BILINGUALISM FOR ALL: EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE ON AT-RISK LEARNERS - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

BILINGUALISM FOR ALL: EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE ON AT-RISK LEARNERS

Fred Genesee McGill University

Karlstad University April 19 2018

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

4

“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

5

“…. 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

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

7

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

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

10

PRE-SCHOOL BILINGUALS

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)

10

Genesee & Nicoladis (2006)

MONOLINGUAL MILESTONES

BILINGUAL CHILDREN ARE DIFFERENT FROM MONOLINGUALS

Differences usually reflect:

• different learning environments: amount of input,

quality of input, consistency of input

• specific properties of the input languages

(similarity in sounds, words, grammar, discourse)

• 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

13

NEURO-COGNITIVE PROCESSING of a SECOND LANGUAGE

L anterior insula & L frontal operculum= WORKING MEMORY

a) weak activation L insula b) strong activation of temporal regions in both hemispheres

same pattern as bilinguals

LEFT RIGHT

14

NEURO-COGNITIVE PROCESSING of a SECOND LANGUAGE

L anterior insula & L frontal operculum= WORKING MEMORY

a) weak activation L insula b) strong activation of temporal regions in both hemispheres

same pattern as bilinguals

LEFT RIGHT

15

NEURO-COGNITIVE PROCESSING of a SECOND LANGUAGE

L anterior insula & L frontal operculum= WORKING MEMORY

a) weak activation L insula b) strong activation of temporal regions in both hemispheres

same pattern as bilinguals

LEFT RIGHT

16

THE CRITICAL FIRST YEAR OF LANGUAGE LEARNING

L anterior STG & planum temporale R posterior STG & supramarginal gyrus L anterior STG & planum temporale

17

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

18 18

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

19 19

RESULTS

a) Severity of impairment: bilingual children = monolingual children (in English & French) b) Patterns of impairment:

bilingual children = monolingual children (in English & French)

4/17/18 20

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)

ENGLISH-L1 CHILDREN

Mono Mono Typically- impaired Developing development

NO DIFF

21

CHILDREN WITH DOWN SYNDROME

(Kay-Raining Bird, Cleave, Trudeau, Thordardottir, Sutton, & Thorpe, 2005)

Bilingual Children Typically Developing Down Syndrome Monolingual Children Typically Developing Down Syndrome

NO DIFF.

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.

22

bilingual children with ASD = mono children with ASD

CAVEAT!

ALL CHILDREN ARE DIFFERENT EACH CHILD SHOULD BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY

24

AT-RISK LEARNERS IN SCHOOL

• low socio-economic status
• low academic ability
• poor L1 abilities
• minority ethnic group
• special education students (SPED)

AT-RISK students AT-RISK students in dual language = in monolingual programs programs

25

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

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

27

• 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
• utcomes

IDENTIFYING L2 READING IMPAIRMENT/DIFFICULTY

28

28

IDENTIFYING READING IMPAIRMENT in L2 STUDENTS

reading impairment

incomplete L2 acquisition

29

CROSS-LINGUISTIC TRANSFER IN READING

LI

print awareness letter-sound knowledge phonological awareness decoding skills vocabulary background- cultural knowledge

L2

print awareness letter-sound knowledge phonological awareness decoding skills vocabulary background- cultural knowledge

Genesee & Geva, 2006

30

McGILL AT-RISK READING STUDY

Erdos, Genesee, Savage & Haigh, 2010

predictors

• utcomes

Fall K Spring K Spring Grade 1 Spring Grade 2 Spring Grade 3

L1 language predictors L1 reading predictors control measures L2 language outcomes L2 reading outcomes academic outcomes

Spring Grade 6

31

RISK FOR L2 READING DIFFICULTIES

ENGLISH-L1 PREDICTORS

• f FRENCH-L2 READING

OUTCOMES AT-RISK:

>1 s.d. below mean

73% NOT-AT-RISK:

<1 s.d. below mean

73%

SPRING K: End of GRADE 3

SUPPORTING STRUGGLING L2 READERS

• struggling L2 readers
• L2 readers with reading impairment
• 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

SAME NEEDS

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

TIER 3:

§ students who do not achieve expectation are referred to reading specialists for individualized, intensive instruction in targeted needs § these students require extended, intensive intervention

36

37

GUIDELINES FOR INTERVENTION

• WORD STAGE-
• explicit instruction in foundational skills: phonological

awareness & phonics + teach language and comprehension skills for future text reading needs + expand vocabulary knowledge for narrative and informational text: identify academic vocabulary + link language development to academic content + pair work/cooperative learning:

– increases practice time – increased opportunities for feedback – increased engagement, everyone is involved

38

word-level stage continued..

