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
Infant-Toddler Connection ofFairfax-Falls Church Annandale Office 7611 Little River Turnpike Annandale, VA 22033 Chantilly Office 14150 Parkeast Circle Chantilly, VA 20151 Fairfax Office 3750 Old Lee Highway Fairfax, VA 22030 South County Office 8350 Richmond Highway Alexandria, VA 22309
Our County’s Demographics • Fairfax County, located in Northern Virginia, has a population of 1.1 million people. • 29% of county residents were born in another country. • 36.4% of the population of Fairfax County speaks a language other than English. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US51059&-qr_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_S1603&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_
Fairfax County and Virginia Census Data 4 US population: Language other than English spoken in home: 20.3%
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(Goldstein, et. al., n.d.) • Defined: The native-like control of two languages (Bloomfield, 1933) • Bilingualism is NOT the coexistence of two monolingual individuals in one person • “The coexistence and constant interaction between two languages in the bilingual (individual) has produced a different but complete linguistic identity” (Grosjean, 1989). • Bilingual children (an operational definition): children who receive regular input in 2+ languages during the most dynamic period of communication development (somewhere birth-adolescence) (Kohnert, 2010) • This definition includes simultaneous and sequential bilingualism 8
Simultaneous Bilingual Development(Seitel & Garcia, 2009) • The development of two languages before the age of 3 • Phases of simultaneous bilingual development: • One lexical system with words from both languages • Use of mixed language utterances but a single language system forming the basis for acquisition of L1 and L2. • Child has two lexical systems but continues mixing utterances, indicating two linguistic codes and differentiated lexicon and syntax • Two languages with distinct grammars (Damico and Hamayan, 1992) 9
Sequential Bilingual Development(Seitel & Garcia, 2009) • Second language is learned in early childhood (after age 3), either formal or informal exposure; school-age (after age 5), usually in academic setting • Sequence of development: • Silent period: child is comprehending language with limited output. May last 3-6 months • Language loss: as child acquires L2 and uses L1 less frequently, L1 skills will begin to be lost • Language transfer: syntax, morphology, pragmatics, semantics are carries over from L1 to L2 • Interlanguage: inconsistent errors in L2 may continue as child begins to communicate more. These are typical for L2 learning process • Codeswitching: child may substitute forms, structures, or lexical items from L1 to L2 for items that have not yet been learned in L2 10
Code Switching (Daniel, n.d.) • Code switching: alternation of codes (languages) across sentence boundaries • Difficulties with code switching may be indicated by (Daniel, n.d.): • Rough transitions between languages with false starts • Marked awareness of alternation between languages • Alternations at noun/word level only • Alternations used for communicating untranslatable items only CONSIDER: in our population, would these be indicators for a disorder?
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)
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)
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
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.
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.)
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)
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
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 Specificity: 95.65% Percentage of time parent identified children with typically developing language. • Sensitivity: 73.91% Percentage of time parent identified children with language impairment.
Parent Questionnaire(Restrepo, 1998) Sensitivity & specificity measures were obtained for Family History of Speech & Language Problems Specificity: 91.30% Percentage of time no family history of S&L identified children with typical language. • Sensitivity: 73.91% Percentage of time family history of S&L problems identified children with language impairment
Parent Questionnaire(Restrepo, 1998) Sensitivity & specificity measures continued. Combined parent report with number of errors per T-Unit. Specificity: 100% Percentage of time combined information identified children with typically developing language. • Sensitivity: 91.3% Percentage of time combined information identified children with language impairment.
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.
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.
Questionnaires(Restrepo, 1998) • Appendix A • Questionnaire for teachers about the child’s language at home and at school. • Appendix B • Translation of the parent interview.
Parent Questionnaire/Teacher Questionnaire Bilingual Language Development & Disorders In Spanish-English Speakers Brian A. Goldstein
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 languagesis the closest measurement of expressive vocabulary words compared with monolingual children.
Lexical Inventory/Vocabulary Checklist(Patterson, 2000) Bilingual 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. • 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.
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.
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(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.
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. English relies on word order for understanding. • Spanish relies on noun-verb agreement for understanding.
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).
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.