1. Table 1: Lugu-Neris Study
Evidence Based Practices in Intervention Strategies for Dual Language Learners with Language Impairment
Anna Yarrow, B.A., Genetic Counseling Student
Research Question
Results
Conclusions
What intervention strategies are the most effective for children who are dual language learners with a language impairment?
There is a theory that states language development is a cognitive process, therefore, if one gains knowledge in any language, L1 or L2, the technique and mental processing is able be to developed in both languages (Thordardottir, 2010).
Lugu-Neris’s group assessed whether it benefited the child more to order their intervention with L1 first, or to start with L2. Because both groups experienced growth, the group said that there is no correct way to order languages in the child’s intervention. However, it is important to understand the child’s language use, their strengths, and their needs when developing a plan and outlining the child’s treatment goals (Lugo-Neris, Bedore, & Pena, 2015).
Table 1: Lugu-Neris Study
Pham’s group was interested to see how well different intervention strategies aid in language skill achievement and if the targeted approaches reduced the risk of language loss for children with language impairment. Though they didn’t find significant gains in Spanish language skills, they didn’t see a reduction of skills in either language. The group concluded that intervention strategies aid in cognitive processes (Pham, Ebert, & Kohner, 2015).
Table 2: Pham Study
Intervention practices for children who are DLL with a PLI, is complicated. There are many interventions available, and here only two have been discussed. Some strategies are reported to have better retention and include a family and cultural dynamic that leads to better results for the child.
Studies have found that language intervention, no matter what language is utilized first, the intervention itself has the potential to increase the child’s ability to learn and retain language skills in both L1 and L2 (Simon-Cereijido, 2015), (Lugo-Neris, Bedore, & Pena, 2015) and (Simon-Cereijido, Gutierrez-Clellen, & Sweet, 2013).
These results combined provide the evidence that a family-centered practice is crucial in the development of the child’s language learning. When the SLP and families work to develop a plan that both supports the family structure and the techniques available by the SLP, the child’s potential to acquire language and language skills is much greater. These studies indicate that continued research into family-centered practice in language development for DLLs with PLI, is needed to provide strategies for the family to encourage their children’s language development.
Rationale
Primary language impairment (PLI) is defined as a chronic non-syndromic deficit in language skills compared to their aged matched peers. There are studies that have found children with language impairment are more susceptible to attrition, which is why it is crucial to develop a plan that outlines the best possible skill set acquirement and set up a plan for the language instruction in the home setting (Pham, Ebert, & Kohner, 2015).
There are many intervention strategies currently being used to aid in the development of language development for children who are dual language learners (DLL) who also have a degree of language impairment. Because there are so many different techniques available to Speech and Language Pathologists (SLP), there needs to an evaluation of the best methods, especially into regards of the retention of the language development.
Current research is being conducted to analyze the order in which each language, primary language (L1) and secondary language (L2), are implemented in the intervention which leads to the best outcome of increased language skills and retention of knowledge (Lugo-Neris, Bedore, & Pena, 2015). Research is also looking into the cultural aspects of the child’s L1. Utilizing the social environment of the language as well as the subject matters in which the language will be used (Thordardottir, 2010).
Participants
Six Spanish-English bilingual first graders, each at risk for language impairment
Intervention
24 small group intervention sessions, one group (3 participants) received Spanish intervention first and other group received English intervention first
30 min of literacy activities, 5-10min of progress monitoring; 12 sessions in each language
Assessment
Pre-treatment assessment via Bilingual English Spanish Oral Screen and Test of Narrative Language; completed again post-treatment
Results
English first largest gain, both groups increased in skills. Participants able to generalize skills from both languages.
References
Lugo-Neris, M. J., Bedore, L. M., & Pena, E. D. (2015). Dual Language Intervention for Bilinguals at Risk for Language Impairment. Seminars in Speech and Language,
Pham, G., Ebert, K. D., & Kohner, K. (2015). Bilingual children with primary language impairment: 3 months after treatment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders,
Simon-Cereijido, G., Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Sweet, M. (2013). Predictors of growth or attrition of the first language in Latino children with specific language impairment. Applications of Psycholinguist,
Thordardottir, E. (2010). Towards evidence-based practice in language intervention for bilingual children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43,
Participants
48 children with moderate to severe primary language impairment
Intervention
Six weeks of treatment of English only, both English and Spanish and non-language cognitive processing. Instruction included grammar, vocabulary, and listening comprehension tasks.
Assessment
Completed pre-, post- and three month follow up assessment on multiple assessment tools including Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals and non-word repetition tasks.
Results
Processing speed was increased throughout all intervention strategies. All techniques have ability to increase cognitive processes. Also, language skill attrition was not seen throughout participants.