Dual-language books as an emergent-literacy resource: Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning

Abstract

The effectiveness of dual-language book reading in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms is largely uncontested. Yet there are repeated calls for more research to determine how this resource can be used more broadly and effectively by teachers, especially in emergent-literacy learning contexts. In the present study we analysed culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning in dual-language book reading vignettes to demonstrate how teachers and volunteer readers build on linguistic and cultural repertoires of emergent-literacy learners to help them gain metalinguistic awareness, cultural empowerment and identities as capable learners. We argue that diversity can be embraced and multilingualism can be positioned as normal by using dual-language books to motivate discussion about language and cultural artefacts. The findings suggest a rethinking of classroom practices based on family involvement in the classroom and a subtle shift in the balance of authority and expertise among teachers, children and families.

Keywords

dual-language books emergent literacy cultural and linguistic diversity

Introduction

Throughout the Western world, cultural and linguistic diversity has increased at a pace that is creating challenges for governments (Gogolin, 2002), employers (Rodriguez, 2006) and schools (August and Shanahan, 2006). Countries in Europe have seen an increase of approximately 20% in the population that speaks a language other than the dominant language of the country. North America has seen similar trends, with an increase of 20% in linguistic diversity in the USA (Census 2000 Brief, 2003) and 11% in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2007). In North American schools, 22% of children less than six years of age are born to immigrant parents and Canadian youth represents approximately 17% of the immigrant population (Statistics Canada, 2001). These statistics highlight the necessity for educators to become prepared to work with a diverse population of students who have varied experience and academic needs (Banks et al., 2005). Thus, changing demographics hold challenging implications for schools in general and for literacy programming in particular. The general aim of the current work is to help early-literacy educators meet the challenges related to teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students.

The last three decades have witnessed researchers increasingly acknowledging the importance of the sociocultural context of literacy education. Heath’s (1983) landmark work, which examined how community practices impacted on language and learning, set the direction for responding to diversity. Heath’s early work was expanded upon by researchers such as Purcell-Gates (1998) in the culture- or community-based literacy movement. This work demonstrated that when children begin their school experience, they have already acquired the ability to use language in important and effective ways within their family and community. It is essential that schools build on those home-acquired competencies when designing and delivering literacy programmes (Purcell-Gates, 2007; Purcell-Gates et al., 2011).

This position has been proven to be vital to programming for English-language learners (ELLs). Gutiérrez et al. (2011: 235) noted ‘the importance of leveraging DLLs’ [dual language learners] linguistic repertoires towards the development of emergent academic language and writing practices, while promoting their identities as imaginative and productive meaning-makers’. Indeed, many researchers have demonstrated that promoting literacy development in children’s first language can help them acquire second- or third-language literacy (Cummins, 2000; Taylor et al., 2008). Specifically, ELLs are able to utilize higher-order vocabulary skills from their first language, such as the ability to provide formal definitions and interpret metaphors, when speaking a second language and have the ability to make connections between their first language and English to better understand English words (Lindholm-Leary, 2000). Conceptual knowledge and skills also transfer across languages (Roessingh, 2004). Understandably, then, there is a strong correlation between first-language literacy and literacy development in English (August and Shanahan, 2006).

In addition to academic benefits, social benefits accrue for children in schools that build upon home languages. Hélot and Young (2006) studied schools in France that attempted to create multilingual school cultures, describing them as being safe and non-threatening – a place where students are free to use their home language in tandem with the school language. Hélot (2008) extended her analysis of the effects of allowing home languages in through the school doors, noting that children become more present, actively engaged and legitimized if opportunities are given to use their home language at school. Because children are at an academic and social advantage when they practise literacy skills in their first language, the early-literacy learning of ELLs needs to be contextualized within respective cultural and linguistic experience (Naqvi, 2009). However, in their extensive review of research into the literacy learning of children and youth, August and Shanahan (2006) determined that strong scientific evidence of the impact of sociocultural factors, such as immigration status and family influences, on literacy development did not exist because the area was under-researched. In response to this dearth of research, recent calls have been made for a more nuanced understanding of the cognitive and sociocultural complexities often faced by ELLs when becoming literate in a new language (Najaﬁ, 2011). Moreover:

… despite prevalent cultural pluralist discourses in Canadian schools and support for incorporating students’ cultural capital within extra-curricular and even occasional curricular activities, students’ diverse linguistic capital is rarely framed or tapped into as valuable forms of literacy. Consequently, while children of minoritized cultural and linguistic backgrounds are often affirmed in their cultural identity, the school and teachers generally ignore their home languages and literacies, vital “funds of knowledge” that might contribute to academic learning. (Taylor et al., 2008: 270)

