Atencin a la diversidad

dentro del bilingismo

(Special Educational Needs students in a bilingual school program)

Teacher: Luca balos lvarez

Section III
Dual language and
disorders
Chapter 9:
Oral language disorders

Chapter 10:
Reading disorders

1. LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT IN DUAL

LANGUAGE CHILDREN
1.First section: what characteristics of
language impairment are similar or
dissimilar in children who speak two
languages versus children who speak just
one language.

2.Second section: clinical practice and policy

regarding dual language children

LANGUAGE DELAY AND LANGUAGE

IMPAIRMENT
LANGUAGE DELAY:

Children who are slower to begin speaking and

producing word combinations and they do not show
evidence of other clinically significant conditions, but
their language development can normalize with time
LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT:
Children who start out with language delays, but their
difficulties and protracted development of language
extend into the school age years and possibly never
completely resolve over time.

It is typically diagnosed based on a combination of:

1. Exclusionary criteria:
it includes no hearing impairment,
no autism spectrum disorder,
no severe intellectual disability,
no oromotor limitations and
no frank neurological trauma.
2. Inclusionary criteria:

lower-than-age-expected performance on a language

test battery and
a non verbal IQ standard score above 85.

SIMULTANEOUS BILINGUAL CHILDREN:

Whether childrens language impairment
is specific to language or the result of
profound cognitive deficits, they are still
capable of learning two languages.
SECOND LANGUAGE CHILDREN:
The second language children with SLI were not
extraordinarily delayed in their English L2
development when compared with their
typically developed L2 peers

There is no reason to stop bilingual development:

they are able to learn a second language.
Children with cognitive and linguistic disabilities can
do just as well academically in second language
immersion programs as their counterparts in
English only programs. There is no evidence for
thinking that dual language learning is a risk factor
for children with language delay or impairment and,
in turn, there is no basis in evidence for counseling
parents to switch to one language at home or to not
place their children in immersion education.

The primary concern is that there is an absence of both

testing materials appropriate for dual language learners
and professionals qualified to administer them.
We cannot assess dual language children as monolingual
children, because they cannot be expected to perform
according to monolingual norms on tests, however they
usually do so if the language assessed is the dominant
one.

Using one or more of these strategies might help

to reduce the incidence of misidentification of
dual language children.
1. Obtain information about both languages.

Developmental language impairment affects

both languages of a bilingual child.

Informal examinations of both languages, because

formal tests can lead to overidentification of
language delay and impairment even if both
languages are tested.

2. Obtain information about language exposure

Obtain information about children's past and present

language exposure patterns in order to set appropriate
expectations for childrens abilities in each language.

Use parents/teachers questionnaires with questions

such as:
Which languages are used among family
members?

Do you read books in both languages?

Do you watch films/ TV in both languages?

3. Obtain information about cultural background

Obtain information about language socialization

practices of the different groups whose children we
teach/ encounter.

4. Emphasize language-general over language-specific

measures

Non-word repetition or non-verbal response (body

language, gestures) should be considered as a positive
evidence, because our students may not be able to
produce some phonological patterns, but they are able
to understand the message anyway.

5. Use alternative norm referencing for tests

If we still want to use some of the existing test

batteries, we must interpret them according to a set
of local norms, based on our students needs.

6. Use dynamic assessment

If we use the traditional procedure of giving a

standardized test once as a basis for diagnosis, we can
use a very good strategy: TEST-TEACH-RETEST.

The children are taught strategies for how best to

access their linguistic knowledge and how to
demonstrate what they know on a test.

Should children with language delay/impairment learn

two languages?
Reasons for supporting both languages in intervention:

1. There is no evidence that bilingualism exacerbates language

impairment, so there is no reason to believe that it will impede the
effectiveness of intervention
2. In the case of minority language children, maintaining the L1 can
be important for children's social and emotional well being and
family relationships.
3. Supporting both languages can benefit both languages
academically and the child's cognitive development
4. There is an interdependence between the two languages, some
aspects will carry over to the other language.
5. Their dominant language can shift from one to another gradually
over time
6. A sudden shift from a dual to a single language environment for a
bilingual child with language impairment can be detrimental

KOHNERT AND DERR (2004)

They make a distinction between bilingual and
crosslinguistic approaches in intervention. They
recommend combining both for an effective overall
intervention program.
1) The bilingual approach focuses on skills and linguistic
elements that can be shared across the two languages:
Cognitive processing mechanisms for language learning
Metacognitive and metalinguistic strategies for language
learning
Linguistic elements that overlap between the two
languages (sounds, grammar...)
2) The crosslinguistic approach focuses on separate
training in the phonological, lexical and grammatical
features that are unique to each language.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE SPEECH PATHOLOGIST

DOES NOT KNOW THE TWO LANGUAGES?

Using team approaches to intervention that

involve partners like interpreters, parents, other
classmates...
Several configurations can be arranged, but
they all include the speech pathologist acting as
a trainer for partners who speak the language
so that they can deliver effective intervention in
that language.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO AVOID OVER AND

UNDER AND OVER IDENTIFICATION?
A good idea could be to use a two-stage model:

1. Stage 1: referral and language assessment. Dual

language children classified as at risk receive
language-enriched programming in a preschool or
school classroom setting.
2. Stage 2: second assessment of dual language
children in the at risk group, following experience
with language enriched programming Ina classroom.
Children who demonstrate poor response to
classroom intervention are then referred for one to
one intervention with a speech language therapist.