Spanish and English in the classroom: Does it matter?

In this study of nearly 2000 dual-language learners (almost all Latinx) ages 18 months to age 5, in Educare/Head Start programs across the U.S., the researchers asked—does classroom language matter? 

Children were observed in each of three classroom categories:

  • English w/ No Spanish

  • English w/ Some Spanish

  • English & Spanish

The researchers found that all three classrooms supported English growth, but the English + Spanish classroom best supported Spanish growth. So to support Spanish growth, we may need more balanced bilingual instruction.

The authors further state, “… DLL children learn English at equal (and advanced) rates regardless of L2 classroom exposure, when in high-quality classrooms”, and thus “… Spanish use in the classroom at varying levels does not impede English acquisition.”

Surprising to most Informed SLPs? Probably not. But this is a great article to share with others if you’re trying to explain the impact of dual language instruction.

 

Raikes, H. H., White, L., Green, S., Burchinal, M., Kainz, K., Horm, D., ... Esteraich, J. (2019). Use of the home language in preschool classrooms and first- and second-language development among dual-language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.06.012.

Culturally congruent interventions for Latino families

When working with families from diverse backgrounds, it is imperative to make sure that our interventions are consistent with the family’s culture and values. Guiberson & Ferris studied caregiver interaction style in Latino families to identify interventions that would be culturally appropriate for the Latino population.  

6.png

European–American families tend to use an independent style of interaction with their children: emphasizing the child’s individuality, following the child’s lead, and allowing the child to explore toys in different ways. This study found that the majority (75%) of Latino families interacted with their children using a more interdependent style. An interdependent interaction style emphasizes the child’s relationships and belonging to the family and cultural group. Caregivers who use an interdependent interaction style are more likely to direct the child’s attention, teach explicitly, show children how to play with toys, and use more commands and directives in their language.

Considering how Latino families tend to interact with their children, EI approaches that emphasize following a child’s lead may not be culturally appropriate for all Latino families. When working with families who use an interdependent interaction style, consider using the following interventions: 

  • Explicit teaching combined with attention directions

  • Modeling

  • Focused stimulation

  • Dialogic reading

Because these interventions give the caregiver more of an authoritative role in the interaction, they may feel more natural for Latino parents and therefore be more likely to be implemented. Latino mothers reported feeling more comfortable with a didactic style in which the parent gives commands, directs the child’s behavior, and explicitly teaches children how to complete tasks.

Check out the original article for more in-depth descriptions of these interventions and information on Latino caregiver preferred activities.  

 

Guiberson, M. M., & Ferris, K. P. (2018). Identifying culturally consistent early interventions for Latino caregivers. Communication Disorders Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/1525740118793858.

And more...

  • Bilgin et al. found that infants with difficulties regulating their feeding, sleeping, and crying have an increased risk of attention problems later in childhood. And many adults who had regulatory problems as infants still demonstrated attentional difficulties throughout adulthood.

  • Bontinck et al. used observations in the home setting to compare interactions between 2-year-olds and their older sibling with ASD with interactions between 2-year-olds and their older, typically developing sibling. Findings suggested that the 2-year-olds whose sibling had ASD attempted to initiate social interactions less frequently, demonstrated fewer positive responses to their sibling’s attempt to communicate or interact, and attempted to imitate their older sibling with ASD less frequently. And, when the researchers looked at total interactions—both positive and negative—between the sibling pairs, they found that higher levels related to more parent-reported ASD characteristics. What does this mean? Well, it suggests that younger siblings of children with ASD might be learning positive and negative behaviors. And, given that siblings provide the earliest form of social interaction, paired with the fact that siblings of children with ASD are at high risk for receiving the same diagnosis, findings from this study suggest that examining social interactions between siblings may provide insight into the development of young children whose sibling has ASD.

  • Typical disfluencies (e.g. revisions, phrase repetitions, filled pauses) are a normal part of preschoolers’ speech, and “appear at times of rapid language growth”. Generally, while children are learning new words and new sentence structures, typical disfluency rates can increase (see article for review). So how would this play out for bilingual children? That’s unknown, and the aim of Brundage & Rowe. In this study, they examined young (30-month-old) simultaneous Spanish–English bilingual children (with roughly 50-50 exposure to English and Spanish at home). They found slightly lower disfluency rates in Spanish, and lower disfluency rates, overall, compared to similar studies. Because their data is a bit unexpected compared to similar research on monolinguals, it’s difficult to know how to interpret this data. But, maybe that’s exactly the point? That it’s different for bilinguals? Future research should help clarify that.