One approach to studying the cognitive and sociocultural complexities faced by ELLs within a school setting involves offering what has been argued to be optimal learning experiences, such as using dual-language books (DLBs) in literacy instruction, and then to examine classroom interactions to determine if and how children draw upon their home literacies to make meaning within the school context (Cummins et al., 2005). DLBs are books that are written in two languages, typically English on one page and another language on the adjacent page. They are designed to be read simultaneously in English and the second language by one reader (if he/she knows both languages), or by two readers (one fluent in English and one fluent in the other language) who work in tandem, reading page by page (Sneddon, 2009). Currently, paper versions of DLBs are available in over 40 languages and many are also available on CD (Cass School of Education, 2008). Books published in this format are typically illustrated, thus offering visual support to the text. They include folk tales, children’s classics, popular picture books and picture dictionaries, along with some non-fiction works, reference works and curriculum-related materials. Since 1940, the use of DLBs has steadily increased, indicating a growing awareness of their value (Mendoza and Reese, 2001). Recent studies have acknowledged the popularity of DLBs with parents of bilingual children and identified their utility as a bridge between home and school (Sneddon, 2008b). Moreover, through her case study work, Sneddon concluded that reading simultaneously in two languages had a positive effect in that participants manifested motivation, pride and high levels of achievement.

Using DLBs in literacy instruction also promotes children’s cultural awareness, in that they become attentive to the uniqueness of their own and other cultures as well as becoming conscious of the similarities between cultures (Naqvi, 2009). As such, DLBs can potentially address the diverse ethnic and linguistic composition of mainstream classrooms by supporting home-language literacy and English literacy development concomitantly (Naqvi et al., 2010) by using DLBs to enrich existing instruction practices. Cummins and colleagues (Bernhard and Cummins, 2004; Cummins, 2009) charted this territory in their extensive research on DLBs, which were described as ‘an inclusive pedagogical and language learning strategy [that] is both cognitively challenging and a forum for student identity investment and recognition’ (Taylor et al., 2008: 270). When children create identity texts, they draw upon linguistic and cultural capital from their home and give it value in the school setting (Cummins, 2009). Put another way, when drawing on their cultural capital, children access conceptual codes of their own culture and are permitted to express their ‘shared cultural signals’ within the school setting (de Graaf et al., 2000: 95). Thus, the home language of ELLs can be seen as a unique cultural amplifier (Bruner, 1966) – a tool used to extend ELLs’ cognitive functions. As a cultural amplifier, language (and by extension, literacy) can potentially reach beyond the individual to impact aspects of the world by extending ideas or attitudes beyond the individual’s time and place (Cole and Bruner, 1971). It is reasonable to argue that Peterson and Heywood’s (2007) research with teachers and principals is an instance of such cultural amplification. When they invited immigrant parents to help in the classroom and to read DLBs with their children in their first language, school practices changed and better accommodated the language, customs and values of the immigrant families.

DLBs also have been shown to impact on learners’ literacy development by supporting metalinguistic awareness. Metalinguistic awareness, which involves an explicit knowledge of linguistic form and structure, separate from content (Cazden, 1974), is an essential element of literacy development (Laurent and Martinot, 2009: 29–30):

This ability to reflect upon and manipulate the structural features of language – e.g. phonological, morphological and syntactic structure – has been defined as metalinguistic … 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.

Sneddon (2008a, 2008b) determined that reading DLBs resulted in improved metalinguistic awareness, as a result of comparing languages in terms of words and sentence structures. By offering students the opportunity to expand on their first-language literacy learning and link it to their second-language literacy learning (Taylor et al., 2008), DLBs also encourage and allow the transfer of conceptual knowledge and skills across languages (Cummins et al., 2005). Escamilla and Hopewell (2009) also argue that teaching children to connect two languages has cross-language literacy benefits. That is to say, giving students an opportunity to cross-transfer and code-switch, by moving back and forth between two languages, enables them to compare and contrast concepts across languages. ‘(C)ross-language connections enable children to develop metacognitive abilities and metalinguistic knowledge about their two languages and how each language is similar and different’ (Escamilla and Hopewell, 2009: 74). When learners of two languages discover commonalities and differences in the two language systems (Koda, 2008), they tend to have improved phonological awareness in comparison to monolingual children (Campbell and Sais, 1995).

