Carla Wood Jackson, Ph.D. CCC-SLP, Assistant Professor, School of Communication Science & Disorders at Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

Carla Wood Jackson, Ph.D. CCC-SLP is an assistant professor in the School of Communication Science & Disorders at Florida State University. Dr. Jackson’s teaching and research focuses on child language development and disorders. She has been a certified speech-language pathologist for over 16 years including service in public elementary schools. Dr. Jackson developed a multicultural/multilingual clinical program at Florida State University which provides outreach services to ELLs in surrounding communities. Her research has focused on facilitating early language and literacy skills of English language learners. She has presented on the topic at national conferences and published in professional journals such as Language Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, Communication Disorders Quarterly, and Early Childhood Services: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Effectiveness. Jackson is in her fourth year as the principle investigator on a 4-year training grant focusing on serving culturally and linguistically diverse populations.

Dr. Carla Wood Jackson’s research lab, BLOOM, has focused on developing and examining language learning supports for young English language learners (ELLs). A series of language learning intervention studies have been conducted with the assistance of colleagues and graduate students in partnership with the Panhandle Area Educational Consortium on Migrant Education. Speech-language pathologists, teachers, and special educators continue to report challenges and obstacles in providing high quality intervention and instructional support for ELLs (Jackson, Leacox, & Callender, 2010). In response, the primary aim of BLOOM (Bridging for Language Outcomes in the Classroom) is to develop language and literacy interventions for young English language learners and refine and test implementation in authentic classrooms.

The use of native language expansions, referred to as “Spanish bridging”, during shared reading serves as a catalyst of English word learning by providing engaging, comprehensible input utilizing children’s stronger language. Spanish bridging shows promise as a transitional venue for facilitating English language learning, particularly in rich shared reading instruction. The use of children’s native language as instructional support during acquisition of English is controversial; however, burgeoning research supports the benefits of Spanish bridging for early English language and literacy development in some ELLs. The use of Spanish bridging demonstrated promising outcomes in the master’s thesis of Mirza Lugo-Neris (Lugo-Neris, Jackson, & Goldstein, 2010).

This project investigated word learning of ELLs in response to repeated shared reading with embedded instruction of word definitions in either Spanish or English. Children demonstrated growth in their word labeling in English, receptive understanding of targeted words, and expressive definitions in both English and Spanish intervention conditions; however, additional benefits were observed when the word definitions were provided in Spanish. Subsequent studies have examined supplemental Tier 2 and Tier 3 level supports for vocabulary learning including bridging with accompanying manipulatives (Jackson, Bancayan & Quiles, in preparation), voice-output pre-recorded definitions for preview and review, and bridging implemented through computer-mediated e-book instruction (Leacox & Jackson, in preparation).

Currently, doctoral student Lindsey Leacox and Jackson are extending the BLOOM project for broader implementation in preschool – 1st grade classrooms. Children practice and rehearse targeted English word labels by selecting the electronic links to hear a model of the English label and embedded expansion of the word definition provided in Spanish. Preliminary results support the use of Spanish-bridging during computer mediated instruction to facilitate English word learning. On-going longitudinal study of ELL’s vocabulary skill acquisition in English and Spanish is underway in the BLOOM lab at Florida State University.

François Grosjean, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

François Grosjean is Emeritus Professor of Psycholinguistics, Neuchâtel University, Switzerland. His specialty is psycholinguistics and his domains of interest are the perception, comprehension and production of language, be it speech or sign language, in monolinguals and bilinguals. He also has interests in biculturalism, applied linguistics, aphasia, sign language, and natural language processing. He is better known for his work on bilingualism in which he has investigated the holistic view of bilingualism, language mode, the complementarity principle, the processing of code-switching and borrowing, as well as the bilingualism of the Deaf. He is the author of numerous articles and of five books, the latest of which is Bilingual: Life and Reality (Harvard University Press, 2010).

Greetings! My name is Nate Cornish. I am a bilingual speech-language pathologist, the clinical director for Bilingual Therapies and moderator of the ¡Adelante! blog. It is my pleasure to introduce as well as to participate in this month’s article, which will be presented in a different format than we are accustomed to. I had the opportunity to engage our contributor, renowned psycholinguist Dr. François Grosjean, in an interview on biculturalism. Our discussion was based on a chapter of his book, “Studying Bilinguals” (Oxford University Press, 2008). Chapter Twelve, titled, “The Bicultural Person: A Short Introduction,” raises some interesting points that are pertinent to our work with culturally and linguistically diverse individuals. Clearly, language and culture are closely linked. However, we as communication professionals may not always consider the dynamic of biculturalism as readily as we consider bilingualism, even though its impact on our clients’ participation in academics and life may be just as profound.

In Dr. Grosjean’s book, he acknowledges that most people are simultaneous members of multiple cultural groups. The “minor” cultures that a person may identify with (occupation, family, hobbies, etc.) are often complementary and coexist within a “major” culture (national, linguistic, social, religious, etc.). While an individual may belong to a number of minor cultures, aspects of major cultures are frequently mutually-exclusive. Thus, navigating, and identifying with, more than one major culture may require some effort.

While the bicultural person may be characterized by a number of traits, there are three in particular that Grosjean focuses on:

1. Bicultural individuals take part, to varying degrees, in the life of two or more cultures
2. They adapt, at least in part, their attitudes, behaviors, values, language, etc., to these cultures.
3. They combine and blend aspects of their cultures.

These traits bear some similarities to the characteristic cross-linguistic skills and needs of bilinguals with at least one important difference: Grosjean states that “Bilinguals can usually deactivate one language and use the other in particular situations… whereas biculturals cannot always deactivate certain traits of their other culture in a monocultural environment.” In other words, there appear to be some aspects of culture that are “adaptable and controllable” while other features are more “static,” meaning that they are “always present and cannot be easily adapted.”

One of the significant points Dr. Grosjean makes is in regards to identity and biculturalism. Grosjean observes that the bicultural individual may experience conflict unless she accepts her identity as a bicultural person with an experience that is distinct to that of monocultural persons. Particularly problematic are external and internal perceptions that an individual cannot successfully be a member of multiple cultures. For example: an individual may be judged to belong to only one culture despite a clear need to navigate two. This is particularly problematic if members of Culture A perceive that the individual belongs exclusively to Culture B, while members of Culture B perceive that the individual belongs solely to Culture A. In such circumstances, Grosjean posits that the bicultural person may make one of the following decisions regarding their identity:

1. They may identify solely with Culture A
2. They may identify solely with Culture B
3. They may reject both cultures
4. They may accept themselves as a bicultural individual with the need to operate in two or more constituent cultures.

Dr. Grosjean states that the process of finding one’s identity as a bicultural person may be long and even arduous. Continued conflict may exist when identifying exclusively with only one culture, or rejecting both cultures. Those who choose these solutions may feel “uprooted, marginalized, or ambivalent.” However, those who can “come to terms with their biculturalism”, and recognize that they do indeed belong to two cultures, have a stronger likelihood of navigating their two cultures with ease.

With that summary, I would like to share the content of my enlightening (and enjoyable) conversation with Dr. Grosjean:

In an article that you wrote on the topic of bilingualism, (Grosjean, 1989) you state that a bilingual is not the sum of two complete or incomplete monolinguals, but rather a distinct and competent communicator. How would you liken (or differentiate) that view to the bicultural individual?

I believe this view also applies to the bicultural person, perhaps even more so. As already mentioned, biculturals take part, to varying degrees, in the life of two or more cultures; they adapt, at least in part, their attitudes, behavior, values, and languages to their cultures; and they combine and blend aspects of the cultures involved. The first two characteristics are similar to those that describe bilinguals. As we all know, bilinguals live within two of more language communities and they adapt their language to each group. This said, bilinguals are not two monolinguals in one person, and similarly, biculturals are not two monoculturals in one person. This is particularly clear when one examines the third trait that characterizes biculturals – combining and blending aspects of the cultures involved.

But don’t bilinguals also “mix” their languages?

True, bilinguals also combine their languages in the form of code-switches and borrowings (when in a bilingual language mode) but they do not normally blend their languages the way biculturals blend their cultures. Not all behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes can be modified according to the cultural situation the bicultural person is in. A bicultural who has roots in both the French culture and the American culture, for example, blends aspects of each culture and may find that she cannot be 100 percent French in France and 100 percent American in the United States, however hard she tries.

This form of static cultural interference is a differentiating factor between bilingualism and biculturalism: bilinguals can usually deactivate one language and only use the other in particular situations (at least to a very great extent), whereas biculturals cannot always deactivate certain traits of their other culture when in a monocultural environment.

How does a speech-language practitioner determine these cross-cultural traits (or blends)? What questions should they ask?

It is only by getting to know the client very well that these cultural blends will become apparent. Biculturals themselves often cannot identity them for others unless they have undertaken quite an extensive introspection. Cultural blends can be found in greeting and leaving behaviors, hand gestures and facial expressions, the amount of space that is left between oneself and others, etc. but also in less visible domains such as what you talk about, your attitudes, your beliefs and so on.

Can you say something about biculturals and the monocultural – bicultural continuum they operate along?

Biculturals may find themselves at various points along a situational continuum that requires different types of behavior depending on the situation they are in. At one end they are in a monocultural mode, since they are with monoculturals or with biculturals with whom they share only one culture. In this situation they must deactivate as best they can their other cultures. They attempt to apply the motto, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” If their knowledge of the culture in question is sufficient, and they manage to deactivate, at least to a large degree, their other cultures, then they can behave appropriately. However, because of the blending component in biculturalism, certain behaviors, attitudes, and feelings may not be totally adapted to a situation and may instead be a mixture of the person’s two (or more) cultures.

