L1 Mediation in L2 Word Recall: Arabic Use Among Jordanian Primary School Students

The object of research: Contemporary research suggests the use of an instructional language different from students’ home language as a major contributing factor to academic underachievement. This has also been the case in Gwanda South, Zimbabwe, where Sesotho speaking secondary school learners are taught through English only and have been underperforming. Analysts have suggested the use of a language different from their learners’ home language as the major cause of academic underachievement. Investigated problem: This study explores how concurrent use of multiple languages can enhance learning in a bilingual community. Results from national examinations show learners from Gwanda South perform comparatively lower than most districts in the country, resulting in calls for transformative pedagogy. This mixed methods study used a descriptive survey design that opted for face-to-face interviews and questionnaires to collect data from 120 secondary school learners, 20 parents, 20 teachers, 10 head teachers and 10 Teachers-in-Charge. Convenience sampling was used to identify participants. The main scientific results: Results from the study indicate participants’ willingness for pedagogies that acknowledge multiple languages. They also indicate an enhanced academic performance among students when the TDS model is used for pedagogical purposes. As a result, the article introduces a model that is being proposed and recommended for use in bilingual settings, called The Dual System (TDS) Model. The TDS Model has a number of variables that make it operate effectively and efficiently. Its basis is two languages in an environment and community with a keen interest in the successful use of those languages in the classroom. Both teacher and learner ought to be tuned to dual language use and to accept full roles for both languages in the classroom. Translanguaging then is a key element that defines academic activities. Bilingual education where Sesotho and English are key classroom languages is recommended for Gwanda South, Matabeleland South, Zimbabwe. The area of practical use of the research results: The TDS Model has a number of variables that make it operate effectively and efficiently. Its basis is two languages in an environment and community with a keen interest in the successful use of those languages in the classroom. Both teacher and learner ought to be tuned to dual language use and to accept full roles for both languages in the classroom. Translanguaging then is a key element that defines academic activities. Bilingual education where Sesotho and English are key classroom languages is recommended for Gwanda South, Matabeleland South, Zimbabwe

Aim: To explore Vietnamese–Australian children’s proficiency and use of Vietnamese and English and identify associated factors that are related to demographics, language practices, language ideologies, and language management. Methodology: Vietnamese–Australian parents ( n = 151) completed a questionnaire (in English or Vietnamese) regarding their child’s language proficiency and use, demographic details and a range of factors as conceptualized by Spolsky’s language policy theory: language practices; language ideologies; and language management. Data and analysis: Bivariate analyses (Pearson’s correlation and analysis of variance) and multiple regression models were conducted to explore associations between language proficiency and use and associated factors and identify the most significant factors. Findings/conclusions: Factors associated with children’s Vietnamese language proficiency (oral/written) included: demographic factors; language practices; language ideologies; and language management. In contrast, children’s English language proficiency (oral/written) was linked to demographic factors and language practices. Children’s Vietnamese language use was not significantly correlated with demographics but rather with language practices, language ideologies, and language management. Children’s home language use and proficiency did not have a negative impact upon their English proficiency. Originality: This study is the first to consider factors associated with Vietnamese–Australian children’s language proficiency and use. Significance/implications: Demographic factors, language practices, language ideologies, and language management were associated with children’s language proficiency and use. The results can be used by parents, educators, policy-makers, speech–language pathologists and other professionals to support Vietnamese–Australian and multilingual children around the world to develop and maintain their home and majority languages.

The domain of bilingual education is unusually broad, as it encompasses all the dimensions of monolingual education, with the added aspect of the use of two languages as media of instruction. Making matters even more complex, the populations served by bilingual education in the United States differ significantly in character, in educational needs, and in corresponding use of bilingual instruction. For one group, the limitedand non-Englishspeaking (LES/NES) minority children who are dominant in their home language, bilingual education is viewed as necessary for academic survival-to ensure students' conceptual growth and to facilitate the learning of English. For the second group, the balanced-bilingual-linguistic-minority population (those who may have once been LES/NES but who have reached a level of English proficiency equivalent to that of their first language), bilingual education is seen as providing a means for maintaining continued development of the student's home language, thereby facilitating foreign study required in later school years, as well as providing continuity between home and school. For the third group, the English-dominant-linguistic-minority students (those students who may have once been dominant in their home language but who have since lost much of it, or who never acquired the l nguage of their parents and grandparnts), bilingual education is a vehicle to the reacquisition and revitalization of their home language and culture. For the fourth group, the native-English-speaking-linguistic-majority group students (the Anglo-Americans, and Black Americans in our schools), bilingual education is seen as an enrichment of the children's educational experience by providing them exposure to another language and culture early in life. The past decade of discussion and debate has made clear the need for bilingual education felt by each group. For this brief paper, however, the focus is on the research needs in bilingual education for only one of the groups; the limitedand

