Journal of Early Childhood Research - Early Years Education Ontario ...

Journal of Early Childhood Research http://ecr.sagepub.com/

Reading dual language books: Improving early literacy skills in linguistically diverse classrooms Rahat Naqvi, Keoma J Thorne, Christina M Pfitscher, David W Nordstokke and Anne McKeough Journal of Early Childhood Research 2013 11: 3 originally published online 12 October 2012 DOI: 10.1177/1476718X12449453 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ecr.sagepub.com/content/11/1/3

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Early Childhood Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ecr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ecr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://ecr.sagepub.com/content/11/1/3.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 29, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 12, 2012 What is This?

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2013

11110.1177/1476718X12449453Naqvi et al.Journal of Early Childhood Research 2012

Article

Reading dual language books: Improving early literacy skills in linguistically diverse classrooms

Journal of Early Childhood Research 11(1) 3–15 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1476718X12449453 ecr.sagepub.com

Rahat Naqvi, Keoma J Thorne, Christina M Pfitscher, David W Nordstokke and Anne McKeough University of Calgary, Canada

Abstract Research has determined that dual language books have a positive effect on literacy achievement, motivation, and family involvement in children’s schooling. In this study we used quantitative methods to complement the largely qualitative extant research. We analyzed the early literacy skills of 105 kindergarten children (45 comparison, 60 treatment) with diverse language backgrounds (35% English, 31% Punjabi, 16% Urdu, 18% other languages) from eight kindergarten classes in four suburban Canadian schools. Statistical analyses indicated that children who were read to using dual language books, written in French, Punjabi, and Urdu, demonstrated significantly greater gains in graphophonemic knowledge than children who were read to in English only. This gain occurred specifically in children who spoke the targeted languages at home; children who did not speak the targeted languages were not negatively affected. Findings are discussed in terms of developing metalinguistic awareness and directions for practice and research are discussed.

Keywords dual language books, early childhood education, early literacy, linguistic diversity

North America is highly linguistically diverse. In 1990, one in 20 public school students in kindergarten to grade 12 residing in the United States was an English language learner (ELL) (Capps et al., 2005), that is, a student who speaks English either not at all or with enough limitations that he or she cannot fully participate in mainstream English instruction (Ministry of Education Alberta, 2009). Today the figure is one in nine (Capps et al., 2005). Demographers estimate that in 20 years it might be one in four. The ELL population has grown from two million to five million since 1990, a period when the overall school population increased only 20 percent (Capps et al., 2005). Similarly, in 2006 there were over six million immigrants living in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2010). Approximately 58 percent of these immigrants have come Corresponding author: Rahat Naqvi, Faculty of Education EDT 1118, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4. Email: [email protected]


4

Journal of Early Childhood Research 11(1)

from Asia and the Middle East (Liang, 2010), with the result that the linguistic composition of Canada has been significantly impacted. As an example, the top immigrant home languages in a large urban centre in western Canada are: English, Chinese languages, Punjabi, Tagalog, Spanish, German, Vietnamese, Arabic, Polish, and Urdu (Liang, 2010). Data from the 2006 Canadian Census showed that between 2001 and 2006, 80 percent of Canadian immigrants had a mother tongue other than English or French (Statistics Canada, 2010). These immigration patterns have resulted in a steady increase in the number of school children whose home language is not English. This demographic shift in the linguistic composition of North American classrooms has generated unique challenges for educators. In response, the development and implementation of strategies that help ELLs acquire skills in both their home language and English, have been encouraged by educational researchers and policy makers (Gutiérrez et al., 2010; Lesaux and Gava, 2006). Such stakeholders have noted that access to appropriate resource materials, along with appropriate teaching strategies, can substantially improve the academic achievement of ELLs (e.g. Brisk and Harrington, 2007). Despite these suggestions, mainstream primary school teachers are largely ill equipped to address the needs of students from diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds because they often do not have access to appropriate materials or home language speakers who can assist in the classroom (Naqvi, 2009). Nor do early childhood educators typically have training in effective teaching strategies to appropriately address these children’s academic needs with respect to home and English literacy acquisition and skill development (Canadian Council on Learning, 2006). This is especially important in early childhood education, which focuses on literacy acquisition and early reading skills (e.g. phonological awareness, letter and word recognition, comprehension), as these abilities are foundational to later language and literacy development (Dickinson and Tabors, 2001; Paris, 2005; Whitehurst et al., 1994). Metalinguistic awareness is another essential part of literacy development (Laurent and Martinot, 2009) and refers to the development of an explicit awareness of linguistic form and structure (Cazden, 1974). ‘This ability to reflect upon and manipulate the structural features of language – e.g. phonological, morphological and syntactic structure – has been defined as metalinguistic’ (Laurent and Martinot, 2009: 29). ‘Learning to read, as a formal linguistic task, requires the learner to develop an explicit awareness of his/her language, which must be intentionally monitored, an awareness of language such that it can become the object of discussion’ (Laurent and Martinot, 2009: 30). Research has shown that learning two languages helps to develop metalinguistic awareness (Bialystok et al., 2005) as bilingual learners use their metalinguistic awareness to compare and contrast two language systems to discover commonalities and differences (Koda, 2008). Consequently, they tend to have better phonological awareness than monolingual children if their home language is syllabically complex (Campbell and Sais, 1995). Dual language book reading programs are one approach that may address the diverse ethnic and linguistic composition of classrooms, as they target home language literacy and literacy development in English. Dual language books offer the same narrative in two languages, typically English and another target language, with illustrations to link visual and textual representations. Researchers have argued that dual language books help children feel a part of a community (Ma, 2008; Mullis, 2007; Robertson, 2006), develop their personal and cultural identity (Fort and Stechuk, 2008; Ma, 2008; Robertson, 2006; Taylor et al., 2008), improve literacy in their home language (Ma, 2008; Sneddon, 2009), increase their metalinguistic awareness (Robertson, 2006), and improve their English literacy (Cummins, 2007). Most of this research, however, has focused on older children, who read at least part of the stories themselves, and has overlooked emergent-literacy classrooms


