3.4: Language Acquisition Differences

Language Differences in Children

Developmental language progression tables show typical patterns of language acquisition. However, many children’s language abilities develop according to different timelines. Common areas of language differences might include children who are multilingual learners, children who are deaf or hard of hearing, and children who have autism. Some children may exhibit language delays or speech delays and show marked differences in how and when they communicate. Understanding the typical developmental patterns allows educators to recognize when additional intervention service providers may need to be engaged. While early childhood teachers should not be expected to diagnose language delays, familiarity with language development does help teachers to determine when to suggest a referral for an evaluation and how to contextualize children’s language attempts and proficiency.

Children Who Are Multilingual Learners

Figure 3.4.1 Multilingual children learn to think in more than one language.

Children who begin learning more than one language prior to the age of five are defined as dual language learners (McManis, 2012). This text uses the term multilingual learners because it is more inclusive and recognizes that some children may speak more than two languages across their home, school, and community environments. Some children are exposed to more than one language from birth, and others are introduced to a new language upon entry to an early learning setting (Castro, Garcia, & Marcos, 2013; Genessee, 2010). English Language Learner is another term used to describe a child who is immersed in English at formal school entry or later and whose home language is not English (Halle et al, 2012). In other words, when the exposure to a different language occurs during the preschool years and younger, we would define them as multilingual learners. Once they enter the K-12 education system, they may be identified as English Language Learners. Recognizing that some children will come to classroom contexts with more than one language is important because when children are learning more than one language, their trajectory of development differs from that of monolingual children.

Receptive language in multilingual children. Young children have a pre-wired or innate capability of learning more than one language from birth, and young children may become proficient in more than one language if multiple language exposure occurs in quantity, and with quality (Espinosa, 2013). Infants who are bilingual develop two separate but connected linguistic systems (Conboy, 2006). Because bilingual children must develop neural pathways and connections that are different from monolingual children, their cognitive development will also look different from that of monolingual children. Research demonstrates that acquiring multiple languages influences cognitive and linguistic learning mechanisms (Espinosa, 2013) and results in advantages that are evident in cognitive development (Bialystok, 2009).

Productive/expressive language learning in multilingual children. As children enter new language environments or negotiate multiple languages, educators may notice differences in expressive language. Listening and comprehension tend to develop first. Educators may notice a child appears reticent to engage verbally in a new language environment preferring to silently observe and listen to their peers and educators talking around them. Frequently referred to as the silent period, it is an important learning space for children as they are internalizing the common phonological and grammatical patterns of the new language. During this time, a child’s expressive language may seem to be lagging behind, particularly at school, and even at home. But, it is important to remember children are using this time to develop their vocabulary across languages. The younger a child is, the longer the silent period might last, thus it is commonly observed in early learning settings (American Speech, Language and Hearing Association n.d.).

While multilingual children may present differently than monolingual children in terms of literacy development, it is important to consider their whole language context; failure to do so might result in an early childhood educator interpreting perceived differences as a language delay (Espinosa, 2013). For example, multilingual children may appear to have smaller vocabularies if only one language is assessed. However, when educators evaluate a child’s combined vocabulary knowledge across language contexts, the true depth of their language knowledge is recognized. Similarly, multilingual children may take a little longer to articulate their ideas when speaking because the child is working to determine which language to use in the current situation. The process multilingual children use to move from language to language is called code switching and it is an additional processing task for children (Castro, 2013). The additional cognitive challenge of moving between two languages is positively associated with executive function and cognitive flexibility (Espinosa, 2013). Therefore, it is important for educators to allow children who speak multiple languages more time to communicate their ideas and provide additional wait time when completing word retrieval vocabulary assessments (Espinosa, 2013).

In addition to code switching, some children might also blend the languages in a process called code mixing (Peterson, 1988). A child may start out speaking one language and switch to the other or insert vocabulary from one language into a sentence that begins with the other language. For example, a child may say, “Quiero cookie” to indicate the desire for a cookie instead of completing the entire phrase in English, or the entire phrase in Spanish. Parents, teachers, or other adults may perceive code mixing as evidence of a delay or a problem (McManis, 2012). However, children who are code mixing sometimes do so within a context where they might be expected to be understood. A child who says, “more leche” can reasonably anticipate that adults will discern the desire for milk. Even when vocabulary words are inserted, children retain the larger set of language rules for each of their languages internally (McManis, 2012). Thus, code mixing should be an indicator that children are still building vocabulary and progressing with their language development while creating their internal maps for each language.

