1 / 91

CDL Consortium Opportunity for ELL and Special Education to Intersect as a Collective Body

CDL Consortium Opportunity for ELL and Special Education to Intersect as a Collective Body. Bilingual Speech- Language Assessment. Lynnette Padilla, MA, CCC-SLP Eric Schliemann, MA, CF-SLP. OBJECTIVES. Present current trends in bilingual assessment

selma
Télécharger la présentation

CDL Consortium Opportunity for ELL and Special Education to Intersect as a Collective Body

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CDL ConsortiumOpportunity for ELL and Special Education to Intersect as a Collective Body Bilingual Speech- Language Assessment Lynnette Padilla, MA, CCC-SLP Eric Schliemann, MA, CF-SLP

  2. OBJECTIVES • Present current trends in bilingual assessment • Address language disorder vs. language difference • Present methods for establishing language dominance • Discuss assessment with interpreters/ELL teachers

  3. MONOLINGUAL SLPs • More clearly define the role of a monolingual SLP in a bilingual assessment • -Monolingual SLP role working with a bilingual SLP • -Monolingual role working with an interpreter/ ELL teacher

  4. BILINGUAL SLPs • Share your own resources and procedures • Learn more about other approaches

  5. BASIC OUTLINE • Present two recent articles published in the area of bilingual assessment • Go over basic components of bilingual assessment process • Present case study #1 • Present case study #2 (if time permits) • Share bilingual resources • Question and answer time with panel of bilingual SLPs

  6. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) CONCEPTUAL SCORING- scoring the meaning of a response regardless of the language in which it is produced (Pearson et al. 1993) MONOLINGUAL SCORING- scoring the meaning of a response based on the language in which it is produced

  7. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) • Historical approach to bilingual assessment was • a) Test the student in his/her dominant language • b) Monolingual SLP tests in English, bilingual SLP tests in Spanish

  8. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Limitations to historical approach • Some but not all vocabulary overlaps across languages • Even typically developing bilinguals may present as delayed in both languages in earlier stages (under age 5)

  9. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Limitations to historical approach • Total knowledge of bilinguals in a single language is not comparable to monolinguals • Code switching is used to add knowledge • Vocabulary is influenced by frequency of exposure to specific words and context

  10. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Two studies on the semantic skills of typically developing (TD) bilingual children • STUDY 1- To what extent do bilingual children produce overlapping responses? • STUDY 2- Does conceptual scoring yield more valid results?

  11. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) STUDY 1 -55 TD bilingual children (4;0-7;11) 11 primarily English (PE)- 80% or more 7 bilingual English (BE) 13 bilingual Spanish (BS)- 50-80% 24 primarily Spanish (PS)

  12. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) • Naming characteristic properties of familiar items (different items in S + E), expressive and receptive • Same concepts were targeted (object shapes, colors, sizes, functions) but with different questions ex: describe a school bus/dime comoes un camion/troca

  13. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) • Item content taken from concepts familiar to preschool children as indicated by teacher-child interaction data collected in bilingual preschool • Literature review on language development and cultural relevance in each language

  14. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Three sets of scores generated • Monolingual Score: English question + Correct English response= 1 point • Total Response Score: English question + correct English response + correct Spanish response= 2 points • Conceptual Score: English question + correct Spanish or English response= 1 point

  15. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Study 1 Results • Only significant differences between total and conceptual scores for the BE children on Spanish subtest • Lower variability in conceptual score than total score • PS, BS, BE groups: Monolingual scores moderately lower than total/conceptual scores -total/conceptual scores were not significantly different than monolingual scores

  16. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Study 1 Results • Children produce more vocabulary in dominant language • Even PE and PS students knew vocabulary in non-dominant language • TD children from bilingual backgrounds likely to produce unique vocabulary (based on environmental demands in each language)

  17. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) STUDY 2 • Does conceptual scoring yield more valid results? • Naming characteristic properties of familiar items (Phase 2 of Study 1 items) • 40 TD bilingual children (5;0-6;1) • age/lang background closely matched Study 1 participants

  18. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) • Expressive items from semantic subtest -characteristic properties, functions, analogies, linguistic concepts, similarities and differences, comprehension of passages Example: Functions -What do you do with scissors? -Spanish (What do you do with a bat?)

