Early%20language%20and%20literacy%20development%20in%20dual%20language%20learners:%20Implications%20for%20service%20delivery

1

• Early language and literacy development in dual
  language learners Implications for service
  delivery
• Lucía I. Méndez. M.S., CCC-SLP
• University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
• 7/09

2
Overview

• Review some recent research findings on bilingual
  language development pertinent to
• Diagnosis
• Treatment
• Discuss their potential to enhance service
  provision to DLL
• Suggestions, resources/strategies for serving DLL

3
Demographic trends

• Hispanics are one of the largest and fastest
  growing minority groups in the US
• 45.5 million15 total U.S. population as of 2007
• In NC, grew by 55 from 2000 to 2006 (US Census
  Bureau 2007)
• NC is one of the states with highest growth in
  young children of immigrants
• 153 vs. 39 US average
• ¾ of these children are US-born citizens

4
Causes for concern

• Over-representation of DLL in special education
  (NCCREST 2009)
• Due to misidentification?
• Grave shortage of qualified bilingual personnel
• Limited parental input during decision making
  process due to linguistic/cultural barriers
  (Ramirez 2003)
• Large reading achievement gap between many DLL
  and monolingual (English-only) students (August
  et al. 2005)

5
Consequences

• DLL may be placed incorrectly in special
  education programs
• Communicational, developmental/educational needs
  may not be adequately addressed
• Most effective language of instruction/educational
  options may not be utilized
• May place them at risk for communication,
  cognitive and literacy delays

6
Challenges

• Diagnostics
• How do we determine what is typical/atypical
  development in DLL?
• What type of protocols/assessment battery do we
  use?
• Treatment/instruction
• What language do I use?
• Does bilingualism interfere with
  language/literacy development in DLL children?

7
Challenges

• Resources
• What resources are available?
• How can I, as a monolingual service provider, go
  about identifying and locating resources in my
  community?

8
To best serve this population

• Increase our understanding of the needs/strengths
  of the diverse population we serve
• Augment our competencies
• Clinical/instructional
• Linguistic
• Cultural
• Modify our service delivery model

9
Cultural Competency

• Despite the existence of common cultural
  parameters, differences exist
• Between individuals from different cultures
• Among individuals from the same culture
• These differences result in every individual
  being distinct in some way.
• The notion that only individuals from a different
  race or ethnicity are culturally diverse is false
• In fact, every child, and every professional, is
  culturally diverse in one way or another
• (Why is yogurt good for you? Because it has live
  cultures, MMI Board, ASHA 2006)

10
What is Bilingualism?

• There appears to be no consensus on the
  definition of bilingualism
• Someone who has near-native proficiency in two
  languages?
• Someone who understands and speaks a bit of
  another language?
• Someone who can order beer in another language?

11
Bilingualism

• Not all bilinguals are the same
• Bilinguals are not a homogeneous linguistic group
• Marked individual differences exist in the way
  that different bilinguals acquire language

12
Bilingualism

• The process is a dynamic, not static
• It involves change.
• Differences between bilinguals related to
• Intention (Why)
• Time (When)
• Level of proficiency (How much)

13
Intentionality

• Circumstantial bilinguals
• Life demands that they acquire another language
• Most bilingual schoolchildren in the US
• Elective bilinguals
• Actively choose to learn another language
• Foreign language class

14
Time

• Refers to when the two languages were acquired
• Simultaneous bilinguals acquire two languages
  from birth, usually before age 3
• Sequential bilinguals learn a second language
  (usually at school) after age 3, after acquiring
  the first one (at home)
• Most ESL, limited English proficiency students
  in the U.S.

15
Bilingual Language Acquisition

• Research on bilingual language acquisition was
  historically characterized by the study of
• A simultaneous language acquisition model, not
  sequential
• Butmost children in USA preschools are
  sequential bilinguals
• Case studies that described individual children
• Little population-based, systematic study of
  bilinguals in large groups

16
Theories of Bilingual LA

• The unitary language system hypothesis (Leopold,
  1949 Volterra Taeschner, 1978)
• Children exposed to two languages from birth go
  through initial stages when the languages are not
  differentiated
•  

17
Unitary Language System Hypothesis

• Undifferentiated
• First stage
• Child has one lexical and syntactic system which
  includes words from both languages
• Child uses items of both languages
  indiscriminately in all contexts of communication

