Vocabulary, Metalinguistic Awareness and Language Dominance Among Bilingual Preschool Children

Awareness of language structure has been studied in bilinguals, but there is limited research on how language dominance is related to metalinguistic awareness, and whether metalinguistic awareness predicts vocabulary size. The present study aims to explore the role of language dominance in the relation between vocabulary size in both languages of bilingual children and metalinguistic awareness in the societal language. It evaluates the impact of two metalinguistic awareness abilities, morphological and lexical awareness, on receptive and expressive vocabulary size. This is of special interest since most studies focus on the impact of exposure on vocabulary size but very few explore the impact of the interaction between metalinguistic awareness and dominance. 5–6-year-old preschool children with typical language development participated in the study: 15 Russian-Hebrew bilingual children dominant in the societal language (SL) Hebrew, 21 Russian-Hebrew bilingual children dominant in the Heritage language (HL) Russian and 32 monolingual children. Dominance was determined by relative proficiency, based on standardized tests in the two languages. Tasks of morphological and lexical awareness were administered in SL-Hebrew, along with measures of receptive and expressive vocabulary size in both languages. Vocabulary size in SL-Hebrew was significantly higher for SL-dominant bilinguals (who performed like monolinguals) than for HL-dominant bilinguals, while HL-Russian vocabulary size was higher for HL-dominant bilinguals than for SL-dominant bilinguals. A hierarchical regression analyzing the relationship between vocabulary size and metalinguistic awareness showed that dominance, lexical metalinguistic awareness and the interaction between the two were predictors of both receptive and expressive vocabulary size. Morphological metalinguistic awareness was not a predictor of vocabulary size. The relationship between lexical awareness and SL-vocabulary size was limited to the HL-dominant group. HL-dominant bilinguals relied on lexical metalinguistic awareness, measured by fast mapping abilities, that is, the abilities to acquire new words, in expanding their vocabulary size, whereas SL-dominant bilinguals and monolinguals did not. This difference reflects the milestones of lexical acquisition the different groups have reached. These findings show that metalinguistic awareness should also be taken into consideration when evaluating the variables that influence vocabulary size among bilinguals though different ways in different dominance groups

Crystallized and fluid intelligence of university students with intellectual disability who are fully integrated versus those who studied in adapted enrichment courses.

Inclusion of people with intellectual disability (ID) in higher postsecondary academic education is on the rise. However, there are no scientific criteria for determining the eligibility for full inclusion of students with ID in university courses. This study focuses on two models of academic inclusion for students with ID: (a) separate adapted enrichment model: students with ID study in separate enrichment courses adapted to their level; (b) full inclusion model: students with ID are included in undergraduate courses, receive academic credits and are expected to accumulate the amount of credits for a B.A.(a) To examine whether crystallized and fluid intelligence and cognitive tests can serve as screening tests for determining the appropriate placement of students with ID for the adapted enrichment model versus the full inclusion model. (b) To examine the attitudes towards the program of students with ID in the inclusion model.The sample included 31 adults with ID: students with ID who were fully included (N = 10) and students with ID who participated in the adapted enrichment model (N = 21). Crystallized and fluid intelligence were examined (WAIS-III, Wechsler, 1997) and Hebrew abstract verbal tests (Glanz, 1989). Semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to examine the attitudes of students in the inclusion model towards the program.The ANOVAs indicate that the most prominent difference between the groups was in vocabulary, knowledge and working memory. ROC analysis, a fundamental tool for diagnostic test evaluation, was used to determine the students' eligibility for appropriate placement in the two models. Seven tests distinguished between the groups in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The interviews were analyzed according to three phases.The results indicate that students with ID are able to participate in undergraduate courses and achieve academic goals. The general IQ and idioms test seem to be best determiners for appropriate placement of students with ID to one of the two models. The included students with ID are motivated and self-determined in continuing in the program

Mean, SD, and <i>F</i> values of the WAIS IQ tests in the full inclusion (<i>N</i> = 10) and adapted enrichment (<i>N</i> = 21) groups.

<p>Mean, SD, and <i>F</i> values of the WAIS IQ tests in the full inclusion (<i>N</i> = 10) and adapted enrichment (<i>N</i> = 21) groups.</p

Hierarchy of the verbal and perceptual IQ subscales in the full integration and adapted enrichment groups.

<p>Hierarchy of the verbal and perceptual IQ subscales in the full integration and adapted enrichment groups.</p

Sample answers on the semi-structured interview.

<p>Sample answers on the semi-structured interview.</p

Mean, SD, and <i>F</i> values of the crystallized and fluid tests in the full inclusion (<i>N</i> = 10) and adapted enrichment (<i>N</i> = 21) groups.

<p>Mean, SD, and <i>F</i> values of the crystallized and fluid tests in the full inclusion (<i>N</i> = 10) and adapted enrichment (<i>N</i> = 21) groups.</p

Percentage above and below the ROC cutoff point in the full integration (<i>N</i> = 10) versus the adapted enrichment (<i>N</i> = 21) groups.

<p>Percentage above and below the ROC cutoff point in the full integration (<i>N</i> = 10) versus the adapted enrichment (<i>N</i> = 21) groups.</p

The AUC, sensitivity and specificity values for each variable.

<p>The AUC, sensitivity and specificity values for each variable.</p