  19. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Study 2 • For Spanish-speaking bilinguals, conceptual score more likely to be in average range than monolingual • For testing in English, monolingual and conceptual scores were similar • BS and BE group provided more responses in English during Spanish subtest than Spanish items during English subtest

  20. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Study 2 Results: Table 4. Percentage of participants who were accurately classified as typically developing when primarily Spanish- or primarily English-speaking children’s average monolingual score was used to set the cutoff.

  21. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) • Bilinguals will benefit from conceptual scoring • Results from translated tests (CELF 4 Spanish) must be carefully considered (children may consider these requests for new info, may not display overlapping knowledge) • All students (even PE + PS) likely to have some unique skills in their non-dominant language

  22. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) • Allowing (and encouraging if necessary) children to code switch facilitates use of full range of vocabulary * to do this effectively, children must be aware that administrator is bilingual • To what extent are cutoff points (e.g., -1.5 SD, -2SD) useful tools for determination of eligibility with bilingual children? • Further studies needed to establish normative data on conceptual scoring

  23. CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Limitations to Study • Relatively small sample size • Only assessed vocabulary development • Restricted to typically developing children • Presents a testing approach for which valid/reliable tools are rare/may not exist

  24. BESA- Bilingual English Spanish Assessment • Three subtests (in both Spanish and English) to address morphosyntax, semantics, and phonology • The test norms were derived using data from over 600 bilingual children living in the US including 16 dialects • Normed for children (ages 4 years, 0 months through 6 years, 11 months) who have varying levels of Spanish-English bilingualism • http://www.ar-clinicalpubl.com/

  25. LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013) ARTICLE INFORMATION • Lexical Diversity and Omission Errors as Predictors of Language Ability in the Narratives of Sequential Spanish–English Bilinguals: A Cross-Language Comparison • Peggy F. Jacobsona and Patrick R. Waldena • American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 22 • 554–565 • August 2013

  26. LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013) INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE OF STUDY • This study explored the utility of two commonly employed (Language Sample Analysis)LSA measures in English and Spanish during a standard narrative retell task.

  27. LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsonaand Waldena 2013) • Second LSA measure: the total number of word and morpheme omission errors • First LSA measure: lexical diversity, determined by calculating the number of different words (NDW) and the D statistic.

  28. LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013) ABILITY VS. PROFICIENCY • Ability refers to a child’s individual capability for learning language, whereas proficiency indicates a child’s relative attainment of each language. • Proficiency improves over time, but ability shapes the rate and extent of growth in proficiency. • Part of bilingual assessment: separating ability from proficiency.

  29. LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013) BILINGUAL LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT • Consistent with linguistic and processing deficits, children with BLI perform lower on behavioral language measures relative to other bilingual children having similar amounts of exposure to the language in question. • Moreover, children with BLI exhibit slower rates of vocabulary acquisition and higher rates of grammatical errors and are likely to experience persistent academically related language difficulties (Peña & Bedore, 2009).

  30. LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013) INFORMATION ABOUT LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT • Generally, bilinguals do not receive equal amounts of input in each language. • Semantic development is driven more by input. Alternatively, morphosyntactic development is driven by a combination of input (exposure) and output (language use). • Language experience corresponds, in part, to the type of bilingualism (Simultaneous vs. Sequential)

  31. LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013) PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY • 48 children, 26 Typically Developing (TD) and 22 with BLI • The overwhelming majority (46/48, 96%) were early sequential bilinguals. • Estimates of relative language proficiency were obtained using the Woodcock Munoz Language Survey (WMLS) in English and Spanish.