Further evidence of DLBs’ capacity to support metalinguistic awareness was identified in a recently completed three-year study in which four elementary schools participated (Naqvi et al.,). The schools were located within a 3 km radius in highly ethnically and linguistically diverse suburbs of a large western Canadian city. The mother tongues of the four- and five-year-old children who participated were distributed as follows: 40% English; 27% Punjabi; 17% Urdu; 16% other languages, such as Chinese, Farsi, Hindi and Tagalog. Eight classes were randomly assigned to either a treatment condition, in which children were read to using DLBs, written in French, Punjabi or Urdu along with English, or a comparison condition, in which children were read the same books in English only. Statistical analyses indicated that children in the treatment condition demonstrated significantly greater gains in graphophonemic knowledge than children in the comparison condition. This gain occurred specifically in children who spoke the targeted languages at home. Importantly, however, children who did not speak the targeted languages showed no decrement in emergent-literacy competencies. Naqvi et al. (accepted) argued that graphophonemic knowledge is an expression of metalinguistic awareness, i.e., knowledge of the form of language as distinct from its content, which is a critical skill for all literacy learners, but especially for those who are learning to read in a language they do not speak at home (Bialystok et al., 2005).

Clearly, then, extant research supports the use of DLBs in language-diverse classrooms. Yet, little is written that links this extensive research to classroom practice in general and emergent-literacy classrooms in particular (Castro et al., 2011; Zepeda et al., 2011). ‘Early child-care and education practitioners need to know … what to do on the ground when children in their care speak multiple languages’ (Najaﬁ, 2011: 1). In the present paper, we attempt to address this issue by highlighting some exemplary practices of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching.

Aims of the research

The aim of the current research was to address the following research question: What constitutes effective linguistically and culturally responsive teaching and learning practices in mainstream kindergarten classrooms? In the region of Canada in which the study was conducted, the vast majority of four- to five-year-old children attend kindergarten, although it is not mandatory, as it precedes the first year of formal schooling. By linguistically and culturally responsive teaching and learning, we mean practices that build on students’ linguistic and cultural repertoires, i.e. they draw on strengths relative to their home language and culture (Gay, 2000). Linguistic and cultural responsiveness involves the expression of diverse linguistic and cultural knowledge (Hollins, 1996), including literature that deals with cultural artefacts, customs and values (Gay, 2000), and embraces the collective voice of diverse groups (Ladson-Billings, 1992). Such teaching and learning enables participants to make cross-linguistic and cross-cultural references and, as such, supports cultural, linguistic and metalinguistic awareness.

In the current paper, we offer a descriptive analysis of exemplary teaching practices in kindergarten classrooms. We extracted these exemplary teaching practices from approximately 45 hours of videotapes of DLB reading collected in 132 sessions of approximately 20 minutes each during the first year of a three-year project briefly described in the introductory section (Naqvi et al.,). The current analysis aims to add to the chorus of voices calling for ‘pedagogical innovation designed to develop multiliterate practice’ (Taylor et al., 2008) by demonstrating how multilingual emergent-literacy learners in mainstream classrooms can be supported as they make meaning of DLBs.

In what follows, we first briefly outline our research leading to the current analysis and, second, describe the research procedures, materials and participants. Third, teaching/learning vignettes are presented and a descriptive analysis is undertaken to highlight linguistically and culturally responsive elements of teaching, along with evidence of children’s growing linguistic, cultural and metalinguistic awareness. Finally, the results are discussed in relation to the extant literature.

Method

Background to the current analysis

Our research into DLBs has been ongoing for six years. The specific portion discussed in the current paper represents only a particular slice of a larger three-year project that also included a quasi-experimental design and statistical analyses (Naqvi et al., accepted). The three-year project was an extension of an initial two-year collaborative research project involving members of the current research team and one of the four schools that participated in the current project. The researchers have had an ongoing relationship with this school and have conducted several pilot studies to explore effective strategies for using DLBs. The initial project (Naqvi 2007a, 2007b) set the stage for the three-year project by accomplishing the following: (1) developing an online DLB database that included 2,300 book titles in over 40 languages (http://www.rahatnaqvi.ca/wordpress/dual-languages-database/); (2) identifying the DLBs that were of most interest to the children by observing two kindergarten classrooms in a diverse school for one year; and (3) developing a teacher education module that focused on how teachers can best use DLBs in their literacy teaching.

This earlier initiative was expanded in the three-year project (Naqvi et al., accepted), with the assistance of the school board's central administrative staff, school administrators and teachers, to include three additional schools, for a total of four schools. ‘The four schools had a literacy focus that included using DLBs as part of their early literacy program’ (School Principal, personal communication, 7 June 2011). Overall, approximately 160 kindergarten children from eight classes (two per school) were eligible for participation and the parents of 115 of these students gave permission for their children to participate in the current study. After attrition (due, for example, to school transfers or extended vacations) and the elimination of children who missed 40% of the DLB reading sessions, 105 participants remained. Of these, 60 children (32 boys, 28 girls) were in the group who read 11 DLBs in English and three other languages (treatment group) over a period of 11 weeks. It was this group that was eligible for inclusion in the current analysis. The remaining participants were assigned to a comparison group that heard the stories read in English only and, as such, were not included in the current analysis (for an analysis of treatment vs. the comparison group, see Naqvi et al., accepted).