At the other end of the continuum they are with other biculturals who share their cultures. With them, they will use a base culture to interact in (the behaviors, attitudes, beliefs of one culture) and bring in the other culture, in the form of cultural switches and borrowings, when they choose to.

In what ways does biculturalism affect language use and need?

As is now well established, bilinguals usually acquire and use their languages for different purposes, in different domains of life, with different people. Different aspects of life often require different languages. I have called this the complementarity principle and I discuss it extensively in my recent book, Bilingual: Life and Reality. The cultures that characterize biculturals will often impact differently on language need, fluency and use. If a language is spoken in a reduced number of cultural domains and with a limited number of people of a specific culture (these biculturals are dominant in the other culture), then it will not be developed as much as a language used in more domains and with more people. More specifically, if a cultural domain is not covered by a language, bilinguals will simply not possess the domain-specific vocabulary, the stylistic variety, or even sometimes the discursive and pragmatic rules needed for that domain.

I recall a conversation that I had with one of my bicultural colleagues about her experiences as a Mexican-American child growing up in the United States. I was intrigued by a statement that she made while discussing the rules that she had to abide by, which were very different than those of her Anglo-American friends. She said, “Nobody tells you it’s a cultural difference. You’re just frustrated with your parents.” What does the process look like as biculturals become aware of differences and then become aware that the differences are cultural rather than individual?

This is a fascinating issue which has not been studied very much. The best data we have currently can be found in autobiographies of immigrants who have written about how they grew up in a minority family and then discovered and entered the mainstream culture. Writers such as Maxine Hong Kingston, Richard Rodriguez, Eva Hoffman, Olivier Todd and Paul Preston, among many others, evoke their awakening and adaptation to biculturalism.

What can you say about self-identity and biculturalism?

An important aspect of biculturalism relates to the identity bicultural people decide to take on. Their dilemma is that monocultural members of their different cultures want to know if they are members of culture A or culture B, or of a new culture, when biculturals just want to be accepted for who they are: members of two or more cultures. How does the identity process take place? First, biculturals have to take into account the way members of the cultures they belong to categorize them. These members will take into account their kinship, the languages they speak and how well they do so, their physical appearance, their nationality, their education, their attitudes, and so on. The outcome, in each culture they belong to, will often be categorical: biculturals are judged by friends, acquaintances, and others to belong to culture A or to culture B, but rarely to both cultures. An additional problem can be that culture A may categorize them as members of culture B and vice versa, a form of double, contradictory, categorization.

Faced with such sometimes contradictory perceptions, biculturals then have to reach a decision regarding their own cultural identity. They take into account how they are seen by the cultures they belong to, as well as such other factors as their personal history, their identity needs, their knowledge of the languages and cultures involved, the country they live in, the groups they belong to. The outcome, after a long and sometimes trying process, is to identify solely with culture A, solely with culture B, with neither culture A nor culture B, or with both culture A and culture B.

Many of us have observed biculturals struggling with this process.

Yes, and that is because the first three solutions—that is, only A, only B, neither A nor B—are often unsatisfactory in the long run, even if they might be temporary answers. They do not truly reflect the bicultural person who has roots in two cultures, and they may have negative consequences later on. Those who choose to identify with just one culture (whether freely or when pushed to do so) are basically turning away from one of their two cultures, and they may later become dissatisfied with their decision. As for those who reject both cultures, they often feel marginalized or ambivalent about their life.

As for the fourth route, and being able to say, “I am bicultural, a member of culture A and of culture B”, it may require a lot of energy and time. And yet, this is the optimal solution since biculturals live their lives within two cultures, combining and blending aspects of each one, even when one culture is dominant. Some biculturals are helped by the existence of new cultural groups, such as the immigrant groups in North America. Identifying with Cuban Americans, or Haitian Americans, for example, and being able to use those labels, is a fine way of telling others that you are of dual heritage, Cuban and American or Haitian and American, and that you wish to be recognized as a bicultural individual.

Why is it important for professionals to be mindful of the cross-cultural dynamics of their speech and language-impaired clients?

Even though professionals are concentrating on the speech, language and communication of their clients, it is important that they view them holistically as bilingual bicultural people. Most bilinguals in the United States are also bicultural (recall that in other countries, the two do not always go together) and hence they must be mindful of both aspects. Certain language behaviors such as the reserved, or outgoing, nature of their clients, the amount of speech that is produced, the subjects that are talked about (or not talked about), even their voice amplitude, may find their roots in the specific cultures present in these people.

What role can a speech-language professional or other concerned parties play to help the bicultural individual establish a healthy cultural self-identity?

A first step is to obtain a clear understanding of what it means to be bicultural. In addition, recognizing the assets of being bicultural is needed. Bicultural people are invaluable in today’s world—they are bridges between the cultures they belong to, useful go-betweens who can explain one culture to members of the other and act as intermediaries between the two. Professionals can also accompany, and sometimes help bilingual and bicultural children and adolescents on their journey which will lead, hopefully, to their acceptance of their dual identity.

I end my recent book in the following way, “Caring and informed adults must accompany them – many already do – and ease their passage from one stage to the next. I dream of the moment when these young people and, later, adults will all be proud of their languages and cultures, and be accepted for who they are—bilingual and bicultural individuals, quite simply.”

Thank you Dr. Grosjean, for your important work in the area of biculturalism and for sharing this information with our readers!

Further readings by François Grosjean:

- Grosjean, François.  “What Bilingualism is Not.”  Weblog.  Harvard University Press Publicity. 29 July 2010.  Harvard University Press.  4 August, 2010.  http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2010/07/what-bilingualism-is-not-.html

- Bilingual: Life and Reality (most notably Chapter 10, “Bilinguals who are also bicultural”).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.

- “The bicultural person: A short introduction”. Chapter 12 of Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

- “The bilingualism and biculturalism of the Deaf”. Chapter 13 of Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

- Grosjean, F. (1989) Neurolinguists, beware!  The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person.  Brain and Language 36, 3-15.

François Grosjean’s website: www.francoisgrosjean.ch

Tim Starling, Division Director, Bilingual Therapies

Tim Starling is currently the Division Director of Bilingual Therapies. Tim received his introduction to healthcare in 2000 as a recruiter who placed neurological, orthopedic, and general surgeons in some of the country’s leading hospital systems. He later joined Soliant Health where he pioneered the schools division that places speech, physical, and occupational therapist in school districts across the country. In August of 2006, Tim had the opportunity to join Bilingual Therapies where he continues to assist the team in being the profession’s leading source for bilingual speech-language pathology services in the country.

Did I get your attention yet?

For the past two or three years, the US economy has really been on a roller coaster that has seen more shrills than thrills. The job market has been bleak, schools are cutting jobs and mandating furlough days, and our leaders in Washington can’t get on the same page. So what does it mean for us? Here comes the answer that you have been waiting for: WE JUST DON’T KNOW! That is the honest truth when it comes to our job of providing much needed services to our clients in schools, hospitals, clinics, and other medical facilities across the country. Our clients, which are both the healthcare providers and the facilities they work in, are all operating in very unique markets right now. Let’s look at our nation’s school districts and see what is truly happening. 

Federal and local governments are tasked with running their services while decreasing their operating budgets. With fewer people working and private business not doing so well, it means that tax revenues are down. This forces leaders to make budget cuts, which drives them to become very creative in how they conduct business. In our sector of education, we are seeing extreme measures to keep jobs and provide the quality of services that everyone has grown accustomed to in education. In parts of California, they are decreasing the number of days that children attend school, thus decreasing the cost of maintaining facilities. In parts of Georgia, they are asking educators to take several furlough days. In parts of Illinois, they are dramatically increasing class sizes. In parts of Texas, they are using a surplus of stimulus dollars that are still left over from the infusion by our federal government. In parts of Virginia, they have levied new taxes to keep the public schools running without any major cuts or disruptions to current staff. At our nation’s capital, there is a potential bill that will provide another 10 – 20 billion dollars in federal aid to save the jobs of educators across the country.

So here is the good news! You are good at your job! Students, Parents, Principals, Directors, Administrators, and Employers all recognize that what you do is very unique and special. You have a gift that influences so many lives. Your profession is one of the most admired careers in the workforce. Therefore, when I say you are good at your job, I really mean that you are valued and it is understood that your services are not easily duplicated.

As a business leader at my workplace and in my community, I am frequently asked how someone can find a job or keep a job during these difficult times. My standard response is “be more valuable today than you were yesterday.” If you become extremely valuable to a team, to a school district, to an employer, and to the individuals we serve; then it makes it very difficult for an employer to eliminate that position. As a person who is a hiring authority, I look at what each individual brings to the team and how much value he or she creates. By the way, I practice this same mindset on myself in hopes that my boss sees my value. There are some rare situations where value is not the ultimate factor. Sometimes politics and poor decision making comes into play and good people become the casualties of these decisions. For example, a committee may make cuts without seeing the true value or impact or a purchasing group may make a recommendation understanding what really goes on in the trenches. Regardless of the situation, you are good at your job! Good people with good skills will always have the upper hand in situations like these.

Healthcare is not recession proof, but it is definitely more insulated than most professions.

Thank you for all the wonderful work you do every day. What you do really makes a difference in people’s lives!

