BILINGUALISM FOR ALL: EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE ON AT-RISK LEARNERS Fred Genesee McGill University Karlstad University April 19 2018 1 1
INTRODUCTION • Unique human capacity for language learning • What about children with diminished language learning capacity—specific language impairment, Down Syndrome? • What about children with other learning challenges? 2
The importance of multilingualism
“The point is that my daughter has to speak 3, sometimes 4 languages simultaneously…. My concern is: - How to not overload the child's brain …. - How to not cause a delay in her vocabulary development… - Should we separate one language from another in terms of a territory or a time of use? - Should we all switch to English while helping her to work on her homework? - Is there a such thing as a right or an optimal way raising a multilingual child? ……………… …. questions, questions, and more questions” QUESTIONS FROM A FATHER 4
“ … . I am a psychologist working in English schools in a very French environment … .My knowledge of the problematic was leading me to believe that adding yet another language on a child having difficulty mastering his mother tongue could be putting too much pressure and setting the child up for failure.” CONCERNS from a SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST 5
THE ISSUES • A question of fairness • Ethical issues: – Should at-risk student be excluded from these benefits? – Are we prepared to include them? • Pedagogical issues: – Can we identify at-risk dual language students? – Are some forms of dual language education more suitable? – Provision of support services; nature of those services – Competence of teachers to provide support 6
MY GOAL 1) review research relevant to the question of young children’s capacity to acquire more than one language: ⇨ what children can do 2) review what research says about identifying and supporting L2 students at-risk for reading difficulties 7 7
TYPICALLY-DEVELOPING INFANTS & TODDLERS are neuro-cognitively prepared to learn more than one language & are not confused by dual language input 8
THE EVIDENCE They differentiate between their input languages and a • foreign language within days of birth They prefer to listen to mother’s language over unfamiliar • languages at birth They acquire grammars that are specific and appropriate for • each language They use each language differentially and appropriately with • speakers of each language They avoid grammatical errors when they code-mix • 9
PRE-SCHOOL BILINGUALS MONOLINGUAL MILESTONES word first vocabulary word grammar/ segmentation babbling words spurt comb. communicat’n (7 mths) (10-12 m) (12mths) (18mths) (24mths) (beyond) MILESTONES FOR BILINGUALS ARE THE SAME (if they are provided adequate input) Genesee & Nicoladis (2006) 10 10
BILINGUAL CHILDREN ARE DIFFERENT FROM MONOLINGUALS Differences usually reflect: o different learning environments: amount of input, quality of input, consistency of input o specific properties of the input languages (similarity in sounds, words, grammar, discourse) o use of bilingual-specific learning strategies 11
EVIDENCE OF FLEXIBLE LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES • use facial cues specific to each language to separate the languages • use prosodic features of each language to determine word order constraints in each language • acquire alternate labels for same concepts (violate mutual exclusivity constraint) 12
NEURO-COGNITIVE PROCESSING of a SECOND LANGUAGE RIGHT LEFT L anterior insula & a) weak activation L insula same pattern as b) strong activation of L frontal operculum= bilinguals temporal regions in WORKING MEMORY both hemispheres 13
NEURO-COGNITIVE PROCESSING of a SECOND LANGUAGE RIGHT LEFT L anterior insula & a) weak activation L insula same pattern as b) strong activation of L frontal operculum= bilinguals temporal regions in WORKING MEMORY both hemispheres 14
NEURO-COGNITIVE PROCESSING of a SECOND LANGUAGE RIGHT LEFT L anterior insula & a) weak activation L insula same pattern as b) strong activation of L frontal operculum= bilinguals temporal regions in WORKING MEMORY both hemispheres 15
THE CRITICAL FIRST YEAR OF LANGUAGE LEARNING R posterior STG L anterior STG & L anterior STG & & supramarginal planum temporale planum temporale gyrus 16
CHILDREN with DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS – Specific language impairment – Down Syndrome – Autism Spectrum Disorder Raining Bird, E., Genesee, F ., & Verhoeven, L. (2016). Bilingualism in children with developmental disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders. 3: 1-14 17
