Practical Strategies & Materials for informal assessment of ELLs with Potential LI 4/3 & 4/8

Question 1

t/f

practical “toolkit” strategies and materials can be used with ELLs between preschool and high school from any language background instead of standardized tests?

Answer 1

True

Question 2

What did Haynes & Pindzola 2012 say about what increases as a result of using non standardized assessments? Also, how does non standardized test relate to the child?

Answer 2

ecological validity

• It relates more to the child’s actual environment, and language needed there, than standardized testing does

Question 3

Review assessment wheel in books figure 12.1?

Answer 3

.

Question 4

Why is the assessment wheel worth the time to learn?

Answer 4

Because typically-developing ELL students are much less likely to be mislabeled and placed into speech-language and/or other special education services when everyone is aware.

Question 5

What are some suggestions for evaluating the student’s communication skills in a variety of settings?

Answer 5

• Use multiple observations in naturalistic settings
• observe the student’s ability to communicate successfully at home, in the classroom. on the playground, in the cafeteria, and other settings

Question 6

What is a popular current measure for assessment?

Answer 6

McArtur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (Spanish and English)

Question 7

What do we use during the pre-evaluation process?

Answer 7

1. Gather the case history. Be sure to include language history.
2. Use questionnaires and interviews with individuals who are familiar with the student (e.g., teachers, parents, interpreters)
3. Ascertain the student’s language proficiency in L1 and English

Question 8

When the student is compared with peers from a similar cultural and linguistic background, what things can be included in the checklist of LI indicators in L1 and English? This is slide #15…I didn’t get it.

Answer 8

• Does the student manifest any of the behaviors listed on the English Language Learner Pre-referral Screening

Question 9

Who does Dr. R interview during the pre-assessment?

Answer 9

• classroom teacher, parent, interpreter who has worked with the student

Question 10

What is the wonderful new parent questionnaire that has been developed in Canada?

Answer 10

Alberta Language and Development Questionnair (AIDeQ) (Paradis, Emmerzael, & Sorenson Duncan, 2010)

Question 11

What is a portfolio assessment?

Answer 11

• a portfolio that contains materials by and information about a student
• it helps teams judge a student’s ability to learn over time when provided with instruction

Question 12

What does Dr. R usually use when obtain language sample from a student?

Answer 12

Informal measure of oral language skills. It can be administered in English or in any other language

Question 13

What techniques can be used to do a narrative assessment?

Answer 13

• The child can create a story, or the clinician can tell a story and ask the child to tell it back?
• iPad for books like
  • The Tale of Peter Rabbit
  • Miss Spider’s Tea Party
  • The Monster at the End of this Book

The sound can be turned off on these books so the child can tell the story and turn the pages. This can be done in L1, English, or both

Question 14

What questions do you ask yourself when a student tells a story?

Answer 14

• Does she organize it in such a way that the listener understands the general story sequence?
• Does she give comments or explanations that are relevant or irrelevant to the story?
• If the student is re-telling a story originally told by the speech-language pathologist, does she remember both major and specific details?
• Does the student use appropriate syntax and vocabulary, even in L1?

Question 15

What was the study done by Gorman, Fiestas, Pena, & Clark (2011) -creative and stylistic devices employed by children during a storybook task?

Answer 15

• Goal of study: to assess cultural variations in storytelling when children were presented with wordless picture books
• 60 first and second grade Caucasian, Hispanic, and African American children
• Important to examine this topic because narrative skills are very predictive of school success

Question 16

What did Gorman et al 2011 find in their study?

Answer 16

• African American children included more fantasy in stories
  Hispanic children named characters more often
• White children talked more about relationships between characters

Question 17

What did To, Stokes, Cheung, & T’sou (June 2010 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research) say about Narrative assessment for Cantonese-speaking children*?

Answer 17

• Narrative skills strong predictors of later language outcomes
• This study attempted to create some norms for evaluating narrative skills of Cantonese-speaking children
• Studied typically-developing subjects and those with specific language impairment (SLI)

Question 18

What did To et all 2010 find?

Answer 18

• Narrative assessment can be reliably and validly standardized for use with Cantonese- speaking children
• Cantonese-speaking children with SLI had great difficulty using appropriate syntactic complexity when telling stories in Cantonese

Question 19

What did Soodla & Kikas 2010 say about Estonian children’s narratives?

Answer 19

• Examined the macrostructure of Estonian children’s narratives to determine if there were differences in narrative macrostructure between typically-developing (TD) and language impaired (LI) children
• The TD children were much better than the LI children at starting stories; the TD children also had significantly more quantity of information in their stories than the LI children

Question 20

t/f

Assessment of children’s narrative deskills is very promising for differentiating language difference from impairment in ELL students?

Answer 20

true

Question 21

Why is it important to evaluate Rapid Automatic Naming Skills (RAN)?

Answer 21

-Assessment of RAN skills provides information about the student’s speed and organization of thought

Question 22

What has research demonstrated about individuals with dyslexia and Rapid automatic naming (RAN) ?

Answer 22

Individuals with dyslexia have difficulty with Rapid Automatic Naming

Question 23

Who are RAN tests best for?

Answer 23

children who are ages 5 years and over

Question 24

Does RAN assessment work for ELLs?