5

Naqvi et al.

where dual language books must be read aloud. Additionally, many studies have examined the impact of dual language books written in a child’s home language on the child’s home language literacy and less is known about how dual language books written in English and another language impact children’s English literacy. Further, research regarding the potential literary benefits of dual language books for children who do not speak or read in the target dual language is not available. Finally, the research on dual language books is based primarily on qualitative methods and case studies and although this evidence is valuable, empirical research is required to advance our understanding (Sneddon, 2009). As a result of these gaps in the corpus of dual language book research, the benefits of dual language books cannot be confidently asserted (Tsow, 1986), warranting classroom-based empirical research (Sneddon, 2009). Thus, the current study sought to empirically investigate the effect that reading dual language books aloud has on the foundational literacy skills of young children from diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds.1 The study is premised on the belief that the use of evidence-based methods and instructional materials known to develop early literacy skills is critical for families and early childhood educators. We chose to read aloud to the children because this practice has been demonstrated to be one of the primary ways that children gain alphabetic knowledge (Scarborough and Dobrich, 1994), understand book and print conventions and patterns (Neuman et al., 2000), and learn the relationship between words and meaning (Gold and Gibson, 2001). Reading books aloud also offers children a good model of expert reading (Mcquillan, 2009).

Purpose of the research In this article we present academic outcome findings from the first year of a two-year longitudinal study on the effects of dual language books across academic and cultural outcomes. The primary target language was English and the dual languages were French, Urdu, or Punjabi. Dual language books written in English/French were used because of the bilingual nature of Canada, and books written in English/Punjabi and English/Urdu were used given the high proportion of native Punjabi and Urdu speakers in western Canada. Our intent was two-fold. First we aimed to determine if the early reading skills (i.e. knowledge of alphabet, conventions, and meaning) of children who were read to using dual language books (treatment group) would be different to children who were read to in English only (comparison group). Second, we sought to establish if the early reading skills differed among English, Punjabi, and Urdu speaking children who received the dual language instruction to investigate if dual language book reading may have more of an impact for children who speak the dual language at home than for children who do not.

Methods Participants Child participants were drawn from four schools that were located within a 3-km radius of each other in a highly ethnically and linguistically diverse suburban area in a large western Canadian city. Each school had two kindergarten classes.2 Approximately 160 kindergarten students were eligible for participation in the study and the parents of 115 of these students gave permission for their children to participate in the study. Attendance was recorded throughout the study and data from children who missed 40 percent of the dual language book reading program were eliminated. Arguably, students who missed almost half of the lessons would not accrue the potential benefit of the DLB program and, if included in the statistical analysis, might result in a Type 2 error (i.e. a


6


false negative or finding no significant effect when one existed). With these students eliminated and due to attrition over the course of the program, results are based on 105 participants: 45 students in the comparison group (27 boys, 18 girls) and 60 students in the treatment group (32 boys, 28 girls). The mean age at the time of pre-testing was five years for both the comparison and the treatment group. Mean ages did not differ significantly between the treatment and comparison groups (t(103) = .369, p > .05). The mother tongues of participants in the comparison group were 29 percent English, 36 percent Punjabi, 16 percent Urdu, and 19 percent other. Similarly, the mother tongues of children in the treatment group were 40 percent English, 27 percent Punjabi, 17 percent Urdu, and 16 percent other. There were no native French speakers in either group. Teachers and readers also participated in the study by delivering the program. Teachers included eight females who held university degrees in teaching and whose teaching experience ranged from recently graduated to veteran. The readers included seven females and one male, each of whom spoke English and either French, Punjabi or Urdu fluently. All guest readers were immigrants. All were associated with the school in some fashion. More specifically, five readers had a child who attended one of the schools, one reader had a grandchild who attended one of the schools, and one reader was a support staff employee at one of the schools.