Young children are in an ideal window, or sensitive period, for mastering the functions and structures of language (Conboy & Kuhl, 2011). While there may be differences in how quickly children who speak multiple languages communicate, there are no apparent differences between multilingual and monolingual children’s phonological awareness or decoding skills (Espinosa, 2013). The same is true for the developmental window of first word occurrences. The early language skill development of multilingual children, including semantics, syntax, phonological awareness, and morphology, provide a child with the ability to think about their language understanding. Moreover, the ability to both comprehend and think about language will be applied to both languages (Lopez & Greenfield, 2004).

The long-term gains for multiple languages are compelling—they are evident in cognition and culture and may have economic implications for the child later on (Bialystok, 2009). Some teachers may worry that if a child is not speaking English now, they will have difficulty with English later on. In fact, children do eventually learn English. Learning more than one language does not ultimately hamper the ability to learn English or to perform well on academic tasks when home and school languages are supported (Barnett et al, 2007). Children who are English Language learners keep pace or surpass native English speakers if they are proficient in English by Kindergarten (Halle et al, 2012). Therefore, allowing children to communicate across languages is a valuable practice for educators to encourage.

Pause and Consider: Pumpkin, Pumpkin

Ms. Katrina held 22-month-old Sebastian on her lap, reading to him during the quiet morning in her two-year-old classroom. She pointed to the pictures in the board book and said, “pumpkin.” Sebastian looked back at her with shining eyes and pointed to the picture and smiled. He did not reply. Repeatedly through the book, Katrina pointed out pumpkins and prompted Sebastian to say, “Pumpkin.” Not only was Sebastian unwilling to repeat the word, “pumpkin,” while book-reading, but Ms. Katrina noticed that Sebastian had very little to say at school. Ms. Katrina asked the family if Sebastian talked at home, and mom immediately expressed her worry. Mom said that at home he pointed to items and would say, “Mama” or “Daddy,” but he was generally very quiet. Mom indicated that she was worried Sebastian would “not learn English.” The parents and Katrina worked together to refer Sebastian for an evaluation for early intervention services to determine if there was a language delay. Later that same week, the classroom went to a pumpkin farm for a field trip. Sebastian walked over to a very large pumpkin in the front and loudly said, “Cabasasa,” an approximation of the Spanish word for pumpkin, “calabaza.” He then started to giggle and put his hands on many of the large and small pumpkins right around him, each time calling out “Cabasasa!”

What assessments could the teacher make about Sebastian’s language development? What questions could the teacher ask the family that would have provided more helpful information? What assumptions should the teacher avoid? What should the teacher’s orientation be to this student’s needs?

Children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Oral language and listening are dependent on the auditory system, and when there is hearing loss, language development is altered. Hearing loss varies from complete deafness to partial hearing. When hearing loss ranges from severe to profound, there are substantial barriers to oral language development (de Oliveira Sobreira, 2015). This is particularly true in children who lose hearing soon after birth or are deaf from birth (de Oliveira Sobreira, 2015). Deafness and hearing impairments do not prevent a child from communicating. Early diagnosis and intervention is important, so that children may experience a full range of possibilities for developing language, external to speech and hearing.

Receptive language in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Acquisition of language for children who use sign language has structural similarities to the development of oral language in hearing children (Schlesinger & Meadow, 1972). In fact, children who learn sign language demonstrate an onset of first sign earlier than hearing children demonstrate spoken words (Schlesinger, 1978). Bonvillian and colleagues (1983) found that deaf children in their study showed earlier attainment of additional milestones. Early first sign production often occurs with the first word at approximately 8.5 months with a range of 5.5 months to 12 months. Children acquire sign language vocabulary quickly, demonstrating an average size of 10 signs at the age of 1 year, and 50 words at 18 months (Bonvillian et al., 1983). The average for putting two signs together is 17 months with a range of 12.5 to 22 months. This is consistent with what we know about young children’s capacity to use sign language. Schlesinger and Meadow (1972) suggest that all children would learn to sign before learning to speak, if exposed to sign language.

The desire and effort to communicate is universal; parents, family members, and other adults wish to engage in social language transactions with children (Marschark & Wauters, 2008). Parent interaction has some features that are the same with all children. Deaf parents demonstrate a version of child-directed speech, emphasizing their signed communication with infants using large movements, incorporating repetition, and holding signs longer than usual (Koester & Lahti-Harper, 2010). This is similar to how hearing parents use exaggerated vocal input, changing pitch, and melodic contours when they engage in child-directed speech (Koester & Lahti-Harper, 2010). Deaf infants show greater attention and responsiveness to infant-directed signs (Masataka, 1996). Whether parents are communicating vocally or through sign language with their babies, they are doing so in a way that is more dramatic and exclamatory, accompanied by exaggerated facial gestures. For all children, gestures are among the first experiences of receptive and expressive language, and these are precursors to developing more complex language through speech or sign language (Volterra et al., 2005).

