repetition tasks for the identification of language impairment in Spanish-English speaking children: does the language of assessment matter?. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 48-58.

Laing, S, & Kamhi, A. (2003). Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 44-55.

Lidz, C, & Pena, E. (1996). Dynamic assessment: the model its relevance as a nonbiased approach, and its application to Latino American preschool children. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 367-372

Kohnert, K. (2010) Bilingual children with primary language impairment: Issues, evidence and implications for clinical actions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43 (6), 456-473.

87

Bibliography

Kohnert, K., et al. (2005) Intervention with linguistically diverse preschool children: A focus on developing home languages. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 251-263.

Kohnert, K., & Derr, A. (2004) Language Intervention with Bilingual Children. In B. Goldstein (Ed)., Bilingual language development & disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp 311-338). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). Inquiries and insights: Second language teaching, immersion and bilingual education, literacy . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Alemany Press.

Ortiz, S.O. (2004). Comprehensive assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students: A systematic, practical approach for nondiscriminatory assessment. National Association of School Psychologists, http://www.nasponline.org/resources/culturalcompetence/ortiz.pdf .

Patterson, J.L. (2000). Observed and reported expressive vocabulary and word combinations in bilingual toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 121-128.

Peña, E. D., Quinn, R., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods to language assessment: A nonbiased procedure. Journal of Special Education, 26, 269–280

Restrepo, M.A. (1998). Identifiers of predominantly Spanish-speaking children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1398-1411.

Schraeder, T., & Quinn, M., et al. (1999) Authentic Assessment as an approach to preschool speech-language screening. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 195-200.

Seitel, A., & Garcia, M. (2009) Language difference, delay or disorder in Spanish-English bilingual students. Powerpoint presented at ASHA Convention, November 20, 2009.

US Census Bureau. Fairfax County & Virginia Census Data, Retrieved April 29, 2013. http://quickfacts.census/gov/qfd/states/51/51059.html

88

Providing Services as a Monolingual Provider in a Multilingual Community

Documents