Measures Test of Early Reading Ability, 3rd edn (TERA-3; Reid et al., 2001), a standardized test of early reading abilities for children ages 3–6 to 8–6 years, measured the participants’ early English reading skills across three areas: a) alphabet: graphophonemic knowledge and the recognition of printed letters and words; b) conventions: understanding of the conventions of written language and reading; and c) meaning: comprehension that printed language conveys meaning and information. While the TERA-3 yields several scores, only standard scores (SSs) for the three subtests (alphabet, conventions, and meaning) were of interest in this study as they allowed us to target specific skill development. SSs have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3, and are classified as falling within the very poor range (1–3), poor range (4–5), below average range (6–7), average range (8–12), above average range (13–14), superior range (15–16), or very superior range (17– 20). The TERA-3 has two equivalent forms (Form A and Form B), allowing for re-testing within a short time period.

Procedures First, participation was sought from schools that have a large and diverse immigrant population, particularly Urdu and Punjabi speaking people. School board administrators circulated a brief description of the proposed project to all elementary schools within one quadrant of the city in which the study took place, due to its high immigrant population. Four elementary schools (two kindergarten classes in each school) agreed to participate. The study’s purpose and procedures were explained fully to the schools’ administrators and kindergarten teachers. Second, when school participation was granted, parents of potential child participants were contacted by school administrators and teachers through written information prepared by the researchers, which was available in English, Urdu and Punjabi. As well, the research team provided information sessions at the schools. These oral presentations and question and answer sessions were also available in English, Urdu and Punjabi. Third, a final list of dual language books was selected, based on ageappropriate level and interest, and on availability of the books (see the Appendix Table for a list


7

Naqvi et al.

of the dual language books used). Fourth, readers who were fluent in the various languages were sought to help with instruction through discussion with school personnel, the schools’ newsletters, and word of mouth. Prior to instructing, the readers attended a one-hour workshop on the principles and functions of dual language book reading prior to delivering and conducting the readings. The aim was to help establish consistency in reading and teaching methods across classes and schools. Finally, informed consent was received from the parents of kindergarten participants, teachers and administrators, and readers. This initial portion of the research required approximately six weeks to complete. School administrators randomly assigned one class in each school to the treatment group and the other class to the comparison group. The work with the children took place over 15 weeks. First, children were pre-tested with the TERA-3 Form A over a two-week period within six-weeks of the start of the school year. Research assistants, who were trained in assessment, individually administered the TERA-3 to the participants during school hours in the school building. Test administration was done in a standardized fashion as stipulated in the TERA-3 manual. Second, the 11-week reading program began immediately after the pre-testing. Classroom teachers and readers delivered the dual language book reading program and each reading session was videorecorded. Classroom teachers read the English text and sometimes the French text, whereas readers read in Punjabi, Urdu, and sometimes French. Readings occurred in the classroom and each week a new story was read (i.e. 11 stories in total). Both groups received the reading program three times per week and each reading took between 15 and 25 minutes. For each reading, the children in the treatment group were concurrently read to (i.e. page-by-page) in English and the dual language (i.e. either French, Punjabi, or Urdu), whereas children in the comparison group were read to in English only. In both groups, teachers encouraged the children to ask questions, make predictions, summarize, and share their thoughts and feelings related to the story content. Third, at the end of the 11-week program, post-testing with the TERA-3 Form B was completed over a two-week period, again in standardized fashion and under the same conditions as the pretest. During the length of the study, all children continued to receive their regular classroom literacy instruction.

Data analysis Independent sample t-tests were conducted on pre-test data to compare for differences between the baseline reading abilities of a) the treatment and control groups and b) the speakers of the target dual languages (Urdu and Punjabi) to speakers of all other languages. To determine the effectiveness of dual language books in promoting early reading skills, simple change scores (i.e. TERA-3 pre-test SS minus TERA-3 post-test SS) of the comparison and treatment groups were compared. Simple change scores of Urdu and Punjabi speaking children (referred to as the UP group) and children speaking all other languages (referred to as the non-UP group) were also compared within and across the treatment and comparison groups. Due to the presence of several outliers that likely skewed the sample distributions, a non-parametric statistical approach (i.e. MannWhitney U test) was used to investigate group differences. A significance level of .05 was set for all comparisons.