Productive/expressive language in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing engage in symbolic play as part of their expressive language experiences and in doing so, practice using gestures and sometimes oral sounds or words. The development of gestures and the numbers of words and phrases understood or produced is related to specific attainments in symbolic play (Yoshinaga-Itako et al., 1998). Children who demonstrate higher expressive language levels make more attempts at utterances, words, and word combinations. All manifestations of expressive language, including spoken language and signed output, are strong predictors of speech outcome, suggesting ample opportunities for practice supports the development of speech skills (Yoshinaga-Itako et al., 2020). Therefore, opportunities to engage in social play strengthen productive language with children who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Figure 3.4.2 Some children use sign language to communicate.

Speech ability is impacted by the severity of hearing loss (de Oliveria Sobreira et al., 2015). Some children are hard of hearing with mild to severe hearing loss, and some children are deaf with profound hearing loss, or have both hearing and visual loss. All of these possibilities impact the trajectory of how the child learns to communicate and how educators and families structure learning opportunities for children. Children who have early cochlear implants may have improved auditory-linguistic abilities (de Oliveira Sobreira et al., 2015). However, cochlear implants are not always sufficient to solve hearing loss, and results are variable (Peterson et al., 2010). The speech ability of children with mild to severe hearing loss becomes more similar as children reach adolescence, but the speech ability of children with profound hearing loss is less well developed. A child’s success may also be impacted by the frequency of signs along with speech, coupled with one’s level of hearing (Marschark & Knoors, 2012, Yishinaga-Itano, 1998). Approaches for communication may include sign language, tactile sign language, cued speech, hearing aids, and cochlear implants. Decisions about which strategies to use are determined by the child’s needs, the family preferences, and the availability of services or early learning settings.

Pause and Consider: Rainsticks and Picture Cards

It is six weeks into the school year, and Ms. Noora has noticed that 3-year-old Deon tends to be the last child to leave centers and to join the group for activities. Deon does not usually sing along in circle time, though he does the hand motions and joins in some words in the chorus. Deon does respond to language, but it is inconsistent. Sometimes he seems to be in his own world instead of responding, until after the other children have already done so. Ms. Noora had thought that this might be a temperamental or developmental trait of Deon’s. However, this morning, Deon’s parents told Ms. Noora that they are worried about his hearing and are having him evaluated. Ms. Noora thinks about her routines this year. For transitions, she has mainly been using short special songs to indicate what is coming next and sometimes a rain stick. If Deon is hard of hearing, this might not have been as useful as a picture card or puppet. Ms. Noora immediately starts to pay attention to Deon’s patterns and observes that he looks at other children when there is a transition. Later, Ms. Noora decides to take the children outside to play during a break in the rain. As Ms. Noora begins singing the recess song, she holds up the picture card from the daily schedule and waves it. She notices that Deon looks at the card and immediately goes to grab his coat.

Accessibility in our classrooms means that we use strategies to include all children. What are some transition routines that can capture children who have language differences?

Children with Autism

The number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder has steadily increased over the last few decades. One in every 54 children is identified with autism spectrum disorders (Maenner et al., 2020). Autism, or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), refers to a broad range of conditions, usually evident before age 3, causing challenges in a child’s speaking or nonverbal communication (IDEA, 2004; 34 C.F.R. § 300.8 [c] [1]). ASD is also characterized by difficulty with social skills and changes in routines and unusual responses to sensory experiences. Autism is considered to be the fastest-growing childhood disorder (Gonzalez et al., 2017). The median age at which a child is first evaluated ranges from 29 months to 46 months (Maenner et al., 2020) and often results from questions about the child’s language development. Language deficits are often an early impetus for parents to seek answers and begin the process of evaluation. Children with autism display a wide range of language performances. Some children may be considered non-verbal or use limited verbal speech. While other children with autism may follow typical language patterns. Additionally, some children have speech, but might have trouble with specific forms of language, such as pragmatic cues. Language development in children with autism, like all children, is not fixed. A child who has no speech may later develop speech (Boutot, 2016). All children can grow and develop in their ability to communicate with supportive instruction and early intervention.

