Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jul 12;60(7):2014-2030.
doi: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-16-0318.

The Persistence and Functional Impact of English Language Difficulties Experienced by Children Learning English as an Additional Language and Monolingual Peers

Katie E Whiteside  1 , Courtenay Frazier Norbury  2
Affiliations

The Persistence and Functional Impact of English Language Difficulties Experienced by Children Learning English as an Additional Language and Monolingual Peers

Katie E Whiteside et al. J Speech Lang Hear Res. .

Abstract

Purpose: This study explored whether a monolingual-normed English language battery could identify children with English as an additional language (EAL) who have persistent English language learning difficulties that affect functional academic attainment.

Method: Children with EAL (n = 43) and monolingual English-speaking children (n = 46) completed a comprehensive monolingual-normed English language battery in Year 1 (ages 5-6 years) and Year 3 (ages 7-8 years). Children with EAL and monolingual peers, who either met monolingual criteria for language impairment or typical development on the language battery in Year 1, were compared on language growth between Year 1 and Year 3 and on attainment in national curriculum assessments in Year 2 (ages 6-7 years).

Results: Children with EAL and monolingual peers who met monolingual criteria for language impairment in Year 1 continued to display comparably impaired overall language ability 2 years later in Year 3. Moreover, these groups displayed comparably low levels of academic attainment in Year 2, demonstrating comparable functional impact of their language difficulties.

Conclusion: Monolingual-normed language batteries in the majority language may have some practical value for identifying bilingual children who need support with language learning, regardless of the origin of their language difficulties.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Recruitment flow chart for the population survey phase, Year 1 school assessment, and the selection and retention of subjects in the current study. SCALES = Surrey Communication and Language in Education Study; NPS = no phrase speech; Mon. = monolingual; EAL = English as an additional language; ASD = autism spectrum disorder; TL = typical language proficiency; LL = low language proficiency.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Predicted total language composite z scores for each language group. The reference lines indicate the mean ages during testing in Year 1 and Year 3. Mon-TL = monolingual typical language proficiency group; Mon-LL = monolingual low language proficiency group; EAL-TL = English as an additional language typical language proficiency group; EAL-LL = English as an additional language low language proficiency group.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Predicted raw scores on measures of receptive and expressive vocabulary, narrative, and grammar for each language group. The reference lines indicate the mean ages during testing in Year 1 and Year 3. Mon-TL = monolingual typical language proficiency group; Mon-LL = monolingual low language proficiency group; EAL-TL = English as an additional language typical language proficiency group; EAL-LL = English as an additional language low language proficiency group.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Adams C., Cooke R., Crutchley A., Hesketh A., & Reeves D. (2001). Assessment of Comprehension and Expression 6-11. London, UK: GL assessment.
    1. Babayiğit S. (2014). The role of oral language skills in reading and listening comprehension of text: A comparison of monolingual (L1) and bilingual (L2) speakers of English language. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(S1), S22–S47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01538.x
    1. Bedore L. M., & Peña E. D. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb392.0
    1. Bialystok E., Luk G., Peets K. F., & Yang S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 525–531. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990423 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bishop D. V. M. (2003a). Children's Communication Checklist–Second Edition. London, UK: Pearson.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources