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
1
Infant-Toddler Connection of
Fairfax-Falls Church
Fairfax Office
3750 Old Lee Highway
Fairfax, VA 22030
South County Office
8350 Richmond Highway
Alexandria, VA 22309
Chantilly Office
14150 Parkeast Circle
Chantilly, VA 20151
Annandale Office
7611 Little River Turnpike
Annandale, VA 22033
2
Our County’s Demographics

Fairfax County, located in Northern Virginia,
has a population of 1.1 million people.

29% of county residents were born in another
country.

36.4% of the population of Fairfax County
speaks a language other than English.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US51059&qr_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_S1603&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_
3
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%
US population: Language other than English spoken in home: 20.3%
4
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
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
Common Definitions

Bilingualism


Simultaneous Bilingual Development
Sequential Bilingual Development

Code Switching

Code Mixing
Bilingualism


Defined: The native-like control of two languages
(Bloomfield, 1933)
Bilingualism is NOT the coexistence of two monolingual
individuals in one person


(Goldstein, et. al., n.d.)
“The coexistence and constant interaction between two languages
in the bilingual (individual) has produced a different but complete
linguistic identity” (Grosjean, 1989).
Bilingual children (an operational definition): children who
receive regular input in 2+ languages during the most
dynamic period of communication development
(somewhere birth-adolescence) (Kohnert, 2010)

This definition includes simultaneous and sequential bilingualism
8
Simultaneous Bilingual Development
(Seitel & Garcia, 2009)


The development of two languages before the age of 3
Phases of simultaneous bilingual development:
 One lexical system with words from both languages
 Use of mixed language utterances but a single
language system forming the basis for acquisition of
L1 and L2.
 Child has two lexical systems but continues mixing
utterances, indicating two linguistic codes and
differentiated lexicon and syntax
 Two languages with distinct grammars (Damico and
Hamayan, 1992)
9
Sequential Bilingual Development
(Seitel & Garcia, 2009)


Second language is learned in early childhood (after age
3), either formal or informal exposure; school-age (after
age 5), usually in academic setting
Sequence of development:





Silent period: child is comprehending language with limited output. May
last 3-6 months
Language loss: as child acquires L2 and uses L1 less frequently, L1
skills will begin to be lost
Language transfer: syntax, morphology, pragmatics, semantics are
carries over from L1 to L2
Interlanguage: inconsistent errors in L2 may continue as child begins to
communicate more. These are typical for L2 learning process
Codeswitching: child may substitute forms, structures, or lexical items
from L1 to L2 for items that have not yet been learned in L2
10
Code Switching


(Daniel, n.d.)
Code switching: alternation of codes (languages) across
sentence boundaries
Difficulties with code switching may be indicated by
(Daniel, n.d.):
 Rough transitions between languages with false starts
 Marked awareness of alternation between languages
 Alternations at noun/word level only
 Alternations used for communicating untranslatable
items only
CONSIDER: in our population, would these be indicators
for a disorder?
11
Code Mixing




(Daniel, n.d.)
The alternation of codes (languages) within a
sentence
Code mixing and switching are typical patterns
seem in ESL/ESOL classrooms
Code switching is more common
However, code mixing is often seen as children
attempt to embed L2 into L1 while acquiring L2
(Brice, 2000)
12
Expectations for Language Development
in Bilingual Children





Words in both languages act as a bridge between the
dominant and less dominant languages at ages 18-30
months (Daniel, n.d.)
Children as young as 18 months can understand and
use two languages independently of one another
Skills may not be equally distributed across languages
(Kohnert & Derr, 2004)
Words and functions in each language vary by topic,
context, and communication partners
Some skills will be present only in the relatively weaker
language, and some only in the relatively dominant
language (presumably more there)
13
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
14
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.
15
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.
16
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.)
17
Culture and Bias (Goldstein, et al., n.d.)

Culture: a shared agreement on values,
knowledge, and communication

Tests, teachers, and examiners presume that
these social conventions are mutually shared
with test takers

What can differ?



Families socialize children to learn according the family’s
values and beliefs
Teachers expect children to be socialized to the mainstream
culture
All cultures have expectations for appropriate behavior in
testing, social, and school contexts
18
Assessment of Bilingual Children
(Goldstein, et al., n.d.)

