Effectiveness of a parent-implemented language and literacy intervention in the home language

Abstract

Few studies explore parent-implemented literacy interventions in the home language for young children with problems in language acquisition. A shift in children’s use of the home language to English has been documented when English is the only language of instruction. When parents are not proficient in English, such language shift can limit communication at home. In this study we examine a parent-implemented language-literacy intervention in the home language on building vocabulary in preschool children with difficulty acquiring language. Twenty-four mother–child dyads were randomly assigned to an intervention or to a comparison group. Mothers in the intervention group learned how to stimulate language literacy through play, reading, and routine activities at home. They received interactive picture books in Spanish. Findings showed substantial gains in expressive vocabulary in Spanish, in English, and for conceptual scores (total vocabulary minus duplets) for children in the intervention group. Mothers’ perceptions regarding use of the home language improved after the intervention. Findings suggest that mothers in the intervention group were able to transform their children’s home educational environment into an additive one, where the home language was valued.

Keywords

Bilingual culturally and linguistically diverse home language literacy intervention parents Spanish

I Introduction

Children from immigrant families where a language other than English is spoken at home face several challenges through schooling. During the preschool years, most children are formally exposed to English for the first time and without any systematic support for the home language. For children who have difficulty in language acquisition, instruction in English (L2) without support for the first-learned language (L1) often results in primary language loss and subsequent inability to communicate within the family context (Kohnert et al., 2005). Wong-Fillmore (1991) identified a shift from use of the L1 to English among children in preschools when English was the language of instruction. When caregivers are not proficient in English and are unable to use the home language with their children, they cannot convey their beliefs, traditions, and family values. Caregiver–child interactions and communication within the family are at the center of children’s social, emotional, cognitive, and language development (Sameroff and Fiese, 2000). It is therefore crucial for children and caregivers to share a common language. The current study examines the effectiveness of a parent-implemented language stimulation intervention supported through early literacy in the home language for children with problems in language acquisition. The following review of the literature frames this study by looking at associations between early literacy and oral language, and characteristics of language impairment in young bilingual children.

1 Early literacy interventions

There is strong evidence linking oral language skills with literacy. This reciprocal association is found in theoretical positions and studies that posit oral language proficiency is foundational to later literacy skills (Dickinson et al, 2003; Snow et al., 1995). Similarly, language acquisition has been described as a set of abilities acquired at various times, that include background knowledge, vocabulary, phonology, knowledge of sentence structures, dialogue, and the functions of reading and writing (Dickinson and McCabe, 1991; Scarborough, 2001). Children with difficulty in language acquisition are more likely to exhibit problems in literacy during the school years (Bishop and Adams, 1990). As such, shared-reading interactions provide an effective context for adults to facilitate vocabulary and grammatical structures (Justice and Kaderavek, 2004).

Studies with English as the L1 indicate that caregivers can successfully learn to implement early literacy strategies to support language. A meta-analytic review of family-literacy interventions representing 1,340 families showed larger effects in children’s learning when caregivers were instructed on how to tutor their children in literacy activities (Sénéchal and Young, 2008). Likewise, a systematic analysis of 18 studies of parent-implemented interventions found that educating parents improved their responsiveness, use of language models, and rate of communication with their children. These strategies had positive effects on expressive language in preschool children with and without language impairment (Roberts and Kaiser, 2011).

There is however, a dearth of research on the effectiveness of early literacy support in the L1 of children with language and communication needs, who are also being instructed in an L2 (English). A theoretical framework of interdependence among a bilingual’s language systems supports cross-language benefits: acquired proficiency in the L1 can facilitate proficiency in the L2 (Cummins, 2001). This is consistent with findings by Perozzi and Sanchez (1992), where typically developing bilingual children learned vocabulary in English more rapidly when it was first taught in their L1. Similarly, Roberts (2008) found that learning new words through literacy in the L1 facilitated the learning of new words in English among Hmong- and Spanish-speaking preschool children. Farver et al. (2009) compared early literacy instruction in English, or in Spanish-then-English, in typically developing children from Spanish-speaking homes attending Head Start. Children who received bilingual instruction showed similar learning of English, but outperformed English-only groups in Spanish vocabulary. In the same vein, Restrepo et al. (2010) investigated effects of L1 vocabulary instruction with typically developing Spanish-speaking children attending preschool in English-only classes. Children who received instruction in Spanish improved more in sentence length and subordination index across languages than children who received instruction in English. This body of research strongly indicates that learning in the L1 can advance L2 learning.