Results Median, interquartile range (IQR), and change score values for the comparison and treatment groups are displayed in Table 1. Independent samples t-tests, which compared the means of two


8


Table 1. Median TERA-3 reading standard scores (interquartile range) pre- and post-program and change scores for comparison and treatment groups TERA-3

Alphabet Conventions Meaning

Comparison group

Treatment group

Pre

Post

Change

Pre

Post

Change

8 (6–11) 8 (5–9) 8 (7–10)

10 (7.5–12) 9 (6.5–10.5) 8 (5–11)

0 (−1–4) 1 (0–2.5) 0 (−2.5–2)

8 (6–10) 7.5 (6–9) 8 (7–9)

11 (9–12) 9 (6–10) 9 (7–10.75)

2 (1–4) 1 (0–3) 1 (−1–2)

Note: Pre and post values are reported as standard scores with a mean of 10 and standard deviation of 3. TERA-3 = Test of Early Reading Ability, 3rd edn.

independent samples, demonstrated that the early reading abilities of the comparison (N = 51) and treatment (N = 64) groups across alphabet, conventions, and meaning did not differ prior to the dual language book program (i.e. at pre-test). To examine if dual language books impacted early literacy abilities, the reading skills change scores of the treatment and comparison groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney test, which indicated that the treatment group experienced significant greater change on the TERA-3 alphabet subtest than the comparison group (U = 918.5, z = –2.8, p = .005). The medians demonstrate that children who received dual language book reading experienced significantly greater gains in their recognition and knowledge of printed letters and words than children who only heard stories in English. Change between the treatment and comparison group did not differ significantly on the conventions or meaning subtests. However, it is important to note that there was no decrement in performance on these subtests, which suggests that provision of dual language book reading did not negatively impact students’ knowledge of the conventions and meaning of print. Due to a small sample size and the absence of French speaking children, to determine if the reading skills of children in the treatment group differed depending on their understanding of the target dual language (i.e. Punjabi or Urdu), treatment group data were separated into two. The UP group was composed of 28 students (Urdu speaking = 10, Punjabi speaking = 18) and the non-UP group was composed of 36 children (English speaking = 24, other language speaking = 12). Median, IQR, and change score values for the UP and other groups are displayed in Table 2. Early reading abilities as measured by the pre-test were first compared to establish a baseline. An independent samples t-test demonstrated a significant difference between the UP and non-UP groups on the TERA-3 meaning subtest (t(62) = –2.2, p = .03) and the medians show that the UP group Table 2. Median TERA-3 reading standard scores (interquartile range) pre- and post-program and change scores for Urdu or Punjabi speakers and other language speakers in the treatment group TERA-3

Alphabet Conventions Meaning

Treatment UP group

Treatment other group

Pre

Post

Change

Pre

Post

Change

8 (6–9) 7.5 (5.3–9) 8 (7–10)

11 (9–12) 9 (6–11) 8 (6–9.3)

3 (1.8–4.3) 1 (−.3–3) 1 (-1–2)

8 (6–11) 7.5 (6–9) 8 (7–10)

11 (8.5–12.3) 8.5 (6–10) 9.5 (7–11)

1 (0–3.3) 1 (0–2.3) 1 (−1–2)

Note: UP group = children’s whose home language is Urdu or Punjabi, Other Group = children’s whose home language is neither Urdu nor Punjabi. Pre and post values are reported as standard scores with a mean of 10 and standard deviation of 3. TERA-3 = Test of Early Reading Ability, 3rd edn.


9

Naqvi et al.

scored significantly lower on the TERA-3 meaning subtest than the non-UP group. There were no significant differences between the groups on the alphabet or conventions subtests. The Mann-Whitney test was then used to determine if there were differences between the reading change scores of the UP and Other groups as a result of the dual language book reading (i.e. within the treatment group). This analysis revealed a significant difference between the change scores of the UP and non-UP groups on the TERA-3 alphabet subtest (U = 308.5, z = –2.0, p = .04). As evident from the medians, the Urdu and Punjabi speaking children experienced significantly greater gains in their alphabet knowledge, after the dual language book reading, than children who spoke other languages. There were no differences between the change scores of the groups on the conventions or meanings subtests. Based on the findings that children in the treatment group who spoke Urdu and Punjabi experienced greater gains in their alphabet knowledge compared to children who spoke other languages, further analyses were conducted. First, we investigated if differences in alphabet change scores were evident between children who spoke Urdu and Punjabi (UP group) in the comparison (N = 27) and treatment (N = 28) groups. The Mann-Whitney test revealed that there were significant differences between the change of the comparison and treatment UP groups on the alphabet subtest (U = 155.0, z = –2.9, p = .004), with the treatment UP group (Mdn change = 0, IQR = −1 – 4) demonstrating greater alphabet knowledge gains than the comparison UP group (Mdn change = 3, IQR = 1.8 – 4.3). A final Mann-Whitney test was used to examine if there were differences on the alphabet subtest between children whose home language was not targeted in the dual language books (non-UP) in the comparison (N = 24) and treatment (N = 36) groups. There were no significant differences between the comparison (non-UP) group’s median change (0.5, IQR = 0 – 4) and the treatment (non-UP) group’s median change (1, IQR = 0 – 3.3).

