2/04/2014

1

Links between Language

& Social Disadvantage

Patricia Eadie, PhDPatricia Eadie, PhDPatricia Eadie, PhDPatricia Eadie, PhD

Dept Audiology & Speech PathologyDept Audiology & Speech PathologyDept Audiology & Speech PathologyDept Audiology & Speech Pathology

peadie@unimelb.edu.au

AEDI Master Class: February 2014

Typical Language Learning

� for the majority of children is robust & occurs

effortlessly

� emerges through social interaction with

caregivers in the child’s environment

Increasingly seen to be strongly affected by

relatively small shifts in the details of the

environment

for example, conversational exchange or social-emotional

engagement

2/04/2014

2

Language Development & Outcomes

Risk & Protective

Factors:

leading to poorer

developmental

outcomes

Subsequent

outcomes in other

developmental

domains

Language

Delay/

Language

Impairment

Language delay is both the outcome of potential risk factors and and and and

a risk factor itself for poorer outcomes in other developmental

domains.

Long History of Associations between

Language & Social Disadvantage

� Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. (1955). Social Class and

Modes of Communication. American Journal of Sociology,

60(4), 329-338

� Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the

everyday experience of young american children.

2/04/2014

3

Estimated cumulative differences in language experience by 4 years of age.

Reproduced from Hart & Risley (1995)

Continued debate regarding the association

between Language and social disadvantage

� Nelson, K. E., Welsh, J. A., Trup, E. M. V., & Greenberg, M. T.

(2011). Language delays of impoverished preschool children

in relation to early academic and emotion recognition skills.

First Language, 31(2), 164-194

� Roy, P. & Chiat, S. (2012) Teasing apart disadvantage from

disorder: the case of poor language. In C. Marshall (Ed)

Current Issues in Developmental Psychology, Springer

Publishing

� Dorothy Bishop blog: Parent Talk & Child Language

• http://deevybee.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/parent-talk-

and-child-language.html#comment-form

2/04/2014

4

Understanding Social Disadvantage

� Not all socially disadvantaged children have poorer outcomes; increased likelihoodincreased likelihoodincreased likelihoodincreased likelihood

� Outcomes likely to be poorer when compared to children of higher socioeconomic groups

� Poor outcome more likely to represent low average low average low average low average performance performance performance performance than performance in the clinical range

� Multiple risk factor models – lower SES groups also experience greater levels of poor prenatal care, exposure to violence/abuse, inadequate nutrition

Prevalence of language difficulties in

disadvantaged cohorts of children

StudyStudyStudyStudy Prevalence of Language DifficultiesPrevalence of Language DifficultiesPrevalence of Language DifficultiesPrevalence of Language Difficulties

(≤(≤(≤(≤----1sd)1sd)1sd)1sd)

USA Head Start (Preschool) CohortNelson et al (2011)

32.7%

Scottish Primary School Cohort Law et al (2011)

40%

Longitudinal cohort studies of children

across the spectrum of SES (at 7yrs)7-18%

2/04/2014

5

What predicts language outcome across the

SES spectrum in different studies?

2 years 4 years

Late Talker Low Language

Predictor

Gender ���� ����

Family history ���� ����

Birth order ����

NESB ���� ����

Mat education ����

Maternal vocabulary ����

Birth Weight ����

SES (social disadvantage) ����

Social Disadvantage & Language Outcomes

18months/2 years18months/2 years18months/2 years18months/2 years 4/5 years4/5 years4/5 years4/5 years

Late TalkerLate TalkerLate TalkerLate Talker

Low Language Assessed/Low Language Assessed/Low Language Assessed/Low Language Assessed/

Parent Report of Language Parent Report of Language Parent Report of Language Parent Report of Language

DifficultiesDifficultiesDifficultiesDifficulties

StudyStudyStudyStudy

Early Language in Victoria Study

(ELVS) (Reilly et al 2007 & 2010)̶ ����

Looking at Language (LaL) (Zubrick

et al 2007 & Rice et al 2008)̶ ̶

Longitudinal Study of Australian

Children (LSAC) (Harrison et al 2010)

n/a ����

Norwegian Mother & Baby Cohort

Study (MoBa) (Schjolberg et al 2011 &

Zambrana et al 2013)

���� ����

Millenium Cohort Study

(Law et al 2012)

n/a ����

2/04/2014

6

THE EARLY LANGUAGE IN VICTORIA STUDY

A prospective study of the evolution of language impairment

and literacy problems across the first 13 years of life

Funded by the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC)

2003-7, 2007-10, 2013-2016

Trajectories

Pathways to language outcomes:

