Jane E. Minnema , Ph.D. St Cloud State University Office Telephone: 308-3969

1. Speech-Language Pathologists’ Importance in Early Childhood Special Education: Creating Supportive Learning Environments for Young Children with Disabilities – Part 2 Jane E. Minnema, Ph.D. St Cloud State University Office Telephone: 308-3969 jeminnema@stcloudstate.edu

2. Introductions for Part 2 • Who I am … and where I’ve been • Who you are … and where you’ve been • Cross-cultural teaching + research for the past 12 years • Jane’s approach to adult learning

3. Why Am I Here Today? • Care passionately about the developmental and learning outcomes for all young children! • Carry professional concern for young dual or multiple language learners • And now, personal concern for bi-racial children

4. Ok … I’ll stop!!!

5. Session Outcomes – Part 2 • What I hope for: I. Understanding EBP per ASHA and DEC II. Pondering current research findings for dual or multiple language learners • What I wish I knew when teaching! III. The importance of SLPs for setting the ECSE learning environments!

6. Evidence-Based Practices: Mandates! • “The law says teachers must use evidence-based teaching practices (EBPs) to ensure their students receive the highest quality instruction.” (NCLB, 2002) • EBP and high quality teaching go hand-in hand! • Proven teaching techniques help students make more progress in shorter amounts of time. • A winning combination when these practices are added to teachers’ professional skills and knowledge of their students.  

7. ASHA and EBP • The goal of EBP is the integration of: (a) clinical expertise, (b) best current evidence, and (c) client or patient perspectives to provide high-quality services reflecting the interests, values, needs, and choices of the individuals we serve.

8. ASHA’s EBP Conceptualization • Conceptually, the trilateral principles forming the bases for EBP can be represented through a simple figure: Current Best Evidence EBP Clinical Expertise Client/Patient Values

9. ECSE and EBP • What is evidenced-based practice? … A decision-making process that integrates the best available research evidence with family and professional wisdom and values.” (Buysse & Wesley, 2006; Snyder, 2006; Winton, 2006)

10. Chronological Development of EBP in ECSE • Odom (2002) – Defining by blending research with practical and family wisdom • Odom & Strain (2002) – Validated research that supports DEC Recommended Practices • 2002 forward – Professional debate ensued to the present

11. Adding to the SLP-EBP Perspective • EBP is more than journal articles! • IEP more than a document!! • If considered as a process: • Professional now partnered w/ family • Removes our “expertness” • Child- and family-focused decisions

12. What Does ECSE-EBP Suggest? • Specific word “current” implications: • Avoids the “old” isolated table top therapy approach • But, tried and true intervention principles still apply – especially for dual language learners • Specific word “best” implications: • Does imply our “expertness” • Educational team needs “ground leveling”

13. Evidence-Based Practice: Wanted, Needed, and Hard to Get “While the law requires teachers to use evidence-based practices in their classrooms, the field has not yet determined criteria for evidence based practice nor whether special education has a solid foundation of evidence-based practices. Also, those teaching strategies that have been researched are difficult for teachers to access.” CEC, June 8, 2008

14. Our Task Today: Making EBP a Reality! “While this seems pretty straightforward, the difficulty lies in making the concept a reality.” (CEC, 6-8-08)

15. EBP for Dual Language Learners

16. Splintered Discussion Remains in the Literature • How much evidence for practice credibility? • Which research methods garner scientific evidence best? • How do teachers access EBPs? • Does research trust teachers to use the methods correctly? • Do teachers trust researchers to understand classroom demands? • How can teachers meld EBPs and the craft of teaching?

17. Why are SLPs really important to the ECSE learning environment? I. Blending ASHA + DEC definitions of Evidence-based Practice

18. I. Pair Share … or Multiple Share! • How is this “blended” definition of EBP differ what you are currently doing in practice? • How can you change your current practice to better accommodate this new understanding of EBP?

19. Why are SLPs really important to the ECSE learning environment? II. Embedding normal dual language development into dialogic reading

20. I will actually be presenting … … a case for bilingualism!

21. Reasons to support a child’s native language • Given the global  economy and  increasing diversity in our  country there is actually a great demand  for fully  proficient bilinguals. Why should  we  not support this capacity in native  speakers? (Portes & Hao, 1998; Valdes, 1997) • Why is it desirable  for native English speakers  (primarily upper  and middle SES) to learn a second language, but native speakers of a minority  language (primarily low SES) are pressured  into  learning and maintain English only? 

22. Social  Reasons To Support a Child’s Native Language • The child will  be surrounded with  English speakers and  will quickly  recognize English as the  language with higher status and power in this society. • The greatest likelihood is actually  that immigrant children will discontinue using their native language (Portes & Hao, 1998).

23. Social Reasons to support a child’s native language Social Reasons to support a child’s native language  • The child must  be able to  communicate with his/her family  and  community so that he/she does not  become socially isolated. Maintaining  strong  native language skills will allow  parents  to communicate affection,  discipline and teach  cultural values (Wong-Fillmore, 1991). 