To gain a better understanding of the impact of students’ home languages and cultural experiences on reading and writing instruction, the instructional methods and materials that best supported these students’ emerging bilingualism, and the contributions of their families in their utilization of their home languages and cultural experiences in a school setting. Mixed methods provided data on the literacy development in both home and school languages of three first-grade Latino students who were non-native English speakers enrolled in a school literacy intervention program for 12 to 20 weeks. The students’ confidence and motivation within their reading and writing instruction improved greatly with the encouragement of the use of their home languages and cultural experiences. All three students showed gains in speaking, reading, and writing in both their home and school languages. They made solid and useful connections between the languages and the texts, and drew upon their cultural experiences, which strengthened their reading and writing strategies in both languages. Involving the children’s families in lessons and in activities at school, and supporting their use of reading and writing at home, helped build relationships among the participants, families, and school faculty. This contributed to the beginnings of new understandings on the part of the school’s teachers and administration. Students need to have the space to use their home languages and cultural experiences in school, and I describe how educators in varied educational settings can replicate the same kinds of methods, materials, and support I offered to these students. I also describe suggested ways that teachers and administrators could include the knowledge of emergent bilingual families within the life of the school to further expand all students’ learning and promote social justice in the classroom setting.

Background/Context Relying largely on high school measures of home language use, the literature examining immigrant incorporation in schools provides contradictory evidence of home language effects on educational outcomes. More recent research has demonstrated that home language use is dynamic and thus it is important to examine the implications of elementary school home language, as opposed to the typically used high school home language, as a factor influencing various school processes. We argue that it is also necessary to take into account school-related language contexts when considering the experiences of Latino immigrant students. Purpose This study investigates the effects of early acculturation, measured by elementary school language, immigrant generation, and early linguistic experiences on high school completion. Research Design Using hierarchical generalized linear models, we test the effects of elementary home language, immigrant generation, early language classification, and middle school concentration of English Learners (EL) on the probability of high school completion for a cohort of Latino students in a large urban school district (N = 26,487). Findings Consistent with some of the existing research, this study finds that speaking Spanish at home in the elementary school years has positive effects on high school completion. Moreover, for Spanish speakers, having been reclassified as English-fluent before sixth grade and having attended middle schools with lower concentrations of EL students increases the probability of high school completion. Conclusions These findings suggest that taking into account earlier schooling processes and contexts in discussions about the influence of home language on academic achievement broaden the scope of accountability for educating immigrant students.

Inclusion of home languages during early childhood instructional conversations

Research suggests that by allowing English Learner (EL) students to use their home languages in science class, they can better express their thinking and build content knowledge through underlying crosslinguistic awareness between languages. However, EL students’ educational backgrounds and home languages are incredibly varied. In this case study, we employ grounded theory to explore students' perceptions of their experiences in the context of a Physical Science and Language Development class [10]. We use a phenomenological approach to describe how the students experience their home language within this model of a science and language development class. Observation data, online video assignments, and small group, semi-structured interviews were used to find themes related to experiences of using home language in science class. The findings indicate varied student perspectives on the use of their home languages in science class. Some students preferred to use class time to practice using English, while others found value in using their home languages to help better understand science concepts. Student ideologies regarding English-only or multilingual practices for EL students varied. The findings also indicated that providing an opportunity for EL students to use their home languages in an asynchronous online communication platform outside of class was an effective strategy to allow time for students to practice English during science class, yet provide an opportunity to translate between home languages and English.