Marlene B. Salas-Provance, Ph.D., F-CCC-SLP, Director of the Program in Communication Disorders, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Dr. Salas-Provance currently serves as Director of the Program in Communication Disorders at New Mexico State University.  She earned her bachelor’s and master’s degrees from New Mexico State University, her doctorate in speech-language pathology from the University of Illinois and a second master’s in Healthcare Administration from the University of Missouri-Columbia.  Dr. Salas-Provance joined the faculty at New Mexico State University in 2009 having served as a faculty member at the U. of Montevallo, U. of the Pacific, Southern Illinois University, St. Louis University and Fontbonne College. She is an ASHA Fellow and 2009 recipient of ASHA’s Certificate of Recognition for Special Contributions to Multicultural Affairs. Her clinical and research interests are in the areas cleft lip and palate, bilingual medical interpreter training, multicultural issues and speech production of young children with cleft palate and of deaf children following cochlear implantation.

The ASHA Board of Directors and Special Interest Division Board of Division Coordinators announced the creation of a new division to focus on international topics of interest to ASHA members. Division 17, Global Issues in Communication Sciences and Related Disorders will be the primary resource for advancing the exchange of clinical, research, and educational information about communication and related disorders in the international and global market arena. The Division’s mission is to provide international leadership related to audiology and speech-language pathology services by promoting research, networking, collaboration, education, and mentoring for its affiliates and NSSLHA students in the global marketplace.

The founding members of this Division include, Carolyn Higdon, coordinator, University of Mississippi, Marlene B. Salas-Provance, associate coordinator; New Mexico State University, Deanne Owre, Woonsocket, Rhode Island School System, Cate Crowley, Columbia University Teachers College, and Dolores E. Battle, Buffalo State College. Leigh Deussing from ASHA will serve as Ex-Officio for the Division.

Background
During the past ten years, ASHA has increased international outreach efforts to countries around the world as well as U.S. Territories. These outreach initiatives are part of ASHA’s new Strategic Pathway to Excellence. Division 17 came out of ASHA’s international efforts and the increased interest of ASHA members in global research, clinical practice issues and other professional topics.

Need for New Division
Today, as the globe is shrinking rapidly, as technology continues to be developed, and as people work and travel all over the world, the need for a special interest division for speech and hearing professionals interested in international issues is long past due. Our future will bring us increased cultural and language diversity, varied experiences, insight into the culture of poverty, awareness of challenges to world literacy, conflict and unrest. These challenges force professionals in speech and hearing to be increasingly engaged in understanding communication disorders around the globe. The challenges encountered by a person with a communicative impairment may be aggravated in countries with more limited health and education resources. There is growing recognition of the need to develop effective services for the rehabilitation and management of clients with a variety of different communication impairments across settings. In conjunction with this increased recognition of the demands on health and education systems, the past decade also has seen extensive growth in research relating to communicative impairments including speech, language and hearing deficits. It is important, therefore, that there be an effective division forum for members interested in the exchange of clinical, research, and educational information.

Broad Goals and Narrow Goals
The three broad goals for Division 17 include:

1. To emphasize facilitation of (international) global cooperation and collaboration among speech-language pathologists, audiologists, speech/language and hearing scientists who are interested in communication and related disorders with international breadth.
2. To focus on creating and sharing information across countries the U.S. and its territories.
3. To provide a platform for (international) global networking. The Division’s purpose will include promoting development and standards (of) for diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative and preventative work, research, education and training in human communication and related disorders of all ages.

The seven narrow goals for Division 17 include:

1. To promote global education about persons with speech, language, voice, swallowing and hearing disorders.
2. To promote the development and standards of diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative and preventative work, research, education, and clinical expertise for individuals with communication and related disorders across professional settings around the world.
3. To provide avenues for scientific and professional exchange of information in developing countries.
4. To maintain international recognition of the field of communication sciences and disorders as a special and distinct field.
5. To cooperate with other ASHA and international organizations with an interest in communication and related disorders.
6. To encourage and establish opportunities for international research, as well as for researcher to researcher exchanges across countries.
7. To encourage opportunities for U.S. trained speech-language pathologists and audiologists to practice in various capacities in countries other than the United States.

Prospective Members
Division 17 members will include ASHA members including audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and speech and hearing scientists residing in countries around the world as well as in the U.S. and its territories.

References
American Speech Language and Hearing Association (2009) Strategic Pathways. Found 4/12/09 http://www.asha.org/about/pathway

Tice, P., & Moore, M. (2009, Jan. 20). Six nations now participate in certification recognition. The ASHA Leader, 14(1), 34-35.

For more information, please go to the Division’s Web page:
http://www.asha.org/Members/divs/division17.htm.
ASHA (regular and International affiliate) members and national NSSLHA student may join by calling ActionCenter at 1-800-498-2071 or submitting the application form:
http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/DivisionsAppForm.pdf
Information about ASHA membership can be found at http://www.asha.org/members/

Elizabeth Kay-Raining Bird, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, Professor, School of Human Communication Disorders, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Dr. Elizabeth Kay-Raining Bird (Ph.D. Madison, Wisconsin) is a Professor in the School of Human Communication Disorders at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Her research and teaching is in the area of child language development and disorders, with a particular focus on children and adolescents with Down syndrome. Her publications and presentations have focused upon a variety of topics including: cultural and linguistic diversity, language and literacy development, and the effectiveness of speech, language and literacy interventions. Elizabeth is a speech-language pathologist, certified with both the Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists (CASLPA) and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). She is currently the President of the Speech and Hearing Association of Nova Scotia (SHANS).

As Annick DeHouwer stated in 1999, “Bilingualism is most often a necessity, not a choice”. What this means is that many children live in environments that require them to speak and understand two languages. This is true whether or not a child has a language, or cognitive impairment. The need to be bilingual cuts across disability boundaries.

Unlike children with typical development, however, parents of children with language and/or cognitive disabilities are often told by professionals to expose their children to only one language, even when their child needs to learn two languages to communicate fully and effectively in their everyday lives (e.g., Paradis, 2007; Thordardottir, 2002). I believe that this is not an appropriate recommendation, for two reasons. First, it will isolate the child from important communicative contexts and deny the child the social benefits of being bilingual. Second, bilingual parents may find speaking the chosen language, or only one language, uncomfortable and unnatural. This, in turn, may negatively affect the quality parents’ ability to facilitate language development in their children through their interactions. Instead, I feel it is critical to help families optimize bilingual development for their children with disabilities who need to learn two languages.

The research base
Most developmental research on bilingualism involves typical children. While recent bilingual research has begun to focus upon individuals with language and/or cognitive disorders, most involves children with either language, but not cognitive, difficulties–children who are often referred to as Specifically Language Impaired (SLI), or children with Down syndrome. Other populations such as autism or Williams syndrome have been largely ignored. Therefore, when we seek to understand bilingualism in children with disabilities, we must often infer from related bodies of literature. In this article I will first provide a brief overview of how variable bilingual individuals are, followed by a discussion of bilingual development for typical learners, children with SLI, and children with Down syndrome. In each section I will discuss implications for children with language and/or cognitive disabilities in general, and will end with tentative clinical conclusions. 

Not all bilingual experiences are the same
There is a lot of variability in the experiences of bilingual individuals, regardless of whether they have a language or cognitive impairment or are learning language typically. One important factor that differentiates bilingual speakers is timing—that is, when each language was learned. Simultaneous bilinguals (or bilingual first language learners) learn both their languages at the same time and essentially from birth. In contrast, sequential bilinguals learn one language first and then learn their second language. Other important distinctions include where the languages are spoken (e.g., home, school, community), who speaks to the child in each language, which languages are spoken (e.g., French and English), how similar the languages are that are spoken (e.g., French and English are more similar than French and Chinese), and the relative status each language holds in society (i.e., are English and French valued equally in the community?). Frequency of exposure is another factor critical to consider. Children will understand and speak a language they hear and use often, better than a language they hear and use infrequently (Pearson, Fernandez, Lewedag, & Oller, 1997).

We do not yet know how best to support bilingual development. For simultaneous bilinguals, many have suggested using a one parent one language strategy, meaning that each parent should choose a language to speak to their children. This strategy, however, may be difficult for some families to implement. As well, just because a parent speaks a language to their child does not mean that the child will respond in that language. Indeed, in the case where the home language is a minority language, children may often respond in the majority language. Thus, there is no clear evidence that the one-parent-one-language strategy works better than alternative strategies for speaking two languages in the home (De Houwer, 2007; Thordardottir, 2006). One important rule of thumb is to ensure that any bilingual child experiences each language frequently. This may be particularly important for a child who has language learning or cognitive difficulties, as they often require additional models to acquire a particular word or linguistic structure. A second rule of thumb is to provide high quality input in interactive, naturalistic contexts, regardless of the language being spoken. General language stimulation principles (such as modeling, imitating, recasting) will be useful regardless of how many languages are being learned.

Bilingualism and typical development
Simultaneous bilinguals with adequate exposure frequency will acquire two languages in approximately the same time frame that monolingual children acquire one language (e.g., De Houwer, 2009; Genesee, 2006; Genesee, Paradis & Crago, 2004). That is, major milestones, such as the emergence of first words, will occur at approximately the same time. This does not mean that bilingual development looks just like monolingual development. It does not. Young simultaneous bilingual children will have smaller vocabularies than monolingual children of the same age when you look at each of their languages separately. But, when you combine the words they know in both languages, bilingual children will have vocabularies that are often similar in size or sometimes even larger than monolingual children’s (Pearson, 1998; Pearson, Fernandez & Oller, 1993; Pearson, et al., 1997). This learning profile has implications for children with language and cognitive disorders. First, these children will have language learning problems whether they learn one or two languages. Second, bilingual children with language learning disorders will exhibit problems in both their languages, but the types of problems they experience will depend upon the specific structures they need to learn, or typology, of each language. Third, depending upon how frequently each language is heard and used, children may have one language that they speak better (i.e., dominant) than the other. Finally, children who are bilingual with language and cognitive disorders will develop somewhat differently from children who are monolingual with language and cognitive disorders. This is natural.