2 Early language development and primary language impairment (PLI) in bilingual children

Children with a sustained difficulty in acquiring language in spite of otherwise typical development, may evidence primary language impairment (PLI) (Kohnert, 2010). Such language learning problems place them at high risk for later reading and academic difficulties. In the developing child, these language learning problems change over time: low and protracted vocabulary development is evident during the toddler and preschool years, followed by poor discourse and literacy skills in later school (Leonard, 1998). For children exposed to two languages, difficulty in acquiring vocabulary can be expected in both languages, particularly for the learning of new words (Kohnert, 2010). Although PLI can go undetected in young bilingual children, word learning ability and parent report on words produced, can be sensitive measures when children are 2–5 years old (Restrepo, 1998).

Determining language performance can be difficult, because bilingual children are at various levels of L1 and L2 proficiency and this proficiency shifts with the amount of exposure to each language (Kohnert, 2010). Uneven developmental profiles in each language are influenced by different language learning contexts, amount of exposure in each language, opportunities to use each language, and a child’s language preferences (Patterson and Pearson, 2004). Thus, recommended practice when analysing vocabulary in bilingual children is to elicit items in each language and to derive combined conceptual scores (Pearson and Fernandez, 1994; Umbel et al., 1992). Such an approach is taken in this study, by measuring vocabulary in each language context and deriving a conceptual score where each word is counted only once. Additionally, we determine vocabulary by including parental report of words used at home in Spanish.

In summary, bilingual children with difficulty in language acquisition can benefit from early literacy interactions in the home language. Limited research considers parent-implemented interventions with culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) families of children with difficulty acquiring language. This study contributes to filling that gap in the literature. The following research questions are posed:

Can early literacy intervention in the L1 (Spanish) support L1 expressive vocabulary gains in bilingual children with difficulty in language acquisition?

Can these benefits extend to expressive vocabulary in the L2 (English)?

Do mothers’ home language practices change after the intervention?

II Method

1 Participants

Twenty-four Spanish-speaking mother–child dyads were recruited from a special-needs preschool in a low-income district of New York City in the USA. The Intervention group included 9 boys and 3 girls (age M = 43 months, SD 1.95). The Waiting-control group included 8 boys and 4 girls (age M = 42 months, SD 2.64). All children were identified with language delays through bilingual speech-language evaluations and were new to the school. They produced fewer than 30 words in Spanish to communicate. They attended small group classrooms (12 students, 1 teacher, 1 teaching assistant) with instruction in English. They received speech-language therapy twice weekly for 30 minutes with bilingual providers. Family information was collected through a questionnaire with mothers in semi-structured interviews. The families were from Mexico and Dominican Republic. The mothers’ average age was 28 years (SD 3.95). They described limited proficiency in spoken/written English. Average years of residence in the USA were 9 (SD 2.3). Mothers’ average years of education were 7.3 (6th through 10th grade). Family income was below the poverty threshold for a family of 4 (US$22,315 in 2010; US Census, 2011).

Caregivers were recruited at the beginning of the school year by posting flyers in Spanish and by sending invitation letters to their homes. To be eligible, (1) mothers had to report Spanish as their most proficient language; (2) children had to be using few or no words to communicate; (3) children did not have sensory or neurological deficits that could interfere with language acquisition. Forty-two families responded to this invitation. Only 29 families met the above criteria for participation. Five families dropped out of the study due to scheduling conflicts. Among participants, four mothers missed a total of five sessions and make-up sessions were provided. All participants signed Informed Consent in accordance with Institutional Review Board procedures.