Receptive language in children who have autism. Receptive language may be affected in young children with ASD. For example, toddlers with autism may have difficulty hearing words when the referent (person or object) is absent (Fitch et al., 2018). In other words, referring to a dog if the dog is not actually there, might be a receptive language task that could be harder for a very young child who has autism. Learning semantics, the proper usage of language in varying social settings, is a difficult task for all young children. It requires a utilization of receptive language that is interpretive. For example, a child in an examination setting was given a set of dolls and told by the adult, “We are going to play with my family.” The child was perplexed at how the adult’s family could be a set of dolls (Boutot & Myles, 2017). Very young children with ASD may have trouble incorporating new information on the basis of verbal cues alone, without visual support (Fitch, 2018). However, with opportunity for repetition of verbal input and a low-demand task, young toddlers with ASD can be successful in acquiring newer mental representations (Fitch, 2018). It is valuable to remember semantics can be taught and learned through intentional opportunities and experiences.

Children with autism may also have difficulty interpreting components of nonverbal communication, such as facial expressions and proximity (Boutot & Myles, 2017), and might need coaching or instruction so that they acquire knowledge of social reactions. Children with autism might also find it more challenging to process language when immersed in settings with distracting visual and auditory stimuli (Marco et al., 2011). It is helpful to consider the environment, especially if you are trying to help the child with an area of language. Generally speaking, the social-communication impairments associated with ASD are particularly impactful for the development of receptive language (Reinhartsen et al., 2018). Teachers need to pursue multiple approaches in order to make sure that a child with ASD is understanding what is being communicated.

Productive/expressive language in children who have autism. Many diagnostic tools focus on screening for expressive language. For example, eye contact and pointing are important indicators of productive language or potential. Other markers include orienting to name, imitation, social smiling, and social interest (Zwaigenbaum et al., 2005). While orienting to name is a receptive skill, imitation, smiling, interest, and name orientation are productive expressions of language. Children who are diagnosed with ASD by 24 months tend to display fewer phrases and gestures by 12 months, and diagnosis of autism often occurs between 12 and 24 months (Barbaro & Dissanayake, 2012). Parents and other adults expect to see children become more communicative and start using speech between the first and second year. Some examples of expected productive language include shaking and nodding the head in response to a question or pointing to communicate that they want something. Children may also hold up their arms to be picked up, which is an expressive language gesture. In addition, we expect to see transactional language such as giving items to another person and showing or demonstrating something they find interesting (Mitchell et al., 2006).

Children with autism sometimes exhibit productive language called echolalia where a child repeats or echoes what they have heard. You might ask a child if they would like to go outside and instead of replying with a yes or no, the child may repeat “outside, outside.” Echolalia is sometimes present with typically developing toddlers and becomes more visible in children with autism as they age. Additionally, pragmatics is an area that is of particular interest when working with children with autism. When a child has other functional language areas mastered, such as word meaning and order and pronunciation, they may still struggle with understanding the rules and social components associated with language (Boutot & Myles, 2017). Pragmatics dictates that it might be appropriate after naptime at a family home child care to say, “okay, up.” But at home, a child has the freedom to say, “I want to sleep!” Children with autism may struggle with these contextual distinctions, which vary based on the demands and structure of the social environment (Boutot & Myles, 2017). In early childhood, all children seem to struggle with pragmatics to varying degrees, thus difficulty with pragmatics would be more pronounced as the child with autism ages.

Pause and Consider: Circle Time

Ms. Tina called the students over to circle time in her young fives classroom. At circle time, the children start with a hello song where every child says their name. This leads into the next song for the week, which includes clapping and movements to practice rhyming words. During the circle time experience, Andrew walks around the room. He is verbal, but he does not say his name when it is his turn, and he does not join in any part of circle time. Ms. Tina knows from interacting with him at other points of the day that Andrew does not like it when the room gets “loud.”

The next group prompt gives every child the opportunity to think of a word that ends in the same way that the book emphasized. Should Ms. Tina call Andrew over to offer him a turn? Are there strategies she could use so that it would not seem so loud for Andrew that would still allow him to participate?

Strategies to Support and Promote Language Development

Because language is social, development is driven by the quantity and quality of interactions between a child and their adults. Sensitive care promotes healthy development of a child overall, but language is innately social. Communication between young children and adults includes eye-gaze, sounds and symbols, and often tactile sensations as a baby is held or a toddler clasps the knees of a seated adult. Attunement, or being aware and responsive to a child’s needs, sends messages to the child about their worth and whether those needs will be met. As children grow and begin using more words, they are constantly reaching out for our cues on their proficiency. The serve and return interchange is not only building language, it is building a social understanding, which then builds language.