This qualitative study was undertaken against the backdrop of rapidly increasing levels of immigration to Ireland and a subsequent growing increase in the percentage of children attending Irish primary schools with a first language other than English or Irish, the two official languages of the country. The research investigates the attitudes of a group of first generation minority language children, of various ethnic backgrounds, to home language maintenance and development as well as their experiences of home language use both in school and in the family home. Data were collected from 17 minority language children, aged between 10 and 13 years and living in Ireland for a period of between three and seven years. Data collection methods included focus group interviews and semi-structured individual interviews, during which participants expressed beliefs, opinions and attitudes surrounding language practices. Interviews conducted with four parents of the child participants provided additional data. In addition, an interview with the teacher of a complementary language school for Polish children highlighted the efforts made by the Polish community; the largest non-Irish group in Ireland, to promote home language maintenance in the family. The data show that while the majority of children and parents display positive attitudes to home language maintenance and development, children face challenges in continuing to develop the literacy skills in the home language. The importance of maintaining and continuing to develop the home language for continued communication with extended family members is clear. The need for familial support in relation to the opportunities children have to engage in home language learning is evident. The perceptions of English as a global language and as a valuable asset were evident among both children and parents. There is no provision made for the formal learning of home languages to children in Ireland, and the only opportunity for children to do so is limited to privately run complementary schools, which are not always accessible to all nationalities. Concerns of children and parents regarding continued development in the home language are voiced, and in most cases, these concerns are borne out of a possible return to their native countries.

Biliteracy and Second-Language Learners

The influence of home language use differing from the dominant language used in schools on children's school adaptation remains inconclusive. Therefore, the current study aims to explore the structural relationships among the support for the foreign mother’s home language in Korean multicultural families, mother-child communication, mother’s parental efficacy, mother-child relationships, and child’s school adaptation, utilizing data from Korea’s 2021 National Survey of Multicultural Families. The results of the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) are as follows: The relationship between the mother’s home language supportive home environment and the school adaptation of adolescent children was mediated by the mother-child relationship and mother’s parental efficacy but was not mediated by the communication between a mother and a child. Furthermore, the dual mediating effects between the support for a mother’s home language and a child’s school adaptation in two pathways were all statistically significant. The more supportive the family is of the foreign mother’s use of her home language, the more it leads to mother’s improved parental efficacy or frequent mother-child communication, which in turn fosters a positive parent-child relationship, ultimately contributing to the child’s better school adaptation, including academic achievement. In a context where findings on the influence of non-dominant language use in immigrant families on children's school adaptation had yielded mixed results, this study holds significance by not only supporting the positive influence of foreign mothers’home language use but also by identifying the pathways through which the mother’s home language use contributes to the child’s school adaptation.

Dual language learners (DLLs), especially those from immigrant families in the United States, risk losing their home language as they gradually shift to speaking English as they grow up. Given the potential benefits of bilingualism on children’s cognitive, linguistic, and social–emotional development, it is crucial to maintain children’s home language to foster bilingual development. The current literature suggests that parental beliefs toward bilingualism and the language and literacy environment are linked to children’s language development. With the growing number of DLLs living in the United States, little is known about what parental beliefs about bilingualism of their children are integrated into these bilingual households and parents’ role in home language maintenance. The present study addresses the gap in the literature by investigating low-income immigrant families, specifically Chinese American and Mexican American families, and exploring the parental perceptions of children’s bilingual language learning. Further, the present study examines the relations among parental perceptions of bilingualism, home language and literacy practices, and home language oral proficiency. Data were collected from a total of 41 Mexican American and 91 Chinese American low-income immigrant families with DLLs ages 50–88 months who had been recruited from Head Start programs and state-funded preschools in Northern California when the children were 3–4 years old. Information about shared reading frequency, home language exposure and usage, and parental perceptions of bilingualism was collected through parental interviews, and DLLs’ home language oral proficiency was individually assessed. No significant difference in home language oral proficiency was observed between the two groups. Principal Components Analysis on the parental perceptions of bilingualism measure revealed two components, “Importance of Being Bilingual” and “English over Bilingualism.” Stepwise regression analysis results show that “Importance of Being Bilingual” was associated with children’s home language oral proficiency after controlling for culture, child age, the frequency of home language shared book reading, and child home language exposure and use. The results show that parents’ positive beliefs toward bilingualism are related to the children’s use of that language and their children’s language outcomes. Implications and suggestions for home language and literacy support for DLLs are discussed.

