Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of childhood bilingualism

ABSTRACT

The value of learning multiple languages has increased in the past 20 years. Despite this, some professionals continue to provide misinformation about bilingualism to many families around the United States, resulting in recommendations of implementing a monolingual approach for children. This study investigated the perceptions held by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) regarding childhood bilingualism. A total of 320 SLPs completed a survey stating their perceptions on childhood bilingualism for typically developing children and children with disabilities. Based on the number of responses, 292 participants were analysed quantitatively utilising a binary logistic regression to identify whether SLPs thought childhood bilingualism was advantageous or neutral, while incorporating the predictors of bilingual status and bilingualism education received. Additionally, a qualitative content analysis was conducted on 173 participants’ responses to an open-ended question about their perceptions on childhood bilingualism. Results revealed that SLPs’ bilingual status did not predict the probability of an advantageous perception for typically developing children, but it did for children with disabilities; however, SLPs who had received bilingualism education had a higher probability of having advantageous perceptions in both populations. Qualitative results revealed the use of appraisals related to multiple themes. This study served to understand the thoughts of SLPs in relation to the education they are providing to parents and the services they are providing to different populations – whether it be typically developing children or children with disabilities. There are implications for bilingual and cultural-linguistic education to be implemented across graduate programmes to ensure that optimal services are provided to the diverse groups in our case loads.

KEYWORDS:

• Bilingualism
• perceptions
• speech-language pathologists
• children with disabilities

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported that there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.