  • After English, Spanish is the most common language spoken in the homes of U.S. children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH). Yet, we know very little about language and, specifically, vocabulary outcomes for this population. de Diego-Lázaront et al. looked at a variety of demographic, hearing-, and intervention-related factors to determine which might have a relationship with Spanish expressive vocabulary skills in 8 to 36-month-olds who are DHH. Results suggested that degree of hearing loss, range of functional hearing, and chronological age and age of intervention separately and combined predicted Spanish expressive vocabulary development. And, more specifically, the researchers found that the children who began receiving therapy early—by 6 months of age—received significantly higher scores on expressive vocabulary measures in Spanish.

  • Donegan-Ritter & Van Meeteren coached Early Head Start teachers on language strategies using video self-reflection and focused feedback. Teachers were able to increase their use of questioning, back and forth exchanges, and parallel talk with both infants and toddlers. Practice-based coaching may be an effective method for training teachers to increase their use of language strategies.

  • Dowd et al. looked at how young toddlers responded when a parent or experimenter got “hurt” (e.g., adults faked injuries when playing with a toy or fiddling with a clipboard) and suggest that we can see signs of social impairments by about 15 months. While we usually consider social concepts like empathy and emotional thinking to be later developing skills, the study’s results show us that we can start to see impairment fairly early in development.

  • Within a child’s first few years, the total number of words he produces often reigns king with regards to assessing his language level. When a child comes to us with a small vocabulary, one of our primary goals is generally to increase the total vocabulary.  However, Galeote et al. explain that a more nuanced approach than “total number of words” is important for fully capturing a child’s language and creating meaningful intervention plans.  We need to make sure that we are considering the makeup of a child’s word classes so that we can understand the child’s strengths and weaknesses and plan our intervention appropriately. With that understanding, if a child’s vocabulary was made up almost entirely of nouns, we would know to target verbs more intensively in intervention.

  • Infants as young as six months old can adapt their communication behaviors to their social environments! Ganea et al. found that non-blind infants of blind parents interact differently with their blind parents compared to non-blind adults.

  • Greenslade et al. provide further data that decreased initiation of joint attention, expressive language, and social communication behaviors during the infant and toddler years can predict pragmatic communication difficulties in the school years, even if a child does not meet criteria for a diagnosis of ASD.

  • Noyes-Grosser et al. offer a program review of New York State’s Part C services, and more specifically how children with ASD and their families respond to services. We can’t apply the results of this review to all of our readers, because Part C is interpreted and services are delivered differently state-by-state and even county-by-county, but the article offers a great overview of why we do things some of the things we do (e.g., COS statements). The authors also over some good tools for program evaluation (see here for Record Review Protocol and here for an EI Family Survey). For SLPs working in Part C programs, you might want to keep this citation handy to offer to your EI coordinators and/or supervisors.

  • Severini et al. implemented the Stay-Play-Talk (SPT) routine with two children with Down Syndrome who used high-tech AAC as their primary mode of communication. They found when peers were trained to use SPT strategies during free play there was an increase in stay and play behaviors for both children. (Sound familiar? We’ve written about Stay–Play–Talk before for children with ASD who use AAC, here and here.)

  • The parent-implemented Early Start Denver Model (P-ESDM; Rogers et al., 2012a) is an intervention that combines principles from Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) with a developmental, socially-focused approach to increase parent interactions that promote positive developmental outcomes for young children with ASD. Vismara et al. looked at whether the P-ESDM might also be an effective intervention for young children with fragile X syndrome (FXS) with and without a combined diagnosis of ASD. The first author of the study provided coaching to promote the use of the P-ESDM with four 1 ½ to 4-year-old children and their parents either in person or via video-conferencing. The parent-related outcomes were encouraging: all of the parents improved in their ability to accurately and consistently implement the P-ESDM intervention goals, and they found the coaching experience to be generally positive. The child-related outcomes (e.g., spontaneous communication and initiated joint attention) were more variable, indicating the need for more studies that examine the use of the P-ESDM with children with FXS with and without ASD.  

Bilgin, A., Baumann, N., Jaekel, J., Breeman, L.D., Bartmann, P., Bäuml, J.G. … Wolke. D. (2018). Early crying, sleeping, and feeding probelsm and trajectories of attention problems from childhood to adulthood. Child Development. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13155.

Bontinck, C., Warreyn, P., Demurie, E., Bruyneel, E., Boterberg, S., Roeyers, H. (2018). Social Interactions Between 24-Month-Old Children and Their Older Sibling with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Characteristics and Association with Social-Communicative Development. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10803-018-3660-4.

Brundage & Rowe (2018). Rates of Typical Disfluency in the Conversational Speech of 30-Month-Old Spanish–English Simultaneous Bilinguals. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 27, 1287–1298.

De Diego-Lázaro, B., Restrepo, A., Sedey, A.L., Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2018). Predictors of Vocabulary Outcomes in Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing From Spanish-Speaking Families. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0148.