Figure 3.4.3 Attunement to children’s needs creates opportunities for language.

Eliciting Language Through Conversations and Questions

Adult-child interactions give opportunities to observe, learn, and practice language skills. Even simple language conversations foster this growth. Consider the example of Imani’s exchange with her teacher. She said, “I no like it: go-fish.” Her teacher responded by acknowledging, “You do not like goldfish.” This strategy, known as expansion, fills in missing words and provides a model of language rules. A similar strategy, recasting, fills in what is missing, while also extending the child’s idea or changing the sentence structure. A child might exclaim, “Water, Cold!” The teacher may recast by asking a question, “Is the water cold?” Further recasting might cause the teacher to say, “You do not like this cold water on your hands!” With recasting, the child’s initial utterance may be changed from a statement to a question, or ideas extended and lengthened. Expansion and recasting provide language models for children who are multilingual and engaging in code-mixing to communicate their ideas. For example, a child may say, “Quiero milk.” The teacher may then respond by saying either “¿Quieres leche?” or “Would you like some milk?” Recasting provides a language model without overtly correcting the child. More importantly, it sends a message that the child is understood. These supportive interactions provide the cognitive stimulation, sensitivity, and responsiveness to help foster language (Hamre & Pianta, 2005) and support cognitive gains over time (Siraj & Asani, 2015).

The quality of the interaction is also a relevant component to consider. Interactions that emphasize close-ended or one-word responses reduce a child to answers that are brief and minimal (Pianta et al., 2012). “Did you go outside yesterday?” yields a shorter conversation than asking, “What did you do this weekend?” When children have opportunities to have longer back-and-forth conversations with open-ended questions, it naturally creates more opportunities for children to practice their conversational skills and to expand their thoughts (Pianta et al., 2012; Scull, Paatsch, & Raba, 2013). This approach is not merely helpful for individual children in each conversation, but there is a positive impact on the quality of the classroom environment (Hamre & Pianta, 2005). Sustained conversations promote enhanced language and literacy practices in the classroom overall (Justice et al., 2008).

One way to promote extended conversation is to use a model of Shared Sustained Thinking (Siraj & Asani, 2015). In Shared Sustained Thinking adults intentionally start teacher-child dialogues designed to expand answers and keep children engaged in conversation. Supportive shared conversations include solving problems together, clarifying concepts, evaluating activities, and the conversation extends as parties are thinking about their own ideas and knowledge. Helpful strategies for fostering supportive shared conversations are outlined in the table below, with verbal examples and non-verbal examples proposed by Siraj-Blatchford (2015) and expanded by the authors of this textbook.

Supporting Children’s Sustained Shared Thinking

Chart 3.4.1 “Supporting Children’s Sustained Shared Thinking.” Content is based on Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2015). Quality Interactions in the Early Years Keynote Address at the TACTYC Annual Conference, Cardiff, 5 November – Birth to 8 Matters! Seeking Seamlessness – Continuity? Integration? Creativity?” http://www.tactyc.org.uk/pdfs/2005conf_siraj.pdf [Google Scholar]

Strategy	Verbal Example	Non-Verbal
Tuning In	Greeting the child and listening	Body oriented toward child, bending over to near eye level to child
Showing Genuine Interest	Verbal affirmation	Maintaining eye contact, smiling, nodding
Respecting children’s own decisions and choices by inviting children to elaborate	Saying things like, “I really want to know more about this.”	Listening and engaging in the response
Re-capping	“So you think that…”	Drawing picture together or as a depiction that you understand the conversation
Offering the adult’s own experience	I like to…	Sharing photos or pictures
Clarifying ideas	“So you think that this stone will melt if I boil it in water?”	Use facial gestures, such as a questioning expression
Suggesting	“Could we try doing it this way?”	Pointing to item while smiling
Reminding	“Don’t forget that you said that this stone will melt if I boil it.”	Tapping forgotten item
Using encouragement to further thinking	“You have really thought hard about where to put this door in the palace. Where will you put the windows?”	Give your brain a kiss (kiss hand and then touch hand to head)
Offering an alternative viewpoint	“Maybe Goldilocks wasn’t naughty when she ate the porridge.”	Showing another way to solve a problem (e.g., a different way of stacking blocks)
Speculating	“What do you think the three bears would do if Goldilocks knocked on their door and invited them to go on a picnic?”	Act out pretend play and dress up scenarios
Reciprocating	“Thank goodness that you were wearing boots when you jumped in those puddles! Look at my feet. They are soaking wet!”	Mirroring child’s gestures Varied, animated facial expressions
Asking open-ended questions	“How did you…?” “Why does this…?” “What happens next…?” “What do you think…?” “I wonder what would happen if…?”	Using drawing for communication and indicating questions
Modeling thinking	“I have to think hard about what I will do this evening. I need to take my dog to the vet because he has a sore foot, take my library books back to the library, and buy some food for dinner tonight. But I won’t have time to do all of these things.”	Demonstrating thoughtful examination of items or drawings by pausing first

