Content uploaded by Lillian K. Durán
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lillian K. Durán on Sep 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Effects of transitional bilingual education on Spanish-speaking preschoolers’ literacy and language development: Year 2 results
Abstract and Figures
Year 2 findings are reported from a longitudinal, experimental-control study involving 31 Spanish-speaking preschoolers (aged 38–48 months) randomly assigned to two Head Start classrooms. In Year 1, classrooms differed only in the language of instruction, with teachers using only Spanish in one classroom and only English in the other. In Year 2, an experimental transitional bilingual education (TBE) model was implemented, with English being gradually introduced in the TBE classroom until a ratio of 30:70 English-to-Spanish was achieved and Spanish being gradually introduced in the predominantly English (PE) classroom until a ratio of 70:30 English-to-Spanish was achieved. Year 2 results were consistent with Year 1, with the TBE classroom exceeding the PE classroom on all Spanish measures of language and literacy development and no significant differences favoring the PE classroom. Results also indicated that Year 2 trajectories were conditional on first-year effects, suggesting that sustained growth in dual language learner's early literacy may depend on early intervention among 3-year-old preschoolers.
Figures - uploaded by Lillian K. Durán
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Lillian K. Durán
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Bilingual approaches to the education of Spanish-speaking children have been found to promote higher English academic achievement and reading outcomes (Bialystok, 2018;Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006;Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005). Spanish language instruction has also been found to be necessary to maintain more typical trajectories of growth in Spanish as children in English-only programs have been shown to either plateau or decline (Durán, Roseth & Hoffman, 2015;Barnett, Yarosz, Thomas, Jung, & Blanco, 2007;Collins, 2014;Farver, Lonigan, & Eppe, 2009). This is concerning given that higher Spanish language and early literacy development has also been correlated with better academic and reading achievement in English (August & Shanahan, 2006;Bialystok, 2018;NASEM, 2017). ...
... Research on bilingual children spanning more than two decades has examined the extent to which oral language skills and reading skills in the L1 transfer to the child's reading comprehension skills in the L2 (e.g., Carlisle et al., 1999;Dufva & Voeten, 1999;Erdos et al., 2011;Gottardo et al., 2014;Nakamoto et al., 2008;Proctor et al., 2006;Swanson et al., 2008). In all studies, within-language relationships, especially between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension in the L2, were stronger than the cross-language relationships (e.g., Duran et al., 2015;Hwang et al., 2020;Kieffer, 2012, see Prevoo et al., 2016 for a review). Nonetheless, cross-language relationships facilitated biliteracy (for a review, see Uchikoshi & Marinova-Todd, 2019). ...
Parental level of education, instruction time, and amount of language practice that children receive have enhanced our understanding of how bilingual and multilingual children learn to comprehend text. Guided by the simple view of reading and the interdependence hypothesis, this longitudinal study conducted in Canadian French immersion programs examined the (a) within- and cross-language association between oral language skills and reading comprehension of bilingual English–French and multilingual children and (b) patterns of growth, while controlling for possible influences of parental level of education and methods of instruction on reading achievement. The sample included 150 children tested once at the beginning of Grade 4 (T1) and again at the end of Grade 4 (T2) and in Grade 6 (T3). Individual growth modeling revealed that bilingual and multilingual children showed similar development in oral language and reading skills across the timeframe. Moreover, growth in English and French reading comprehension was associated with within-language variables. English reading comprehension in Grade 4 was also associated with cross-language variables, including French listening comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Reading development in the second and third language is enhanced in contexts where classroom instruction, as well as social, economic, and educational opportunities to learn, is equivalent for all students.
... Research is unanimous in that bilingual education programs do not impede English language or literacy development for either English L1 or L2 students. Additionally, trends suggest that more Spanish instruction relates to favorable outcomes (Durán, Roseth, and Hoffman 2015). Fitzgerald and Relyea (2020) concluded that findings are mixed due to great variability in the programs and mechanisms of bilingual education, and the dearth of rigorous research on school-based bilingual education program characteristics and the development of language, literacy, and academic skills. ...