Discussion The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of using dual language books as instructional materials to promote early literacy skills in linguistically and ethnically diverse young children. Additionally, we explored whether the impact of dual language books varied according to students’ home language relative to the languages contained in the dual language books. The main finding from the study was that children who spoke Urdu or Punjabi gained significantly more graphophonemic knowledge and knowledge printed letters and words, as measured by the alphabet subtest of the TERA-3, when read to using dual language books in those languages than did their peers who were read the same books in English only. This finding lends empirical support for the claim that dual language books are a useful tool for developing these foundational literacy skills in kindergarten classrooms and confirms research that has repeatedly demonstrated that pedagogical practices and teaching materials impact children’s academic achievement (Conteh, 2007; Martin et al., 2006; Robertson, 2006). A second finding was that children in the comparison and treatment groups, who spoke neither Urdu nor Punjabi, did not differ significantly in terms of graphophonemic knowledge and knowledge printed letters and words when they were read English only books or dual language books in those languages. This finding suggests that the use of dual language books does not hinder the development of these foundational literacy skills in children who do not speak these languages. This conclusion is further supported by the finding that there were no significant differences between the comparison and treatment groups on the conventions and meaning subtests. A third finding was that children in the treatment group, who spoke Urdu and Punjabi at home, functioned significantly lower on the meaning subtest at pretest than children in the treatment group


10


who did not speak Urdu and Punjabi (i.e. non-UP group). Because the latter group was composed of twice as many native English-speaking children as children who had another home language, it is reasonable to assume that this difference in meaning knowledge was language related. Indeed, evidence has suggested that ELLs demonstrate lower academic achievement test scores compared to their English speaking peers (Ministry of Education Alberta, 2006). This trend has long been recognized in previous studies of bilingual children learning to read in English (e.g. Paez et al., 2007). It is noteworthy that there was, however, no significant difference in meaning change scores between these two groups, which suggests that the Urdu and Punjabi speakers did not remain behind their non-UP peers. Beyond offering support for dual language books in linguistically diverse kindergarten classrooms, the current findings raise several intriguing questions. First and we believe most interesting, what happens during dual language book reading that might impact alphabet knowledge? We propose that exposing the UP group (i.e. native Urdu and Punjabi speakers) to different languages and scripts alongside their home language supported the development of these children’s concepts of words, letters, and graphophonic representation. This conceptual development, we argue, is under-girded by metalinguistic awareness (i.e. knowledge of the form of language as distinct from its content), which has been shown to be important for early reading development, particularly for students who may be learning to read in a language they do not speak at home (Bialystok et al., 2005). Observations of interaction between UP group members (pseudonyms: Jai, Ashprit, and Aanisah) and readers in the current study demonstrate children’s metalinguistic awareness, as shown in the following lesson transcript segment in which What Shall We Do with the Boo Hoo Baby? was read in English and Punjabi.3 Teacher [reading]: What shall we do with the Boo-Hoo Baby? Jai [speaking]: The English rhymes with the Punjabi! [Jai commented on the similar sounds of the English ‘Boo-Hoo’ and the Punjabi ‘Hoonhoon’.] Reader [reading]: Aino dud pilao kutta bolaya. (‘Feed him,’ said the dog) Teacher [reading]: ‘Feed him,’ said the dog. Ashprit [repeating]: Kutta (dog) Teacher [repeating]: Kutta (dog) Aanisah: In Urdu too. [Aanisah noted the similarity between the Punjabi and Urdu words for dog.] Reader [reading, then asking]: Bacha booliya kiday bacha boliya? (The baby said . . . What did the baby say?) Hoonhoon (Boo Hoo) Ashprit: Ronay lag gaya (He started crying) Reader: Haan (Yes) Teacher [reading]: ‘Boo Hoo Hoo,’ said the baby. Reader [reading]: Anoo sulao batakh ney kayha (‘Put him to bed,’ said the duck.) Aanisah [pointing at ‘ZZZZZZZZ’ in the reader’s book ]: In Urdu it goes like this [Aanisah writes the Urdu letter ‘zāl’ with her finger in the air]. . . and a dot that means zāl. (‫)ذ‬. By doing so, she shares that Urdu has an equivalent sound that is represented by the letter ‘zāl’]. Reader: Haan (Yes).