Donegan-Ritter, M., & Van Meeteren, B. (2018). Using practice-based coaching to increase use of language facilitation strategies in early head start and community partners. Infants & Young Children, 31(3), 215–230.

Dowd, A. C., Martinez, K., Davidson, B. C., Hixon, J. G., & Neal-Beevers, A. R. (2018). Response to distress varies by social impairment and familiarity in infants at risk for autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(11), 3885–3898.

Galeote, M., Checa, E., Sebastián, E., & Robles-Bello, M. A. (2018). The acquisition of different classes of words in Spanish children with Down syndrome. Journal of Communication Disorders, 75, 57–71.

Ganea, N., Hudry, K., Tucker, L., Charman, T., Johnson, M.H., & Senju, A. (2018). Development of adaptive communication skills in infants of blind parents. Developmental Psychology, 54(12), 2265–2273.

Greenslade, K. J., Utter, E. A., & Landa, R. J. (2018). Predictors of pragmatic communication in school-age siblings of children with ASD and low-risk controls. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10803-018-3837-x

Noyes-Grosser, D. M., Elbaum, B., Wu, Y, Siegenthaler, K. M., Cavalari, R. S., Gillis, J. M., & Romanczyk, R. G. (2018). Early intervention outcomes for toddlers with autism spectrum disorder and their families. Infants & Young Children, 31(3), 177–199.

Severini, K.E., Ledford, J.R., Barton, E.E., & Osborne, K.C. (2018). Implementing stay-play-talk with children who use AAC. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0271121418776091.

Vismara, L.A., McCormick, C.E.B., Shields, R., & Hessl D. (2018). Extending the Parent-Delivered Early Start Denver Model to Young Children with Fragile X Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s1

Throwback Pub (2012): Training parents to support children with developmental language disorder

As SLPs working in EI, we know that developmental language disorder presents risk for later academic skills. We also know that parent-implemented language interventions can be effective (see Roberts & Kaiser, 2011, for a meta-analysis of parent-implemented language interventions). This study examined whether parent-implemented Enhanced Milieu Teaching (EMT) would impact receptive and expressive language growth in children with language disorder (with cognitive standard score > 80 and no other primary diagnoses; see article for full inclusion/exclusion criteria).

The researchers examined three groups of 24–42-month old children:

  • Typical language

  • Language disorder w/ no treatment, or a “wait-and-see” approach

  • Language disorder w/ parent-implemented Enhanced Milieu Teaching

6.png

Families treatment group participated in parent training in 28 sessions (workshops, clinic, and home visits) over a three-month period. EMT strategies were trained in four phases: 1) setting a communicative context, 2) modeling and expanding communication, 3) time delay strategies, and 4) prompting strategies (see Table 5 for examples and description). During training at the clinic, therapists and parents practiced strategies using a specific set of toys. Home visits also included integrating strategies into functional family routines such as snack. All children were assessed with monthly language samples (MLU, total words, different words) plus the Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition (PLS-4), at the beginning and end of the study.

So what happened? Parent-implemented EMT was effective for improving language outcomes for children with LI, and parents in the treatment group used significantly more strategies than either other group! Parent use of strategies for typically-developing children and those with language disorder undergoing “wait and see” were about the same.

Children whose parents used EMT

  • significantly improved their PLS-4 Total and Expressive Communication scores and gained an average of 50 more words than untreated children with language disorder

  • gained an average of 15 more words per month compared to untreated children with language disorder

  • grew at about the same rate as children with typical language

Fantastic, right? But what about the kids with language disorder undergoing a “wait and see” approach? They showed significantly slower growth. Not only did those “wait and see” kids start out with lower language abilities, it looks like “waiting and seeing” might just hold them at a disadvantage when compared to those who have access to intervention. The authors stated, “Children in the LI-control group did not catch up but fell farther behind their peers with TL.”

How about a little extra info? The authors also looked at which child characteristics predicted language growth and outcomes. They examined risk at birth (e.g., a NICU stay), cognitive skills, and receptive skills (based on the Bayley-III scores). Risk at birth and cognitive skills were not predictive of expressive language analyses performed. However, “Receptive language at the start of the study predicted growth in language for all three groups of children after controlling for differences in IQ.”

The authors note that more research is needed to determine long-term outcomes. For example, how would these children progress over a period of 12 months? What kind of gains would come from 28 hours of traditional therapy in 3 months? Overall, parent-implemented EMT looks to be a promising model to add to our intervention options for young children with developmental language disorder.

Note: For our bilingual SLPs, see Peredo, Zelaya, & Kaiser, 2017 for a study on adapting parent-implemented EMT for Spanish-speaking families.

 

Roberts, M. Y., & Kaiser, A. P. (2012). Assessing the effects of a parent-implemented language intervention for children with language impairments using empirical benchmarks: A pilot study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research55(6), 1655-1670.