WORKING WITH EMERGING BILINGUALS: FOUNDATIONAL SKILLS Mahchid Namazi, PhD CCC-SLP Multilingual Speech-Language Pathologist KEAN UNIVERSITY Describe the typical development of emerging bilinguals Identify and describe the red flags to differentiate language disorder from difference Identify and describe 3 evidence based approaches to the assessment of language in emerging bilinguals Dispel the myths related to this population Every child in NJ has a right to quality EBP services – not just those who speak English Every SLP providing services to these kids should feel competent Let’s make NJ the first state to achieve this goal
Transcript
WORKING WITH EMERGING BILINGUALS: FOUNDATIONAL SKILLS
Describe the typical development of emerging bilingualsIdentify and describe the red flags to differentiate language disorder from differenceIdentify and describe 3 evidence based approaches to the assessment of language in emerging bilingualsDispel the myths related to this population
Every child in NJ has a right to quality EBP services – not just
those who speak English
Every SLP providing services to these kids should feel
competent Let’s make NJ the first state to
achieve this goal
Why is specialized SLP training with emerging bilinguals needed?
New Jersey Public School Fact Sheet
Under 18: 22% of the population(~2,000,000)
30% of all children spoke a language other than English at home - ~ 600, 000
6-8% prevalence rate: ~ 36, 000-48,000
US Census Bureau Quickfacts
The Number of Bilingual Kids in America Continues to Rise - The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/blog/the-number-of-bilingual-kids-in-america-continues-to-rise/
Communication Disorders Among 3–17 Year olds
22% (~ 12 million children) speak a language other than English at home
7.7 % of children in the U.S present with a communication or swallowing disorder.5% have speech problems3.3% have language problems1.4% have voice difficulties0.9%-5.6% have fluency issues 0.9%have swallowing difficulties
Autism Prevalence | Autism Speaks. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism/prevalenceChildhood Fluency Disorders: Incidence and Prevalence. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid=8589935336§ion=Incidence_and_PrevalenceQuick Statistics About Voice, Speech, Language. (2017, December 21). Retrieved from https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics-voice-speech-language
It is impossible to match a clinician to the client’s first language
Factors Influencing Second Language Acquisition
EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE
● Age of introduction to each language● Environment in which the languages were acquired ● The emphasis the child’s community or home
poses on the importance of the first language● The child’s motivation towards the second
language
“Only by providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services can we
provide the quality of services our clients/patients deserve” (ASHA, 2004, para. 3)
ASHA’s policy and requirements: ● Typical language development in monolinguals and bilinguals● Distinguishing typical and disordered language from a
difference ● Using appropriate test materials in language assessment● Considering the impact of the client's language or dialect
exposure and experience as well as phonemic variations of the client’s first language
Bilingual children entering school at age 5, present a unique challenge.
They are often over-referred by teachers and thus over- represented on the caseloads of SLPs.Sometimes they are under-referred
However,Relevant screening tools for all emerging bilinguals are non-existent. Traditional treatment approaches are inappropriate for this population.SLPs do not always have appropriate training to assess and treat this population competently.
SLPs have overdependence on standardized speech-language instruments
Only a small percentage of SLPs reported using functional assessment (language sampling and observation)
SLPs do not use dynamic assessment which has been shown to be a valid assessment for bilingual children
The majority of SLPs believed their assessment practices were in accordance with the recommended guidelines
Standardized speech and language assessment tools are linguistically biased:
SLPs’ Confidence Levels
○ Low efficacy on assessment for their own skills and for other SLPs in the field
○ “lack of knowledge on bilingual topics”
○ Implication: unethical service delivery
Foundational Knowledge
▪▫▫▫
▪▫▫▫
• Acquisition begins after age 3 in a new language community
• Stages of using different communicative strategies speaking the new language
• Nonverbal period
▪
▪
▫▫
▪▫◾◾
••
••
•
▪▪
▪
▪
▪
• After 6 months,• Uses more & more words in the L2 but
may resort to using catch-all words/phrases – e.g. “that”, “thing”
• Differentiates the two languages • Speaks more but continues to make
grammatical errors• In general, silence disappears gradually
• At the end of 1 year:• L2 is used in everyday situations (greetings,
requesting, retelling a personal story, answering questions)
• Individual differences are marked according to the first language, culture of origin, learning style, amount of exposure…
• Vocabulary, pronunciation and organization of ideas is progressing well but grammatical rules are still being learned
• 6 months of exposure to L2 after age 3 → will begin using the spoken language in social interactions on a regular basis
• 1 year of consistent & regular exposure → will talk in sentences intelligibly
– Caution: may continue to make errors on high level grammatical structures
MAJOR ISSUES
••••
1.