Another difference between bilingual and monolingual children is that bilingual children experience language transfer, where aspects of one language impact their understanding or use of the other language. Language transfer can have a positive impact on language learning, as when a child uses their knowledge of a French word (e.g., “mal”) to learn an English word (e.g., “malevolent”). It can also lead to errors in bilingual children’s production, as when a child uses a syntactic structure from French when speaking English (e.g., “Me, I am going.”). We would expect language transfer to occur in children with language and cognitive impairments as well as typically developing children.

Sequential bilinguals have different developmental profiles than simultaneous bilinguals. First, they do not always become fluent in their second language (L2). Factors that influence L2 fluency include how young they are when exposed, how frequently they are exposed, how rich the language environment is, parent’s educational levels, willingness to use the language, and, for older children who have chosen to learn a second language, how motivated they are to learn (Paradis, 2007b). Second, their first (home) language (L1) can become their weaker language over time, especially in contexts where it is not used frequently and is a minority language. The implication for all children, including those with language or cognitive disorders, is that the home language must be supported in order to maintain L1.

A consequence of bilingualism that has received considerable attention in the literature is enhancement of some metalinguistic skills. Metalinguistics is the conscious ability to think about and manipulate various components of language. One type of metalinguistic skill is word consciousness, defined as the “awareness of and interest in words and their meanings” (Graves, 2006). A bilingual child demonstrates word consciousness when he says, for example, “cat is chat in French”. Word consciousness is an early developing metalinguistic skill in bilingual children. Other metalinguistic skills that appear to be advanced in bilingual children are the ability to judge whether a sentence is grammatical and the ability to count the number of words in a sentence (Baker, 2006; Bialystok, 2001; Lazaruk, 2007). It is possible that metalinguistic abilities such as these can assist children in learning language, a possibility that may be particularly important for children with language learning difficulties. While this is a possible outcome, we currently know very little about metalinguistic consequences of bilingualism in children with language or cognitive disabilities.

Bilingualism and Specific Language Impairment
As stated, children with specific language impairment have language learning, but not major cognitive, disabilities. Research with this population has shown that, for each of their languages, simultaneous bilingual children with specific language impairment make the same type of errors as monolingual children with specific language impairment. For example, in English, both bilingual and monolingual children with specific language impairment have particular difficulty learning to use auxiliary (e.g., He is going) and copular (e.g., He is cold) and past tense (e.g., He walked) verb forms. In addition, when groups of bilingual and monolingual children with SLI of similar age are compared, they do not differ in the frequency of the errors they exhibit Paradis, Crago, Genesee, & Rice, 2003). Similarly, when groups of language-matched (i.e., mean length of utterance) bilingual children with typical development or specific language impairment are compared, they show similar error frequency and types in each of their languages (Paradis, Crago, & Genesee, 2006). The studies discussed in this section so far are of simultaneous bilinguals with SLI. While several studies of sequential bilinguals with SLI have been conducted, none to date have compared monolingual children with SLI to bilingual children with SLI, on either their L1 or L2 (Kohnert & Medina, 2009). Taken together, these findings suggest that simultaneous bilingualism is not detrimental to language learning in children with specific language impairment and that they can become successfully bilingual (Paradis, 2007). In addition, a bilingual child who has SLI will manifest that impairment in both of their languages, although the nature of the language difficulties they exhibit will differ across languages and will be defined by the typology of each language being learned.

Bilingualism and Down syndrome
Children with Down syndrome have cognitive impairments that vary from mild to severe in nature. Their cognitive impairments lead to general learning difficulties, as well as specific language learning problems; so, all aspects of language are delayed relative to their age. Despite considerable individual variability, research shows that monolingual children with Down syndrome as a group have an identifiable profile of language strengths and weaknesses (Chapman & Kay-Raining Bird, in press; Chapman & Hesketh, 2000). First, their understanding of language is usually better than their ability to speak it. This means that it can be hard to judge what a child with Down syndrome knows about language from what they say. Second, grammar is harder for children with Down syndrome to learn than vocabulary.

How do children with Down syndrome fare when learning two languages? First, they can become functionally bilingual (Woll & Grove, 1996) and even trilingual (Vallar & Papagno, 1993). Second, as one might expect, simultaneous bilingual children with Down syndrome show the same profile of strengths and weaknesses in both their languages that is found in monolingual children in their single language (Feltmate & Kay-Raining Bird, 2008; Kay-Raining Bird, Cleave, Trudeau, Thordardottir, Sutton, & Thorpe, 2005). Third, the dominant language skills of simultaneous bilinguals with Down syndrome are equivalent to the single language skills of monolingual children with Down syndrome of the same mental age (Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2005), so being bilingual does not disadvantage them in terms of language learning. And finally, simultaneous bilinguals with Down syndrome are learning to speak two languages, although how well they speak the non-dominant language can vary considerably and is related to factors such as frequency of input. Unfortunately, we have very little information about sequential bilinguals with Down syndrome to date.

Conclusions
More research must be conducted to help us understand the course of development of bilingualism in children with language and/or cognitive disorders and the factors that influence that development. For example, children with language and/or cognitive disorders must be studied in a larger variety of geographic locations and educational settings so that we can better understand the outcomes across the range of bilingual experiences that exist. Importantly, sequential bilingualism in children with language and/or cognitive disabilities must receive more attention. As well, a larger set of language measures must be studied. Despite the dearth of information, several conclusions and recommendations can be made:

1. Families must lead in making decisions regarding whether their children need two languages.
2. If a child with a language and/or cognitive disorder needs to know to languages, then the focus should be upon helping them learn the two languages. It is not appropriate to recommend that the input be reduced to a single language.
3. It is important to provide frequent and high quality input to children in each language they are learning.
4. For children with language and/or cognitive difficulties, speech-language pathologists and other professionals can help families identify successful language facilitation strategies.
5. If a child has a language and/or cognitive disorder, all languages they learn will be affected.
6. Bilingualism does not change the general profile of language strengths and weaknesses characteristic of children with language and/or cognitive disorders. If they are bilingual, however, this profile will manifest in both languages. For example, whether bilingual or monolingual, children with Down syndrome will be likely to have more difficulty learning grammar than vocabulary.
7. The particular language features that children with language and/or cognitive disorders have difficulty with will depend upon the typological characteristics of the language(s) they are learning.

References
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th edition). Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in Development: Language, literacy, & cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bialystok, E. (2006). Bilingualism at school: Effect on the acquisition of literacy. In L. Wei (Series Ed.) & P. McCardle and E. Hoff (Vol. Eds.), Child language and child development, Vol. 7. Childhood bilingualism: Research on infancy through school age (pp. 107 – 124). Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Chapman, R. (2006). Language learning in Down syndrome: The speech and language profile compared to adolescents with cognitive impairment of unknown origin. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 10.

Chapman, R., & Hesketh, L. (2000). Behavioral phenotype of individuals with Down syndrome. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability Research Reviews, 6, 84-95.

Chapman, R. S., & Kay-Raining Bird, E. (in press). Language development in childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood in persons with Down syndrome. To appear in J. Burack, R. Hodapp, & E. Zigler (Eds.), Handbook of Intellectual Disabilities and Development (2nd edition), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Chapman, R., Schwartz, S., & Kay-Raining Bird, E. (1991). Language skills of children and adolescents with DS: I. Comprehension. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1106-1120.

Chapman, R.S., Seung, H.K., Schwartz, S.E., & Kay-Raining Bird, E. (1998). Language skills of children and adolescents with Down syndrome: II. Production deficits. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 861-873.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Cleavedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

De Houwer, A. (1999). Two or more languages: Some general points and practical recommendations. ERIC Digest (EDO-FL-99-03), U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Library of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0008.

De Houwer, A. (2007). Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 411 – 424.

De Houwer, A. (2009). An introduction to bilingual development. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Eilers, R., Pearson, B. Z., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2006). Social factors in bilingual development: The Miami experience. In L. Wei (Series Ed.) & P. McCardle and E. Hoff (Vol. Eds.), Child language and child development, Vol. 7. Childhood bilingualism: Research on infancy through school age (pp. 68 – 90). Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Feltmate, K., & Kay-Raining Bird, E. (2008). Language Learning in Four Bilingual Children with Down Syndrome: A Detailed Analysis of Vocabulary and Morphosyntax. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 32, 6 – 20.

Fidler, D.J., Hepburn, S., & Rogers, S. (2006). Early learning and adaptive behaviour in toddlers with Down syndrome: Evidence for an emerging behavioural phenotype? Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 9, 37-44.

Genesee, F. (2006). Bilingual first language acquisition in perspective. In L. Wei (Series Ed.) & P. McCardle and E. Hoff (Vol. Eds.), Child language and child development, Vol. 7. Childhood bilingualism: Research on infancy through school age (pp. 45 – 67). Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2004). Dual language development and disorders. A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Graves , M. F. 2006. The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York: Teachers College Press. Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language. New York: Basic Books.

Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A.D., & Phillips, C.E. (2002). Verbal short-term memory in Down syndrome: a problem of memory, audition, or speech? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 531-544.