Instructional Opportunities That Support Language Development

Dramatic play creates opportunities for children to engage with their peers and act out real life scenarios. Many early learning settings have dramatic play areas, including home living/kitchen, puppet stages, flannel sets, and temporary thematic spots, such as an apple orchard or mechanic’s garage. These types of activities foster opportunities for children to practice dialogue, use different voices, and experiment with conversational rhythms. Teachers may or may not join in, but having a richness of materials available in the environment can help children to engage in discussions with one another.

Figure 3.4.4 Dramatic play helps children practice language skills.

The ability of children to discriminate sounds and perceive rhythm and rhyme is associated with early reading ability. Nursery rhymes are particularly effective. They are short verses, making them easily repeatable. Children’s exposure to nursery rhymes is connected with spelling success in early grades (Dunst et al., 2011) and are particularly effective with English Language Learners (Prošić-Santovac, 2015). For example, “Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jump over the candlestick!” is easier for children to master and repeat than a longer poem. Even short poems allow for practicing tone of voice, inflection, grammar, and figurative language. These early attempts help build a foundation for language development. Hearing the sounds at the beginnings and endings of words helps children explore connecting these sounds to letters and prepares children for early reading (Rasinki & Zimmerman, 2013). As teachers introduce poems of different styles, they create opportunities for the children to enhance their vocabulary knowledge and to engage with their peers in addition to enjoying and celebrating language.

Language Accessibility and Differentiated Supports

Assistive technology includes devices or services that help children with disabilities to engage in learning and social interactions (Lohmann et al., 2019). Common examples include sign language, picture communication boards, adapted books, and voice output communication devices (Lohmann et al., 2019; Skau & Cascella, 2006). Sign language provides a visual or tactile demonstration of spoken words and is used not only for children who are deaf or hard of hearing, but hearing children as well. A common strategy is to have parents and children learn 20 to 30 words that are useful for the child and their environments (Skau & Cascella, 2006). This approach allows children to be able to communicate and understand some of the most basic and fundamental concepts. In the same way, picture boards allow children to touch or point to words they hear or wish to say. These can be used at home or school and can be relatively easy to produce or reproduce by using computers and cardstock or poster boards. For example, a picture of clothing, toothbrush, breakfast, then a car can highlight the order of routine for a young child. This also allows the possibility for the child to ask for or about a portion of the routine as it is occurring by pointing to that same board. Story and song boards create opportunities to point to pictures as a story or song is being shared. This generates space for a non-verbal child to respond, repeat, and participate fully in a classroom environment. Using a communication board might also be effective for a verbal child that is bothered by noise, as a child could wear earphones to manage the noise, and still participate by pointing to a board. It works best to include interesting textures or even real objects attached to the board (Skau & Cascella, 2006). As an example, an educator telling the story of The Three Little Pigs enhances children’s understandings with the storyboard by affixing to the board a picture of a brick, a small stick, and a bit of straw or raffia. Teachers can also point to storyboards as an aided language simulation for all children by pointing to words and pictures to emphasize meaning while telling a story, “The first little pig built his house out of STRAW.”

Vocal output devices produce pre-recorded messages when children press a button or otherwise trigger a word (Lohmann et al, 2019, Skau & Cascella, 2006). The child activates the device to answer questions, prompt others to action, or otherwise communicate. A vocal output device could be used in the classroom to record phrases or lines from poetry, story, or song. When the class joins in the story or song, the child with the vocal output device can then also join in.

Use of tablets and smartphones for assistive communication purposes has increased more recently as these items have become more readily available (Lohmann et al., 2019). Smart devices can easily be used in a classroom as a way of helping to create vocal output for a story. For example, classmates or teachers could record voices on the phone or tablet, “And I will huff and puff and blow your house down!” The child using the technology could play it at the cue when everyone joins in. The voice recording could be the child, teacher, classmates, or even family members with some planning ahead. Use of smart technology for assistive communication is most effective when adults have positive beliefs about the use of these devices (Zajc et al., 2018). Similarly, teachers’ use and comfort integrating assistive technologies develops as they gain more experiences using adaptive technologies within young learners .