◾
▫
• Facilitative &/or competitive • Determined by:
▫ Age, developmental stage, skill in each language, exposure to each language, task demands, language domain & typological features of languages
• Age of exposure to English• Context of Acquisition• Absolute & relative proficiency in each
language• As in monolinguals:
• SES• Parent education• Home literacy• Learning style• Aptitude/cognitive ability
Detailed information on exposure to both languages
• Age of first exposure• Length of exposure• Context of exposure• Who speaks what
• About how many hours per week
• Rating of proficiency
MINIMUM 40-50% exposure to English is required for a period of a full year
CONSISTENTLY for fluent conversational skill
Academic language will take another 3-4 years
Review language exposure questionnaire
Let’s even the playing field and debunk some myths
➢
▫
• Disorder: Significant discrepancy in language skills relative to what would be expected for a child’s age or developmental level
• Difference: Rule-governed language style that deviates in some way from the standard usage of the mainstream culture
• “I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse”_____ Charles V 1337-1380
• The Bilingual is not two monolinguals in one
• Rarely have equal knowledge of their two languages
• “Real” bilinguals almost always have accents – it is not related to how bilingual one is• Everyone has an accent
• Bilingualism & Biculturalism are not synonymous
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Utterances that contain elements from both languages:• A Spanish Session:• es que la niño have it more fun in the night
(from Namazi, 2012 in prep)• para yo quiere una fish de hace rato.
▪ An English session• aha my tia• A mesa
(from Namazi 2012, in prep)
• Style & preference
• Word frequency effects
• Distributed knowledge
• Sociolinguistically motivated: peers & parents
Code –switching is neither a sign of confusion, nor a diagnostic marker, and
definitely not a cause for concern
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪▫
Brain scans of bilingual individuals found greater gray-matter density (yellow) in the inferior parietal cortex (brain’s language-dominant left hemisphere). The density was most pronounced in people who were very proficient in a second language or in those who learned a second language before the age of five.
Language Acquisition is Dynamic
● 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.
● 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)
Hurdles for ALL SLPs (Laing & Kamhi, 2003)
Norm-referenced tests are not appropriate for bilingual children due to:● Content bias
● Linguistic bias
● Disproportionate representation in normative samples
Content Bias
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.
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.
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.)
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 sourcesQuestions 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?
50
Assessment of Bilingual Children(Goldstein, et al. n.d.)
For bilingual children, information should gathered on:● Language history: Amount and length of exposure● Structure of their non-English language (lexicon,
syntax, phonology)● Age of acquisition (of both languages): sequential or
simultaneous acquisition.● Opportunities for and proficiency of use of both
languages● Socio-cultural characteristics of their community● Family socio-economic status
Language History
Available in 24 languages
Parent & Teacher Questionnaires
Restrepo (1998)Anderson (2004)
53
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
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
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
Sensitivity & specificity measures were obtained
forParent 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Processing Measures
Non-Word Repetition• Relies on short term processing Older children
better than younger children• Unaffected by language exposure• Performance affected by:
– Nonword length• Affects kids with PLI more so than typical kids
– Wordlikeliness: evidence for long-term knowledge– Phonotactic structure: articulatory complexity and
prosodic patterns
Scoring Methods
Item or phoneme level– Item: nonword scored on its entirety – binary
• More clinically efficient• Higher sensitivity and specificity • A better approach
– Phoneme: each phoneme scored separately → percent phonemes correct
• More detail– High agreement has been found
Dynamic Assessment
requires flexibility …
Dynamic Assessment
To identify the skills that an individual child possesses as well as their learning potential
Emphasizes the learning process and accounts for the amount and nature of examiner investment
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.
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
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.
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
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
Authentic Assessment: Options(Schraeder, T. & Quinn, M., 1999)
• 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
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 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
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
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
Interpreters
Adaptationsersonnel - Hierarchy of Preferred Models
Contract services of bilingual professional CST member
Train bilingual education professional to assist.
Train other bilingual professionals to assist
Train community professionals to serve as interpreters.
Train non-professionals in the district as interpreters.
Train community non-professionals as interpreters.
Characteristics of Interpreters
• Have excellent bilingual communication skills.
• Be able to relate to members of the cultural group.
• Understand their ethical responsibilities.
• Act in a professional manner.• Be TRAINED for their roles.