11

Naqvi et al.

In the immediately preceding segment, Aanisah noted the form of the word in her native Urdu language and the reader nods his head in agreement. This Punjabi reader is also fluent in Hindi and, consequently, knows that Urdu and Hindi are jointly comprehensible on an oral level but not on a written level (i.e. a speaker of Hindi understands spoken Urdu and vice versa but neither can read the other’s script as Urdu is derived from Persian and Arabic and Hindi comes from Sanskrit). In other words, he acknowledges the unique symbols Aanisah describes and traces in the air to represent ZZZZZZZ. We interpret these examples as demonstrating the children’s metalinguistic awareness as they are clearly working with the forms the languages are expressed through rather than the content expressed through the language. Laurent and Martinot (2009) decomposed metalinguistic awareness into metaphonological abilities (letter or strings of letters that represent phonemes) and metasyntactic abilities (expectations of conventions). It is the former that we believe to be at play here. A second question that emerged for us from the results of this study was as follows. Why did we not see significant results on the conventions subtest, which taps into Laurent and Martinot’s (2009) second type of metalinguistic ability, metasyntactic abilities? We reasoned that because the teachers read to the children and did not provide a time for them to interact physically with the books, they were not able to learn such things as left to right versus right to left text reading (i.e. print and book conventions). Further, despite the differences in text conventions from English to Urdu, these elements were not explicitly mentioned during the dual language book reading, so children in the treatment group may not have been aware of the difference. Dual language books written in English and Urdu/Punjabi offer excellent opportunities to focus on such conventions, however. Elements such as this should be included in future research. We also considered why there was no significant difference between the comparison and treatment groups’ meaning change scores, as reading aloud to children has been shown to help them relate words and meanings (Gold and Gibson, 2001). The current lack of significant findings might be explained by the nature of the TERA-3 meaning subtest, which requires children to identify items that might not be familiar to them, such as a photo of Jello, which contains gelatin made from animal fat rendering and is thus inappropriate for consumption for most Muslim children and many Punjabi/Sikh children. Additionally, the meaning subtest required children to identify cultural icons, such MacDonald’s yellow ‘M’. Because many of the children in the study do not eat this type of food, they may not be as familiar with the icon as mainstream North American children, evidenced in there consistently incorrect responses. Moreover, the dual language books used in the program did not focus on these cultural icons and so did not impact this knowledge base. Given that many of these students come from homes where English is not the primary language and that a number of students had recently immigrated to Canada from other countries, these cultural references may have unfairly disadvantaged our participants. Additionally, the TERA-3 was standardized on 875 children from 22 states in the United States and demographic characteristics were representative of the United States. Specifically, the standardization sample was 68 percent European American, 15 percent African American, 13 percent Hispanic American, 3 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1 percent Native American/Eskimo/ Aleut, which clearly differs starkly from the ethnic composition of our sample. Taken together, these points suggest that the TERA-3 may not have been the most appropriate measure to use with this population. However, the authors thoroughly researched the available instruments and were unable to locate a more appropriate reliable, valid, and standardized measure of early reading skills, which they felt was critical to conducting one of the first empirically valid studies of dual language books.


12


Implications The results of this study hold significant implications for the use of dual language books with children whose first language is other than English. Because alphabetic knowledge is an essential element of early literacy development, the current finding that young Urdu and Punjabi speaking participants achieved significantly greater gains than children who heard stories in English only is noteworthy. Moreover, the empirical evidence in support of the use of dual language books in elementary classrooms offers teachers and policy-makers quantitative evidence that supports qualitative evidence that has already informed practice. Although findings are promising, they should be interpreted with caution. Our sample size was small and not demographically representative of the typical Canadian classroom. The logistics of working in schools and classrooms presented some challenges to this research. For example, disruption and noise was sometimes evident during sessions. Some readers reported difficulties with some of the translations. For instance, many of the translated words were too formal and not used in everyday language, which resulted in the readers thinking that the dual language speaking students might be unfamiliar with the translated readings. Readers also mentioned some difficulties making the readings engaging for all students, especially those children who did not speak the second language. Because readers also hoped to extend the home language and English literacy of the dual language learners, they sometimes found it difficult to balance extension and discussion of the text with ensuring the attentiveness and interest of all children. Clearly more research is needed to improve the program and to replicate these findings. As well, longitudinal work is necessary to determine if gains in early literacy skills are maintained. In conclusion, we concur with Gutiérrez et al. (2010: 338) that there is a need for ‘a robust research agenda that focuses on young simultaneous bilinguals . . . [and] encourage[s] the development of language and literacy interventions that serve as cultural amplifiers’. Acknowledgements This research was generously supported by the Alberta Center for Child Family and Community Research. We wish to gratefully acknowledge the participation of the research team and partner educators in the participating schools in the Calgary Board of Education. We also thank all the parents, volunteer readers, teachers, and support staff, as well as the student participants who took part in the dual language book reading program.