To complete a valid assessment, you must:




Understand the construct you are assessing
Identify the question you are trying to answer
Gather data from a variety of sources
Questions to consider:




What are the child’s strengths/weaknesses?
What is the child’s learning style?
What is the child’s ability to learn?
What type of progress is the child making?
These questions sum to help answer the BIG question: is the child typically
developing, or does he/she have a language impairment?
19
Assessment of Bilingual Children
(Goldstein, et al. n.d.)

For bilingual children, information should
gathered on:






Socio-cultural characteristics of their community
Family socio-economic status
Structure of their non-English language (lexicon,
syntax, phonology)
Age of acquisition (of both languages): sequential
or simultaneous acquisition.
Language history
Opportunities for and proficiency of use of both
languages
20
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)
21
Parent Questionnaire
22
Parent Questionnaire

Examined tools to identify 5-7 year-old children with
language impairment who were predominantly
Spanish-speaking.



(Restrepo, 1998)
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
23
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
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.
25
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.
26
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.
27
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.
28
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.
29
Questionnaires

Appendix A


(Restrepo, 1998)
Questionnaire for teachers about the child’s
language at home and at school.
Appendix B

Translation of the parent interview.
30
Appendix A – Teacher Questionnaire
31
Appendix B – Parent Interview Translation
32
Appendix B – Parent Interview Translation
33
Parent Questionnaire/Teacher Questionnaire
Bilingual
Language
Development
& Disorders
In Spanish-English
Speakers
Brian A. Goldstein
34
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.
35
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.
36
Lexical Inventory/Vocabulary Checklist
(Patterson, 2000)
37
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.
38
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.
39
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.
40
Lexical Inventory/Vocabulary Checklist
(Patterson, 2000)

It is important to gather lexical knowledge in
both languages as this is a better reflection
of child’s word knowledge and use.

The total number of expressive vocabulary
words in both languages is the closest
measurement of expressive vocabulary
words compared with monolingual children.
41
Lexical Inventory/Vocabulary Checklist
(Patterson, 2000)
Bilingual


The author compared
reported SEVC
vocabulary size to a
transcription of a
30-minute language
sample.
Observed expressive
vocabulary ranged from
3– 163 words with
a mean of 50 words.


Monolingual
Dale (1991) reported the
observed expressive
vocabulary words for
monolingual children in a
20-minute language
sample.
Observed expressive
vocabulary words had a
mean of 70 words.
42
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
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.
44
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
Language Sampling
46
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.
47
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
 English relies on
noun-verb agreement
word order for
for understanding.
understanding.


48
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).
49
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.
50
Dynamic Assessment (DA)….
requires flexibility
51
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.”
52
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
Dynamic Assessment
(Laing & Kamhi, 2003),
(“Dynamic Assessment: Basic Framework”, n.d.)

Test-Teach-Retest




Most familiar approach
Differentiates strong and weak language learners.
Test
 Assess child’s current performance
Teach
 Use mediated learning experience (MLE)



Help child develop strategies
Observe child’s modifiability


Teach, watch how child responds, adjust according
Modifiability: description of how child responds to MLE
Retest
 Compare performance to original assessment
 Assess transfer of strategies
54
Dynamic Assessment

(Laing & Kamhi, 2003)
Approaches
 Vary the task/stimulus
 Modify test presentation
 Embed language forms in realistic thematic
contexts




Assess in naturalistic environment
Allow child to perform task to demonstrate knowledge vs. point
to picture
Better at identifying language difference vs. language disorder
Graduated Prompting

Child’s response helps determine which language forms and
structures to target and how much improvement a child may
make in intervention.
55
Dynamic Assessment
(Peña, Quinn, & Iglesias, 1992)

Administered EOWPVT to Puerto Rican children with and without
language impairment (LI) using a test-teach-retest approach to
dynamic assessment.

No difference was found between the language impaired and
typically developing children on pretest measures.