18
Unitary Language System Hypothesis

• Second stage
• The child distinguishes two different
  lexicons/vocabularies, but
• Still applies the same grammatical rules to both
  languages
• Third stage (after age three)
• Full differentiation occurs the child uses two
  differentiated languages

19
Lack of Early Language Differentiation

• Suggested that simultaneous bilinguals experience
  confusion between languages
• Mixing Words from one language into the other
  when they communicate
• Switching from one language into the other
  perhaps because they could not keep their
  languages straight

20
Concerns with bilingual language acquisition

• Perceived as exceeding the childs innate
  cognitive ability to learn language
• Potentially responsible for
• Delays, reduced levels of language proficiency
• Impaired cognitive and linguistic development
  (Bialystok 2001)
• Academic failure (McNamara, 1966)
• Socio-cultural maladaptation due to difficulties
  in identifying with either language group
  (Diebold, 1968)

21
2nd Theory Separate Entity Theory

• Contrary to unitary language hypothesis suggests
  that
• Simultaneous bilinguals acquire language-
  specific properties early in their development,
  as evidenced by
• Word mixing
• Code Switching
• Translation Equivalents

22
Word Mixing

• Systematic borrowing of words by simultaneous
  bilinguals from the dominant language into the
  non-dominant is not due to confusion (Pettito,
  2004)
• Instead of revealing a state of confusion, it
  reveals a cognitive competence - filling in the
  gap (Genesee, 2006)
• Is a proficiency issue because of uneven exposure
  to the two languages

23
Translation Equivalents

• (Pettito, 2004) found
• Approx. 30 translation equivalents in 2 y.o.
  bilinguals
• Increased code mixing of words for which they
  did not know translation equivalents

24
Bilingual Proficiency
25
Code Switching

• The use of elements (phonological, lexical,
  morpho-syntactic) from two languages in the same
  utterance or stretch of conversation (Genesee,
  2005)
• Rule-governed, not at random (Pettito, 2004)
• Occurs at points in an utterance where the
  grammar of both languages is in agreement
• Sensitivity to the context
• As early as 18 months, bilingual children make
  language choices showing the ability to manage
  two separate languages based on their
  interlocutors/context

26
Simultaneous vs. sequentialbilinguals

• Are there differences in their paths to bilingual
  language acquisition?

27
Stages of Second LanguageAcquisition (Tabors,
1997)

• 1. Silent/Nonverbal
• Child is listening and observing while cracking
• the code of the new language
• 2. Early Production
• Telegraphic speech Use of shorten phrases such
  as want water for I want to get water.
• Formulaic speech Children use prefabricated
  chunks before they clearly know the meaning of
  each unit

28
Stages of Second Language Acquisition (Tabors,
1997)

• 3. Productive Language Use
• Child begins to demonstrate an understanding
• of the syntactic system of the language
• They go beyond short phrases and chunks to
  create their own sentences expressing their own
  ideas and conveying their own meaning

29
Differences between Simultaneous and Sequential
bilinguals

• Findings suggest sequential learners bring
  conceptual, semantic and morphological knowledge
  from L1 to the learning of L2
• Simultaneous learners are acquiring L1 and L2 at
  the same time

30
Are Bilinguals delayed in language development?

• Recent studies suggest similar attainment of
  milestones to monolinguals
• Speech perception
• Bilingual infants recognize bilingual input at
  the same age as monolingual children begin to
  recognize word from their own input language
  (Polka Sundara, 2003)
• Sound Production
• Onset of canonical babbling reported around 27
  weeks of age for a group of bilingual
  English-Spanish children and English
  monolinguals, (Oller, et. al 1997)

31
Are Bilinguals Delayed?

• Vocabulary acquisition
• First words are acquired at 12- 13 mos. as in
  monolingual children (Patterson Pearson, 2004)
• Vocabulary size is similar to that of same-age
  monolinguals, as long as both languages are
  measured for bilinguals e.g., conceptual
  vocabulary (Pearson,1993)

32
Bilingualism as a cognitive asset?

• Studies suggest that bilingual children
  demonstrate
• Cognitive advantages compared to monolinguals
  (Pearl Lambert, 1962)
• Increased metalinguistic awareness, specially in
  phonology, reading/writing (Adams, 1990)
• Increased selective attention advantage during
  information processing tasks (Bialystok, 2001)

33
Developmental and educational concerns with our
DLL

• Reading gap between DLL and monolingual children
  (August et. al, 2005)
• Vocabulary language delays
• Other

34
Is Bilingualismthe culprit ?

• For language delays and below average reading
  performance (August et. al, 2005)?
• OR, are there perhaps other factors that may
  impact DLLs language and literacy development?