2 Early literacy groups

Each mother–child dyad was randomly assigned to one of two groups: the intervention (n = 12) or the waiting-control (n = 12). An initial parent education meeting was held with all mothers. This meeting provided information on developmental milestones, the importance of early literacy at home, and how to stimulate language through everyday conversations in the L1. Mothers in the intervention group went on to participate in 6 parent education meetings and a final evaluation meeting over the course of 16 weeks. They received 6 interactive picture books in Spanish and were instructed on how to implement language and literacy activities in the home language. Mothers in the waiting-control group were supported through literacy activities promoted by the school (i.e. parent–teacher meetings) and otherwise maintained their regular home language and literacy routines. They were invited to participate in the parent education program at the conclusion of the current study. See Figure 1 for design.

Figure 1.

Pretest and Posttest design with random assignment of participants to intervention and to waiting-control groups.

3 Curriculum contents and materials

The author developed the parent education curriculum and interactive picture books used in this study. The aim was to provide caregivers with materials to support use of the home language and literacy strategies. During an initial interview, mothers were asked about objects, activities, and themes influencing communication with their children. Six interactive picture books were built focusing on recurrent themes described (i.e. playing, mealtimes, bathing, birthdays, shopping, learning letters). The materials and teaching strategies followed a developmental approach based on social constructivism (Girolametto et al., 1999). Children received multiple opportunities to learn in authentic contexts through play and everyday routines at home with their caregivers. For example, in the book Mis juguetes (‘My toys’) children listened to the text being read and pointed to printed words and pictures. They manipulated laminated picture(s) as target words were repeated. They engaged in play with the caregiver, while the target words were used repeatedly within context. Developmentally, familiar concepts were used first and more complex language interactions were taught later (i.e. questions, cause and effect, predictions). The strategies taught were derived from the embedded-explicit model (Justice and Kaderavek, 2004), focused stimulation with preselected language targets (Ellis Weismer and Robertson, 2006), and responsive child–parent interactions (Brady et al., 2009). This methodology is supported with evidence-based practices in speech-language therapy interventions. The main language-literacy stimulation strategies and description of the picture books can be found in Appendices 1 and 2. See Figure 2 for examples of the picture books.

Figure 2.

Examples from: Book 1: Mis Juguetes (‘My toys’); Book 2: Compro frutas (‘I buy fruits’); ¿Qué comemos hoy? (‘What do we eat today?’).

4 Procedures during parent education meetings

Parent education meetings were conducted bi-weekly and lasted 2 hours. In the first session, mothers committed to attending meetings, reading at least 15 minutes daily with their children and recording their interactions. In the subsequent 6 group meetings, mothers applied the main language-literacy strategies using the books. The final meeting focused on evaluating the program. Format for meetings initiated with a discussion about experiences since the last session. Mothers discussed their concerns and challenges in carrying out literacy activities. Next, the author demonstrated use of the main strategies with the new book. Mothers practiced by role-playing with one another. To conclude each meeting, mothers assembled their new book to take home (i.e. placing printed sheets into plastic covers and into a ring binder, attaching laminated pictures).

5 Description of measures and administration

Children’s vocabulary and language use were determined through the mothers’ report of words used in Spanish (IDHC; Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2003), receptive/expressive language in Spanish (PLS-4; Zimmerman, Steiner, and Pond, 2002), expressive vocabulary in Spanish and English (EOWPVT4; Martin, 2011), and expressive vocabulary based on pictures from the interactive books in Spanish and English (ECVT, author). Semi-structured interviews with mothers were conducted with a questionnaire to inquire about language and literacy practices at home (Parent Home Language and Literacy or PHLL; author). The mothers’ engagement and satisfaction with the intervention was obtained through a parent evaluation scale (PES; author). Description of each of these measures and their administration is as follows:

MacArthur Inventarios del Desarrollo de Habilidades Comunicativas (IDHC) (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2003): The IDHC is a checklist of words arranged by categories. It has been used in the USA with children through the age of 49 months with language impairment. Mothers review words and check the ones produced by their child. Test–retest reliability is .70 and internal consistency reliability is .95. The author interviewed each mother, read words and checked production. It was administered only in Spanish. Raw scores are reported.

The Preschool Language Scale-4, Spanish (PLS-4) (Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 2002): The PLS-4 includes Auditory Comprehension and Expressive Communication measures. Test–retest stability coefficients are reported to be .80 to .89. Internal consistency reliability is .91 to .94 in the 3:00 to 4:11 year range. The norming sample included 274 children in the 2–4 year age range. The PLS-4 was administered in Spanish. Children’s responses in Spanish and English were credited. Administration was discontinued after 7 consecutive failed responses. Standard scores are reported.

Experimenter Created Vocabulary Test (ECVT): This measure was developed by the author and is based on 70 nouns from the picture books used in the intervention. The nouns were selected from the IDHC and their equivalent words were used in English (i.e. manzana ‘apple’). One picture was shown per page. Children were prompted in the language of testing Te voy a mostrar unos dibujos. Dime como se llaman. ¿Qué es esto? (‘I will show you some pictures. Tell me what they are. What is this?’). If the child failed to name 7 consecutive images, the measure was discontinued. Raw scores are reported.

Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT4) (Martin, 2011): Same stimulus items are used in the Spanish and English versions. Reported test–retest stability coefficient is .88 and internal consistency reliability is .96 in the 2–4 year range. One picture was shown per page. Children were prompted in the language of testing: ‘What’s this? What are they doing?’ or ¿Qué es esto? ¿Qué están haciendo? Administration was discontinued after 6 consecutive failed responses. Raw scores are reported.

Parent Home Language and Literacy questionnaire (PHLL): This questionnaire was developed by the author to inquire about language practices, number of children’s books in Spanish and English, and reading frequency. Each mother completed this questionnaire as part of an interview with the author before and after the intervention.

Parent Evaluation Scale (PES): This scale was developed by the author to determine parent satisfaction with the intervention. Each mother rated 5 items (1 low − 3 high). The PES was administered at the final parent meeting. A research assistant provided help as needed.

6 Testing procedures

For the vocabulary measures (EOWPVT4 and ECVT), the author evaluated children individually on different days, first in Spanish, then in English. The aim of separate testing was to obtain representative vocabulary scores in each language. However, credit was given for responses in either language. When tested in Spanish, if the child responded in English, the item was scored for English. Conversely, when tested in English, if the child responded in Spanish, the item was scored for Spanish. A second prompt with modeling in the language of testing was provided when the child failed to respond, ¿Qué es esto? (‘What is this?). Spanish and English responses were added and duplets were subtracted when calculating combined conceptual vocabulary. Only one response was scored for each language. In early October, at the time of pretest (T1), children were primarily exposed to Spanish at home and provided few or no responses in English. However, in mid February, at the time of posttest (T2), children had been exposed to English at school and labeled items in English.

7 Fidelity of instruction and implementation

During group sessions, the author followed written lesson plans with objectives, strategies, and materials for each assigned picture book. The author, a research assistant, and mothers monitored whether objectives, language/literacy strategies, and practice on how to use the materials were covered. This was reviewed with a checklist after each session. Mothers practiced using the books and incorporating the 10 language-literacy strategies with 90% success (9 out of 10 strategies). At home, mothers completed an implementation form for each day of the week to report length of reading time, words produced by their children, reading partners, and problems encountered. To ensure documentation, the author telephoned mothers three times per week to complete this form through oral report. Compliance for using the picture training books for 15 minutes or longer 4–5 times per week ranged from 92% to 99%.

III Results

1 Project design

We conducted 2 × 2 mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the effects of condition (intervention and waiting-control groups) and time (pretest-T1 and posttest-T2) on children’s language scores (IDHC, EOWPVT4, ECVT, and PLS-4) in Spanish and English. Conceptual vocabulary scores (Spanish + English – duplets) were derived for the EOWPVT4 and ECVT. The within-participants variable was time, while the between-participants variable was condition. The participants were randomly assigned to an intervention or to a waiting-control group. Pretest measures were elicited on both groups prior to the intervention (T1). Mothers in the intervention group participated in the parent education intervention, while mothers in the waiting-control group continued their regular home routines. Posttest measures were elicited from all participants in 16 weeks, after the intervention (T2). The within-participants effects were changes in the children’s language scores across time (T1 and T2). The between-participants effects were differences in language scores between the intervention and waiting-control group. The condition × time interaction was measured as the effect of intervention on the groups. Independent samples t-tests before the intervention indicated there were no differences between the groups on any of the four language measures. See Table 1 for means and standard deviations on pretest and posttest measures.