Home language experiences are important for children’s development of language and literacy. However, the home language context is complex, especially for Spanish-speaking children in the United States. A child’s use of Spanish or English likely ranges along a continuum, influenced by preferences of particular people involved, such as parents, siblings, or friends. Moreover, there are likely differences across social contexts represented by the classroom—teachers, educational programs, and economic situations—which could be important to understand. The current article tests confirmatory empirical models for Spanish versus English language use in the homes of 1,115 Spanish-speaking children and how this use relates to home learning activities and kindergarten children’s language and literacy skills. The results show that although overall balance of family language use relates to home language and literacy activities as well as children’s kindergarten language and literacy skills, language use by individual family members is also related to some home learning activities and children’s skills.

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Feb 2008Second Language Acquisition: Success Factors in Sequential Bilingualism Kathryn Kohnert Kathryn Kohnert Google Scholar https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.13022008.10 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Second-language (L2) acquisition may begin at almost any age or life stage. For some, L2 acquisition begins in childhood in educational programs that use a language different from that spoken at home. For others, L2 learning begins with visits or immigration to another country. In all instances, L2 learners vary in their maturational states, first language (L1) ability, world experience, and reasons for L2 acquisition. English is the most widely spoken L2 both nationally and globally. In the United States, native speakers of Spanish, Vietnamese, Urdu, Hmong, and Russian—among 100 other languages—acquire English as L2 during childhood, adolescence, or beyond. Conversely, increasing numbers of native English-speakers in the United States strive to learn Spanish, Chinese, American Sign Language, French, Japanese, Arabic, or one of many other second languages. Most individuals acquiring L2 continue to need L1. In Minnesota, for example, native English-speaking children who attend educational immersion programs in Chinese continue to develop their English skills, and native Spanish-speakers use L1 to communicate with family members and English (L2) in educational or vocational settings. Both L1 and L2 are tools that serve complementary and sometimes overlapping functions. In recognition of this phenomenon, L2 learners are also referred to as "sequential bilinguals"—individuals with consistent experience in one language beginning at birth, who then acquire L2 at some point in their lives. A number of practical questions span the margins of typical and atypical sequential language learning and use. Questions with the broadest clinical implications are: What factors facilitate or challenge sequential bilingualism? How should language planning proceed in less than optimal conditions? MOM: Means, Opportunity and Motive The same interacting factors that contribute to L1 success are at play in successful sequential bilingualism. MOM—means, opportunities, and motive—affect the mastery and maintenance of any complex behavior. Means refers to learner-internal resources; those that affect language include the integrity of the cognitive, sensory, social, emotional, and neurobiological systems. Any developmental or acquired breach in the integrity of one or more of these systems that present challenges to L1 learning also affect L2 acquisition and use. Opportunities refer to social factors, including the availability of rich language in the environment and diverse opportunities to develop and use a particular language for meaningful communicative interactions. Language opportunities come in spoken or written form, and through private channels or public media. Potential language-use environments are home, school, work, health clubs, or cyberspace. Purposes of L1 and L2 are described as personal, educational or vocational, formal or informal, and spoken or written. Partners in these environments are family members, classmates, colleagues, friends, neighbors, community professionals, and other individuals (store clerk, bank teller, bus driver) encountered in daily life. Increased opportunities to use L1 or L2 for meaningful interactions facilitate ability in that language. Limited opportunities or experiences in either L1 or L2 will stifle development or ability in that language. Reduced outcomes or even declines in a single language because of limited opportunities are considered non-pathological—a natural consequence of evolving circumstances (e.g., Anderson, 2004; de Bot & Makoni, 2005; Jia & Aaronson, 2003; Montrul, 2005; Schmid, 2003; see Kohnert, 2008). The final "M" in "MOM" refers to motive. Motive reflects interactions between internal and external resources—between environmental needs and opportunities as well as personal preferences inextricably linked to social contexts. In its broadest sense, language is a tool used in the service of communicative interactions allowing things never before said to be uttered and understood. Given individuals' innate predisposition to communicate with other conspecies (belonging to the same genus), the language spoken by those in our social networks may be considered the tool of choice to give and receive information. For individuals who speak two languages, motive may interact with both partners and purposes—one language may be preferred to communicate with a parent or child, another to complete a business transaction. For both older and younger bilingual individuals, motive and opportunities to use language for rich, meaningful interactions tend to go hand-in-hand. Another aspect of motive is the social status or prestige associated with different languages. As the most valuable currency in the United States, English looms large in terms of motivation. Not only do young immigrants in this country learn English within a single generation (e.g., Kohnert & Bates, 2002), but many third-generation immigrants speak only English, with little or no ability in the language of their grandparents (Alba, Logan, Lutz, & Stults, 2002). The