Kay-Raining Bird, E. (June, 2009). Bilingualism and Down syndrome. Presented at Contextualizing Bilingualism and Biliteracy: National conference on Bilingualism and Biliteracy Development. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Kay-Raining Bird, E., & Chapman, R.S. (1994). Sequential recall in individuals with Down syndrome. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 1369-1380.

Kay-Raining Bird, E., Cleave, P. L., Trudeau, N., Thordardottir, E., Sutton, A., & Thorpe, A. (2005). The language abilities of bilingual children with Down syndrome. American Journal of Speech-language Pathology, 14, 187 – 199.

Kohnert, K., & Medina, A. (2009). Bilingual children and communication disorders: A 30-year research retrospective. Seminars in Speech and Language, 30, 219 – 233.

Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French Immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 605 – 627.

Miller, J.F. (1995). Individual differences in vocabulary acquisition in children with Down syndrome. Progress in Clinical Biology Research, 393, 93-103.

Paradis, J. (2007a). Bilingual children with specific language impairment: Theoretical and applied issues. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 551 – 564.

Paradis, J. (2007b). Second language acquisition in childhood (pp. 387 – 406). In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Language Development. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M. (2003). French-English bilingual children with SLI: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 46, 113 – 127.

Paradis, J., Crago, M., & Genesee, F. (2006). Domain-general versus domain-specific accounts of specific language impairment: Evidence from bilingual children’s acquisition of object pronouns. Language Acquisition, 13, 33 – 62.

Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1 – 23.

Pearson, B. Z. (1998). Assessing lexical development in bilingual babies and toddlers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 2, 347 – 372.

Pearson, B., Fernandez, S., Lewedag, V., & Oller, D. K. (1997). Input factors in lexical learning of bilingual infants (ages 10 – 30 months). Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 41 – 58.

Pearson, B., Fernandez, S., & Oller, K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monlingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93 – 120.

Selikowitz, M. (1997). Down syndrome: The facts (2nd edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Seung, H.-K., & Chapman, R. S. (2000). Digit span in individuals with Down syndrome and in typically developing children: Temporal aspects. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research , 43, 609 – 620.

Thordardottir, E. (2002). Parents’ views on language impairment and bilingualism. Poster presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association convention, Atlanta, GA, November.

Thordardottir, E. (2006). Language intervention from a bilingual mindset. The ASHA Leader, 11, 20 – 21.

Thordardottir, E., & Namazi, M., (2007). Specific language impairment in French-speaking children: beyond grammatical morphology. JSLHR, 50, 698 – 715.

Vallar, G., & Papagna, C. (1993). Preserved vocabulary acquisition in Down’s syndrome: The role of phonological short-term memory. Cortex, 29, 467 – 483.

Woll, B., & Grove, N. (1996). On language deficits and modality in children with Down syndrome: A case study of twins bilingual in BSL and English. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1, 271 – 278.

Nancy Castilleja, M.A., CCC-SLP, Pearson Assessments (Publisher), San Antonio, TX

Nancy is a speech-language pathologist specializing in early language development and multicultural issues. Nancy currently is a Senior Product Manager for the speech and language products at Pearson Assessment. Prior to this role, Nancy was a Senior Research Director at Harcourt Assessment, developing norm-referenced assessments for early childhood populations and for Spanish-speaking children. Nancy’s clinical experience includes working with infants/toddlers in community settings, children in Head Start programs, and elementary through high school students with severe developmental delays in school settings.

Spanish language assessments available in our field range from simple translations to Spanish language assessments developed from “the ground floor up.” As you review Spanish assessments to determine if they will meet your needs, you will find them described as “translations,” “adaptations,” “Spanish editions,” or “Spanish assessments.”

How Translations and Adaptations Differ

Some assessments available in Spanish are direct translations of currently available English language assessments. Generally, a translated test is one in which there are no modifications to the administration directions, test stimuli, item order, or scoring rules. Research data may or may not be collected to validate the use of the test with Spanish speakers. A back translation, a process in which the translated Spanish test is translated back into English by an independent translator, is sometimes conducted so that the content of the two tests can be compared. A back translation is done to verify that the two tests are assessing similar content. When a test is translated, the methods used to develop the translation should be described and “empirical and logical evidence should be provided for score reliability and the validity of the translated test score inferences for the uses intended in the linguistic groups to be tested” (AERA, et al. 1999).

When an adaptation of an English version is created, linguistic and cultural differences among populations are taken into account to create an assessment that measures the construct as closely as possible in Spanish (International Test Commission, 2010).Wording of the administration directions and/or the stimulus items may be modified to reflect the most appropriate wording or concepts in Spanish. The test items may or may not be reordered based on research with Spanish speakers. When a test is adapted for use in another language, the test developer should provide documentation of the rationale for the adaptations incorporated into the test, and information about how score differences should be interpreted. Scores based on research obtained from administering the adapted test to Spanish speakers (cut scores or percentile ranks) may be reported in the test manual.

Translated and adapted tests can have certain limitations—certain concepts in English may be unfamiliar to Spanish speakers and/or may not translate well from one language to the other. Important language skills that exist only in Spanish and differentiate children who have a disorder from those who do not may or may not be represented in the test.

Despite these concerns, well-developed translations and adaptations can be clinically useful. For example, you may choose to use one to:

• work with an interpreter to obtain general information about a child’s language skills that you may not be able to obtain through direct observation or parent interview.
• use the test as a criterion-referenced measure to obtain information about a child’s language skills, keeping in mind that failed test items may not necessarily be indicative of a language disorder for Spanish speakers.
• use the research data reported for the test (e.g., means, standard deviations, cut scores, or percentile ranks), keeping in mind that the Spanish research sample is often very small, and therefore, less accurate in differentiating typical from atypical development than the English edition. Data that are provided in the test manual can give you an idea of relative item difficulties, and the results should be interpreted as additional information to parent/teacher input, language sampling, and dynamic assessment results.

You should not:

• administer items that you believe are inappropriate or unfamiliar for the child you are testing.
• use the discontinue rules from the English edition due to differences in the item difficulties. Administer the entire subtest/test, if possible, to obtain as much information about the child as possible.
• convert the raw scores you obtained to standard scores using the English norms, due to the differences in the item difficulties and demographic differences between English and Spanish speakers
• assume that a translated/adapted test has the accuracy of the norm-referenced English edition.

Spanish Editions

Some Spanish assessments are actually Spanish editions of assessments that were originally developed for English-speaking children, e.g., PLS–4 Spanish [Zimmerman, et al., 2002], CELF Preschool−2 Spanish [Wiig, et al., 2009], CELF−4 Spanish [Wiig, et al., 2006,] and the Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz [Woodcock, et al., 2005]. A Spanish edition is one in which the test developers use the test theoretical model and formats developed from an existing English assessment and develop a parallel version of the test, with new test items, new art, and adaptations that make the test appropriate for Spanish speakers (such as additional practice items). Research is conducted so that the final item set differentiates children with a language disorder from those who are demonstrating a typical pattern of development. Unlike adaptations, Spanish editions incorporate language structures specific to Spanish, and test items are ordered based on Spanish developmental milestones and the performance of research conducted with Spanish- speaking children. Just like on the English edition, the Spanish edition test items are ones that typically developing children can do and children with disorders cannot.

Spanish Assessments Built “From the Ground Floor Up”

Not all Spanish assessments are developed with an English edition as the starting point. The Bilingual English Spanish Assessment [BESA, Peña, et al., in development] included two assessments that can be used to evaluate semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and phonology—an English assessment and a Spanish assessment. The Spanish portion of the BESA was developed based on research related to Spanish language development and cultural issues related to assessing Spanish-speaking children. The test construct, administration directions, and test stimuli are developed in Spanish to target Spanish language milestones rather than aligning the general test construct to an English edition and adding or modifying test items for the Spanish portion of the test. The English edition of BESA targets appropriate milestones for English speakers. Neither the test formats nor test items necessarily overlap in the two tests.

How do you know if a test is a translation, adaptation, Spanish edition, or built from the ground floor up?

Check the description in the test manual, in the catalog, or on the website! While this article described general processes for developing translations versus full Spanish editions, the development process for Spanish language tests may differ significantly from one test to another. Questions you will want to ask when determining if a test will meet your needs:

How was the content developed?

Translation/adaptation

• Is the test a translation of the English edition?
• Were any of the administration procedures or test stimuli changed to reflect Spanish language development?

Spanish edition

• How was the test construct developed?
  • Is the Spanish edition designed specifically for Spanish-speakers?
    • Is the test construct based on Spanish language development?
    • Is the test construct unique to this assessment?
    • Are the test items and formats based on Spanish language development?
  • Is the Spanish edition based on a theory adapted from an English version of the test?
    • If so, how was the test adapted to take Spanish language development into account?
    • Are the test items different from those on the English edition?
    • Are the test items ordered based on development or performance patterns of Spanish speaking children?

What type of research was conducted with the test items?

• Were there multiple research phases?
  • Ideally, there would be multiple phases (pilot, tryout, and standardization) to refine the administration directions and test items and identify final item order for standardization.
• How many examinees were involved in the studies?
  • At standardization, there should be no fewer than 50 examinees for each norm or age group reported.
• How were examiners and examinees selected for the studies?
• Where was the data collected?
  • Are there multiple sites?
  • Was the data collected in the United States? Outside the United States?
  • Is the data based on the general U.S. population, the Hispanic population living in the U.S. or on some other basis?
• Was research conducted with both typically developing individuals and individuals identified as having a disorder?
• How were individuals identified for the clinical study?
• Are reliability and validity studies reported in the test manual?
  • Are reliability and validity values in the acceptable ranges (see McCauley, 2001)
  • Are reliability and validity values comparable to the English edition?