Table 1.

Scores and standard deviations (in parentheses) for intervention and waiting-control groups on pretest and posttest measures.

Measures	T1 (n = 12) intervention	T1 (n = 12) control	T2 (n = 12) intervention	T2 (n = 12) control
IDHC Spanish	20 (4.76)	19 (4.68)	54 (7.82)	37 (6.89)
PLS-4 Receptive*	73 (3.02)	73 (2.81)	80 (2.23)	77.16 (2.36)
Spanish
PLS-4 Expressive*	57 (4.38)	58 (2.82)	67 (1.85)	61 (1.30)
Spanish
EOWPVT4
Spanish	5 (1.35)	5 (1.72)	19 (4.30)	8 (1.91)
English	0	0	17 (5.29)	11 (2.46)
EOWPVT4	5 (1.35)	5 (1.72)	23 (4.79)	11 (2.18)
Conceptual
ECVT
Spanish	16 (4.22)	15 (4.64)	48 (6.81)	25 (10.36)
English	0	0	40 (6.84)	29 (8.82)
ECVT	16 (4.22)	15 (4.64)	52 (6.82)	29 (9.59)
Conceptual

Note. Raw scores and standard deviations for intervention and waiting-control groups prior to the intervention (T1) and after the intervention (T2) for the IDHC (Inventario de Desarrollo de Habilidades Comunicativas), ECVT (Experimenter Created Vocabulary Test), and EOWPVT4 (Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test). * Standard Scores with standard deviations for the PLS-4 (Zimmerman et al., 2002).

2 Postintervention measures

For vocabulary scores in Spanish reported by mothers (IDHC), within-participants effects were significant for time, showing an increase in scores for words from T1 to T2, F(1, 22) = 43.95, p < .001. Between-participants effects showed the intervention and waiting-control groups were differentiated after the intervention, F(1, 22) = 13.17, p < . 002. The interaction between condition and time was significant, F(1, 22) = 66.82, p < .001, indicating only mothers in the intervention group reported a significant increase in words used by their children between T1 and T2.

For vocabulary scores on the EOWPVT4, within-participants effects were significant for time, showing an increase in children’s scores in Spanish for expressive vocabulary, F(1, 22) = 249.35, p < .001, and in English F(1, 22) = 161.35, p < .001 from T1 to T2. Between-participants effects showed the intervention and waiting-control groups were differentiated after the intervention for scores in Spanish, F(1, 22) = 39.48, p < .001 and in English, F(1, 22) = 6.23, p < .021. The interaction between condition and time was significant for scores in Spanish, F(1, 22) = 114.75, p < .001 and in English, F(1, 22) = 12.92, p < .002, indicating only the intervention group showed significant improvement between T1 and T2 on these measures.

For vocabulary scores on the ECVT in Spanish, within-participants effects were significant for time, showing an increase in children’s scores for expressive vocabulary from T1 to T2, F(1, 22) = 361.35, p < .001, and in English F(1, 22) = 415.38, p < .001. Between-participants effects showed the intervention and waiting-control groups were differentiated after the intervention for scores in Spanish, F(1, 22) = 31.67, p < .001 and in English, F(1, 22) = 6.49, p < .018. The interaction between condition and time was significant for scores in Spanish, F(1, 22) = 108.31, p < .001 and in English, F(1, 22) = 26.07, p < .001, again showing an improvement for the intervention group between T1 and T2 on these measures.

Conceptual vocabulary scores on the EOWPVT4 and ECVT were calculated as the sum of the scores obtained in Spanish and English minus the duplets. A significant main effect for time was found on conceptual scores in the EOWPVT4, F(1, 22) = 26.84, p < .001 and on the ECVT, F(1, 22) = 33.92, p < .001, indicating children in the intervention and waiting-control groups were differentiated after the intervention for the number of words acquired across languages. The time × condition interaction revealed only the intervention group showed significant improvements between their performance at T1 and T2 on conceptual vocabulary on the EOWPVT4, F(1, 22) = 41.82, p < .001 and on the ECVT, F(1, 22) = 35.41, p < .001.