social, political, and economic clout of English is one reason why children who speak English at home as L1 and attend primary foreign-language immersion educational programs are not in jeopardy of reduced L1 outcomes. On the contrary, majority-language children attending L2 immersion educational programs show high levels of language and academic achievement in both L1 and L2 (Genesee, 2004). For some minority L1 speakers in the United States, the power and prestige of English undercut the value and subsequent motivation to use L1, at least for youth who are also shifting their primary sphere of social influence from family to peers and to the broader community. The net result in some cases is monolingualism in English instead of proficiency in both home and community languages. Although some have argued that ability in the mainstream community language trumps all others, sociologists have shown that increased ability in a minority home language (L1) in addition to proficiency in the community L2 increases academic aspirations and achievement in immigrant youth beyond those of peers who speak only English (see Schmid, 2001, for review). Increased social value for both languages spoken by sequential bilinguals seems needed to counter this trend. Thus when MOM is sufficient, ability in both L1 and L2 will be developed and maintained. When one or more aspects of MOM is weak, either language—or both—may be affected. Low proficiency in either language because of reduced opportunities or motivation is consistent with typical sequential bilingualism. Reduced proficiency in both languages because of developmental delays, disease, or injury is not typical and comes under the purview of speech-language pathologists and audiologists. These cases of atypical sequential bilingualism require a different approach to language planning. Reduced Means and Language Planning The range of communication disorders affecting the monolingual population also affects sequential bilinguals, most likely in similar numbers. Indeed, L2 learners are a common denominator within the broader discipline of communication sciences and disorders—they are present in all settings (outpatient clinics, schools, university clinics, hospitals, or private practice) and in all diagnostic categories (such as late talkers, hearing loss, stuttering, or traumatic brain injury). For example, a subset of individuals who learn L2 lag behind peers in L1 because of weaknesses in the internal systems that support speech and language. Other individuals who learned two languages beginning at different life stages may acquire communication disorders as a result of disease, injury, or aging. When faced with diminished adequate means, how should long-term language planning proceed? Questions related to long-term language planning at the intersection of sequential bilingualism and communication disorders can be addressed in at least two ways. One is to consider what is possible and another is to ask what is desirable. In terms of possibilities, the issue is whether individuals can learn, recover, or use two different languages to functional levels commensurate with monolingual individuals who have similar system weaknesses. Can a child with severe hearing loss and cochlear implants learn Hebrew (L2) in addition to his or her native English? Can a 71-year-old man recover functional access to two different languages following stroke-induced aphasia? Can an adolescent who stutters be proficient in his native Russian as well as English (L2)? Can children with primary developmental language impairment learn one language at home and another language at school to levels comparable to those of monolingual peers with language impairment? The answer to all of these questions seems to be a resounding yes (cf., Håkansson, Salameh, & Nettelbladt, 2003; Kohnert, 2004; Bernstein Ratner, 2004; Robbins, Green, & Waltzman, 2004). The human capacity to acquire and use two or more languages seems so robust that even when learner-internal mechanisms go awry, bilingualism is possible given sufficient opportunities and motivation. It is also true, of course, that the underlying deficit will manifest in both L1 and L2. Given the feasibility of attaining two languages to some level—even when means are weak—we can then consider the desirability of or motivations for such an endeavor, given that enriched opportunities are needed to support both. Are there personal, social, or vocational advantages to functional skills in two different languages that warrant providing opportunities and support in both? Sometimes a little vetting is needed to determine past, present, and anticipated future roles for L1 and L2 on the bigger life stage for the client and his or her family. Are both languages needed for meaningful communication in different settings, with different partners? Can one language be sacrificed without compromising the person's quality of life, in terms of personal relationships or social or professional aspirations? Or, because of natural life circumstances, are two different languages—two different social tools—needed to communicate across the range of environments in which the individual functions? This need is clearly the case for individuals living in the United States who speak a minority L1 (such as Vietnamese, Spanish, or Korean) with life partners and English (L2) in educational, vocational, or rehabilitation settings. The level of proficiency needed in L1 and L2 will vary considerably based on different patterns of use across these settings. Potential Gains and Losses Sometimes, engaging in L2 acquisition seems more a matter of choice than circumstance, as when the majority community language also is spoken by the client's family. In these cases, it is useful to consider what is potentially gained or lost by engaging in the L2 acquisition process. For example, are there advantages for engaging in developing any complex skill, even if mastery or elite status is not anticipated? Should adults of various ages take up jogging, at whatever pace, despite little chance of completing the Boston marathon in less than four hours? Should children with varying degrees of physical coordination, artistic ability, or math aptitude be encouraged to engage in youth sports, watercolor painting, or algebra? Clearly, society encourages participation at all skill levels. Participants in these activities implicitly add significant