Narrative abilities in subgroups of English language learners and monolingual peers

Abstract

Aims and objectives: The objective of this study was to examine the narrative ability of two subgroups of English Language Learners (ELLs) relative to a group of English monolingual (EL1) peers. Specifically, we investigated whether the three groups of children differed on measures of narrative macrostructure and microstructure. Methodology: Two groups of ELLs were identified on the basis of parent report of the language most often heard and spoken at home (ELL English language users, ELL minority language users). A group of monolingual English children served as a comparison group ( n = 25 per language group). The children averaged 56 months of age. All children completed a narrative retell task. Data and analysis: The retell task was scored in relation to macrostructure (narrative information) and microstructure (number of utterances, mean length of utterance, number of different words, grammaticality). ANCOVAs, partialling out age and memory, revealed distinct performance profiles for the two ELL groups. Findings: There were no group differences on the number of utterances or story grammar. However, the performance of the ELL minority language group was significantly different from that of the EL1 and the ELL English language group on all microstructure measures (number of different words, sentence length, and grammaticality). Overall, the performance of the ELL English language users was indistinguishable from the EL1 group. Originality: The study highlights the heterogeneity in an ELL kindergarten sample with respect to English narrative ability, based on the extent to which English was heard and spoken at home. Implications: The findings highlight the need to gather detailed linguistic information about the home language environments of ELL children when involving them in language- or literacy-related tasks. An important implication of this information is the potential to lead to more nuanced expectations or teaching methods for subgroups of ELL children.

Narrative abilities of monolingual and bilingual children with and without language impairment: implications for clinical practice

“…A recent study by Hipfner‐Boucher et al . () with a narrative retell task confirms this conclusion. Two groups of children who learned English as their L2 were compared with a group of monolingual English children on narrative macro‐ and micro‐structure.…”

“…That is, cross-language correlations were found for measures of narrative macro-structure, whereas this was typically not the case for micro-level variables (Pearson 2002, Squires et al 2014, Uccelli and Páez 2007. Studies that have compared mono-and bilingual children's narrative performance also find differences between macro-and micro-structure (Hipfner-Boucher et al 2015, Pearson 2002. Pearson (2002) used a story generation task and found that monolingual English children outperformed their bilingual Spanish-English peers on measures of micro-structure.…”

“…Studies that have compared mono‐ and bilingual children's narrative performance also find differences between macro‐ and micro‐structure (Hipfner‐Boucher et al . , Pearson ). Pearson () used a story generation task and found that monolingual English children outperformed their bilingual Spanish–English peers on measures of micro‐structure.…”

“…The research reviewed above suggests that measures of narrative macro‐structure do not disadvantage bilingual children (Hipfner‐Boucher et al . , Pearson ), in contrast to other standardized language tests that tap into language‐specific knowledge, such as vocabulary or grammar tests (e.g., Restrepo and Silverman ). That is, even bilingual children with TD perform poorly on these tests due to having received less input in the language of testing compared with monolingual children.…”

“…Furthermore, based on the outcomes of previous research, we hypothesized that there would be no effects of bilingualism on any of the macro‐structural measures of the MAIN for children with TD (Hipfner‐Boucher et al . , Pearson ) or LI (Cleave et al . ).…”