35
Other potential factors

• The quality of the bilingual childrens
• learning environment
• interaction with their learning environment
• May impact their cognitive performance (Cummins,
  2000)
• Supportive vs. subtractive (one language only)
  bilingualism
• Proficiency level attained

36
Profile of many of our DLL

• Low Family SES
• Low familial educational level
• 44 of Mexican Central American immigrants have
  no H.S. education
• Low maternal education
• Subtractive bilingual environment
• Limited development or loss of their first
  language
• Minority language status in society
• Immigrants, indigenous cultures
• May lead to diminished self-esteem

37
Main concerns

• Slow vocabulary development
• Language development
• Syntactic development
• Studies suggest that vocabulary drives
  development of grammar skills (Conboy Thal,
  2006)
• Reading comprehension
• Literacy skills
• Academic skills

38
Educational concern breadth and depth of DLLs
vocabulary

• August, et al. 2005
• Large gaps in vocabulary between DLL's and EO
  exist
• DLLs know fewer English vocabulary words than
  monolingual English speakers
• DLL scored lower in breadth ( of different
  words) and depth (knowledge of multiple meanings
  of the same word, e.g., bug) than EO peers

39
Vocabulary and literacy

• Vocabulary is recognized as a strong predictor of
  academic success in both monolinguals (Lonigan
  Shanahan, 2009) and DLL (Carlo, 2008)
• Critical role of vocabulary development in DLL

40
Impact of vocabulary in 2nd language literacy

• Facilitates the acquisition of new meaning
• Comprehension of text
• Promotes overall learning
• Drives the development of grammar to aid
  comprehension
• Phonological awareness.

41
Challenges with the assessment phase

• Linguistically heterogeneous population
• What language do we use to test?
• What language(s) do we test?
• What testing materials to use?
• How do we distinguish between language disorders
  and language learning differences e.g.,
  differential diagnosis?

42
Challenges with traditional approach

• Traditional testing only tests a subset of the
  bilinguals lexical knowledge and does not
  assess
• Whether the bilingual child is missing
• A label in one of the languages, as opposed to
• A concept/lexical entry (conceptual vocabulary)
• Test results do not provide an accurate measure
  of the bilingual childs skills
• e.g. Is the child delayed ?
• Does not quantify or provide a measure that
  includes knowledge and skills in in each or both
  of the languages

43
Diagnostic Challenges

• Limited research and normative data on bilingual
  childrens language development
• What is normal?
• Delays in language are determined by comparing
  the skills to those of similar linguistic,
  cultural experiences and age matched peers

44
Assessment Challenges

• PSYCHOMETRIC LIMITATIONS
• Norm Biased standardized for different
  populations are not appropriate because the norms
  do not measure the testing population
• Content Biased assumes that all subjects have
  been exposed to the same cultural experiences,
  content and vocabulary

45
Assessment Challenges

• Linguistic biases
• Translated versions assume that languages operate
  in the same fashion
• Same frequency of occurrence of lexical items
• Same frequency of occurrence in syntactic
  structure as well as order of syntactic elements
  in the sentence across languages
• The boy hit the ball vs. The ball hit the
  boy

46
Further Assessment Considerations

• Amount of time exposed to each language can
  affect relative vocabulary size in each language
  (Pearson et al.1997)
• Unequal exposure or practice with each language
  can result in individual language learning
  differences and not necessarily delays in sound
  development

47
Assessment ideas?
48
Assessment Process

• Multistep approach
• Review
• Interview
• Observe
• Test
• Gutierrez Pena, 2001 Langdon Cheng, 2002
  Kohnert, 2008McGregor et al, 1997

49
Linguistic background

• Father early sequential bilingual in English and
  Turkish and later acquired Spanish as an adult
• Mother late sequential bilingual in Spanish then
  English at age 18
• Children early sequential bilinguals
• Spanish followed by English before age 3

50
Alternate Assessment Approaches

• Parental interview
• Similar peer-based comparisons
• Observation in natural environment
• Contrastive Analysis
• Dynamic Assessment (test-teach-test)
• Criterion-Referenced Measures

51
Alternate Assessment Approaches

• Consider
• Transdisciplinary play-based assessment approach
  for obtaining an estimate of the functional
  skills specially for preschoolers
• Advantages
• Flexibility and adaptability in task
  presentation.
• Opportunities for parent/peer interaction.
• Opportunities to observe child using the home and
  the majority language with parents and peers

52
Clinical Implications

• Restrain our immediate instinct to use a
  traditional monolingual model
• Avoid excessive reliance on standardized
  instruments that may not provide a valid basis
  for assessment
• Tailor assessment and intervention plans to the
  particular client you are serving
• Type of bilingualism, proficiency model, etc.