Even if you use a test that was fully developed with Spanish-speaking children in mind and with complete normative information, test results provide only one piece of evidence about the child’s skills—how he or she performs on language tasks relative to his or her age-peers. Test results must always be evaluated in light of information you obtain from parent and teacher interviews and with observations of the child in the classroom and with peers. Obtaining a complete picture of a child’s performance in multiple settings enables you to determine if the Spanish-speaking child you are evaluating has a language difference or a language disorder requiring focused intervention.

International Test Commission (2010). International Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Test [http://www.intestcom.org]

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing of the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999, Washington, D.C.

McCauley, R. J. (2001). Assessment of language disorders in children. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Peña, E.D., Gutierrez-Clellan, V., Iglesias, A., Goldstein B.A., Bedore, L. (in development). Bilingual English Spanish Assessment. Unpublished assessment tool.

Wiig, E.H., Secord, W.H., & Semel, E.M. (2006). Clinical evaluation of language fndamentals—fourth edition Spanish. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Wiig, E.H., Secord, W.H., & Semel, E.M. (2009). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals preschool—second edition Spanish. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Woodcock, R.W., Muñoz-Sandoval, A.F., McGrew, KS, Mather, N. (2005), Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz: Pruebas de habilidades cognitivas, Chicago, IL: Riverside.

Zimmerman, I.L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2002) Preschool language scale—fourth edition Spanish. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Nancy Lewis, M.S. CCC-SLP. Pediatric Speech-Language Pathologist, Denver, CO

Nancy Lewis, M.S. CCC-SLP has been a pediatric speech-language pathologist for 30 years. Currently, she leads a Bilingual Consultation Team for a large school district in the metro-Denver area, providing bilingual assessments (English-Spanish) and consultation to schools regarding English language learners. Her areas of expertise have included child phonology and the provision of services to culturally and linguistically diverse populations. She is the co-author of the Khan-Lewis Phonological Analysis-Second Edition. Nancy is the Coordinator of the ASHA Special Interest Division 14: Communication Development and Disorders in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations.

It is February 2010. Punxsutawney Phil has seen his shadow. And we all know what that means. ….six more weeks of winter! I am writing this from Boulder, Colorado, where this forecast is quite believable.

Currently, I have the good fortune of being the Coordinator of the ASHA Special Interest Division 14: Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Populations (hereinafter referred to as Division 14). As you may know, there are 16 Special Interest Divisions that operate within ASHA. The idea of offering ASHA members a manner in which to become affiliated with a smaller group of professionals that allows members to identify with their distinct clinical interests has been wildly popular. So popular, in fact, other professional associations have replicated ASHA’s model.

Since the beginning of the program, the growth in the Special Interest Divisions (SIDs) has occurred primarily through grassroots efforts. The SIDs are an integral part of ASHA, yet they are fueled by the organizing efforts of volunteer steering committee members and the enthusiasm of affiliates. In 1994, Division 14 was established to offer a SID that was devoted to cultural and linguistic diversity issues among the populations that we serve.

If you are reading this blog posting, that means that you are familiar with the Bilingual Therapies website. Perhaps you are a bilingual speech-language pathologist (SLP)? Or maybe you are a graduate student? Obviously, you have discovered that Adelante is a terrific resource for multicultural issues. However you got here, it is probably safe to assume that you are dedicated to providing the best services possible to culturally and linguistically diverse populations.

Having spent much of my thirty-year career serving children who represented aspects of cultural and/or linguistic diversity, it was a natural fit to become an affiliate of Division 14. It is a delight to be in the role of Coordinator for many of the same reasons that it is enticing to be an affiliate of the Division. I’ll describe some of the benefits of affiliation and highlight some opportunities within the SIDs.

Division 14 offers a venue to deepen our knowledge and understanding of CLD issues, to strengthen our clinical skills, and to build a professional learning community in the process. One of the ways that we do this is through Perspectives, a small online journal that is published three times a year. The topics in Perspectives are fresh and current and the articles offer a way for affiliates to earn ASHA Continuing Education Units (while in your pajamas!). We sponsor seminars and short courses at the annual ASHA convention helping to ensure that the convention program addresses issues that bilingual clinicians want to hear about. Our sponsorship at the ASHA Schools and Health Care conferences results in a discounted registration fee for Division 14 affiliates. And to keep the dialogue active, we offer a web-forum (http://www.asha.org/forum.aspx?g=topics&f=10737493965).

Within Division 14, there are opportunities to develop leadership skills and discover ways to impact the field, especially in terms of communication development and disorders with culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Division 14 has a steering committee of five, an editor of Perspectives and a Continuing Education Administrator. Steering committee members are elected by affiliates and serve a three-year term. Actually, this month nominations will begin for two steering committee positions (for the 2011-2014 term) and electronic elections will be held later this spring. Affiliates may self-nominate. So, if you have a desire to become more involved in ASHA and to contribute to the field, consider a nomination for one of these positions. The ASHA website is the place to find more information about the steering committee elections as well as the way to become a Division 14 affiliate.

I recently discovered that 81% of ASHA members that are also an affiliate of at least one of the Special Interest Divisions define their “primary employment function” as clinical service provider. To me, this explains the power of the grassroots efforts that has lead to the growth and success of the Divisions. As bilingual clinicians or monolingual clinicians serving diverse communities, Division 14 is a place to share your ideas and concerns, influence the direction of our field, and establish relationships with other SLPs dedicated to serving our diverse populations. Check us out at the ASHA website: http://www.asha.org/Members/divs/div_14.htm.

Raquel Anderson, Ph.D. CCC-SLP. Bilingual Speech-Language Pathologist, Bloomington, IN

Raquel Anderson is an associate professor in the Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences at Indiana University, Bloomington Campus. She teaches and conducts research in the areas of child language disorders, with a special on child second language acquisition. In particular, she studies children with language learning deficits who are Spanish-speaking and in an English language immersion context. Her research aims at describing how different language learners are impacted by sociolinguistic environment. Because of the difficulty in identifying language disability in second language learners, her research focuses on identifying potential clinical markers of language learning deficits in second language learners.

Dr. Anderson has been the recipient of various grants, including a research grant from the National Institutes of Health to study the grammatical skills of Spanish-speaking children in monolingual and bilingual environments with a diagnosis of specific language impairment (SLI). She has presented locally, nationally, and internationally in the areas of child language learning disorders, second language acquisition and communication assessment of diverse children. She has published extensively in the area of child language and second language acquisition in children with and without language impairment.

She most recently received a training grant from the Office of Special Education Programs, Department of Education to implement a clinical graduate training program focused on working with Latino children and their families (Speech Therapy Education, Practicum and Services for Latino Children and Families – STEPS). Dr. Anderson also coordinates the Training in Research and Academic Careers in Communication Sciences (TRACCS), a summer research program aimed at increasing the number of individuals from underrepresented groups pursuing academic and research careers in communication disorders.

¡Feliz año Nuevo 2010! Welcome to the first blog of the year. The purpose of this blog is to provide practical information to individuals who are considering a profession as speech-language pathologists (SLP) with an emphasis on working with the growing culturally and linguistically diverse population in the United States. As most of us who work with individuals from diverse backgrounds, fluency in a language other than English, although important, is not sufficient preparation for serving individuals from diverse groups. Background knowledge in a variety of areas that are unfortunately not presented in detail within the typical graduate curriculum in SLP is needed. This includes coursework that covers in depth bilingual language development and disorders, alternative assessment methods, cultural differences and their impact in service provision, working with diverse families, and language development, use and disorders particular to the target language. In addition, clinical experiences embedded within the graduate program where students, under the guidance of a supervisor with the needed linguistic and experiential/academic preparation, work directly with families from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds is also important.

While all ASHA certified graduate programs in speech language pathology will provide you with a solid foundation in the field, they will not necessarily provide you with the specialized academic background and clinical experiences in the area of bilingualism/diversity and clinical practice. ASHA does require that topics pertaining to diversity and clinical practice be embedded within the curriculum, but often, these are not discussed with the necessary depth for students to develop a strong and specialized knowledge base in the area. In addition, although certainly opportunities for working with clients from diverse populations exist in many programs, few have specially trained supervisors as well as specific requirements for completing clinical hours with individuals with communication disorders who are bilingual or English Language Learners (ELL). If your professional goal is to work as a bilingual SLP, you should consider attending a program with an established track for students interested in working with linguistically diverse groups. In this blog, I will give you tips and strategies to follow while researching potential graduate programs as these pertain to working with diverse groups and for preparing students to work as bilingual speech language pathologists.

Step #1: Identify potential graduate programs
First and foremost, you should conduct research to identify graduate programs that can potentially provide you with the academic and clinical training necessary for becoming a bilingual SLP. There are two types of programs that I recommend students to look into: (1) specialized programs, and (2) programs with faculty who conduct research in the area of bilingualism/second language acquisition. A listing of multicultural/bilingual emphasis programs is available through ASHA’s website (website address: http://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/opportunities/hbi.htm). Although no specific information on each of the programs is provided, it is a good starting point. The listing gives students the name of the program and the university that runs it. Students can then visit the department’s website to get more information on the program and its requirements for admission, as well as contact information. The departments’ websites can also provide information as to student funding. I recommend that these programs be students’ first choices as they consider where to apply to graduate school. This is because established programs have already in place coursework and clinical experiences relevant to working with culturally and linguistically diverse groups.