Appendix Table. Storybooks used in the dual language book reading program in order of presentation

1 2

Title

Author and/or translators

Publisher, place, date

Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?

E: B. Martin F: L. Bourguignon P: none indicated U: Q. Zamani E: E. Carle F: L. Bourguignon

Henry Holt, New York, 1992 Mantra Lingua, London, 2008 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Philomel Books, New York, 1987 Mantra Lingua, London,2004

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

(Continued)


13

Naqvi et al. Appendix Table. (Continued) Title 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Floppy’s Friends

Dear Zoo

What Shall We Do With the Boo Hoo Baby?

My Daddy is a Giant

Splash!

The Wheels on the Bus

The Swirling Hijaab

The Little Red Hen and the Grains of Wheat

We’re Going on a Bear Hunt

Author and/or translators

Publisher, place, date

P: K. Manku U: Q. Zamani E: G. Van Genechten F: G. Orio-Glaunec P: none indicated U: Q. Zamani E: R. Campbell F: none indicated P: none indicated U: none indicated E: C. Cowell F: M. Michaelides P: none indicated U: Q. Zamani E: C. Norac

Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Simon & Schuster, New York, 1999 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Scholastic Press, New York, 2000 Mantra Lingua, London, 2002 Mantra Lingua, London, 2002 Mantra Lingua, London, 2002 Macmillan Children’s Books, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Candlewick Press, Somerville, MA, 2003 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2004 Mantra Lingua, London, 2007 Child’s Play International, Swindon, UK, 2003 Mantra Lingua, London, 2005 Mantra Lingua, London, 2005 Mantra Lingua, London, 2005 Mantra Lingua, London, 2002 Mantra Lingua, London, 2002 Mantra Lingua, London, 2002 Mantra Lingua, London, 2002 Mantra Lingua, London, 2005 Mantra Lingua, London, 2005 Mantra Lingua, London, 2005 Mantra Lingua, London, 2005 Simon & Schuster, New York, 1989 Mantra Lingua, London, 2007 Mantra Lingua, London, 2007 Mantra Lingua, London, 2007

F: G. Orio-Claunec P: none indicated U: T. Aajmi E: F. McDonnell F: A. Arnold P: S. Attariwala U: Q. Zamani E: none indicated F: none indicated P: none indicated U: none indicated E: N. B. Robert F: M. Michaelides P: P. Dave U: Q. Zamani E: L. Hen F: Annie Arnold P: none indicated U: Q. Zamini E: M. Rosen F: none indicated P: none indicated U: none indicated

Note: All books were originally written in English and subsequently translated into other languages. E = English, F = French, P = Punjabi, U = Urdu.


14


Notes 1. Readers interested in exploring the cultural benefits of exemplary instructional practices using dual language books are encouraged to read Naqvi et al. (2010). 2. In the jurisdiction in which the study was conducted ‘Kindergarten’ refers to an education program for children prior to the first year of formal schooling (i.e. grade 1, which is mandatory for children who have reached 6 years of age, as of 1 September. Attendance is optional although the vast majority of parents choose to register their children in kindergarten. 3. Readers interested in a microgenetic analysis of interactions among readers, teachers, and students using dual language books are referred to Naqvi et al. (in preparation).