TIME:

• regular, frequent and sustained intervention – daily or several times

per week for at least 20 weeks

• severe decoding problems:

Ø intensive intervention --Torgessen et al. (2009): 68 hrs of one-on-

• ne instruction in two 50-minute sessions each week – 40% of

students were reclassified as “typical” (TIER 2: small groups)

• aim for mastery – go for automaticity
• practice-practice-practice:

Ø Brenner & Hiebert (2009): 90 min. instructional block ⇨ only 17.5

mins eye-time

39

GUIDELINES FOR INTERVENTION

• TEXT STAGE-

WORD LEVEL:

• accurate and fluent word decoding skills are important ð focus on

decoding where needed

• capitalize on X-linguistic links in phonics, spelling, vocab. – be

explicit

LANGUAGE:

• Support oral language development (vocab+ figurative language+

listening comprehension) is important ⇨ stable long term improvements in reading comprehension (Clarke et al., 2010)

• work on complex grammar linked to content

continued…

40

READING COMPREHENSION

ð explicit instruction in use of comprehension strategies

improves reading comprehension (Proctor et al., 2009); especially for older struggling readers (Edmonds et al., 2009)

• most effective when students are engaged to think about text,

learn from text, and discuss what they know: READING AS THINKING ENGAGEMENT

• use interesting, culturally-relevant, and appropriately complex

texts

• develop stamina -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E5lbkX5NDg

41

BUILDING COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES

• explicit instruction in reading comprehension improves

comprehension

q METACOGNITION—thinking about reading: ¬ clarify purpose of reading before reading ¬ monitoring comprehension during reading ¬ identify what you do not understand and where in the

text this occurs

¬ identify the source of the difficulty ¬ seek to resolve difficulty: good back in text; look forward

in text

¬ summarize understanding of what you have read

42

continued…

q OTHER

* graphic/semantic organizers

* asking and answering questions about the text:

Ÿ literal, interpretive/figurative, and implications

* recognize story structure * identify main ideas and supporting details * summarizing , sequencing events * drawing conclusions, inferencing * relate to own experiences or other knowledge in school * distinguish between fact and opinion

GENERAL SUPPORT TIPS

• 1. language-related impairments occur in both

languages; support both languages; focus on common features and teach differences explicitly

• 2. draw on strengths in L1 to support L2 development,

and vice versa

• 3. engage and train parents to support their children,

where necessary

43

SUMMARY

• 1. differentiate according to specific individual needs
• 2. profile student’s needs ASAP
• 3. use RtI approach to monitor progress
• 4. provide meaningful, engaging & focused instruction
• 5. teach perseverance
• 6. start with general instructional strategies & assume that

monolingual strategies will benefit at-risk learners

• 7. and modify support to reflect students’ L2 and cultural

backgrounds (and their specific learning needs)

• 8. greater need requires more intensive and extended

support

44

45

thank you

fred.genesee@mcgill.ca

ADDITIONAL READINGS

Fortune, T.W. (with M.R. Menke). (2010). Struggling learners and language immersion education. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Studies on Language Acquisition. Genesee, F., Savage, R., Erdos, E., & Haigh, C. (2013). Identification of reading difficulties in students schooled in a second language. In Gathercole, V. (Ed.). Bilinguals and Assessment: State Of The Art Guide To Issues And Solutions From Around The World (pp. 10-35). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hambly, C., & Fombonne, E. (2012). The impact of bilingual environments on language development in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 1342-1352. Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. (2011). Dual Language Development and Disorders: A Handbook on Bilingualism and Second Language Learning (2nd Edit.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Raining Bird, E., Genesee, F., & Verhoeven, L. (2016). Bilingualism in children with developmental disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders. 3: 1-14.

46