Ponti Portfolio! - Bilingual Learners and Supporting At-Risk Students

Bilingualism Information

1. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) need to understand key aspects of second language acquisition and their unique educational impact to identify students at-risk and serve an increasingly diverse population both linguistically and culturally. One key aspect and a normal process in second language acquisition is cross language transfer and interference.

Cross language interference when an error in the second language (L2) occurs as the result of the language learner’s primary language (L1), common in the mistakes late sequential bilinguals in their L2. Cross language transfer is positive or the inverse of interference and occurs when language acquired in one language is transferred to another, such as lexical or phonological knowledge with cognates or grapheme-sound recognition in Spanish speakers which transfers to English (Chung et al., 2019).

Another key aspect of L2 acquisition is a silent or nonverbal period which is the time lag between comprehension and production typical in the beginning phases of L2 acquistition when children are paying attention to the input and information available in the additional language in order to make sense of it (Yip & Matthews, 2006).

Code switching is another key factor and typical in second language acquisition as well as fluent bilinguals. Normal code switching involves alternating between languages in a systematic way based on the grammatical constraints of both languages. Normal code switching is demonstrated by simultaneous bilinguals that switch to another language for a specific phrase or sentence which is faithful rules of both languages. As a normal part of developing L2 proficiency errors may occur in code switching but such violations of typical code switching are normal in adolescents and adults developing linguistic competence in another language.

Language attrition or subtractive bilingualism is expected as children become proficient in a L2 since proficiency and fluency regress when the L1 is not reinforced or maintained. The clinician's role is to be aware of L1 attrition and consider the individual's prior L1 language proficiency. Language loss can negatively influence overall language performance if it is extensive and impacts vocabulary and grammar in particular. It is understand how the loss may be related to the individual's language history and if it is affecting areas of both languages equally.

2. Simultaneous versus sequential (bilingualism) and early versus late (bilingualism) are terms related to bilingualism and, along with number of languages spoken and frequency of language use, define level of proficiency. Bilingual children become proficient speakers and reach spoken language milestones similarly to monolinguals, however, it is less likely a multilingual will be proficient in all the languages he or she speaks and the bilingual is equally proficient or balanced in the two languages after toddlerhood (Ukrainetz, 2015).

Basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) are important distinctions and terminology related to bilingualism. Both BICS and CALP are needed for success at school but acquisition of social language or BICS proceedes the more abstract or academic CALP by four to five years and can develop separately, with some bilingual students never achieving complete academic language acquisition or native like CALP.

Accent, dialect and phonetic patterns are influenced by bilingualism. Dialect is a systematic variation of language and includes grammatical structures and semantics as well as accent. Accent is essentially the way people sound or produce phonetic patterns which affects phoneme use influenced by the order of acquisition in another language. The SLP's separate the effects of accent and dialect from the symptoms of an actual communication disorder in their comprehensive assessment. True communication disorders will be evident in all languages the individual uses.

Curriculum-based language assessment can be used by school-based SLPs as a best practice for evaluating students who are English language learners (ELLs) and can be used to gather valid information about culturally and linguistically diverse students’ language (Newkirk-Turner & Johnson, 2018). Dynamic assesment is another best practice focuses on assessing a child's ability to learn new language skills over time rather than a single snapshot of their skills (Orellana et al., 2019). Dynamic assessment minimizes the biases inherent in traditional static assessments and represents an alternative to MTSS based on normed standards because it measures the change from pretest to posttest or modifiability and is generally recommended for culturally and linguistically diverse populations.

Lastly, best practices for assessing bilingual children also include Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) or a systemic framework for continuous improvement using data-based decision making and problem solving across all levels of the educational system to support the at-risk or student struggling academically in any way. Tier 1 interventions involve more indirect support from the SLP, tier 2 increases support for struggling students and if unsuccesful, tier 3 involves the student being referred for evaluation to determine if special education services are warranted. The SLP should monitor child progress within tiered support systems to ensure that language and literacy interventions are effective and identify when modifications are needed (Shepley & Grisham-Brown, 2019).

3. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association provides guidance on dynamic assessment in a micro-course in its multicultural affairs and resources: https://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/dynamic-assessment/. ASHA includes other assessment considerations and resources for SLPs working with bilingual populations in its practice portal or clinical topic of bilingual service delivery: https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/professional-issues/bilingual-service-delivery/.

The Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA) differentiates between delays in English language acquisition and true language disorders and was developed to identify phonological and/or language impairment in bilingual and ELL children. Publisher’s website: https://products.brookespublishing.com/Bilingual-English-Spanish-Assessment-BESA-P1044.aspx

Bilingual Therapies (www.bilingualtherapies.com) and the National Association of Bilingual Education (www.nabe.org) both offer resources, articles, and training opportunities specifically designed for SLPs working with bilingual students.

The Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports provides a searchable resource library on the framework: https://mtss4success.org/resource-library and the Center for Applied Linguistics provides a webinar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cemv5F8sVp0) and resources related to engaging culturally and linguistically diverse students and families (https://www.cal.org/resource-center/).

