assessing l2 children who may be at risk for a …...risk groups: grades 1–3 risk groups: grades...

© 2015 Dr. Esther Geva All Rights Reserved

Assessing L2 children who may be at risk for a learning disability – An overview of research findings and their implications

1

Professor Esther Geva, Ph.D., C. Psych.

University of Toronto

http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/gevalab/Research/Projects.html


Research Agenda

� Clinical, assessment, and instructional issues related to: �  Over-identification (Cummins, 1991) �  Under-identification (Limbos & Geva, 2001)

� The challenge: �  How do we tease apart L2 status from a possible

learning disability?

3


Strategies Guiding My Research on Language and Literacy in ELs

4

Describe normal development

Examine universal/typology specific language and literacy

Study factors that explain development (typology, cognition, context…)

How can we identify reliably L2 learners who may be also LD?


A complex view of L2 reading comprehension

© Geva & Wiener, Springer, 2015


What Do the Data Show About Typical Development of Reading in ELs?

�  Longitudinal Design

�  Cross-sequential (4 cohorts)

�  A large task battery administered annually q Each cohort tracked from Grade 1 to Grade 6 q 13 schools across 4 boards of education in a large metropolis

�  mixed catchment area �  first generation immigrants �  communities average poverty incidence = 23% �  income below median for the metropolis

6


Test Battery

Cognitive/ Linguistic • non-verbal ability • rapid naming (letters) • phonological awareness • memory • auditory discrimination

Oral Language • vocabulary

• breadth • depth, academic

• grammar • listening comprehension

Word Level

• pseudoword decoding • word recognition • word fluency • spelling

Text Level • reading comprehension • text fluency • story writing

7


The Sample

§ Home languages spoken in the EL group: Punjabi, Tamil, Urdu, Cantonese, Portuguese, Spanish

8

Groups N Female Male Mean Age in Grade 4

EL 427 213 206 116.12

EL1 158 93 64 118.97


Receptive Vocabulary (PPVT): Average Growth Trajectories in EL and EL1

9

Grade1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 37.40

57.68

77.96

98.25

118.53

Growth from Grade 1 to Grade 6

Voca

bula

ry

EL1

ESL

Persistent EL1-EL Difference

(Farnia & Geva, 2011)

EL1 Slope/Rate of Growth

EL Slope (steeper in early years)


Basic Reading Skills: Average Growth Trajectories in EL and EL1

-45.00 -25.94 -6.88 12.18 31.2415.00

21.04

27.08

33.12

39.16


Wor

d R

ecog

niti

on

EL1ELL

-45.00 -25.94 -6.88 12.18 31.240.15

8.52

16.89

25.26

33.63


Dec

odin

g

EL1ELL

10

Source: Geva & Farnia, LARCIC, 2009

Development of Word Recognition Skills

Development of Decoding Skills

Wor

d Re

cogn

itio

n

Dec

odin

g


1.00

1.38

1.77

2.15

2.53

Rap

id N

amin

g

-45.00 -25.94 -6.88 12.18 31.24


EL1ELL

Rapid Letter Naming (RAN): Average Growth Trajectories in EL1 and EL

11

Growth From Grade 1 to Grade 6

Rapi

d N

amin

g



-45.00 -25.94 -6.88 12.18 31.244.10

7.30

10.50

13.71

16.91

Growth from Grade 1 to Greade 6

Phon

olog

ical

Aw

aren

ess

EL1ELL

Phonological Awareness: Average Growth Trajectories in EL1 and EL

12

Growth From Grade 1 to Grade 6

Phon

olog

ical

Aw

aren

ess

No EL-EL1 difference



Grade 1

Grade 6

Relationship between Phonological Awareness and Word Reading Skills

13

0 10 20

Grade 1 Phonological Awareness

10

20

30

Gra

de 1

Wor

d Re

cogn

ition

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bbb

bb bb

bbb

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

bb

b

bb

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b b

b

b

b

b

bbb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

bb

b bb

b b

b

b

b

bbb

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b bb

b

bb

bb

b

b

b

b

b

10 15 20 25

Grade 6 Phonological Awareness

30

40

50

Gra

de 6

Wor

d Re

cogn

ition

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

bbb

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

bb

bb

b

bb

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

X = EL1 X = ESL

No EL-EL1 differences


Vocabulary - Strong Predictor of Reading Comprehension in Monolinguals and ELs

75 100 125 150

Grade 6 Vocabualry

400

500

600

700

Gra

de 6

Rea

ding

Com

preh

ensi

on

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

bb

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

bb

b

b

b

b

bb bbb

b

14

X = EL1 X = ESL



-32.00 -22.10 -12.20 -2.30 7.60454.0

466.3

478.7

491.1

503.5


Rea

ding

Com

preh

ensi

on

EL1ELL

Reading Comprehension*- Average Growth Trajectories in EL and EL1

15 Source: Farnia & Geva, J of Res in Reading, 2013

*Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test-ESS

Persistent EL-EL1 difference


Summary of Developmental Trends: EL1 vs. EL

16

Farnia & Geva, 2013

Skills EL vs. EL1

Rapid naming =

Phonological awareness =

Word reading =

Vocabulary <

Reading comprehension <


� Correlation between L1 and L2 skills (universal perspective)