PLS-4 (Spanish): There were no significant differences for condition on the PLS-4, Auditory Comprehension, F(1, 22) = 2.08, p < .163, indicating children in the intervention and waiting-control groups were not differentiated on receptive language after the intervention. The time × condition interaction was not significant, F(1, 22) = 3.36, p < .088. However, significant differences for condition were evident for the PLS-4, Expressive Communication, F(1,22) = 5.92, p < .024, indicating differences between the groups. A time × condition interaction indicated only the Intervention group showed significant changes between their performance at T1 and T2 on expressive communication, F(1, 22) = 22.80, p < .001. See Table 1 for scores on all variables.

3 Mothers’ practices on use of the home language

Our third question focused on changes in mothers’ use of Spanish for communication and early literacy in Spanish, the only language in which mothers were proficient. Each mother was interviewed with the PHLL. Prior to the parent education intervention, 5 mothers in the Intervention group expressed reluctance about communicating in the home language with their children. When asked in what language their children would learn more, these mothers indicated English. After the intervention, all mothers in the Intervention group agreed that shared-reading and communicating in Spanish contributed to their children’s language gains. For the waiting-control group, 4 mothers responded their children would learn more if exposed to English at home. After 16 weeks of children’s school exposure to English and without systematic support in the home language, 8 of 12 mothers in the Comparison group stated that English would be more beneficial for their children than Spanish. These mothers also reported their children were learning more words in English.

4 Mothers’ practices on early literacy at home

In addition, we asked mothers about the number of children’s books at home before and after the treatment. For mothers in the intervention group there was an increase in the number of children’s books in Spanish (before intervention M = 1.66; after M = 11, SD 4.16) and in English (before intervention M = 3.83; after M = 10.75, 3.38). This increase for books in Spanish does not include the literacy materials provided as part of this study. For mothers in the waiting-control group, the tendency was to only acquire children’s books in English (before M = 3.75; after M = 11, SD 1.72), while the number of children’s books in Spanish remained the same (before 1.25, SD 1.13; 16 after M = 1.38, SD 1.23).

We compared changes in the frequency of reading. For the intervention group, the average number of reading times per week before the intervention was M = 1.5 (SD .52). After the intervention, the average number of reading times per week was M = 4.5 (SD .77). The waiting-control group did not show changes in the number of times that mothers read to their children each week (M = 1.66, SD .77 and M = 1.75 SD .75). See Table 2 for number of children’s books and reading frequency.

Table 2.

Number of books and reading frequency before (T1) and after intervention (T2) with standard deviations in parentheses.

Groups (n = 24)	Books at home Spanish	Books at home English	Reading frequency
Intervention (T1)	1.66 (1.30)	3.83 (.71)	1.5 (.52)
Intervention (T2)	11 (4.16)	10.75 (3.38)	4.5 (.77)
Comparison (T1)	1.25 (1.13)	3.75 (.96)	1.66 (.77)
Comparison (T2)	1.38 (1.23)	11 (1.72)	1.75 (.75)

Note. Number of books in Spanish does not include materials provided as part of the intervention.

5 Participant engagement and satisfaction

During the final evaluation meeting, mothers completed 5 items on the PES and rated the intervention. All mothers in the intervention group expressed satisfaction with the training. (1) They valued the meetings and discussions with other mothers. (2) They found the materials enjoyable and effective in building vocabulary. (3) They felt the strategies helped them to establish conversations with their children. (4) Mothers found the length of the training to be adequate. (5) Finally, all mothers stated they would recommend the intervention to other parents. On a scale of 0 to 3, all mothers in the intervention group rated these five items with a 3.