The present study examined the effect of children’s enrollment in dual-language immersion (DLI) programs in first grade on English development across 5 years, using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2011 (ECLS-K:2011) database. Propensity score matching was used to create comparable groups of DLI (N = 173; Mage = 6.59; 54% female; 81% Hispanic, 9% White, 1% Black) and non-DLI students based on students’ kindergarten reading performance and a series of student-, family-, and school-level characteristics. Growth curve models demonstrate that first-grade DLI enrollment had a positive effect on children’s English reading growth from Grade 1 to 5. Children who enrolled in DLI experienced greater improvements by Grade 5. We also found that first-grade teacher judgment was related to children’s initial reading performance but not their reading growth. Implications related to DLI programs, teacher practices, and bilingual educational policies are discussed.
... Seminal works in the field, along with a synthesis of research, show comparable findings, also indicating that emerging bilingual students not only benefit from instruction in both languages, but also that they specifically benefit from literacy instruction in their nativelanguage (August & Shanahan, 2006;Genesee & Riches, 2006;Gersten & Baker, 2000;Slavin & Cheung, 2003). Furthermore, research shows that early literacy instruction in both languages (as early as first grade) does not delay or confuse students in either language Durán et al., 2015;Slavin & Cheung, 2003;Sparrow et al., 2014;Soltero-González et al., 2016). ...
This paper is the first to examine the longitudinal results of six years of implementation of Literacy Squared, a biliteracy model for Spanish/English speaking emerging bilingual students. This model includes paired literacy instruction with grade-specific time allocations for Spanish literacy and literacy-based ELD. Furthermore, cross-language connections are a vital component. This study uses descriptive statistics and correlations to analyze Spanish and English reading and English language proficiency data on a cohort of 58 emerging bilingual Latino students in four schools as they moved from kindergarten through fifth grade. Data show gains in students’ biliterate development. Findings have implications for bilingual instructional programs and support the research that providing students with literacy instruction in two languages allows students to develop their literacy skills simultaneously. In doing so, their literacy development is not hindered in either language, and they have the opportunity to obtain advanced levels of English proficiency.
... However, the bilingual instruction can be offered in part-time segments or via code-switching (Barik & Swain, 1975;Duran et al., 2015). ...
The aim of the current systematic review and meta‐analysis is to comprehensively synthesize the effectiveness of language promotion interventions in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings on L1 and L2 development of dual language learners (DLLs). We will use the PICOC‐Strategy (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Context) suggested by Petticrew et al. to frame our research questions. Specifically, this review has the following research questions: (1) To which extent do language interventions accomplished in ECEC settings effect the L2 development (in the society language) of DLLs? (2) To which extent do bilingual language interventions (with L1 as language of instruction) accomplished in ECEC effect the L1 development (in the family language) of DLLs? (3) Are there significant differences in the effectiveness of different language interventions (additive vs. integrated vs. bilingual/two‐way‐immersion) to promote the L2 development of DLLs? (4) Are language interventions accomplished in ECEC settings more effective in supporting the L2 development (in the society language) of DLLs, when they start early in life (before the age of three)? (5) Are language interventions more effective in supporting the L2 development (in the society language) of DLLs when they are implemented with high fidelity/high quality? (6) Are language interventions with teachers as implementers more effective in supporting the L2 development (in the society language) of DLLs than language interventions with external implementers? (7) Are language interventions with higher intervention dosage (exposure × attention) more effective in supporting the L2 development (in the society language) of DLLs?
... Most studies investigated language learning for younger emergent bilinguals with language impairments. Studies including emergent bilingual children considered "at risk" (i.e., students thought to be at risk for disability diagnosis) have also illustrated that home language and bilingual instruction tend to result in same or better outcomes compared to instruction without the use of the home language (e.g., Durán, Roseth, and Hoffman 2014). Importantly, evidence suggests that these students can also be included in general education environments rather than being segregated to special education rooms and programs (Cheatham and Hart-Barnett 2017). 1 Some parents may not want their children to learn their home language, erroneously believing that bilingualism causes or contributes to developmental problems, that two languages are too difficult, or that bilingualism is not needed (Cheatham and Hart-Barnett 2017). ...
