1. Assessment of Preschool and School-Aged Children with Language Differences Ch. 4 Owens, 5 th Edition Harold A. Johnson Michigan State University

2. H. Johnson/MSU2 Focus Language difference, vs. language impairment, i.e., –Students who are proficient in their home language, i.e., language ”1”, but less proficient in English “language difference” would apply to student who are d/hh who are demonstrate age language skills in ASL, but not in English.

3. H. Johnson/MSU3 Questions What makes first language learning "effortless" for most children? –what helps... –...context –...'motherse' –...adherence to Grician Principles –...scaffolding –...expectation of communication/success –...frequency & quality & comprehensibility of interactional...communicative experiences –...consistency, immediacy and comprehensibility of feedback –...growing communication needs...opt...context...models

4. H. Johnson/MSU4 Questions (cont.) What makes second language learning more difficult for most of us? What role does culture plat in determining what is acceptable, or appropriate language behavior? What makes first language learning so difficult for most children who are d/hh? What are the implications of this information for our language assessment and intervention work?

5. H. Johnson/MSU5 Cultural Competence & Bias Educational professionals general lack of preparation, comfort, strategies, or material to effectively work with minority students. Use of interpreters to facilitate assessment efforts –P. 109 – list of suggestions To what degree do such suggestions also apply to the use of sign/oral interpreters? If interpreters are used in assessment situations, how does this use impact the test results and interpretations?

6. H. Johnson/MSU6 Integrated Model for Assessment Why such an approach is needed: –p. 111 – “Current methodology in language assessment has been described as a “ discrete point approach” ( Acevedo, 1986; Mattes & Omark, 1984) in which language is treated as an autonomous cognitive ability divided into many components ( Damico, 1991b). Language is not viewed as holistic; rather, it is separate from environmental variables and context.

7. H. Johnson/MSU7 Essential question we must address via our assessment efforts: –p. 111 – “Is this child an effective communicator in his or her context?” Essential process we should use... –p. 111 – “Data could be collected in natural settings ( Iglesias, 1986) as a child converses with his or her natural conversational partners, parents, teachers, and peers.” As teachers of students who are d/hh, we do not have to “screen” to find those students with language problems, we simply need to observe, understand, document, and effectively respond to the problems our students demonstrate.

8. H. Johnson/MSU8 Once the problems are identified, the student’s “...language skills must be compared to sociolinguistic factors such as the following: –Age at exposure to each language –Extent of exposure to each language –Ability to use each language –Comparative linguistic structure of the two languages –Individual child differences (Goldstein, 2006).” (p. 114) –...we would add in the additional variables I identified earlier, e.g., “hearing age,” onset of early intervention services, etc.

9. H. Johnson/MSU9 Discussion Questions What impact is a student's ethnicity likely to have upon their performance within language assessments? How can you design your instruction to provide an ongoing analysis of a student's language competence and problems? How can you design your instruction to effectively incorporate the information you gain from your language assessment work?