53
Treatment Challenges

• What language do we use?
• L1, L2 or both?
• Is L1 going to interfere with the learning of L2?
• Does input in two languages place unwarranted
  demands on the language learning systems of
  children with LI?
• As monolingual SLPs, is it our responsibility to
  support the development of bilingual LI kids
  anyway?

54
Research suggests

• YES, we need to treat children from culturally
  and diverse backgrounds
• YES, we need to strongly support L1 development,
  especially in young children
• YES, there is some evidence that Bilingual LI
  kids can learn two languages

55
Why treat in L1?

• The development of social, emotional, cognitive
  skills and literacy skills is mediated by
  communication in young children
• These interdependent developmental skills do not
  develop in a vacuum
• Develop within a cultural context, and the
  primary cultural environment for young children
  is the immediate and extended family (Kohnert,
  et. al, 2005)

56
Approaches to Treatment

• Children, especially young ones, will have
  increased motivation and opportunities to learn
  and use the home language
• vehicle for emotional attachment
• for communicating the familys values,
  expectations, and interpreting world experiences
• e.g. leading activities, modeling, play, etc.
• Resist potential cognitive disadvantages of loss
  of L1
• e.g. language loss, phonological awareness,
  pre-lit skills, etc.

57
Research evidence

• Thordardottir (1997) compared single vs.
  bilingual (two languages) intervention on a 4 y.o
  Icelandic child
• Found gains in vocabulary in both languages
  during the bilingual condition at a better or
  equal rate to the gains in the monolingual
  condition
• Perozzi Sanchez (1992) found faster and greater
  vocabulary gains in both languages in the
  sequential Spanish-English condition than English
  only

58
Benefits of L1 in literacy development

• Supporting a childs native language and early
  literacy skills in a childs native language
  better supports later academic outcomes in L2
  (August Shanahan,2006)
• DLL can use prior knowledge from L1 to understand
  information in L2 if L1 is supported in
  instruction (Ulanoff, 1999)
• Over 1/2 of the worlds population is bilingual
  (de Houwer, 1995)

59
Contribution of L1 to literacy in DLL

• L1 may facilitate/scaffold the learning of
  vocabulary in L2
• Concept is known in L1 only need to attach an
  English translation/label
• May be faster than teaching a new concept
• Previous knowledge may help infer meaning of new
  word in L2, store of knowledge (Proctor et al.
  2006)

60
Intervention Goals

• Promote change maximizing the potential for
  successful communication
• Provide frequent opportunities to listen and
  practice language in meaningful social contexts
• Kohnert, 2008 Wing et al, 2008

61
As a monolingual service provider

• YOU can help create
• A rich language environment, both at home and
  especially in preschool
• Studies suggest this may set off a learning
  process that may, over time, result in increased
  vocabularies and literacy gains in DLL (Aukrust,
  Vibeke, Grover 2007)
• Train the parents, encourage family participation

62
Quality of language exposure

• What impacts vocabulary development?
• Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge key to
  decreasing vocabulary gap
• Three aspects significant in the teachers verbal
  interaction with the children
• Number of words
• Diversity of words
• Rich and varied context (Aukrust, Vibeke, Grover
  (2007)

63
Approaches to vocabulary development

• Richness of language exposure both at school and
  at home
• Explicit teaching
• Multimodal approach to vocabulary and literacy
• Family support/participation
• Include culturally relevant thematic units/books
  (Castro et. al 2008)

64
Holistic literacy-based approach

• Include literacy-based aspects such as
• Rich contextual cues via childrens books
• Transparent word/phrase definitions
• Questions and prompts
• Examples of how words are used in other contexts
  (depth of vocabulary)
• Encouragement for children to pronounce words
• Notice the spelling of target words
• Repetition and reinforcement (Silverman, 1997)
• Both at home and at pre-school

65
Family as a resource

• The family can be help maintain the childs L1
  development at home
• Support literacy development in the first
  language that could extend into L2
• Especially if bilingual school books are sent
  home
• Send a variety of literacy-based activities that
  do not rely only on reading
• Photos, make-n-take book activities,
  manipulatives, etc.