Results of post-test measures indicated:
 Typically developing children earned significantly higher posttest
scores than the children with LI.
 Observations of the following significantly differentiated LI and
typically developing children.
 Ease of a child’s ability to learn and use new skills presented
in structured and novel environments (specifically
vocabulary).
 Effort required by clinician to teach new skills to child.
56
Dynamic Assessment

Clinical Implications




For bilingual children, Dynamic Assessment may
provide better diagnostic data than standardized
assessments.
Clinicians must examine the child’s ability and ease
to learn new skills.
If the child takes more effort in learning new skills, it
may be an indicator of a language disorder.
Assessment is ongoing and responses to
intervention need to be tracked in order to correctly
identify bilingual children with language disorders.
57
Authentic Assessment
Authentic Assessment
(Schraeder, T. & Quinn, M., 1999)






Assessment of skills that represent realistic learning
demands in real-life settings and without
standardized conditions
Adds context to analysis of child’s communication skills
How much effort does it take for the child to learn a new
skill?
Can the child generalize the skill to new situations?
How much change is there over time?
Does the disorder exist in both languages? It SHOULD.



Do not focus on determining which language is dominant
Focus on describing skills in ALL domains across BOTH languages
Identify behaviors/characteristics of language use
59
Authentic Assessment: Why?
(Schraeder, T. & Quinn, M., 1999)


20-30% of children may fail current screening tests
Reasons:
 Normative populations include larger percentage
of middle-income people than low-income people
(regardless of race)
 Lack of natural environment and requirements of
testing interactions and behavior may impact
results
 Variables such as communication partner, setting,
task, and conversational parameters are included
60
Authentic Assessment: Options
(Schraeder, T. & Quinn, M., 1999)



Proposed protocol: Minimal Competency
Core (MCC)
The LEAST amount of linguistic skill or
knowledge that a typical speaker should
display for given age and context
Goal is to separate children with language
delays or disorders from those with the
LEAST proficient age-appropriate
communication skills
Minimal Competency Core
(Schraeder, et al., 1999)

Research and development:


Children ages 3;0-3;11 in Early Head Start program in
Dane County, WI all completed first-level screening
(hearing testing, PDI or DIAL-R)
30 children who failed the SPELT-P (when
administered twice, once by SLP student examiners
and once by a certified SLP) were given yet another
screening; 8 of 30 were recommended for MDE, and 4
of 8 were enrolled in ST services
 SPELT-P over-identified children
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
63
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
65
66
Other Means of Assessment
(Crais, 2011)

Infants and toddlers should be using the following
major communicative functions by 12 months of
age:



Social interaction: initiate or maintain a social game or
routine, provide comfort, show off, tease
Behavior regulation: regulate the behavior of others to
obtain and object, get them to carry out an action, stop
someone from doing something
Joint attention: direct other’s attention in order to comment
upon, provide information about, or acknowledge shared
attention to an object or event
67
Other Means of Assessment
(Crais, 2011)



The rate of intentional communication is predictive of
language outcomes in children with developmental
delays
Higher rates of nonverbal intentional communication are
associated with improved language outcomes
Norms:




12-month olds communicate intentionally 1x/minute
18-month olds communicate intentionally 2x/minute
24-month olds communicate intentionally 5x/minute
Joint attention skills have been shown to predict
comprehension and production skills
Alternative Means of Assessment
(Crais, 2011)

Factors that can help distinguish late talkers from children
with language disorders (other than vocabulary size):








Rate of vocabulary growth - Children whose vocabulary growth
was slowest between 24 and 36 months of age had poorer
grammatical outcomes at age 3 than other late talkers
Sound development
Comprehension
Social skills
Cognitive development
Gesture skills - Gesture use can help predict which children will
eventually “catch up” to peers
Play skills
Imitation skills
69
The Importance of Play
(Crais, 2011)

Play skills: the level of symbolic play exhibited by young
children predicts their later language skills




Ex. Symbolic play skills at 14 months were predictive of receptive and
expressive language at 24 and 42 months
Play also impacts types of interactions and opportunities a
child may have
Helping young children develop play skills gives both children
and caregivers increased opportunities for interactions and
expanded context for communication
Profiling play skills along with other developmental areas
helps identify the child’s strengths and challenges and can
support diagnostic and intervention planning decisions

Ex. Comparing play as a non-linguistic benchmark against
expressive/receptive language skills
Assessing Play
(Crais, 2011)


Informally: observation of parent/child interaction
Checklists: Carpenter’s Play Scale (1987), Casby’s Developmental
Assessment of Play Scale (2003), Westby’s 7 stages of symbolic play,
CSBS (more formal means of assessing combinatorial play, such as
stacking blocks, and symbolic play and gestures to allow comparison across
domains, such as play vs. gestures vs. words)

Note: play skills will vary based upon characteristics of play
partners, type of toys available, and type of play

Cultural differences in play: what is the purpose of play?