ProZ is a community which provides listings of professional interpreters and translator (https://www.proz.com/english-to-english-translators/750?print=1) as well as tips on how to choose one: https://www.proz.com/translation-articles/articles/3338/1/HOW-TO-CHOOSE-A-TRANSLATOR%2C-INTERPRETER-OR-A-LANGUAGE-AND-COMMUNICATION-PROFESSIONAL-TO-SUIT-YOUR-NEEDS

Speech-language pathologists for MTSS on Facebook is a community for SLPs which provides a place to share ideas about how SLPs can support learning, language, and speech skills within an MTSS framework: https://www.facebook.com/groups/slpsformtss

Supporting Students Who Are at Risk Resources

1. Challenges for at risk populations includes lack of awareness on the part of the educator, and lack of experience on the part of the student with classroom routines and expectations surrounding instructional discourse. Regardless of race or ethnicity, poverty places children at greater risk for poor social as well as educational outcomes and low SES children are at particular risk for language and academic problems (Qi & Kaiser 2004; Terry & Irving, 2010).

SES influences the discourse style found in the home of student and classroom expectations of instructional discourse may not match the home discourse of low SES children. An example of this is expectations of the child responding to questions about their preferences and opinions are incongruent with the home environment’s expectations that children simply listen and learn by observing or doing things the adult’s way. Low SES children do not enter school with the background knowledge, organization, social and self-regulation skills which stem from a supportive environment.

ELL students also may lack the familiarity with classroom social rules and routines. Some cultures promote collaborative work among peers or siblings which may conflict with classroom expectations of independent work. In many cultural backgrounds, children making eye contact and initiating interaction with as well as expressing opinions to adults is not acceptable. In some, doing so in front of the opposite gender or even mixed-gender groups are not permitted.

The difference between home routines and culture put ELL and low SES children at risk for violating expectations of instructional discourse with low SES children at particular risk for struggling in academic environments and ELL students at risk for violating classroom rules. The hidden social and discourse curriculum in schools as well as instructors’ lack of awareness into differences in classroom versus home expectations and routines often creates additional difficulties for at risk students on challenges related to limited communication skills both verbally and nonverbally.

2. Setting at risk students up for success starts with understanding when and why such issues are occurring. Comprehensive assessment should include multiple observations of a student and often includes classroom observation. This is the SLP’s opportunity to make the hidden curriculum explicit for the student and bring awareness to the educator of differences between classroom and home culture regarding discourse, routines, and expectations. SLPs can collaborate with educators to make sure classroom rules posted and discussed the first month in class by the teacher, each day at first with a gradual fading of cues over time. The SLP can also assist the teacher by informing them of the need and strategies to establish an emotional connection with at-risk students, like not demanding too much verbalization on academic topics initially and sharing with the student informally pieces of information about their own family or personal life.

Increasing the student’s conversational experience and communicative flexibility are other strategies for supporting at-risk students, and like making the implicit class rules explicit, are services SLPs can deliver indirectly working with educators, as well as directly with the student. In collaboration with teachers, clinicians can arrange the physical setting of the classroom to promote conversation and group work to bridge the gap between the classroom and collectivist cultures. In the same way over the first few weeks of class, SLPs can advise teachers to ask students what rules are followed at home and compare them to classroom expectations. Having the teacher use peer sharing may be more comfortable for the at-risk student than speaking in front of a whole group. Allowing students to share with each other and talk to their friends about ideas in class is another strategy SLPs can provide to teachers to facilitate interaction and the participation of at-risk students.

Self-talk is correlated with self-regulation and executive functioning, which are both important ingredients for academic success and barriers for at-risk students. Clinicians may need to inform educators that at-risk students need to recruit additional attentional, cognitive and linguistic resources to accomplish the same tasks as other students because organization and executive function skills may not come naturally to them. We can support at-risk students directly by providing structural supports which will allow the opportunity to better plan ahead. We can emphasize with educators the need to make choices and consequences clear to students. Work plan contracts facilitate understanding of classroom expectations, which foster the at-risk student’s responsibility for their work and ultimately their success in following class rules and routines. The SLP can also directly with the student or collaborates with educators to provide structural supports to give the students the confidence and tools to internalize the external orders and classroom directions into practical self-talk (training "the guy in my head") helping the at-risk student remember as well as prioritize tasks (Ukrainetz, 2015).

References

Chung, S. C., Chen, X., & Geva, E. (2019). Deconstructing and reconstructing cross-language transfer in bilingual reading development: An interactive framework. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 50, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.01.003

Newkirk-Turner, B. L., & Valerie E. Johnson, V. E. (2018). Curriculum-based language assessment with culturally and linguistically diverse students in the context of mathematics. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(2) 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-17-0050

Orellana, C. I., Wada, R., & Gillam, R. B. (2019). The use of dynamic assessment for the diagnosis of language disorders in bilingual children: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(3), 1298–1317. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0202

Qi, C. H., & Kaiser, A. P. (2004). Problem Behaviors of Low-Income Children With Language Delays: An Observation Study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/046)

Ukrainetz, T. A. (2015). School-Age Language Intervention: Evidence-Based Practices. PRO-ED, Austin.

Shepley, C., & Grisham-Brown, J. (2019). Multi-tiered systems of support for preschool-aged children: A review and meta-analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 296-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.01.004

Terry, N. P., & Irving, M. A. (2010). Cultural and linguistic diversity: Issues in education. Special Education for All Teachers, 5, 109–132.

Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2006). Assessing language dominance in bilingual acquisition: A case for mean length utterance differentials. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 3(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15434311laq0302_2