• Used to identify classes/groups exhibiting

distinct communication development profiles

• Each profile represents the average average average average

trajectory of development for children in a

given group rather than the trajectory

followed by every individual child

Ukoumunne, O. C., Wake, M., Carlin, J., Bavin, E. L., Lum, J., Skeat, J., . . . Reilly, S. (2012). Profiles of language development in

pre-school children: a longitudinal latent class analysis of data from the Early Language in Victoria Study. Child Care Health Dev,

38(3), 341-349

2/04/2014

7

Profiles of Language Development:

Social Disadvantage

• Characteristics in families that indicate

social advantage are found most

commonly in groups with improving

profiles – suggesting a greater need for

language enrichment interventions in

disadvantaged communities

2/04/2014

8

Narrowing the Disadvantage Gap: Rethinking Speech Pathology Services for

Vulnerable Children

Response to Intervention Approach

All Children:All Children:All Children:All Children:Oral Language Supporting Early

Literacy

Vulnerable Children: Vulnerable Children: Vulnerable Children: Vulnerable Children:

Targeted Risk Group Interventions

Children with Additional needsChildren with Additional needsChildren with Additional needsChildren with Additional needs:

1:1 speech pathology

Parent based interventions

2/04/2014

9

Public health framework :

Language Competence and Early Literacy

� Language competence as a protective factor in early

life� Development of prosocial skills

� Development of problem solving skills

� Links with social abilities

� Underpins the transition to literacy & academic

achievement

� Impacted by social disadvantage - AEDI

� Education as a public health intervention� Critical developmental window to maximise

� Learning to Read versus Reading to Learn

� Positive feedback loop between literacy and oral language

• Catholic Education Commission

of Victoria

– University of Melbourne

– Monash University

• Funded by Department of Education,

Employment and Workplace

Relations (DEEWR), through the

Literacy & Numeracy Pilots scheme.

OOOOral

LLLLanguage

SSSSupporting

EEEEarly

LLLLiteracy

2/04/2014

10

Aim:

To determine whether teacher Professional

Development with a specific focus on oral

language competence in the first two years of

primary school in low SES schools would result

in improved oral language and early reading

abilities.

Structure of the OLSEL Intervention

WhenWhenWhenWhen WhoWhoWhoWho PD FocusPD FocusPD FocusPD Focus

Yr 1 Early Teachers,

Principals &

OLSEL Coordinators

6 Days of PD

•Framework for the intervention x 3 days

(ICPALER)

•Implications for the classroom

•Four elements introduced that were the focus

of oral language

•Assessment & Evaluation

Yr 1 Late Teachers,

Principals &

OLSEL coordinators

School Presentations of work achieved to date.

Yr 2 Early Teachers,

Principals &

OLSEL Coordinators

Review x 2 days

2/04/2014

11

Language & Literacy Outcomes by School Language & Literacy Outcomes by School Language & Literacy Outcomes by School Language & Literacy Outcomes by School

• Significant gains for children in OLSEL schools on

reading and standardised language measures, and on

the omnibus measure of story grammar.

• Educationally significant gains were also found with

subgroup comparisons of

• children from lower SES (EMA)

• children from Language Backgrounds Other than English

• OLSEL provided a better start for oral language and

literacy for the children in Prep-Yr 2 in the schools

where it was implemented

2/04/2014

12

Rationale CPOL builds on the pilot work of the OLSEL project and

focuses on 3 areas of policy-relevant research:

1. The importance of the early years of school (Prep to

Grade 3) as an opportunity to shift children’s

developmental pathways

2. The importance of teacher quality for children’s

academic outcomes

3. The intrinsic relationship between oral language skills

and future literacy, numeracy and social development.

2/04/2014

13

CPOL CollaboratorsThe University of Melbourne Associate Professor Sharon Goldfeld

Associate Professor John Munro

Dr Patricia Eadie

Murdoch Childrens Research

Institute

Professor Frank Oberklaid

Dr Kate Lee

The Royal Children’s Hospital

Education Institute

Mr Tony Barnett

Dr Liza Hopkins

Monash University Associate Professor Pamela Snow

Catholic Education Commission of

Victoria

Judy Connell and

Brenda Andersen-Dalheim

Victorian Government Department

of Education and Early Childhood

Development

Chris Thompson

Jenny Schenk

Gail Inniss

Deakin University Associate Professor Lisa Gold

Nelson et al (2011)Nelson et al (2011)Nelson et al (2011)Nelson et al (2011)

“given the high prevalence of language delays

(in children from low SES backgrounds) and

strong associations of language levels to

multiple skills important for school

readiness......

intervention, education and clinical service intervention, education and clinical service intervention, education and clinical service intervention, education and clinical service

programsprogramsprogramsprograms need to expand the use of high-quality

and high-quantity language teaching and

language therapy procedures”