In this chapter, we focus on a critical social variable in the lives of students who are emergent bilinguals – education – in relation to home language maintenance. First, we briefly review myths regarding emergent bilingual students who are labeled as having a disability. Next, we discuss challenges for schools regarding home language maintenance through a nexus of the medical model of disability and deficit discourses for minority students. In so doing, we advance an alternative conception of emergent bilingual students using the social model of disability as an equity-oriented paradigm. This approach holds promise for home language maintenance for emergent bilingual students with and without a disability diagnosis. Here, we focus on students who are emergent bilinguals with reference to learning disabilities (LD), which is the most commonly diagnosed disability for emergent bilingual students in the U.S. Additionally, our discussion primarily focuses on U.S. schools and students although the findings may be of interest for researchers and educators in other geographic contexts.
This article explores preservice teachers’ (PSTs), use of a translation app with dual language learners (DLLs). The TPACK (technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge) framework serves as the conceptual framework for the study in order to explore how PSTs integrated technology use with their current pedagogical and content knowledge. The PSTs taught three lessons in which they integrated the Speak & Translate app (S&T). After each lesson, the PSTs completed a reflection that focused on the use, successes, and challenges of the app integration. Through qualitative coding methods, the results revealed that PSTs primarily used the app to translate key vocabulary. The results also revealed positive changes in DLLs’ engagement and behaviors when the app was used. Further investigation into PSTs’ use of translation apps with DLLs holds promising potential for successful technology integration in the school setting.
Children who are dual language learners (DLLs) often have more difficulty acquiring English early literacy skills than their English monolingual peers. Much remains to be learned about efficacious early literacy instructional interventions and their effects on English early literacy skills of DLLs. The purposes of this systematic review were to describe key features of English early literacy interventions provided to children who were DLLs and their effects on English early literacy skills. We conducted an electronic database search and used additional methods to identify 25 studies. Studies varied in defining and characterizing children who were DLLs, including whether they were simultaneous versus sequential DLLs and how information was gathered about primary and secondary language exposure. Use of bilingual and monolingual instruction showed promise for enhancing English early literacy skills, although mixed findings were common when both language and code-related outcomes were measured. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
As the population of young children from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds growsin the U.S., so too does awareness of the need for interventions to promote their language developmentand reduce the “word gap.” This synthesis described and analyzed studies examining interventions forimproving language outcomes for young, CLD children (birth through age 5). The purpose was to discusshow cultural and linguistic factors were addressed in the interventions, examine the methodological rigorof the studies, identify the outcomes and measures used, determine the efficacy of the interventions onlanguage skills in English and in children’s home language(s), and describe the reported social validity ofthe interventions. Forty articles reporting on 41 studies met inclusionary criteria. Interventions focusedon four areas: explicit instruction on targeted skills; classroom curriculum interventions; interactive book reading and/or book making interventions; and naturalistic, routines-based interventions. Most interven-tions were delivered to children above age 3 who were from Latino and/or Spanish-speaking backgrounds.Also, linguistic adaptations (primarily in Spanish) were more common in interventions as compared to cultural adaptations. Vocabulary was the most common outcome targeted, with a wide variety of mea-sures used across studies. Most interventions had positive effects in English and/or a language otherthan English particularly when the interventions were linguistically- and culturally-responsive. Severalcultural or linguistic factors were also identified as variables affecting intervention fidelity, engagement,and effects. Limitations of the current research base and implications for practice are discussed.
This book sets a high standard for rigor and scientific approach to the study of bilingualism and provides new insights regarding the critical issues of theory and practice, including the interdependence of linguistic knowledge in bilinguals, the role of socioeconomic status, the effect of different language usage patterns in the home, and the role of schooling by single-language immersion as opposed to systematic training in both home and target languages. The rich landscape of outcomes reported in the volume will provide a frame for interpretation and understanding of effects of bilingualism for years to come.
This book shows readers how to conduct observational methods, research tools used to describe and explain behaviors as they unfold in everyday settings. The book now uses both an evolutionary and a cultural perspective. The methods presented are drawn from psychology, education, family studies, sociology, and anthropology, but the author’s primary focus is on children in school, family, and social settings. Readers learn how to make observations in real contexts to help them create a verbal picture of behaviors they see. The importance of considering reliability and validity factors while testing within each environment is emphasized throughout. The author draws from the literature that provides methods for observing animals in their natural habitats, but emphasizes the use of observational methods to solve human problems. The book is organized in the way a researcher conducts observational studies—conceptualizing of the idea, designing and implementing the study, and writing the report. “Things to think about” sections provide an opportunity for students to solidify their understanding of the material and the Glossary defines the key terms introduced in the book.