IV Discussion

In this study we asked whether early literacy in the home language would support vocabulary gains in Spanish and English for bilingual children of preschool age with difficulty in language acquisition. A leading belief in education is that exposure to two languages places too many demands on the deficient language-learning systems of children with PLI (Kohnert et al., 2005). Contrary to this notion, children in this study benefited from learning in the L1. The effectiveness of the parent-implemented literacy intervention in the home language was evident on vocabulary gains in the IDHC, the EOWPVT4, and the ECVT. Significant within-participants effects for time were noted on all measures, showing that children’s expressive vocabulary increased from T1 to T2. Significant between-participants effects showed the groups were differentiated as a result of the intervention. More importantly, the interaction between condition × time was significant on all measures for expressive vocabulary.

The children, whose mothers participated in the parent-education intervention, learned and used more words across languages than their peers, whose mothers were in the waiting-control group. This was evident in each language and of course, in their higher conceptual vocabulary scores. These findings are consistent with the perspective of shared conceptual knowledge between L1 and L2 and the interconnectedness of language systems in bilinguals (Barnett et al., 2007; Cummins, 2001). Other studies have shown that vocabulary learned in the L1 can transfer to vocabulary in the L2 (Roberts, 2008; Perozzi and Sanchez, 1992). This is consistent with proposals by Garcia (2009), who points out bilinguals use translanguaging to apply what they learn across languages. Instructional support for the L1 and the L2 is therefore particularly important for children who have difficulty in acquiring language.

Of interest is that the groups were not differentiated on receptive language (PLS-4), in spite of differences on expressive communication. It may be that 16 weeks of literacy-based intervention were not sufficient to establish measurable changes in receptive language. Another potential reason for the lack of findings of effects for receptive vocabulary could be the more limited measure we used to assess it. More targeted receptive vocabulary measures might be necessary to reflect children’s lexical gains.

Our third question was whether the parent-implemented intervention would influence home language practices. A shift from the home language to English was evident in the waiting-control group, but not among families in the Intervention group. After the intervention, mothers in the intervention group supported use of the home language, read more with their children, and had more books in Spanish than mothers in the waiting-control group. It can be argued that early literacy in Spanish, the mothers’ proficient language, turned the children’s educational environment at home into an additive one, where the home language was valued (Garcia, 2009). Such findings are important, when considering this was a brief intervention, the children had difficulty with language acquisition, the mothers did not speak English and they had below high school education.

Limited literacy resources in the home language can influence literacy practices, especially when parents are unable to read in English. For children with language impairment, the scarcity of developmentally appropriate materials in the home language can be pressing. In this study we point out the need to provide resources and guidance on literacy in the home language to CLD families and their children. By building partnerships with parents, schools can promote multiple literacy contexts where the home language and home culture are valued.

Findings in this study indicate that early literacy programs supported through schools must consider the home language environment in CLD families. When caregivers have limited English proficiency, resources in the home language are essential. Our recommendation is to promote home language practices that value the cultural and linguistic diversity of families and their children.

V Limitations of this study and future directions for research

A primary limitation in this study is its small sample size, which limits external validity. Notwithstanding, replications should consider maintaining small group size to establish group cohesiveness and to afford individualized attention to families. This study contributes to the literature by showing the effectiveness of educating parents to implement early literacy in the home language. For children who have difficulty with language acquisition, such family support can positively impact language growth. Future research should consider methodologies that expand literacy across the language contexts of bilingual children, such as home and school. A point to consider would be whether using similar literacy materials in English at school, while in Spanish at home, could accelerate language growth. There is also a need for research in formulating developmentally appropriate materials in the home language for CLD families of children with language delays. Finally, research is needed on ways to build cultural competence among educators and in creating home-school connections for CLD families and their children.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Appendix 2 Acknowledgements

The author thanks the families and the school for their participation.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research was in part funded by a PSC-CUNY grant.

References

Barnett

Yarosz

Thomas

Jung

Blanco

(2007) Two-way and monolingual English immersion in preschool education: An experimental comparison. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 22: 277–93.

Bishop

DVM

Adams

(1990) A prospective study of the relationship between specific language impairment, phonological disorders and reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 31: 1027–50.

Brady

Warren

Sterling

(2009) Interventions aimed at improving child language by improving maternal responsivity. International Review of Mental Retardation 37: 333–57.