Answer 24

YES!!!

Question 25

What does research show of ELL students who have difficulty with RAN?

Answer 25

• That there is a distinct possibility of dyslexia/reading disabilities
• more research for ELL Population

Question 26

In terms of associated motor behaviors, what does research suggest that students who have learning disabilities may manifest?

Answer 26

• poor coordination or awkwardness
• Difficulty copying from the chalkboard
• poor handwriting
• clumsiness and poor balance
• difficulty manipulating small objects
• Trouble learning to tie shoes, button shirts, and other self-help activities

Question 27

What may be an important potential indicator of a learning disability?

Answer 27

Reading fluency (or lack thereof)

Question 28

What is the DIBELS?

Answer 28

Dynamic Indicators ofBasic Early Literacy Skills (Good & Kaminski, 2002)

Question 29

What does the DIBELS do?

Answer 29

assesses reading fluency in a number of areas

http://dibels.uoregon.edu

Question 30

When assessing language processing capacity/information processing skills what does research suggest about children with true Learning Impairments?

Answer 30

they have difficulty retaining the sequential order of information

LI students have specific difficulties on tasks that require verbatim, immediate ordered recall.

For example, it is hard for these students to recall lists of real words, nonsense words, and to repeat back digits in sequence

Question 31

What did Dollaghan and Campbell find after developing in 1998 a measurement for language processing capacity (e.g., repeating back nonsense syllables?

Answer 31

They found that these procedures had good potential to be used with ELL students in differentiating LI from a language difference.

Question 32

What did Swanson & Saez (2006) say in regards to growth in literacy and cognition in bilingual children at risk or not at risk for reading disabilities?

And What did it conclude and what were the results?

Answer 32

These researchers found that Spanish-speaking students with reading disabilities performed poorly on Spanish short-term memory tasks

They had students repeat words back, and they also used digit repetition

Concluded:
Concluded: word memory in primary language predicts growth in 2nd language reading

Results: children who had average intelligence but were at risk for reading disabilities were deficient on Spanish measures of short term memory

Question 33

What did the study by Kan & Windsor (2010) say in regards to word learning in children with primary language impairment: A meta- analysis?

Answer 33

Retrieved 846 published studies on this topic for their meta-analysis; analyzed 28 of them (she said not to worry about this piece)

Children with LI performed significantly below age-matched typically-developing peers on non-word repetition tasks

Group difference increased as the complexity of non words increased

Question 34

What did Kapantzoglou, Restrepo, & Thompson (2012) say in regards to dynamic assessment of word learning skills?

Answer 34

Examined whether or not dynamic assessment (DA) of word learning skills was effective in identifying bilingual children with language impairment

Goal was to differentiate genuine language impairment from lack of opportunities to learn English

Used 4-5 year old Spanish-speaking children.

Children with true LI learned new words more slowly than typically developing (TD) children
TD children learned words faster, were more modifiable (teachable) than LI children

Question 35

What did Thordardottir & Brandeker (2012) say in regards to nonword repetition and sentence imitation?

Answer 35

Conducted studies of the use of nonword repetition and sentence imitation for diagnosis of language impairment in French-English bilingual children. Vocabulary measures were used also

Vocabulary scores were impacted by previous exposure; nonword repetition was not affected by previous bilingual exposure

Important: TD bilingual children performed well on nonword and sentence repetition tasks; language exposure did not matter

LI children had difficult with nonword repetition and sentence imitation; language exposure did not matter

Nonword repetition and sentence imitation are very promising measures for differentiating language differences from impairment in bilingual children, regardless of bilingual exposure.

Question 36

What did Dispaldro, Leonard, & Deevy (2013) say in regards to diagnostic accuracy of repetition of both real words and non words?

Answer 36

Examined the diagnostic accuracy of repetition of both real words and nonwords in identifying Italian-speaking children with and without language impairment (ages 3;11-5;8 yrs)

They found that, as with other languages, real and nonword repetition successfully distinguished LI children from typically-developing (TD) children

BASICALLY:
Nonword repetition showed excellent sensitivity in distinguishing TD from LI children who spoke Italian

Question 37

What did Guiberson & Rodriguez (2013) say about comparing nonword repetition skills of 3-5 year old Spanish-speaking children?

Answer 37

some were LI, and others typically-developing (TD)

The authors administered a Spanish nonword repetition task to both groups (3 to 5 nonword strings were used)

They found that LI children had nonword repetition scores significantly below those of TD children
Conclusion: Nonword repetition tasks successfully differentitated between LI and TD Spanish—speaking 3-5 year olds

In summary:

The use of processing-dependent/dynamic measures with ELL populations is appealing for a number of reasons.

They are not biased toward life experience, socialization practices, or literacy knowledge, and they are quick and easy to administer.

Performance on nonword repetition and working memory measures has been found to be highly correlated with language impairment in children.**

When children perform poorly on processing-dependent measures, there is a high likelihood that they will have some type of language-learning difficulty.

Question 38

t/f

It is very advantageous to use assessment measures that do not rely on a child’s prior experience or world knowledge**

Answer 38

True

Question 39

t/f

Processing-dependent measures assess the integrity of the underlying language learning system while at the same time to minimizing the role of previous linguistic, cultural, or environmental experience

Answer 39

True