Providing Services as a Monolingual Provider in a Multilingual Community - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Providing Services as a Monolingual Provider in a Multilingual Community PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 5aff49-OWRjM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Providing Services as a Monolingual Provider in a Multilingual Community

Description:

Title: Two Monolingual SLPs Tackle the Assessment of Bilingual Spanish English Preschool Aged Children Author: Jschw2 Last modified by: Schwab, Jessica L. – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:973
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 89
Provided by: Jsc49
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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-SLP
  • Lauren 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 ofFairfax-Falls Church
Chantilly Office 14150 Parkeast Circle Chantilly,
VA 20151
Fairfax Office 3750 Old Lee Highway Fairfax, VA
22030
  • Annandale Office
  • 7611 Little River Turnpike
  • Annandale, VA 22033

South County Office 8350 Richmond
Highway Alexandria, VA 22309
3
Our Countys 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?_bmy
    -geo_id05000US51059-qr_nameACS_2009_5YR_G00_S1
    603-ds_nameACS_2009_5YR_G00_

4
Fairfax County and Virginia Census Data
Fairfax County Virginia
Population (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
4
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

5
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.

6
7
Common Definitions
  • Bilingualism
  • Simultaneous Bilingual Development
  • Sequential Bilingual Development
  • Code Switching
  • Code Mixing

8
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
9
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
10
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
11
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?

12
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)

13
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)

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 childs 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.)

18
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 familys 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
19
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 childs strengths/weaknesses?
  • What is the childs learning style?
  • What is the childs 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
20
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
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.
  • (insert photo of bilingual child)

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 childs 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.

24
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
Parent Questionnaire (Restrepo, 1998)
  • Sensitivity specificity measures were obtained
    for
  • Family History of Speech Language Problems
  • Sensitivity 73.91
  • Percentage of time family history of SL
    problems identified children with language
    impairment
  • Specificity 91.30
  • Percentage of time no family history of SL
    identified children with typical language.

27
Parent Questionnaire (Restrepo, 1998)
  • 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
Parent Questionnaire (Restrepo, 1998)
  • 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 childs
    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
Bilingual Language Development Disorders In
Spanish-English Speakers 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 childs 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
Lexical Inventory/Vocabulary Checklist(Patterson,
2000)
  • 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
Lexical Inventory/Vocabulary Checklist(Patterson,
2000)
  • It is important to gather lexical knowledge in
    both languages as this is a better reflection of
    childs 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
Lexical Inventory/Vocabulary Checklist(Patterson,
2000)
  • Bilingual
  • Monolingual
  • 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.
  • 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.

43
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.

45
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)
  • 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.
  • Spanish relies on
  • noun-verb agreement for understanding.
  • English relies on
  • word order for understanding.

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. 

53
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 childs current performance
  • Teach
  • Use mediated learning experience (MLE)
  • Teach, watch how child responds, adjust according
  • Help child develop strategies
  • Observe childs modifiability
  • Modifiability description of how child responds
    to MLE
  • Retest
  • Compare performance to original assessment
  • Assess transfer of strategies

55
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
  • Childs 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 childs 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 childs 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.

58
Authentic Assessment
59
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 childs 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
60
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
61
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

62
Minimal Competency Core (Schraeder, et al., 1999)
  • Research and development
  • Children ages 30-311 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

63
Minimal Competency Core (Schraeder, et al., 1999)
  • MCC administered to 30 children who failed mass
    screening (PDI or DIAL-R)
  • Given by student examiners at childs 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

64
Minimal Competency Core (Schraeder, et al., 1999)
  • 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

65
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
(No Transcript)
67
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 others attention in
    order to comment upon, provide information about,
    or acknowledge shared attention to an object or
    event

67
68
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

69
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
70
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 childs
    strengths and challenges and can support
    diagnostic and intervention planning decisions
  • Ex. Comparing play as a non-linguistic benchmark
    against expressive/receptive language skills

71
Assessing Play(Crais, 2011)
  • Informally observation of parent/child
    interaction
  • Checklists Carpenters Play Scale (1987),
    Casbys Developmental Assessment of Play Scale
    (2003), Westbys 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 childs play vs.
    directing childs play

71
72
72
73
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 childrens
    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
74
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
75
A Brief Look at Intervention
76
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 childs
    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
    familys values and expectations, expressive care
    and concern, providing structure and discipline,
    and interpreting world experiences

76
77
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
78
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
79
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
80
Parent Education (Kohnert, 2005)
  • So how do we provide intervention in languages we
    dont 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 familys cultural values (ex. following the
    childs lead)

80
81
Whats 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 childs 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!
86
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
87
Bibliography
  • Dynamic assessment. (n.d.) In American
    Speech-Language-Hearing Association online.
  • Retrieved from http//www.asha.org/practice/multi
    cultural/issues/Dynamic-Assessment.htm.
  • Echeverria, M.S. (1979). Longitud del enunciado
    infantil Factores ambientales e individuales
    Childrens 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.

88
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/culturalcompet
    ence/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, 269280
  • 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.h
    tml


88
About PowerShow.com