value to their lives through improved health, creativity, or social engagement. Some level of learning will take place with practice, adding to a knowledge base that supports—rather than detracts from—other abilities. We can perhaps extend this perspective to language—should L2 opportunities be reserved only for those who demonstrate the greatest facility or potential in language? Will the addition of another language support or detract from overall communicative abilities? Consider Tamia, a 20-year-old international exchange student I met during her year of study at the University of Minnesota. Tamia was born and raised in Japan, with Japanese as L1. She had a severe bilateral hearing loss with associated delays in L1 speech and language development. In Japan, English is a required L2 for school-age children, but not for Tamia. Because of her hearing loss, she was not allowed to study English. The professionals felt that L2 instruction would be too demanding and would curb her L1 development. Tamia viewed this restriction to a single language, based solely on her hearing status, as professionally, socially, and personally handicapping. She eventually learned English, despite the system bias, and is both an example and advocate for other individuals in Japan with hearing loss. The issue is similar for English-speaking families in the United States who are considering L2 immersion education for a kindergarten child with a diagnosed speech or language impairment. No single decision is right for all individuals. Environmental resources (supportive allied professionals and family members), potential opportunities, and client motivation are important factors to consider. The presence of an underlying speech, language, or hearing disorder does not diminish the need or desire for communicative ability in two languages. The clinical challenge is to create conditions that facilitate learning, recovery, or use of languages that support participation in life activities deemed meaningful by the client and his or her family. It does not require that professionals always speak both or all languages used by their clients. Given the hundreds of different combinations of languages spoken in the United States, this client-clinician language match is not always possible. However, clinical professionals can serve as knowledgeable advocates in long-term language planning for clients. Speech-language pathologists and audiologists can help allied professionals understand language in its broadest sense and the roles different languages play in individuals' lives. Professionals may also help to identify and create additional opportunities to use each language through a variety of indirect facilitation methods that involve Internet resources and computer software, collaborations with bilingual spouses, parents or community volunteers, or mediated interventions with language-matched peers or siblings (Kohnert, 2008). References Alba R., Logan J., Lutz A., & Stults B. (2002). Only English by the third generation? Loss and preservation of the mother tongue among the grandchildren of contemporary immigrants. Demography, 39, 3, 467–484. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Anderson R. T. (2004). First language loss in Spanish-speaking children: Patterns of loss and implications for clinical practice.In Goldstein B. (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp. 187–211). Baltimore: Brookes. Google Scholar Bernstein Ratner N. (2004). Fluency and stuttering in bilingual children.In Goldstein B. (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp. 287–308). Google Scholar de Bot K., & Makoni S. (2005). Language and aging in multilingual contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Genesee F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students?.Bhatia T. K. & Ritchie W. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism and multiculturalism(pp. 547–576). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar Håkansson G., Salameh E., & Nettelbladt U. (2003). Measuring language development in bilingual children: Swedish-Arabic children with and without language impairment.Linguistics, 41, 255–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Jia G., & Aaronson D. (2003). A longitudinal study of Chinese children and adolescents learning English in the United States.Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 131–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Kohnert K. (2004). Cognitive and cognate treatments for bilingual aphasia: A case study.Brain and Language, 91, 294–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Kohnert K. (2008). Language disorders in bilingual children and adults. San Diego: Plural. Google Scholar Kohnert K., & Bates E. (2002). Balancing bilinguals II: Lexical comprehension and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 347–359. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Montrul S. (2005). Second language acquisition and first language loss in adult early bilinguals: Exploring some differences and similarities.Second Language Research, 21, 199–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Robbins A. M., Green J., & Waltzman S. (2004). Bilingual oral language proficiency in children with cochlear implants.Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 130, 644–7. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Schmid C. L. (2001). Educational achievement, language-minority students, and the new second generation.Sociology of Education Extra Issue, 71–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Schmid M. (2003). First language attrition: The methodology revised.International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 239–256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Author Notes Kathryn Kohnert, is an associate professor in the Department of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences, an affiliate graduate faculty member in the English as a Second Language Program, and co-director of the Center for Cognitive and Social Processes in Language at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Contact her at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 13Issue 2February 2008 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Feb 1, 2008 Metrics Current downloads: 6,847 Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2008 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