To learn
For entertainment
Parent participation in play varies

labeling and describing child’s play vs. directing child’s play
71
72
Primary Language Impairment and
Bilingual Language Learners (Kohnert, 2010)

If primary language impairment (PLI) occurs at the same rate in
bilingual children as monolingual children, then 7% of bilingual
language learners at PLI.
No difference in severity between 6-10 year old monolingual and Spanish-English
bilingual children with PLI (comparison for each group was typically developing
children matched for age and language background) (Windsor, et al, 2009)



Comparing monolingual and bilingual children’s performance,
monolingual children with PLI and typically developing bilingual
children demonstrate similar grammatical errors and poor scores on
single-language vocabulary measures.
Comparing a bilingual child with suspected PLI vs. typically
developing bilingual peers with similar cultural and language
learning experiences there are significant and variations due to
expected variation in any group of children as well as differences in
levels of language proficiency.
73
Characteristics Shared by Students with LD and
ELL (Kohnert, 2010)











Uses gestures rather than words
Speaks infrequently
Speaks in single words or phrases
Has poor recall
Has poor comprehension
Has poor syntax
Has poor vocabulary
Has poor pronunciation
Has difficulty sequencing ideas and events
Has short attention span
For English Language Learners without disabilities, these
characteristics will appear ONLY when L2 is being used. These are
typical characteristics of L2 acquisition process.
74
A Brief Look at Intervention
Intervention in the Home Language
(Kohnert, et. al., 2005)



Systematic support for home language of children with
language impairment (LI) is critical to long-term success of
language intervention
Quality and quantity of positive, reciprocal language-based
interactions supports child’s success in processing /acquisition
of forms unique to each language
Promotion of use of home language is motivated by:
 Social, emotional, cognitive development within cultural
context of family
 Language as major vehicle for communicating family’s
values and expectations, expressive care and concern,
providing structure and discipline, and interpreting world
experiences
76
Intervention in the Home Language
(Kohnert, 2005)

Typically developing second generation children of immigrant
parents have social-emotional and educational advantages when
they have learned home language in addition to English





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:




Higher self-esteem
Better relations with family members
Greater academic aspirations
Opportunities to learn and use it
Motivation to speak it
Degree of prestige associated with L1 use in immediate cultural and
majority communities
L1 learning may backslide or be incompletely acquired without support
77
Intervention in the Home Language
(Kohnert, 2005)

For LI children, slower pace of language learning combined with
lower “starting point” when L2 (majority language) is acquired means
that these kids will need more input into home (L1) language than
TD peers to develop L1 appropriately


KEY: facilitating home language should be fundamental objective in
intervention programs of preschool aged-children with LI
Instruction in home language during preschool years supports later
academic achievement in majority language and generalization of
skills


Studies show that intervention in 2 languages revealed capacity of
bilingual kids with LI to learn 2 languages to a similar level of
monolingual peers with LI (who used 1 language)
TD school-aged children who learned to read first in L1 (and then L2)
had an advantage in academic achievement and reading compared to
peers who learned to read only in L2
78
Intervention in the Home Language
(Kohnert, 2005)
 If we want young children to develop skills necessary to
be successful communicators in all language
environments, we should provide direct support for
EACH language
 Instructing caregivers to select 1 language of the 2 upon
which to focus in intervention may result in increased
effort and processing time on part of adult, and may
negatively affect quantity and quality of interactions with
child


Codeswitching may be primary speech community of the
home
This is typical! Children codeswitch at same proportion as
their caregivers
79
Parent Education (Kohnert, 2005)

So how do we provide intervention in languages we don’t
speak?



Train parents to use specific language facilitation strategies and
use multiple instruction methods (written materials,
videotaping,demonstration, COACHING)
Suggest activities that are defined (singing, book reading) and
that lend themselves to interactions in a single language (vs.
mixing languages in conversation)
Peer-mediated strategies

Pairing child with LI with TD child who uses same home language for
play and facilitated interactions
NOTE:

Some strategies recommended to support language development are
based upon research in majority population in US. These may not be
consistent with family’s cultural values (ex. “following the child’s lead”)
80
What’s the next step for us monolingual
early intervention/education providers?
81
Monolingual Provider Recommended Protocol

Conduct thorough parent interview/teacher interview and collect
family history of possible speech/language issues.

Consider the child’s cultural influences and level of
acculturation.

