Access to opportunities for bilingualism for individuals with developmental disabilities:key informant interviews

The purpose of this article is to describe the results of a thematic analysis of 79 semi-structured interviews collected at six research sites in four countries in relation to the inclusion and exclusion of students with developmental disabilities (DD) in and from special education and bilingual opportunities. The participants were individuals with expertise either in special needs and/or language education to support bilingualism (e.g., second language (L2) instruction), who served as key informants about service delivery and/or policy in these areas. Six themes emerged as salient during the analysis: we include all kids, special needs drives it, time/scheduling conflicts, IEP/IPP/statement drives it, it’s up to the parents, and service availability. The results suggested that access to language programs and services is limited for children with DD, even though participants at all sites reported adherence to a philosophy of inclusion. A priority on special education services over language services was identified, as well as barriers to providing children with DD access to programs and services to support bilingual development. Some of these barriers included time and scheduling conflicts and limited service availability. Additionally, the role of parents in decision making was affirmed, although, in contrast to special education services, decision-making about participation or exemption from language programs was typically left up to the parents. Overall, the results suggest a need for greater attention to providing supports for both first (L1) and L2 language development for bilingual children with DD and greater access to available language programs

Exploring the validity and reliability of online assessment for conversational, narrative, and expository discourse measures in school-aged children

The COVID-19 pandemic has created novel challenges in the assessment of children's speech and language. Collecting valid data is crucial for researchers and clinicians, yet the evidence on how data collection procedures can validly be adapted to an online format is sparse. The urgent need for online assessments has highlighted possible the barriers such as testing reliability and validity that clinicians face during implementation. The present study describes the adapted procedures for on-line assessments and compares the outcomes for monolingual and bilingual children of online and in-person testing using conversational, narrative and expository discourse samples and a standardized vocabulary test. A sample of 127 (103 in-person, 24 online) English monolinguals and 78 (53 in-person, 25 online) simultaneous French-English bilinguals aged 7–12 years were studied. Discourse samples were analyzed for productivity, proficiency, and syntactic complexity. MANOVAs were used to compare on-line and in-person testing contexts and age in two monolingual and bilingual school-age children. No differences across testing contexts were found for receptive vocabulary or narrative discourse. However, some modality differences were found for conversational and expository. The results from the study contribute to understanding how clinical assessment can be adapted for online format in school-aged children

Professional practices and opinions about services available to bilingual children with developmental disabilities:an international study

This study aimed to gather information from school- and clinic-based professionals about their practices and opinions pertaining to the provision of bilingual supports to students with developmental disabilities. Using an online survey, data were collected in six socio-culturally and linguistically diverse locations across four countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. In total, 361 surveys were included in the analysis from respondents who were primarily teachers and speech-language pathologists working in schools, daycares/preschools, or community-based clinics. The overall picture that emerged from the data reflected a disconnection between practice and opinion. In general, respondents believed that children with both mild and severe disabilities are capable of learning a second language, although their opinions were more neutral for the latter group. However, children with both mild and severe disabilities who spoke only a minority language at home had less access to services for second language learners than did their typically developing peers, although respondents agreed that such services should be more available. Regardless of clinical group, children who lived in homes where a minority language was spoken were often exposed to, assessed in, and treated in the majority language only; again, respondents generally disagreed with these practices. Finally, second language classes were less available to children in the two disability groups compared to typically developing bilingual children, with general agreement that the opportunity to acquire a second language should be more available, especially to those with mild disabilities. Although the results indicate that there is a considerable gap between current practices and professional opinions, professionals appear to be more supportive of bilingual educational opportunities for these populations than was suggested by previous research

A multi-site review of policies affecting opportunities for children with developmental disabilities to become bilingual

This review of special education and language-in-education policies at six sites in four countries (Canada, United States, United Kingdom, and Netherlands) aimed to determine the opportunities for bilingualism provided at school for children with developmental disabilities (DD). While research has demonstrated that children with DD are capable of learning more than one language (see Kay Raining Bird, Genesee, & Verhoeven, this issue), it was not clear whether recent policies reflect these findings. The review, conducted using the same protocol across sites, showed that special education policies rarely addressed second language learning explicitly. However, at all sites, the policies favoured inclusion and educational planning based on individual needs, and thus implied that students with DD would have opportunities for second language learning. The language-in-education policies occasionally specified the support individuals with special needs would receive. At some sites, policies and educational options provided little support for minority languages, a factor that could contribute to subtractive bilingualism. At others, we found stronger support for minority languages and optional majority languages: conditions that could be more conducive to additive bilingualism

Preschool Children’s Memory for Word Forms Remains Stable Over Several Days, but Gradually Decreases after 6 Months

Research on word learning has focused on children’s ability to identify a target object when given the word form after a minimal number of exposures to novel word-object pairings. However, relatively little research has focused on children’s ability to retrieve the word form when given the target object. The exceptions involve asking children to recall and produce forms, and children typically perform near floor on these measures. In the current study, 3- to 5-year-old children were administered a novel test of word form that allowed for recognition memory and manual responses. Specifically, when asked to label a previously trained object, children were given three forms to choose from: the target, a minimally different form, and a maximally different form. Children demonstrated memory for word forms at three post-training delays: 10 mins (short-term), 2–3 days (long-term), and 6 months to 1 year (very long-term). However, children performed worse at the very long-term delay than the other time points, and the length of the very long-term delay was negatively related to performance. When in error, children were no more likely to select the minimally different form than the maximally different form at all time points. Overall, these results suggest that children remember word forms that are linked to objects over extended post-training intervals, but that their memory for the forms gradually decreases over time without further exposures. Furthermore, memory traces for word forms do not become less phonologically specific over time; rather children either identify the correct form, or they perform at chance

Bilingualism in children with developmental disorders: A narrative review

Item does not contain fulltextChildren with developmental disabilities (DD) often need and sometimes opt to become bilingual. The context for bilingual acquisition varies considerably and can impact outcomes. In this first article of the special issue, we review research on the timing and amount of bilingual exposure and outcomes of either direct language intervention or educational placements in three groups of children with DD: Specific Language Impairment (SLI), Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), and Down syndrome (DS). Children with SLI have been studied more than the other two groups. Findings showed that, on the one hand, the communication skills of simultaneous bilinguals and matched monolinguals with DD were similar for all groups when the stronger language or both languages of the bilingual children were considered. On the other hand, similar to typically developing children, sequential bilinguals and matched monolinguals with SLI (other groups not studied) differed on some but not all second language (L2) measures; even after an extended period of exposure, differences in L2 outcomes were not completely resolved. There is emerging evidence that the typological similarity of the languages being learned influences L2 development in sequential bilinguals, at least in children with SLI. Increasing the frequency of exposure seems to be more related to development of the weaker language in bilinguals with DD than their stronger language. Language intervention studies show the efficacy of interventions but provide little evidence for transfer across languages. In addition, only one (unpublished) study has compared the language and academic outcomes of children with DD in different language education programs. Research on bilingual children with DD in different educational settings/programs is limited, probably as a result of restricted inclusion of these children in some educational settings. We argue for the implementation of full inclusion policies that provide increased access to dual language programs for children with DD and access to a complete range of support services.15 p