Training of Interpreters• Legal requirements and professional ethics.• Goals of testing and/or meeting.• Special education terminology relevant to
their roles in working with family members.• Role on the team.• Procedures for administering tests, if
applicable.• Consideration of cultural differences in
assessment.• Strategies for interacting with families.
Use of Interpreters • Prior to the meeting, discuss the
questions that will be asked with the interpreter.
• Interpreters should sit as close as possible to family members.
• Introduce family to everyone at the meeting.
• Speak in short units and avoid slang and professional jargon.
• Encourage the interpreter to translate the family’s words without paraphrasing them.
Use of Interpreters • Look at the family rather than the
interpreter when speaking.• Observe the nonverbal behaviors
of the family during the interview.
• Allow opportunities for family members to ask questions.
• Provide written information (translated) when appropriate.
• Tape record the interview if the family is comfortable.
Observation of Interpretation Session
Observe the interpreter to prevent the following problems:
– Prompting or giving clues– Using too many words– Giving directions that are too brief or too
complicated– Over- or under-using reinforcement– Recording assessment data incorrectly, if
applicable.
Observe the student for the following behaviors:
● Response delays● Uses of gestures to replace words● False starts, word repetitions,
perseveration● Confusion● Inattention, distractibility● Language and articulation
disorders
Responsibilities of CST Member in Use of Interpreters
• Allow interpreter to only complete the activities for which training has been provided.
• Show the interpreter how to use the tests and allow time to organize materials, read instructions and clarify areas of concern.
• Provide the interpreter with background information about the student who is to be tested.
• Debrief with the interpreter after the session.• Ensure that the interpreter does not protect the
student by hiding the extent of the limitations/disabilities.
– 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
(Crais, 2011)
Infants and toddlers should be using the following major communicative functions by 12 months of age:
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
• Joint attention skills have been shown to predict comprehension and production skills
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
Play as a Window to Cognition and Language
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
103
Primary Language Impairment andBilingual Language Learners
• 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.
haracteristics Shared by Students with LD and ELL
• 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.
Intervention in the Home Language
• 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
Intervention in the Home Language
● 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
support108
Intervention in the Home Language
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 LIInstruction 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
Intervention in the Home Language
● 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
110
Parent EducationSo 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 interactionsNOTE:
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”)
Older School-Age Children
• Crosslinguistic Cognates• Share form (orthography or phonology) and
• Bilingual adults are faster & more accurate in processing written and spoken cognates compared to non-cognates of similar length, difficulty, or frequency (Sanchez-Casas & Garcia-Albea, 2005)
• Benefit is greatest when stimuli presented in the bilingual’s WEAKER language
(e.g. Dufour & Kroll, 1995)
• Cognate advantage for picture naming shown in bilingual adults with Aphasia (Kohnert, 2004)
• Sensivity associated with:• Age/grade level• Reading & academic skills• Degree of visual & phonological overlap • L1 ability• Previous knowledge of word/concept in the
L1• Spanish Immersion students perform
better than English monolinguals on cognate items of English PPVT-R (Cunningham & Graham, 2000)
• Kelley & Kohnert (2012)• Are TD Spanish-English bilinguals more
likely to identify or name cognate versus noncognate stimulus items?
• What learner variables are associated with cognate performance on receptive and expressive vocabulary tests in English?
• 30 Spanish-English emerging bilinguals between 7;10 and 13;0• L1, Spanish at home only• L2, English at school & community• No educational instruction in Spanish• 4 to 8 years of consistent exposure to
English
• YES• As a group, children identified and
named more spoken vocabulary items that were cognates• Indicates Spanish to English,
phonological-to-lexical-semantic bootstrapping
• Less well-known words more likely to benefit from this advantage
Kelley & Kohnert, 2012
• For identification, older children had greater benefit from cross-language phonolgical overlap
• For naming, children with higher nonverbal IQs had greater benefit
• Vocabulary development is a key area of persistent weakness in children with LI
• Word categories, functions, attributes & practicing verbal analogies
• Tier 2 vocabulary
• In emerging bilinguals, cognates can be an additional area to target in treatment
Kelley & Kohnert, 2012
• Careful selection of stimuli, SLPs can take advantage of cross-language correspondences• E.g. Tier 2 vocabulary
• Brilliant – Brillante• E.g. Math vocabulary
• Distance – Distancia
• Use cognates in spoken & written treatment activities
• Venn diagrams or other visual organizers to compare/contrast
• 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
124
Last but not Least…Use
Your Clinical
Judgment
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.
126
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.
127
BibliographyKohnert, 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,
.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.