FRENCH-ENGLISH BILINGUALS with SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT (SLI) Paradis, Crago, Genesee & Rice (2003) bilinguals with SLI* (8-years old) Fr monos with SL I Eng monos with SL I 18 18
RESULTS a) Severity of impairment: bilingual children = monolingual children (in English & French) b) Patterns of impairment: bilingual children = monolingual children (in English & French) 19 19
SPANISH-ENGLISH CHILDREN WITH LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT (Gutierrez-Clellen & Wagner, 2006) BILINGUAL CHILDREN typically- typically- bilingual impaired developing developing development (Eng. Dominant) (Sp. Dominant) (Eng. Dominant) NO ENGLISH-L1 CHILDREN DIFF Mono Mono Typically- impaired Developing development 20 4/17/18
CHILDREN WITH DOWN SYNDROME ( Kay-Raining Bird, Cleave, Trudeau, Thordardottir, Sutton, & Thorpe, 2005) Bilingual Children Down Typically Developing Syndrome NO DIFF. Monolingual Children Down Typically Developing Syndrome 21
CHILDREN WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER Marinova-Todd, S.H., & Mirenda, P. (in press). Language and communication abilities of bilingual children with ASD . In J. Patterson & B. L. Rodriguez (Eds.), Multilingual perspectives on child language disorders . Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. bilingual children with ASD = mono children with ASD 22
CAVEAT! ALL CHILDREN ARE DIFFERENT EACH CHILD SHOULD BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY
AT-RISK LEARNERS IN SCHOOL o low socio-economic status o low academic ability o poor L1 abilities o minority ethnic group o special education students (SPED) AT-RISK students AT-RISK students in dual language = in monolingual programs programs 24
STRUGGLING READERS § estimated 7-10% (maybe 20%) of students have reading impairment or difficulty § difficulty learning to read is a major cause for students failing in school, including dual language programs § students with reading impairment can be entitled to special services and often benefit from special services 25
WHAT IS READING IMPAIRMENT? • extraordinary difficulty learning to read • typical neurological & socio-emotional development • adequate opportunity to learn to read • underlying difficulties with phonological processing • likely has a genetic component • bilingual students have impairment in both languages 26
IDENTIFYING L2 READING IMPAIRMENT/DIFFICULTY • L2 students are NOT at greater risk for reading impairment • L2 students may be at greater risk for reading difficulty • the earlier the intervention , the better the outcomes 27
IDENTIFYING READING IMPAIRMENT in L2 STUDENTS reading incomplete L2 impairment acquisition 28 28
CROSS-LINGUISTIC TRANSFER IN READING LI L2 print awareness print awareness letter-sound letter-sound knowledge knowledge phonological phonological awareness awareness decoding skills decoding skills vocabulary vocabulary background- background- cultural cultural knowledge knowledge 29 Genesee & Geva, 2006
McGILL AT-RISK READING STUDY Erdos, Genesee, Savage & Haigh, 2010 L2 language outcomes L1 language predictors L2 reading outcomes L1 reading predictors academic outcomes control measures Spring Fall Spring Spring Spring Spring K K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 6 Grade 3 predictors outcomes 30
RISK FOR L2 READING DIFFICULTIES End of GRADE 3 SPRING K: AT-RISK: > 1 s.d. below mean 73% ENGLISH-L1 PREDICTORS of FRENCH-L2 READING NOT-AT-RISK: OUTCOMES <1 s.d. below mean 73% 31
SUPPORTING STRUGGLING L2 READERS • struggling L2 readers SAME • L2 readers with reading impairment NEEDS • beginning L2 readers ⇨ impaired L2 readers do not have unique profiles ⇨ provide same instructional support for at-risk readers as for all L2 readers but more intensively ⇨ use an RtI approach to differentiate difficulty from impairment and individualize support 32
R-t-I approach to IDENTIFICTION & INTERVENTION 33
WHAT IS RESPONSE-TO-INTERVENTION ? TIER 1: – HIGH quality instruction in class – student progress is closely monitored – struggling students get extra support in class – after 8-10 weeks students who are still struggling move to TIER 2 34
TIER 2: – struggling students get differentiated instruction according to their needs – additional support is more intensive – support is given in small groups – monitor student progress – after 8-10 weeks, struggling students move to TIER 3 35
Recommend
More recommend