Cummins

(2001) Interdependence of first and second language proficiency in bilingual children. In: Bialystock

(ed.) Language processing in bilingual children. New York: Cambridge University Press, 70–89.

Dickinson

McCabe

(1991). The acquisition and development of language: A social interactionist account of language and literacy development. In Dickinson

McCabe

Kavanagh

(eds.), The language continuum: From infancy to literacy. Communicating by language, Vol. 13 (pp. 1–40). Parkton, MD: York Press.

Dickinson

McCabe

Anastasopoulos

Peisner-Feinberg

Poe

(2003) The comprehensive language approach to early literacy relationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Psychology 95: 465–81.

Ellis Weismer

Robertson

(2006) Focused stimulation approach to language intervention. In McCauley

Fey

(eds) Treatment in language disorders in children: Conventional and controversial approaches (pp. 175–202). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Farver

Lonigan

Eppe

(2009) Effective early literacy skill development for young Spanish-speaking English language learners: An experimental study of two methods. Child Development 80: 703–19.

Garcia

(2009) Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

10.

Girolametto

Weitzman

Wiigs

Steig Pearce

(1999) The relationship between maternal language measure and language development in toddlers with expressive language delays. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology 8: 364–74.

11.

Jackson-Maldonado

Thal

Marchman

Newton

Fenson

Conboy

(2003) MacArthur Inventarios del Desarrollo de Habilidades Comunicativas: User’s Guide and Technical Manual. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

12.

Justice

Kaderavek (2004) Embedded-explicit literacy intervention I: Background and description of approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 35: 201–11.

13.

Kohnert

(2010) Bilingual children with primary language impairment: Issues, evidence and implications for clinical actions. Journal of Communication Disorders 43: 456–73.

14.

Kohnert

Yim

Nett

Kan

Duran

(2005) Intervention with linguistically diverse preschool children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 36: 251–63.

15.

Leonard

(1998) Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

16.

Martin

(2011) Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test 4: Spanish bilingual edition. Academic Therapy Publications. Ann Arbor, MI: Arena Press.

17.

Patterson

Pearson

(2004) Bilingual lexical development: Influences, contexts and processes. In Goldstein

(ed.) Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish–English speakers. Baltimore, MD: Brookes, 77–104.

18.

Pearson

Fernandez

(1994) Patterns of interaction in the lexical growth in two languages of bilingual infants and toddlers. Language Learning 44: 617–53.

19.

Perozzi

Sanchez

(1992) The effect of instruction in L1 on receptive acquisition of L2 for bilingual children with language delay. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 23: 348–52.

20.

Restrepo

(1998) Identifiers of predominantly Spanish-speaking children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41: 1398–1411.

21.

Restrepo

Castilla

Arboleda

Schwanenflugel

Neuharth-Pritchett

Hamilton

(2010) Effects of a supplemental Spanish oral language program on sentence length, complexity and grammaticality in Spanish-speaking children attending English-only preschools. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 41: 3–13.

22.

Roberts

(2008) Home storybook reading in primary or second language with preschool children: Evidence of equal effectiveness for second-language vocabulary acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly 43: 103–130.

23.

Roberts

Kaiser

(2011) The effectiveness of parent-implemented language interventions: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 20: 180–99.

24.

Sameroff

Fiese

(2000) Transactional regulation: The developmental ecology of early intervention. In: Schonkoff

Meisels

(eds) Handbook of early childhood intervention: Volume 2. New York: Cambridge University Press, 135–59.

25.

Sénéchal

Young

(2008) The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research 78: 880–907.

26.

Scarborough

(2001) Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In: Neuman

Dickinson

(eds) Handbook of early literacy research. New York: Guilford Press, 97–110.

27.

Snow

Tabors

Nicholson

Kurland

(1995) SHELL: Oral language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and first-grade children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 10: 37–48.

28.

Umbel

Pearson

Fernandez

Oller

(1992) Measuring bilingual children’s receptive vocabularies. Child Development 63: 1012–20.

29.

Wong Fillmore

(1991) When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 6: 323–46.

30.

Zimmerman

Steiner

Pond

(2002) Preschool language scale. 4th edition. Spanish. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.