24. Researchevidence to answer the question“English-only  or native language support?” • Based on a convergence of evidence it is recognized that supporting a child’s native language early on and specifically developing early literacy skills in a child’s native language better supports later academic outcomes in English. (August & Shanahan, 2006; Christian, 1996; Cummins, 1979; Oller & Eilers, 2002; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 2002; + many more)

25. So, having said this … • The question is not whether all U.S. children should learn English. • The question is how can this best be achieved? • Let’s return to the SLP in the ECSE learning environment. • How do dual language learners learn English?

26. First, understand terms: • Simultaneous: Two languages acquired from birth • Sequential: No consensus in the field, ideas range from the introduction of the second language at the age of one month to 3 years. (deHouwer, 1990; Genesee, Paradis, Crago, 2004; MacLaughlin, 1984)

27. More Terms: • Additive bilingualism: “Situations where both languages are supported and languages develop in parallel.” • Subtractive bilingualism: “Situations characterized by a gradual loss of the first language as a result of increasing mastery and use of the second language.” (Diaz & Klingler, 1999; Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004)

28. More terms: • Code-mixing that follows grammatical rules is not evidence of language confusion, but has been found to be directly proportional to the rate of language mixing in the child’s environment. • e.g. “Spanglish” (Lanza, 1992; Petitto et al., 2001)

29. Research evidence provided by samples of young simultaneous bilinguals: • Young (middle class) bilingual children who acquire two languages from birth reach linguistic milestones at the same age as their monolingual peers. We need to look at BOTH of their languages when assessing. (Bedore, Peña, Garcia, Cortez, 2005; Genesee, 2001; Holowka et al., 2002; Petitto, 2001)

30. More research findings … • Young bilinguals demonstrate interlocutor sensitivity indicating that they are aware of which language to use with different people. (Maneva & Genesee, 2002; Petitto et al., 2001)

31. More research results: • An abundance of translation equivalents have been documented in young bilingual children demonstrating that young children recognize that they need different words for the same concept in different contexts. (Genesee, 2001; Holowka et al., 2002; Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1995; Petitto, 2001)

32. Challenging Common Myths: Dual Language Learners • http://www.fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/MythsOfTeachingELLsEspinosa.pdf Linda M. Espinosa FOUNDATION for CHILD DEVELOPMENT FCD Policy Brief Advancing PK-3 No. Eight January 2008

33. Interactive Responses … T/F? • MYTH 1: Learning two languages during the early childhood years will overwhelm, confuse, and/or delay a child’s acquisition of English. • Challenging Common Myths About Young English Language Learners, Linda M. Espinosa, FOUNDATION for CHILD DEVELOPMENT, FCD Policy Brief, Advancing PK-3, No. Eight, January 2008.

34. Research-based Response Young children learning two languages also have more neural activity in the parts of the brain associated with language processing. This increased brain activity and neural density may have long-term positive effects on specific types of cognitive abilities, such as those that require focusing on the details of a task and knowing how language is structured and used. These studies have also demonstrated that knowing more than one language does not delay the acquisition of English or impede academic achievement in English when both languages are supported. • Research on children who learn English after their home language has been established — usually around age three — has also shown that most young children are capable of adding a second language during the PK-3 years and that this dual language ability confers long-term cognitive, cultural, and economic advantages.

35. Interactive Responses … T/F? • MYTH 2: Total English immersion from Prekindergarten through Third Grade is the best way for a young English Language Learner to acquire English.

36. Research-based Response • Research on the effects of early English immersion programs for ELL students contradicts this belief. The evidence suggests that children in these preschool programs tend to lose their ability to communicate in their first language, start to prefer the English language, frequently develop communication problems with their extended families, and experience depressed academic achievement in English. • Systematic, deliberate exposure to English during early childhood combined with ongoing opportunities to learn important concepts in the home language results in the highest achievement in both the home language and English by the end of Third Grade and beyond.

37. Interactive Responses … T/F? • MYTH 3: Because schools don’t have the capacity to provide instruction in all of the languages represented by the children, they should provide English-only instruction.

38. Research-based Response • It is clear that in order to thrive academically, socially, and cognitively, young ELL children need systematic support for their home language while they are acquiring English. Even when teachers do not speak the child’ s first language, there are many specific teaching practices that will support native language development. • Teachers and ancillary staff can support children’ s home language throughout the day in all kinds of learning situations; they also can train parents, community members, and volunteers to work with ELL children in their home language. Ideally, educators will provide home language support through the elementary grades.

39. Interactive Responses … T/F? • MYTH 4: Native English speakers will experience academic and language delays if they are enrolled in dual language programs.

40. Research-based Response • Recent evaluations show that the dual language approach is effective for both ELL students and for native English speakers. Dual language programs educate all children in two languages. The goal is to promote bilingualism and biculturalism for all students. In these classrooms, all students experience the benefits and challenges associated with learning a second language during the early childhood years as well as the richness of being introduced to many cultures and social customs. • The dual language approach is one of the few instructional methods that can fully close the achievement gap for ELL students while not adversely affecting non-ELL students. All students seem to benefit, as measured by standardized achievement testing and positive reports from parents, teachers, and administrators.