  32. LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013) HOW DATA WAS COLLECTED • Language samples were collected in Spanish and English • Lexical diversity was calculated two ways: NDW (Number of Different Words) and the use of the D statistic • Grammatical errors counted were omissions of single words and bound morphemes across languages.

  33. LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013) RESULTS • The omission of words and bound morphemes was found to be the best predictor of impairment across languages and age levels. • Lexical diversity was not the best predictor of language ability. • Most common omission errors: English (regular past tense –ed) Spanish (clitic pronouns, articles, and third person plural verb inflection –n (e.g., está for están)

  34. ABILITY AND PROFICIENCY(Jacobsona and Waldena, 2013 QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE STUDY • Do lexical diversity measures and omission errors predict BLI? • Is there an advantage for using the newer D statistic over the standard NDW measure to estimate lexical diversity? • How are lexical diversity and the number of omission errors tied to oral language proficiency?

  35. ABILITY AND PROFICIENCY(Jacobsona and Waldera, 2013) CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS • Language Sample Analysis is a valuable tool in bilingual assessment. • Measures for this study can be readily applied to other languages.

  36. ASSESSMENT PROCESS Pre-screen -Comment/concern from school provider/ administrator -Comment/concern from parent -Classroom observation -Other??

  37. ASSESSMENT PROCESS B) Screening I. Classroom observation II. Screening tool- formal or informal III. Language sample IV. Informal conversation with teacher

  38. ASSESSMENT PROCESS C) Referral I. Demographic Info II. Parent Interview -languages at home, literacy level of parents, home activities, developmental history, health information III. Language Proficiency -ELL teacher report, ACCESS/CELA scores,supports provided

  39. ASSESSMENT PROCESS C) Referral (ct’d.) IV. Education history -history in/out of district, interventions, language of instruction, ESL supports V. Educational team members -names, titles, and contact info

  40. C) Referral Adams 12 Referral Form Aurora Referral Form

  41. ASSESSMENT PROCESS D) Evaluation *Establishment of dominant language -Parent report -School provider report -Informal pre-assessment -other options: language proficiency screening (Student Oral Language Observation Matrix), recess/lunch observation

  42. ASSESSMENT PROCESS • D) Evaluation • *Establishment of dominant language • -ASK THE STUDENT! • -Woodcock Munoz Language Survey • -Different types of language dominance: receptive vs expressive

  43. ASSESSMENT PROCESS • D) Evaluation • I. “Standardized” Assessment • II. Language Sample • -language sample • sentence length, grammar skills, vocabulary, amount and type of code-switching, length of sample, organization, overall level of comfort • III. Classroom observation

  44. ASSESSMENT PROCESS • D) Evaluation • IV. Student Records- CELA, ACCESS, grades, incident reports, etc. • V. Gathering of additional information if necessary- parent report, school provider report, additional testing, additional observation

  45. ASSESSMENT PROCESS • D) Evaluation: Reporting Standard Scores • IDEA guidelines: use a variety of measures and tools, and do not rely on any single measure • Limitations of standardized tests that are in other languages and/or norm-referenced on individuals who speak a language other than English: • - linguistic and cultural biases • - standardization samples do not take education levels, acculturation levels, background experiences, bilingual abilities, or dialect differences into account

  46. ASSESSMENT PROCESS • D) Evaluation: Reporting Standard Scores • Students who are not reflected in the normative group for the test’s standardization sample: test scores are invalid • Formal tests may be administered informally to gather more information about the student’s language abilities, but the scores are invalid • - rewording, providing additional prompts, repeating items, asking student to explain incorrect answers • - conceptual scoring

  47. ASSESSMENT PROCESS • D) Evaluation: Reporting Standard Scores • Many scores should not be reported • All scores should be interpreted with caution • Example statements

  48. ASSESSMENT PROCESS • Colorado Severity Rating Scales • Appendix discusses use with CLD students • Can be used as additional data point in body of evidence • -should not be overemphasized or used alone • Must be used in collaboration with ELD teacher

More Related