Key Take-Aways

Children’s language development depends on ample meaningful language experiences with peers and adults. These experiences allow children opportunities to express themselves and be understood. When educators and parents provide these opportunities they support children’s language development. Understanding typical language trajectories allows educators to anticipate children’s language needs and enrich language environments accordingly.

It is also important to understand differences in the developmental trajectories. Children who are English Language Learners might have some initial delays as they navigate a silent period of receptive language before becoming more expressive/productive. Home language retention and multilingualism results in cognitive gains and maintains important cultural ties. Children who are deaf and/or hard of hearing may have language delays depending on the severity of the hearing loss and the type and timing of intervention. All children with hearing loss benefit from social play opportunities as this strengthens productive language. Children who have autism may struggle with receptive and expressive language. Nonverbal cues may be particularly difficult for a child to master. Early intervention is helpful, not only for language development itself, but for the social transactions that take place. Shared conversations help to elicit growth in listening, speaking, and nonverbal communication. Assisted technology can help to bridge the gap when children need communication support.

Intentional educators promote children’s language development by attending to children’s individual differences, remaining culturally responsive, providing context and environmental supports, and using adaptive technologies that enhance children’s engagement. Children have a desire to communicate and a right to be understood. Language in its many forms allows this process to unfold.

References

American Speech, Language and Hearing Association (n.d.). Acquiring English as a second language: What’s normal and what’s not. https://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/easl/

Barnett, W.S., Yarosz, D.J., Thomas, J., Jung, K., & Blanco, D. (2007). Two-way and monolingual English immersion in preschool education: An experimental comparison. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(3), 277–293.

Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 3–11.

Bonvillian, J. D., Orlansky, M. D., & Novack, L. L. (1983). Developmental milestones: Sign language acquisition and motor development. Child Development, 54(6), 1435–1445. https://doi-org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/10.2307/1129806

Boutot, E. A., & Myles, B. S. (2017). Autism spectrum disorders: foundations, characteristics, and effective strategies. Pearson.

Castro. D. C., Garcia, E. E., & Markos, A.M. (2013). Dual language learners: Research informing policy. The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, Center for Early Care and Education—Dual Language Learners. https://fpg.unc.edu/sites/fpg.unc.ed...olicyPaper.pdf

Conboy, B. T., & Kuhl, P.K. (2011). Impact of second-language experience in infancy: Brain measures of first- and second language speech perception. Developmental Science, 14, 242–248.

Conboy, B. T., & Mills, D.L. (2006). Two languages, one developing brain: Effects of vocabulary size on bilingual toddlers’ event-related potentials to auditory words. Developmental Science, 9(1), F1–F11.

de Oliveira Sobreira, A. C., Capo, B. M., Gil, D., & Dos Santos, T. S. (2015). Speech and language development in hearing impairment: Two-case report. Revista CEFAC, 17(1), 308–317.

Dunst, C. J., Meter, D., & Hamby, D. W. (2011). Relationship between young children’s nursery rhyme experiences and knowledge and phonological and print-related abilities. CELLreviews, 4(1), 1–12. http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews_v4_n1.pdf

Espinoza, L (2013). PreK-3rd: Challenging common myths about dual language learners. An update to the seminal 2008 report. Foundation for Child Development Policy to Action Brief. No. 10. https://www.fcd-us.org/prek-3rd-chal...ort/#node-1367

Fagan, Mary K. (2015). Why repetition? Repetitive babbling, auditory feedback, and cochlear implantation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 137, 125–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.04.005

Fitch, A., Valadez, A., Ganea, P. A., Carter, A. S., & Kaldy, Z. (2019). Toddlers with autism spectrum disorder can use language to update their expectations about the world. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 49(2), 429–440.

Halle, T., Hair, E., Wandner, L., McNamara, M., & Chien, N. (2012). Predictors and outcomes of early vs. later English language proficiency among English language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.07.004

Hamre B. K., & Pianta R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949-67. https://doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004)

Justice, L.M., Mashburn, A.J., Hamre, B.K., & Pianta, R.C. (2008). Quality of language and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 51–68.