Measure vocabulary skills in both languages.

Record & analyze language sample, and to the best of your
ability analyze samples in both languages.

Use dynamic or authentic assessment strategies

Assess play skills
82
And last but not least…
Use
Your
Clinical
Judgment.
83
Questions?
84
Thank you for your time!
85
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 187211). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Campbell, T, & Dollaghan, C. (2003). Reducing bias in language assessment: processingdependent measures. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 40, 519-525.
Crais, E. R. (2011) Testing and beyond: Strategies and tools for evaluating and assessing
infants and toddlers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 341-364.
Cummins, J. C. (1984). Bilingual and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Dale, P.S. (1991) The validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary and syntax at 24
months. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 565-571.
Daniel. M. (n.d.) Adapting tests for use with bilingual U.S. children. Powerpoint presented with
Special Interest Division 14: Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations &
Communication Disorders. Retrieved February 11, 2013.
Deevy, P, Weil, L.W, Leonard, L, & Goffman, L. (2010). Extending use of the NRT to
preschool-age children with and without specific language impairment. Language, Speech
and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 277-288.
Difference or disorder? New tool to identify bilingual children with language disorders. (2010,
November 29). ADVANCE for Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, p. 14.
86
Bibliography
Dynamic assessment. (n.d.) In American Speech-Language-Hearing Association online.
Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/issues/Dynamic-Assessment.htm.
Echeverria, M.S. (1979). Longitud del enunciado infantil: Factores ambientales e individuales
[Children’s mean length of utterance: Environmental and individual factors]. In Estudio Generales
I. Actas del 5o. Seminario de Investifacion y Ensenanza de la Lingüística y Universidad Tecnica
del Estado (pp. 56-68). Santiago, Chile.
Goldstein, et al. (n.d.) Assessment practices: What we know today for linguistically diverse learners.
Powerpoint presented with Special Interest Division 14: Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
Populations & Communication Disorders. Retrieved February 11, 2013.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V, Restrepo, M.A., Bedore, L., Pena, E., &Anderson, R. (2000). Language sample
analysis in Spanish-speaking children: Methodological Considerations. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 88-98.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V, & Simon-Cereijido, G. (2010). Using nonword repetition tasks for the
identification of language impairment in Spanish-English speaking children: does the language of
assessment matter?. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 48-58.
Laing, S, & Kamhi, A. (2003). Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally and
linguistically diverse populations. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 44-55.
Lidz, C, & Pena, E. (1996). Dynamic assessment: the model its relevance as a nonbiased approach,
and its application to Latino American preschool children. Language, Speech and Hearing
Services in Schools, 27, 367-372
Kohnert, K. (2010) Bilingual children with primary language impairment: Issues, evidence and
implications for clinical actions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43 (6), 456-473.
87
Bibliography
Kohnert, K., et al. (2005) Intervention with linguistically diverse preschool children: A focus on developing
home languages. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 251-263.
Kohnert, K., & Derr, A. (2004) Language Intervention with Bilingual Children. In B. Goldstein (Ed)., Bilingual
language development & disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp 311-338). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). Inquiries and insights: Second language teaching, immersion and bilingual education,
literacy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Alemany Press.
Ortiz, S.O. (2004). Comprehensive assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students: A systematic,
practical approach for nondiscriminatory assessment. National Association of School Psychologists,
http://www.nasponline.org/resources/culturalcompetence/ortiz.pdf.
Patterson, J.L. (2000). Observed and reported expressive vocabulary and word combinations in bilingual
toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 121-128.
Peña, E. D., Quinn, R., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods to language assessment: A
nonbiased procedure. Journal of Special Education, 26, 269–280
Restrepo, M.A. (1998). Identifiers of predominantly Spanish-speaking children with language impairment.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1398-1411.
Schraeder, T., & Quinn, M., et al. (1999) Authentic Assessment as an approach to preschool speechlanguage screening. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 195-200.
Seitel, A., & Garcia, M. (2009) Language difference, delay or disorder in Spanish-English bilingual students.
Powerpoint presented at ASHA Convention, November 20, 2009.
US Census Bureau. Fairfax County & Virginia Census Data, Retrieved April 29, 2013.
http://quickfacts.census/gov/qfd/states/51/51059.html
88
Descargar

Two Monolingual SLPs Tackle the Assessment of Bilingual