This study investigated the relationship among home language use, parents’ beliefs about dual language development, and Spanish-speaking children's vocabulary knowledge. Parents (n = 162) completed a questionnaire about their home language use and beliefs about dual language development, and elementary-age children (N = 190) – Kindergarten (M age = 5.71, SD = .56), second grade (M age = 7.52, SD = .31), and fourth grade (M age = 9.35, SD = .45) – completed conceptually-scored vocabulary assessments. Principal component analyses revealed that Spanish-speaking parents’ beliefs about dual language development are heterogeneous. Further, parents’ beliefs can be characterized differently according to their children's English proficiency designations and grade levels. Structural equation modeling analyses revealed that the Bilingual Facility parental belief factor was associated with home language use practices, which in turn were associated with children's vocabulary. However, this association only applied to limited English proficient students and their parents. These results underscore the importance of attending to Spanish-speaking parents’ beliefs, as they appear to relate to home language use practices and, importantly, they also relate to their children's vocabulary achievement.

This study looked at the home language use patterns of Hispanic families in an urban setting to determine the differences between academic achievement, language development, and psychosocial adjustment of children whose families have maintained Spanish as the main home language (additive bilingual home environment) and children who come from homes where a switch to English has occurred (subtractive bilingual home environment. For this study, 108 subjects were selected based on their ability to meet criteria established to control for (a) initial home language, (b) length of enrolment in school, and (c) socio‐economic status. All the subjects were enrolled in the fifth or sixth grade at a large East Los Angeles elementary school during the 1982–83 year. A series of independent t tests was used to compare the two groups of primary interest on school measures of academic achievement (English reading proficiency, mathematics, Spanish reading vocabulary, and academic grade point average), language development (oral English proficiency and number of school months that individual students were classified as limited in English), and psychosocial adjustment (attendance, disciplinary referrals, effort grade point average, and grade level retention). In this study, students from additive bilingual home contexts significantly (p < 0.05) outperformed students from the subtractive group on five of ten scholastic measures. Regarding the remaining five variables, no statistically significant differences between the two groups were found. For each of these five variables, the group mean for students from Spanish‐speaking homes was higher than the corresponding group mean for students from homes where English had replaced Spanish. Although not statistically significant, the differences on these variables were pronounced and always in the same direction. The overall assumption of many educators that Hispanic students from Spanish language homes do less well in school than Hispanic students from primarily English‐speaking homes is challenged by the results of this study. The direction of the difference in each of ten scholastic variables indicates that students from additive bilingual home situations have conspicuous advantages when compared to counterparts from subtractive bilingual homes.