A second option for students is to research the faculty employed in the department. Sometimes, as undergraduates, you have read articles in the area of linguistic and cultural diversity by researchers in the field. These researchers are not necessarily employed in speech-hearing sciences departments with an established bilingual emphasis program. Nevertheless, they are experts in the area and may have developed coursework with a focus on diversity issues. In addition, if they have a strong research program, students may benefit from working with the faculty as research assistants. Make a list of the researchers that you have read and whose area of expertise meshes with your interests and identify their home institutions. You can obtain their contact information and you can ask them directly about the graduate program in their department and potential opportunities for a student interested in becoming a bilingual SLP.

Step #2: Obtain as much information as possible about each program you have identified.
As I mentioned before, research thoroughly each program that interests you. You should get information concerning the following: (1) specialized coursework, (2) clinical experiences, (3) pre-requisites for admission to the program (e.g., undergraduate degree, language proficiency), and (4) funding opportunities available. As a first step, visit the departments’ website. As a second step, contact the program director (or the faculty member with expertise in the area) to get more information about the program. My advice is that when you contact the faculty member, you have already read all that is available about the program and that your specific questions have not already been answered on the website. Even if you do not have any questions, it is always a good idea to contact the faculty member, as it shows that you are interested in the program and in his/her work.

Step #3: Arrange to visit the schools/programs that interest you
Although this may be difficult, if you have the opportunity, visit those programs that interest you the most. In this way, you can get a first hand “feel” for the program. You may be able to observe some clinical interventions and/or sit in classes that interest you. You can also talk to students in the program and get their perspectives. If you cannot visit, I recommend that if possible, you get a chance to contact students enrolled in the program. Often, these students are more than willing to exchange e-mails with you. You can ask the faculty member in charge of the program for their e-mails. Of course, faculty can only give you this information with student approval, but it is always good to ask.

Step #4: Apply to the programs
Once you have identified the programs that are a good fit for you, APPLY! I strongly recommend that you give the admissions committee as much information about yourself and your interest in bilingual SLP. In the essay that is required in your application write about your experiences and interest in bilingualism. This includes your language proficiency, your interactions with the target population, and the reasons for applying specifically to their program. In addition, try to secure a letter of recommendation with someone, preferably a faculty member, who can attest to your interest and commitment to working as a bilingual SLP.

As you continue to work towards your professional goals, I encourage you to take advantage of any opportunity to work with the language group that interests you and to further your own language skills. A good way to learn more about the target population is to work directly with community organizations and agencies. Try to find these organizations in your area. They are always happy to have individuals volunteer their time. These experiences will aid you in developing a better understanding of the community, its history and its needs. You can also take courses in other departments (e.g., Anthropology, Linguistics, Latino Studies, Sociology, Education) that will enhance your knowledge about the target population. In addition, keep up with the language. You should practice speaking with native speakers on a regular basis. Other ways for developing skills in the target language include listening to music, watching movies/TV, language, and reading newspapers/magazines/books in the language.

Fereshteh Kunkel, Ph.D. CCC-SLP. Bilingual Speech-Language Pathologist, San José, CA

Fereshteh Kunkel earned a Bachelor’s of Arts degree from the University of New Mexico, with a double major in Communication Disorders and Spanish. During her undergraduate studies, she learned American Sign Language and spent a summer research internship at Gallaudet University. She received a master’s degree in Communication Sciences and Disorders at the University of Texas at Dallas and completed her Clinical Fellowship Year serving monolingual English and Spanish-speaking elementary and middle school students. After completing research on the English, Spanish and Bilingual lexical development of Spanish-English speaking preschoolers, Fereshteh was awarded a Ph.D. in Communicative Sciences and Disorders from the University of Texas at Dallas. Currently, she works for Bilingual Therapies as a bilingual clinician evaluating and providing speech and language therapy in Spanish, Persian and English to young children in San José, California.

The purpose of December’s blog is to introduce clinicians to the vocabulary checklist of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory: Words and Sentences English and Spanish form and to discuss how this tool is used to calculate a Bilingual score, otherwise known as a total conceptual score. Before discussing the organization and norming of the inventory, a definition and overview of the lexicon as well as a general description of English, Spanish, and Bilingual lexical development will be given. Finally, a summary and discussion of the questionnaire and other relevant information will be provided.

The lexicon or productive vocabulary is often defined as the “mental dictionary.” The lexicon is the earliest reflection of a child’s knowledge of language because it precedes multi-word combinations and syntax (Pearson, 1998). It is also fundamental to language learning and use because it serves as a building block for other linguistic domains (Bassano, Maillochon, & Eme, 1998; Kirk & Pisoni, 2000). Since productive vocabulary can be used to predict language delay, and since with age and language experience there is parallel growth of lexical abilities (Pearson, 1998), studies of this linguistic domain are timely, especially for the bilingual population. Additionally, vocabulary scores are strongly associated with general cognitive and academic skills, with a high correlation between vocabulary and intelligence, and with other language behaviors associated with school related tasks (Pearson, 1998). Research has demonstrated that Spanish monolingual development resembles that for English in rates and patterns of lexical production (Hernandez-Pina, 1979; Peraita, 1986) and that bilingual acquisition utilizes analogous linguistic systems as monolingual development, and proceeds in a comparable sequence (De Houwer, 1995) and rate as in monolingual children (Patterson, 2004; Pearson, Fernandez, & Oller, 1993). However, researchers such as Pearson et al. (1993) also emphasize that failure to measure both languages in the bilingual’s lexicon would significantly undervalue their productive vocabulary skills. It is precisely for this reason that clinicians should establish the linguistic milestones for their bilingual population using appropriate tools, such as the English and Spanish MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventory, so that an accurate evaluation of the student’s lexical development can be established and intervention can be provided when benchmarks are not met (De Houwer, 1995; Pearson, 1998).

The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory “Words and Sentences” (CDI) form (Fenson et al., 1993) is a parent questionnaire commonly used to measure the productive vocabulary of English-speaking children ages 16-30 months old. The vocabulary portion consists of 680 words organized into 22 semantic categories (e.g., animals, toys, and food) and syntactic categories including nouns, verbs, and adjectives (Fenson et al., 1993). It was normed on a large population of monolingual English-speaking children, representing a socioeconomic status that was higher than the national average based on 1990 U.S. census information. The Inventario del Desarrollo de Habilidades Comunicativas “Palabras y Enunciados” (IDHC) (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2003) measures the productive vocabulary of Spanish-speaking children ages 16-30 months old. It consists of a 680-word Spanish productive vocabulary checklist organized into 23 categories. The Spanish IDHC has one more lexical category than the English CDI since “preposiciones/artículos” and “locativos” are split into two separate categories, instead of one category (“prepositions/locations”), as in the English form. Although the format of the inventories is similar for the English and Spanish questionnaires, the IDHC is not simply a translation of the CDI, since it was developed with consideration for the cultural and linguistic variations of Mexican Spanish (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 1993). In addition, it was normed on a large group of monolingual Spanish-speaking toddlers of a higher socioeconomic status than the national average. Thus, caution is advised when interpreting data for children whose socioeconomic profile does not closely match that of the norming group (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2003). For both the English CDI and Spanish IDHC, parents simply mark on the questionnaire those words that their child currently produces from the list of words organized by lexical category (e.g., clothes, body parts). This format decreases the potential for invalid estimates of productive vocabulary since adults do not have to rely solely on their memory for the words their child produces (Pearson, 1998; Pearson & Fernandez, 1994). A single-language vocabulary score can then be calculated by tallying the total number of words marked on the vocabulary checklist out of a possible 680, which represents the total number of words produced in each language individually.

A Bilingual, or total conceptual score, is derived from a list developed by Marchman (1999) of the conceptual matches between the English and Spanish form. The Bilingual score is necessary since bilingual children’s productive vocabulary is distributed across two languages. This score, therefore, not only accounts for overlapping words between English and Spanish but also those words used in one language that are not used in the other. Using a single language score exclusively would neglect a significant portion of bilingual children’s productive vocabulary, thus underestimating lexical knowledge (Pearson et al., 1993). Although the Bilingual score is calculated based on the verbal labels for concepts on the CDI and IDHC, it does not simply represent a summation of English total vocabulary and Spanish total vocabulary scores. Instead, the Bilingual score reflects the following guidelines: (1) a concept has more than one verbal label in English (e.g., chicken, hen) but only one label in Spanish (e.g., gallina), (2) a concept is represented in only one of the languages (e.g., rooster), or (3) a concept has multiple labels in both English (e.g., sofa, couch) and Spanish (e.g., sofá, sillón). The Bilingual score, therefore, represents the number of concepts expressed regardless of language.

In summary, clinicians working with bilingual children can use the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventory to establish the English, Spanish and Bilingual lexical skills of their students. Since lexical development is important to later language learning, tools such as the Communicative Development Inventory “Words and Sentences” and the Inventario del Desarrollo de Habilidades Comunicativas “Palabras y Enunciados” can be used to determine a child’s present level of communication while also taking into consideration their language skills as a whole. The inventories have been adapted to other languages, including Chinese, American Sign Language, and dialects such as Cuban Spanish, among others, so that clinicians who work with children that speak languages other than Spanish can measure the lexical skills of their clients. In addition to the long forms described here, short forms are available as well as a new CDI III form for children ages 30 to 37 months. Clinicians are encouraged to visit the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories website for further details and information (e.g., the list of matched concepts for calculating the bilingual score) including ordering the questionnaire and accompanying manual (visit www.sci.sdsu.edu/cdi/).

References

Bassano, D., Maillochon, I., & Eme, E. (1998). Developmental changes and variability in the early lexicon: A study of French children’s naturalistic productions, Journal of Child Language, 25, 493-531.