41. Interactive Responses … T/F? • MYTH 5: Spanish-speaking Latinos show social as well as academic delays when entering Kindergarten.

42. Research-based Response • The academic achievement gap for young Latino ELLs is significant at Kindergarten entry and persists throughout the school years. In a large national study, low-income Hispanic children scored more than half a standard deviation below the national average in math and reading achievement at Kindergarten entry. • These achievement disparities persist as children who are not native English speakers continue to have substantially lower levels of educational achievement, including high school completion and college enrollment rates, than their peers from English-only backgrounds. • Although these academic discrepancies are well documented and well known among the educational community, almost no attention has been paid to the social competencies of young ELL children.

43. Interactive Responses … T/F? • Lastly, MYTH 6: Latino English language learners are less likely to be enrolled in Prekindergarten programs, because of their families’ cultural values.

44. Research-based Response • Research documents that Latino families enroll their children in early educational programs at much lower rates than their African- American, White, and Asian counterparts. Close to half of children in California ages three to five across all racial/ethnic groups are enrolled in preschool/child care (47 percent), while only 37 percent of Latino children ages three to five are similarly enrolled. When Latino preschoolers live in a household where no one over the age of 14 speaks English fluently (linguistically isolated), the enrollment rate drops to 32 percent. In contrast, about 50 percent of Asian children in California attend preschool/child care irrespective of the ability of people over the age of 14 to speak English fluently. The conventional wisdom holds that this low attendance for Latino children, despite the well-known benefits of high-quality early education, is based on their families’ cultural values and beliefs. Because the Latino culture has a strong emphasis on “la familia” and tends to turn to the family for economic and instrumental support, many have inferred that Spanish-speaking mothers choose to keep their young children in the home rather than enrolling them in early education programs. Recent studies cast doubt on this assumption. They suggest that Latino children attend out-of-home center-based programs at lower rates because of financial constraints and lack of access, not because of any cultural reluctance. • In fact, Latina mothers have consistently placed a high value on quality early childhood programs, but often cannot find affordable programs in their neighborhoods

45. What can SLPs do??! • 1. All young children are capable of learning two languages. Becoming bilingual has long-term cognitive, academic, social, cultural, and economic benefits. Bilingualism is an asset. • 2. Young ELL students require systematic support for the continued development of their home language. • 3. Loss of the home language has potential negative long-term consequences for the ELL child’ s academic, social, and emotional development, as well as for the family dynamics. 4. Teachers and programs can adopt effective strategies to support home language development even when the teachers are monolingual English speakers. • 5. Dual language programs are an effective approach to improving academic achievement for ELL children while also providing benefits to native English speakers.

46. What can SLPs do??! • 6. Hispanic Spanish-speaking children enter Kindergarten with many social strengths that are the result of positive parenting practices that need to be acknowledged and enhanced. • 7. Hispanic parents value high-quality early education and will enroll their young children if programs are affordable and accessible. Finally, recognizing the period from ages three to eight as critical for language development is necessary for providing the continuity and extended time for children to fully benefit from these programs. The PK-3 years are critical years for developing mastery of the sounds, structure, and functions of language, and thus are an ideal time to expose children to the benefits of two languages .

47. By  focusing on language and literacy … • There are  a broad range of indicators that define  “school readiness,” but  some of the most predictive indicator of later school  success include  measures of early language  and  literacy.  (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001;  Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). 

48. Why specifically Oral Vocabulary for Spanish-speaking  children? • Oral vocabulary  can serve as a proxy measure for  the child’s “store of knowledge” (Proctor et al., 2006). • The more a child knows about the world the better positioned they are to be successful at comprehending more advanced texts. • Spanish oral vocabulary emerges as a key area to target in early intervention programs for Spanish-speaking children to support improved long term academic and reading outcomes (Lindsey, et al. 2003; Manis, et al., 2004; Oller & Eilers, 2002; Ordoñez, et al., 2002; Proctor, et al., 2006).

49. Eight studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Dialogic Reading in center-based settings. Four studies (Lonigan, Anthony, Bloomfield, Dyer, & Samwel, 1999; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein, Angell, Smith, & Fischel, 1994) were randomized controlled trials that met WWC evidence standards. One study (Crain-Thoreson & Dale, 1999) was a randomized controlled trial that met WWC evidence standards with reservations because of differential attrition. One additional study met the WWC evidence standards (Whitehurst, Epstein, Angell, Payne, Crone, & Fischel, 1994) and is included in this report; however, the intervention included a combination of Dialogic Reading and Sound Foundations, which does not allow the effects of Dialogic Reading alone to be determined. Therefore, this study is discussed separately and the findings are not included in the intervention ratings. The remaining two studies did not meet WWC evidence screens. • IES, What Works Clearinghouse, US Dept of Ed 2007

50. The Value of Dialogic Reading • Joint children’s book reading: • Repeated readings, prompt child to tell story • Tell me what is going on. • Tell me what this is. • What do you think will happen next? • As build vocabulary, approach more advanced language interaction techniques • Open ended questions • Predictive questions