Assessment of bilingual children in only one language fails to acknowledge their distributed linguistic competence and has been shown to overidentify language disorder in bilingual populations. However, other factors, sometimes associated with bilingualism, may also contribute to low results in language assessments. Our aim was to examine the impact of these factors on language abilities. We used the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Fourth Edition, Swedish (CELF-4) to investigate core language abilities of 224 7- to 8-year-old children. Results showed 30 and 80% of monolinguals and bilinguals, respectively, performing more than 1 SD below the normative sample mean, calling into question the clinical utility of the test. However, participant and school characteristics provided a deeper understanding of the skewed results. In isolation, bilingualism predicted 38% of the variance in the CELF-4 Core scores. With level of parental education entered the variance explained by the model increased to 52%, but the unique contribution of bilingualism was reduced to 20%. Finally, with information added on school characteristics and enrollment in the school’s recreation center the model explained an additional two percent, with the unique contribution of bilingualism further reduced to 9%. The results indicate an increased risk for low results on the CELF-4 Core when children present with multiple risk factors. This highlights the need to look beyond bilingualism in language assessment of bilingual children and adolescents and to consider other explanations to academic struggle. Available interventions must be considered and applied proportionately to their respective impact on the individual’s development.
Continued professional development (CPD), tailored to teachers’ needs and expectations, is required for updated skills and knowledge. In this study, twenty-five teachers working with first and second grade students participated in an 11-week programme focusing on enhancing classroom communication. The participating teachers were randomly assigned to either a direct intervention track (intervention) or a delayed intervention track (waiting control). Teachers’ perceptions of activities and interactions in the classroom and self-efficacy were assessed on three occasions: T1, T2, and T3. The direct intervention track received intervention between T1 and T2, while the delayed intervention track received intervention between T2 and T3. A percentage change score for changes between T1 and T2 was calculated, to compare the direct and delayed intervention tracks and assess any intervention effect. Results revealed no significant difference between the groups, i.e., the intervention had no effect on teacher self-reports. The teachers gave an overall positive evaluation of the CPD. Thematic analyses revealed continued need for professional development and insights into the reciprocal influence of student and teacher behaviour. The quantitative and qualitative results paint somewhat different pictures showing the need of mixed methods when analysing these kinds of data.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.