� Effects of specific L1 features on L2 features (positive/negative)

Ways of examining “transfer” of skills between L1 and L2

17 Geva, E. Written Language & Literacy, 2014


English Predictors (Senior Kindergarten) GR 1 FRENCH:

Vocab Letter

ID

Ltr-

Sound

Phono

Aware

Blend

Snd

Snd

Match

RAN

Word Reading

.25* .51** .55** .63** .45** .49** -.49**

Story Reading

.22 .61** .53** .50** .44** .48** -.35**

Correlations Among English (L1) Predictors (Fall SK) and French Reading a Year Later (Grade 1)

18

(Endler, M., PhD. 2007)


� Word Reading and Spelling (focus for today)

� Reading Fluency

� Reading Comprehension

� Written Expression

� Mathematics Calculations

Research on ELs Who Might Have Learning Disabilities in the Following Areas:

19


� Pseudoword Auditory Discrimination Task �  17 Pseudoword pairs �  keathe-keev �  thop-zop �  bish-biss �  shen-sen

Auditory Discrimination: Developing Sensitivity to New Phonemes

20

“Did I say the same thing?”


Development of Auditory Discrimination: At- Risk for Dyslexia vs. No-Risk

21

Over time L1-EL differences disappear but reading group differences persist


Profiles of At-Risk and Not At-Risk EL1 and ELL (end of Grade 2)

22

-2-1.5

-1-0.5

00.5

11.5

Non-verbal

Expr Vocab

Phono Aware

Rapidnaming

Word G1Spr

WordG2Fall

WordG2Spr

EL1-NAESL-NAEL1-ARESL-AR

Geva, Yaghoub-Zadeh & Schuster, Annals of Dyslexia, 2000


�  In Grade 1, Punjabi and Portuguese groups had lower scores, however, their growth was steeper over time.

�  From Grades 4 to 6, home language was not a predictor of initial status or growth.

Spelling Growth by Language Group

23

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

Spel

ling

Language Group - Grades 1-3

English Tamil Punjabi Portuguese

0

5

10

15

20

Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6

Spel

ling

Language Group - Grades 4-6

English Tamil Punjabi Portuguese

Geva & Lafrance, 2011


� Phonological Processing (PP) Risk Status:

� Below 25%ile on either PA, RAN, or both in Grade 1 (PA-risk, RAN-risk, Double Deficit-DD, Typically Developing)

Phonological Processing Sub-Groups

24


Risk Groups: Grades 1–3

Risk Groups: Grades 4–6

Spelling Growth by PP Risk Group

25

0

15

30

45

60

75

Gr. 1 Gr. 2 Gr. 3

Spel

ling

Low risk

PA-risk

RAN-risk

DD

§  Initially, all risk groups had lower scores than the No Risk group. §  L2 status not a good predictor but Phonological Processing (PP) risk status

is.

0

5

10

15

20

Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Sp

ellin

g

Low risk

PA-risk

RAN-risk

DD


What Predicts Longitudinally Gr. 6 Spelling?

Variables Gr. 1 Gr. 2 Gr. 3 EL1 / ELL EL1 / ELL EL1 / ELL

SES risk status NV Reasoning X Vocabulary X Verbal Memory PA X X X X RAN X X X X X X


ELL- RD


ELL- Typical Reader


� The overall profiles ELs and EL1s who have a learning disability are similar (in spite of differences in language proficiency)

�  Like monolinguals, ELs with persistent difficulties in word level skills have difficulties with: �  processing factors (e.g., phonological awareness, RAN,

memory, auditory discrimination) �  accurate and fluent word reading and spelling �  these difficulties impact reading comprehension & writing

What Have We Learned?

29


�  Be mindful of current norms

�  Compare relevant performance to reference group

�  What IS the relevant reference group?

�  Consider developmental patterns

�  Consider transfer from the L1(correlational; positive & negative)

�  Assess evidence based known predictors

�  Expect same % of EL1 and EL with LD (systemic over- and under-identification are problematic)

Food for Thought

30


http://www.springerpub.com/psychological-assessment-of-culturally-and-linguistically-diverse-children-and-adolescents.html


Acknowledgments Funding Support

�  Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

�  Transfer Grants - Ontario Ministry of Education

�  Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network (CLLRNet)

�  University of Toronto

Former/Current Students �  Mahshid Azimi

�  Todd Cunningham

�  Dana Shafman (David)

�  Fataneh Farnia

�  Maureen Jean

�  Emiko Koyama

�  Adele Lafrance

�  Kate Ndlovu (Herbert)

�  Gloria Ramirez

�  Barbara Schuster

�  Zohreh Yaghoub-Zadeh

�  Lesly Wade-Woolley

�  Min Wang

32


Thank You.

assessing l2 children who may be at risk for a …...risk groups: grades 1–3 risk groups: grades...

Documents