De Houwer, A. (1995). Bilingual language acquisition. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney(Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 199-250). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, J., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J., Pethic, S., & Reilly, J. (1993). The MacArthur communicative development inventories: User’s guide and technical manual. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing.

Hernandez-Pina, F. (1979). Etapas en la adquisición del lenguaje: Estudio de un caso concreto, Infancia y aprendizaje, 8, 23-32.

Jackson-Maldonado, D., Thal, D., Marchman, V., Bates, E., & Gutierrez-Clellen,V. (1993). Early lexical development of Spanish-speaking infants and toddlers, Journal of Child Language, 20, 523-549.

Jackson-Maldonado, D., Thal, D., Fenson, L., Marchman, V., Newton, T., & Conboy, B. (2003). MacArthur inventarios del desarrollo de habilidades comunicativas: User’s guide and technical manual. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.

Marchman, V. (1999). Scoring program for the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (English and Spanish) [Computer Program]. The University of Texas at Dallas.

Patterson, J. (2004). Comparing bilingual and monolingual toddlers’ expressive vocabulary size: Revisiting Rescorla and Achenbach 2002 [Letter to the Editor]. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, p. 1213.

Pearson, B. (1998). Assessing lexical development in bilingual babies and toddlers, The International Journal of Bilingualism, 2, 347-372.

Pearson, B., & Fernandez, M. (1994). Patterns of language interaction in the lexical growth in two languages of bilingual infants and toddlers, Language Learning, 44, 617-653.

Pearson, B., Fernandez, S., & Oller, K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms, Language Learning, 43, 93-120.

Peraita, H. (1986). Desfase entre la producción y la comprensión del léxico en niños de 24 a 36 meses de edad, Infancia y aprendizaje, 35, 11-24.

Sandra Márquez, M.A. CCC-SLP, Bilingual Speech-Language Pathologist, Chicago, IL

Sandra Márquez is a Mexican-American native of Chicago. She earned her degree from Saint Xavier University in the Communication Disorders undergraduate program. Prior to graduate school, Sandra spent one year as a speech-language paraprofessional in the Chicago Public Schools. Sandra went on to receive her master’s degree from New Mexico State University where she was enrolled in Dr. Hortencia Kayser’s Bilingual Communication Disorders program. Sandra is in her tenth year as a bilingual speech-language pathologist, of which all has been spent working with Bilingual Therapies. She currently works in the Summit, IL school district as a supervisor for two speech-language paraprofessionals.

With the increasing demand for Speech-Language Pathologists (SLP) across the country, school districts face the challenge of meeting the needs of students identified with speech, language, and overall communication impairments. Compounding this challenge is the increase of English Language Learners (ELL) requiring speech-language services as the population increases in the United States.  As the demand for speech-language pathologists grows so do the demands for district administrators to meet the needs of all students requiring speech-language services, their school district, and to work within the legal guidelines delineated at the state and federal level.  To meet these demands, many states across the country have passed legislation allowing Speech-Language Aides (SLPA) or Speech-Language Paraprofessionals (SLPP) to provide varying levels of support in the field of speech-language pathology under the direct supervision of a certified and licensed SLP.  As the description of both an SLPA and SLPP vary from state to state, general descriptions will be discussed as well as general guidelines for supervising bilingual SLPAs and SLPPs working with a linguistically diverse population.

It is important to note that the acronym SLPA also refers to a speech-language pathology assistant whom many states use interchangeably with speech-language pathology paraprofessional (SLPP) or speech-language pathology aides (SLPA).  It is important for clinicians to seek out the description and responsibilities for a SLPA and SLPP for the state in which they practice, as there is great variance among states and may differ from the American Speech-Language Hearing Association’s (ASHA) descriptions and scope of practice.

Speech-Language Pathology Aide (SLPA) –

For the purpose of this article a SLPA has a narrower scope of responsibilities and is defined as those individuals that receive on the job training and have not received an associate degree from a technical training program specific to a speech-language paraprofessional job or a bachelor’s degree in Communication Disorders.

Responsibilities –

A SLPA’s  responsibilities can include, but are not limited to, preparing materials, maintenance checks for equipment used, clerical work such as ordering supplies and filing, preparing therapy rooms for a work session, and making phone calls to confirm appointments etc.  A SLPA works under the direct supervision of a certified SLP.   Responsibilities delegated to the SLPA typically reflect the level of training they have received, the needs of the supervising SLP, and individual state legal guidelines.

Speech-Language Pathology Paraprofessional (SLPP) –

For the purpose of this article, SLPP will refer to a speech-language assistant or paraprofessional who completes course work, fieldwork, and on-the-job training specific to speech-language pathology assistant/paraprofessionals job responsibilities and workplace behaviors (ASHA).

Responsibilities –

A SLPP also works under the direct supervision of a certified SLP and follows the student’s IEP.  The SLPPs roles and responsibilities can include those listed for an SLPA but can also include direct therapy services (once trained), screenings without interpretation once trained, meeting with parents without interpreting goals or making judgments regarding prognosis, collaborating with teachers to provide services, assisting in diagnostic evaluations, documenting student performance and progress, scheduling students, and act as an interpreter for non-English speaking students and their families when appropriate, trained, and competent to do so.

A SLPP may be considered for a position once completing coursework to either receive an associate’s degree from a speech-language pathology paraprofessional training program or a bachelor’s degree in Communication Disorders.  State laws vary pertaining to the approval and certification of SLPPs who have received an associate degree in a technical training program specific to SLPP jobs.  It is equally important to note that as of Spring 2003, ASHA discontinued its registration program for SLPPs receiving an associate’s degree as well as its approval process for such training programs in December of 2003 for financial reasons.  Despite these decisions, ASHA continues to provide guidelines for the training, use, and supervision of SLPPs as many states across the country continue to hire paraprofessionals to alleviate the work load of a certified speech-language pathologist.

Supervising Speech-Language Pathologist –

It is the supervising speech –language pathologist’s responsibility to ensure that they as well as their supervisees are working within state and ASHA guidelines and Code of Ethics.  It is the responsibility of the supervising SLP to research, review, and abide by these guidelines and to delegate responsibilities that are in accordance to the level of training each supervisee has received.  As previously mentioned, ASHA provides guidelines for supervising and training speech-language paraprofessionals. State educational departments provide clear descriptions of allowed and prohibited duties of SLPAs and SLPPs.

Supervising Bilingual Speech-Language Pathologist –

For the bilingual speech-language pathologist who works with a linguistically diverse population and supervises bilingual SLPAs and SLPPs the roles and responsibilities are expanded.  Overseeing bilingual SLPAs and SLPPs requires additional supervision, collaboration, training and support in order to provide appropriate services to this population.  Supervisors are responsible for researching and educating both themselves and their supervisees on best practices for servicing ELLs.

The following are suggested guidelines for supervising bilingual SLPAs and SLPPs:

1. Keep printed copies of:
   1. All state guidelines
   2. ASHA guidelines.
   3. Recommendations for best practices in working with ELLs.
2. Follow ASHA’s guidelines and Code of Ethics
3. Follow state guidelines
4. Discuss areas of strength and areas in need of improvement before delegating responsibilities.
5. Ensure that the SLPA or SLPP has a clear understanding of:
   1. their role/s and responsibilities
   2. direct vs. indirect supervision
   3. at least a basic understanding of similarities and differences in working with a linguistically and culturally diverse population vs. mainstream culture and monolingual English speaking population
6. Check the supervisee’s levels of proficiency in the non-English language in speaking, reading, and writing.
7. Delegate appropriate responsibilities according to all guidelines, the supervisee’s level of training, and proficiency in the second language
8. Develop a plan and schedule for:
   1. Direct and indirect supervision according to state guidelines
   2. Training
   3. Observations
   4. Reviewing progress for areas in need of improvement
   5. Planning and prep time to develop task lists for the following week or as needed.
   6. When tasks/skills/responsibilities will be observed and/or completed
   7. Process and procedure for providing:
      1. Instructions
      2. Feedback pertaining to
         1. Professional behaviors
         2. General communication
         3. Planning and work completion
         4. Therapeutic skills if applicable
         5. Management of therapy sessions if applicable
         6. Student progress if applicable
         7. Data collection and therapy notes/logs if applicable
         8. Language usage
      3. Recommendations
      4. Documenting direct and indirect supervision dates, times, skill/task observed, and student/s observed.
9. Provide
   1. Additional training pertaining to working with ELLs
   2. Accessible information regarding working with ELLs as a reference
   3. Clear descriptions and instructions for carrying out tasks and therapeutic services
   4. Clear models and examples of therapy strategies, techniques, and cues
   5. Clear instructions for language usage and language models for both the first and second language
   6. Clear instructions for modifying English materials to fit the language needs of each student
   7. Verbal and written instructions for the proper documentation of data collected and progress logs. Progress logs should include qualitative information (if applicable to the supervisee). Examples of such information are:
      1. Activities/materials, models, cues, techniques, strategies, modifications, reinforcement/s, and language/s used.
      2. A brief statement regarding the student’s participation, behavior, or health that may have positively or negatively impacted the outcome of a therapy session.
   8. Recommendations for translating materials and interpreting for non-English speaking students and their families.

Overseeing bilingual SLPAs and SLPPs is rewarding for both the supervisor and supervisee as there is much to be learned from each other. Keeping an open-mind will facilitate the learning process and allow for an efficient working environment.  The experience can be a positive one keeping in mind that this responsibility is a valuable part of the process of servicing not only ELLs but all students requiring speech-language services in school districts across the country.