Using parent report to assess bilingual vocabulary acquisition: a model from Irish

This chapter describes the adaptation of a parent report instrument on early language development to a bilingual context. Beginning with general issues of adapting tests to any language, particular attention is placed on the issue of using parents as evaluators of child language acquisition of a minority language in a bilingual context. In Ireland, Irish is the first official language and is spoken by about 65,000 people on a daily basis. However all Irish speakers are bilingual, and children are exposed to the dominant English language at an early age. Using an adaptation of a parent report instrument, 21 typically developing children between 16 and 40 months were assessed repeatedly over two years to monitor their language development. The form allowed parents to document their children’s vocabulary development in both languages. Results showed that when knowledge of both languages was accounted for, the children acquired vocabulary at rates similar to those of monolingual speakers and used translational equivalents relatively early in language development. The study also showed that parents of bilingual children could accurately identify and differentiate language development in both of the child’s languages. Recommendations for adapting and using parent report instruments in bilingual language acquisition contexts are outlined.

Can population-level variation in early childhood development be measured in a manner that supports service planning and intervention?

Background: The Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a population-level measure of five developmental domains at school-entry age. The overall aim of this thesis was to explore the potential of the EDI as an indicator of early development in Ireland. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 47 primary schools in 2011 using the EDI and a linked parental questionnaire. EDI (teacher completed) scores were calculated for 1,344 children in their first year of full-time education. Those scoring in the lowest 10% of the sample population in one or more domains were deemed to be 'developmentally vulnerable'. Scores were correlated with contextual data from the parental questionnaire and with indicators of area and school-level deprivation. Rasch analysis was used to determine the validity of the EDI. Results: Over one quarter (27.5%) of all children in the study were developmentally vulnerable. Individual characteristics associated with increased risk of vulnerability were being male; under 5 years old; and having English as a second language. Adjusted for these demographics, low birth weight, poor parent/child interaction and mother’s lower level of education showed the most significant odds ratios for developmental vulnerability. Vulnerability did not follow the area-level deprivation gradient as measured by a composite index of material deprivation. Children considered by the teacher to be in need of assessment also had lower scores, which were not significantly different from those of children with a clinical diagnosis of special needs. all domains showed at least reasonable fit to the Rasch model supporting the validity of the instrument. However, there was a need for further refinement of the instrument in the Irish context. Conclusion: This thesis provides a unique snapshot of early development in Ireland. The EDI and linked parental questionnaires are promising indicators of the extent, distribution and determinants of developmental vulnerability.

Study abroad and complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) development: a longitudinal investigation of French and Chinese Learners of L2 English

This longitudinal study tracked third-level French (n=10) and Chinese (n=7) learners of English as a second language (L2) during an eight-month study abroad (SA) period at an Irish university. The investigation sought to determine whether there was a significant relationship between length of stay (LoS) abroad and gains in the learners' oral complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF), what the relationship was between these three language constructs and whether the two learner groups would experience similar paths to development. Additionally, the study also investigated whether specific reported out-of-class contact with the L2 was implicated in oral CAF gains. Oral data were collected at three equidistant time points; at the beginning of SA (T1), midway through the SA sojourn (T2) and at the end (T3), allowing for a comparison of CAF gains arising during one semester abroad to those arising during a subsequent semester. Data were collected using Sociolinguistic Interviews (Labov, 1984) and adapted versions of the Language Contact Profile (Freed et al., 2004). Overall, the results point to LoS abroad as a highly influential variable in gains to be expected in oral CAF during SA. While one semester in the TL country was not enough to foster statistically significant improvement in any of the CAF measures employed, significant improvement was found during the second semester of SA. Significant differences were also revealed between the two learner groups. Finally, significant correlations, some positive, some negative, were found between gains in CAF and specific usage of the L2. All in all, the disaggregation of the group data clearly illustrates, in line with other recent enquiries (e.g. Wright and Cong, 2014) that each individual learner's path to CAF development was unique and highly individualised, thus providing strong evidence for the recent claim that SLA is "an individualized nonlinear endeavor" (Polat and Kim, 2014: 186).

Using parent report to assess early lexical production in children exposed to more than one language

Limited expressive vocabulary skills in young children are considered to be the first warning signs of a potential Specific Language Impairment (SLI) (Ellis & Thal, 2008). In bilingual language learning environments, the expressive vocabulary size in each of the child’s developing languages is usually smaller compared to the number of words produced by monolingual peers (e.g. De Houwer, 2009). Nonetheless, evidence shows children’s total productive lexicon size across both languages to be comparable to monolingual peers’ vocabularies (e.g. Pearson et al., 1993; Pearson & Fernandez, 1994). Since there is limited knowledge as to which level of bilingual vocabulary size should be considered as a risk factor for SLI, the effects of bilingualism and language-learning difficulties on early lexical production are often confounded. The compilation of profiles for early vocabulary production in children exposed to more than one language, and their comparison across language pairs, should enable more accurate identification of vocabulary delays that signal a risk for SLI in bilingual populations. These considerations prompted the design of a methodology for assessing early expressive vocabulary in children exposed to more than one language, which is described in the present chapter. The implementation of this methodological framework is then outlined by presenting the design of a study that measured the productive lexicons of children aged 24-36 months who were exposed to different language pairs, namely Maltese and English, Irish and English, Polish and English, French and Portuguese, Turkish and German as well as English and Hebrew. These studies were designed and coordinated in COST Action IS0804 Working Group 3 (WG3) and will be described in detail in a series of subsequent publications. Expressive vocabulary size was measured through parental report, by employing the vocabulary checklist of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory: Words and Sentences (CDI: WS) (Fenson et al., 1993, 2007) and its adaptations to the participants’ languages. Here we describe the novelty of the study’s methodological design, which lies in its attempt to harmonize the use of vocabulary checklist adaptations, together with parental questionnaires addressing language exposure and developmental history, across participant groups characterized by different language exposure variables. This chapter outlines the various methodological considerations that paved the way for meaningful cross-linguistic comparison of the participants’ expressive lexicon sizes. In so doing, it hopes to provide a template for and encourage further research directed at establishing a threshold for SLI risk in children exposed to more than one language.