66
In the home environment

• Richness of language exposure
• Provide parental training via interpreters
• Work closely with families to ensure that new
  concepts and words are taught in all the childs
  languages and environments
• Create a welcoming environment for linguistically
  diverse families so they receive the message that
  their home language is good, important, and
  respected (Adapted from Dual language learners
  in early care and educational settings)

67
Pre-literacy activities

• Encourage parents to
• Talk with infants, toddlers and preschoolers
  using language they feel most comfortable with
  during routines, play, and new experiences
• Sing
• Rhyme
• Share books

68
During pre-literacy activities

• Share new and rare words
• Use different kinds of questions
• Follow the CAR!
• Comment and wait
• Ask questions and wait
• Respond by adding more

69
Create a Collage of Ideas
National Head Start Family Literacy Center
70
Tapping Available Resources

• Family members, friends
• Community volunteers
• Allied professionals, co-treatment
• Bilingual paraprofessionals or consulting SLPs
• Interpreters/translators
• College volunteers (Kohnert, 2008)

71
Working with Interpreters

• Prior to Seeing the Family
• Give background set goals to get on the same
  page
• Etiquette
• Address the family, not the interpreter, and
  maintain eye contact with the family
• Speak at a comfortable pace that will allow time
  for interpretation

72
Working with Interpreters

• Confirm understanding and agreement with the
  family
• Encourage interpreter to clarify terms with you
• Debriefing Use the interpreter as a resource
  for you
• Speak privately with the interpreter who may
  perceive cultural and emotional subtleties more
  clearly

73
A Dual Language Learner is like this picture
because
74
Muchas Gracias!

• Acknowledgements
• Dr. Patsy Pierce, UNC-CH
• Dr. Dina Castro, FPG

75
REFERENCES

• Gorman, Brenda K., Aghara, Rachel G.,
  Conceptualizing Bilingualism Defining the
  Standard for Child Language Assessment.
  Perspectives on Communication Disorders and
  Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
  Populations. Vol. 11(2), July 2004. pp. 19-23
• Kester, Ellen Stubbe Elizabeth D. Peña (2002).
  Language ability assessment of Spanish-English
  Bilinguals future directions. Practical
  Assessment, Research Evaluation, 8(4).
• Kohnert, K., Yim, D., Nett, K., Kan, P., Duran,
  L., Intervention with Linguistically Diverse
  Preschool Children A Focus on Developing Home,
  LSHSS, vol. 36,251-263,July 2005
• Laing, S., Kahmdi, A. Alternative Assessment of
  Language and Literacy in Culturally and
  Linguistically Diverse Population, LSHSS, Vol 34,
  44-55, January 2003.

76
REFERENCES

• American Speech-Language- Hearing Association.
  (1989, March). Bilingual Speech- Language
  Pathologists and Audiologists Definition. ASHA,
  31, p. 93.
• California Institute on Human Services/SSU
  (2003). Language is the Key Follow the CAR
  Resource Guide. Sonoma, CA, Sonoma State
  University.
• California Institute on Human Services/SSU
  (2004). Follow the CAR examples handout. .
  Sonoma, CA, Sonoma State University.
• Cole, K., M. Maddox, et al. (2002). Language is
  the key A program for building language and
  literacy. Seattle, WA, Washington Research
  Institute.
• Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F. (1996). Language
  diversity Implications for assessment.
  Assessment of communication and language K. Cole,
  P. Dale and D. Thal. Baltimore, MD, Paul H.
  Brookes.
• http//www.asha.org/NR/rdonlyres/DDDE2F70-42CE-4B9
  E-9A65-02A78FE7CAD1/0/IDSmodel021307.pdf

77
References

• Manolson, A. (1985, 1992). It takes two to talk.
  Toronto Hanen Centre.
• MMI Board, ASHA 2006, Why Is Yogurt Good for
  You? Because It Has Live Cultures
• National Association for the Education of Young
  Children (NAEYC). (1992). Guidelines for
  developmentally appropriate practices.
  Washington, DC
• Stewart, Sharon R., Serving a Diverse Population
  The role of the Speech-Language Pathology
  Professional Preparation Programs, Journal of
  allied Sciences, Winter 2002.
• www.osr.nc.gov