References Bialystok E, McBride-Chang C and Luk G (2005) Bilingualism, language proficiency, and learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational Psychology 97: 580–590 doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.580. Brisk ME and Harrington MM (2007) Literacy and Bilingualism: A Handbook for All Teachers, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Campbell R and Sais E (1995) Accelerated metalinguistic (phonological) awareness in bilingual children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 13: 61–68. Canadian Council on Learning (2006) First language not necessarily linked to reading proficiency, May. Available at: http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/LessonsInLearning/May-12-06-first-lang-not-li.pdf. Capps R, Fix M, Murray J, Passel JS and Herwantoro S (2005) The New Demography of America’s Schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Cazden CR (1974) Play with language and metalinguistic awareness: One dimension of language experience. The Urban Review 7: 28–29. Conteh J (2007) Opening doors to success in multilingual classrooms: Bilingualism, codeswitching and the professional identities of ethnic minority primary teachers. Language and Education 21: 457–472 doi: 10.2167/le711.0. Cummins J (2007) Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10: 221–240. Available at: http://www.aclacaal.org/RevueAn.htm. Dickinson DK and Tabors PO (eds) (2001) Beginning Literacy with Language: Young Children Learning at Home and School. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Fort P and Stechuk R (2008) The cultural responsiveness and dual language education project. Zero to Three 29: 24–28. Available at: http://www.zerotothree.org/site/PageServer?pagename=est_journal. Gold J and Gibson A (2001) Reading aloud to build comprehension. Reading Rockets. Available at: http:// www.readingrockets.org/article/343. Gutiérrez KD, Zepeda M and Castro DC (2010) Advancing early literacy learning for all children: Implications of the NELP report for dual-language learners. Educational Researcher 39: 334–339 doi: 10.3102/0013189X10369831. Koda K (2008) Impact of prior literacy experience on second-language learning to read. In:Koda K and Zehler A (eds) Learning to Read Across Languages: Cross-linguistic Relationships in First- and Secondlanguage Literacy Development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Laurent A and Martinot C (2009) Bilingualism and phonological segmentation of speech: The case of EnglishFrench pre-schoolers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 9: 29–49 doi: 10.1177/1468798408101102. Lesaux N and Gava E (2006) Synthesis: Development of literacy in language-minority students. In: August D and Shanahan T (eds) Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 53–74. Liang P (2010) Portrait of the Immigrant Community. Edmonton, AB: Statistics Canada. Ma J (2008) ‘Reading the word and the world’: How mind and culture are mediated through the use of duallanguage storybooks. Education 36: 237–251 doi: 10.1080/03004270802217686. Martin P, Arvind B, Bhojani N and Creese A (2006) Managing bilingual interaction in a Gujarati complementary school in Leicester. Language and Education 20: 5–22 doi: 10.1080/09500780608668707.


15

Naqvi et al.

Mcquillan K (2009) Teachers reading aloud. Principal Leadership 9(9): 30–31. Ministry of Education Alberta (2006) A Review of K-12 ESL Education in Alberta: Final Report. Edmonton, AB: Ministry of Education Alberta. Ministry of Education Alberta (2009) Working with Young Children Who are Learning English as a New Language. Edmonton, AB: Ministry of Education Alberta. Mullis L (2007) Research project promoting children’s home languages in an East London nursery school. University of East London, London, UK. Naqvi R (2009) Building bridges: Acknowledging children’s first languages. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, April. Naqvi R, Thorne KJ, McKeough AM and Pfitscher CM (2010) Building Bridges: Acknowledging Children’s First Languages. A Final Report for the Alberta Centre for Child, Family and Community Research, May. Available at: http://www.research4children.com/admin/contentx/dpDocuments/launch. cfm?ItemId=5817. Naqvi R, Thorne KJ, Pfitscher CM and McKeough AM (in preparation) Explemary practice in dual language book reading. Neuman SB, Copple C and Bredekamp S (2000) Learning to Read and Write. Developmentally Appropriate Practice for Children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Paez MM, Tabors PO and Lopez LM (2007) Dual language and literacy development of Spanish-speaking preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 28: 85–102 doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2006.12.007. Paris S (2005) Re-interpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly 40: 184–202 doi: 10.1598/RRQ.40.2.3. Reid DK, Hresko WP and Hammill DD (2001) Test of Early Reading Ability, 3rd edn. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Robertson LH (2006) Learning to read ‘properly’ by moving between parallel literacy classes. Language and Education 20: 44–61 doi: 10.1080/09500780608668709. Scarborough HS and Dobrich W (1994) On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review 14: 245–302. Sneddon R (2009) Bilingual Books – Biliterate Children: Learning to Read through Dual Language Books. London: Trentham Books. Statistics Canada (2010) 2006 Census of Canada: Immigrant Status for the Population of Canada, Provinces and Territories, 1911 to 2006 Censuses. Catalogue no. 97-557-XCB2006006. Taylor LK, Bernhard JK, Garg S and Cummins J (2008) Affirming plural belongings: Building on students’ family-based cultural and linguistic capital through multiliteracies pedagogy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 8: 269–294 doi: 10.1177/1468798408096481. Tsow M (1986) Dual language text or not. Language Matters 3: 13–17. Whitehurst GJ, Epstein JN, Angell AL, Payne AC, Crone DA and Fischel JE (1994) Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology 86: 542–555.