Lohmann, M. J., Hovey, K. A., Gauvreau, A. N., & Higgins, J. P. (2019) Using assistive technology tools to support learning in the inclusive preschool classroom. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 8(2), Article 5. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/josea/vol8/iss2/5

Marco, E.J., Hinkley, L.B, Hill, S.S., & Nagarajan, S.S. (2011). Sensory processing in autism: A review of neurophysiologic findings. Pediatric Research, 69(5 Pt 2), 48R–54R. https://doi:10.1203/PDR.0b013e3182130c54

Maenner M.J., Daniels, J., Shaw, K.A., Baio, J., Washington, A., Patrick, M., DiRienzo, M., Christenson, D.L., Wiggins, L.D., Pettygrove, S., Andrews, J.G., Lopez, M., Hudson, A., Baroud, T., Schwenk, Y., White, T., Robinson Rosenberg, C., Lee, L., Harrington, R.A., Huston, M., Hewitt, A., Esler, A., Hall-Lande, J., Poynter, J., Hallas-Muchow, L., Constantino, J.N., Fitzgerald, R.T., Zahorodny, W., Shenouda, J., Daniels, J.L., Warren, Z., Vehorn, A., Salinas, A., Durkin, M.S., & Dietz, P.M. (2016).Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summary 2020, 69(No. SS-4):1–12. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6706a1

Marschark, M. & Knoors, H. (2012). Educating deaf children: Language, cognition, and learning. Deafness and Education International, 14(3), 136–160.

Marschark, M.. & Wauters. L. (2008). Language comprehension and learning by deaf students. In M. Manschark & P C. Häuser (Eds.), Deaf Cognition: Foundations and Outcomes (pp. 309–350). Oxford University Press.

McManis, L. (2012). TeachSmart ELL Spanish by Hatch. Research Basis Whitepaper. Accessed online: https://www.hatchearlylearning.com/documents/teachsmart_ell_spanish_white.pdf

Mitchell S., Brian J., Zwaigenbaum L, et al. (2006). Early language and communication development of infants later diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 27, 69–78.

Peterson, N. R., Pisoni, D. B., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2010). Cochlear implants and spoken language processing abilities: Review and assessment of the literature. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 28(2), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.3233/rnn-2010-0535

Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365–386). Springer Science Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17

Prošić-Santovac, D. (2015). Making the match: Traditional nursery rhymes and teaching English to modern children. Children’s Literature in English Language Education, 3(1), 25–48. http://clelejournal.org/article-2-3/

Reinhartsen, D. B., Tapia, A. L., Watson, L., Crais, E., Bradley, C., Fairchild, J., Herring, A. H., & Daniels, J. (2019). Expressive dominant versus receptive dominant language patterns in young children: Findings from the study to explore early development. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 49(6), 2447–2460.

Schlesinger, H. S. (1978). The acquisition of bimodal language. In I.M. Schlesinger (Ed.) Sign Language of the deaf: Psychological, linguistic, and sociological perspectives (pp. 57–93). Academic Press.

Schlesinger, H. S., & Meadow, K. P., (1972). Sound and sign: Childhood deafness and mental health. University of California Press.

Siraj, I., & Asani, R. (2015). The role of sustained shared thinking, play and metacognition in young children’s learning. In S. Robson & S. Quinn (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of young children’s thinking and understanding (pp. 407–415). Routledge.

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2015, November 5). Quality interactions in the early years [Keynote address]. TACTYC Annual Conference, Cardiff , U.K. http://www.tactyc.org.uk/pdfs/2005conf_siraj.pdf

Skau, L., & Cascella, P. W. (2006). Using assistive technology to foster speech and language skills at home and in preschool. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(6), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990603800602

Volterra, V. , Iverson, J. M., & Castrataro, M. (2005). The development of gesture in hearing and deaf children. In B. Schick, M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children (pp. 46–70). Oxford University Press.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Sedey, A. L., Mason, C. A., Wiggin, M., & Chung, W. (2020). Early intervention, parent talk, and pragmatic language in children with hearing loss. Pediatrics, 146, S270–S277.

Zajc, M., Istenič Starčič, A., Lebeničnik, M., & Gačnik, M. (2018). Tablet game-supported speech therapy embedded in children’s popular practices. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(7), 693–702. https://doi-org.proxy-um.researchpor...X.2018.1474253

Zwaigenbaum L., Bryson S., Rogers T., et al. (2005). Behavioral manifestations of autism in the first year of life. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 143–152.

Image Credits

Figure 3.4.1: Kalyca Schultz. “Bilingual Child.” CC BY-SA 2.0, derivative image using Untitled Photograph (https://pxhere.com/en/photo/679270) by pxhere, CC0.

Figure 3.4.2: Longwood University. [Sign Language] CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

Figure 3.4.3: Longwood University. [Attunement] CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

Figure 3.4.4: Longwood University. [Dramatic Play] CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.