Procedure

Child participants were recruited through information distribution to parents by administrators and teachers and through information sessions facilitated by the research team in the children’s school. Written materials were translated into Urdu and Punjabi and oral presentations were given in English, Urdu and Punjabi. Additionally, the first author met personally with parents and talked about the study in Urdu, Punjabi and Hindi,¹ as requested. Informed consent was received from the parents of kindergarten participants, teachers and DLB readers.

Prior to commencing work with the children, DLB readers attended a one-hour session devoted to discussing the principles and functions of DLB reading. The aim was to answer questions and help establish consistency in reading and teaching methods across classes and schools. Also, prior to commencing the reading sessions, teachers explained the nature of the research to the students.

In the reading sessions, the DLBs were read in four languages: English, French, Urdu and Punjabi. Two languages were used in each session: English and either French, Urdu or Punjabi. The books were read to the children three times per week in English/French, English/Urdu and English/Punjabi, and the sessions were 15–25 minutes in duration. Classroom teachers typically read the books in English, and sometimes French, whereas DLB readers, who were adult volunteers, read the books in Urdu and Punjabi. Children were encouraged to discuss the story content, vocabulary and pictures. Each reading session occurred in the classroom and was videotaped. Throughout the study, all children continued to receive their regular classroom literacy instruction.

The analysis of the sessions involved a three-step process. First, one researcher viewed the DLB reading sessions and transcribed excerpts that exhibited: (1) linguistically and culturally responsive practices; and (2) students’ cultural, linguistic and metalinguistic awareness. Second, a team of four researchers then viewed the selected tapes and together analysed the videotape excerpts and transcriptions. Third, excerpts were selected that specifically showed: (1) how linguistically and culturally responsive teaching was enacted; and (2) how and why it supported children’s cultural and metalinguistic awareness. The current analysis is based on these excerpts.

Materials

The current analyses focus mainly on two books that were read to the children in Urdu, Punjabi, French and English,² namely, What Shall We Do with the Boo Hoo Baby? (Cowell, 2000) and The Swirling Hijaab (Robert, 2002). One additional book, The Very Hungry Caterpillar (Carle, 1987), is discussed briefly to offer further evidence of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning.

Participants

Nine students participated in the instruction vignettes analysed in the current paper (four boys and five girls). Teachers and DLB readers were also considered participants in the research. Additional information is offered on the participants within each vignette discussed.

Results

The initial descriptive analysis revealed that approximately 35% (42 sessions) of the 132 reading sessions showed some evidence of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning. However, our group analysis revealed that these sessions varied greatly in substance; only approximately 10% (13 sessions) included substantive evidence involving extended talk. Six of the 13 sessions that showed clearest evidence of linguistically and culturally responsive teaching are included in the current analysis. The results of the current descriptive analysis are organized in a series of vignettes. Within each vignette, descriptions of the book, the session participants, named with pseudonyms, and instructional context are provided, followed by excerpts of the session transcription and an analysis of the session.

Vignette 1: What Will We Do with the Boo Hoo Baby? (Punjabi/English reading)

Book synopsis

What Shall We Do with the Boo Hoo Baby? was written by Cressida Cowell (2000), illustrated by Ingrid Godon, translated into Urdu by Qamar Zamani and translated into Punjabi by Surinder Attariwala. It is an engaging patterned story in which a series of animal characters offer solutions that they believe will stop a baby’s crying. Its story structure follows that of typical Western folk tales where the beginning of the story focuses on a problem or goal, the middle includes a series of failed attempts, and the end offers a successful attempt to solve the problem or achieve the goal (McKeough, 1992). Because the book’s content does not deal with cultural diversity, that is, cultural content other than mainstream Western culture, it does not offer opportunities to elicit discussions around diverse cultural artefacts to the extent that another book used in the study does, namely, The Swirling Hijaab. It does, however, provide opportunities to focus on language forms and deals with a topic that engaged the children, as the following analysis of an excerpt transcript demonstrates.

Vignette context

This reading session was the third time the story had been read. Previous readings were done in French/English and Urdu/English. Eighteen students were in attendance and, in this excerpt, five participated verbally. The story was read by a community volunteer in Punjabi and by the classroom teacher in English. In this vignette, the reader read the story in Punjabi and occasionally responded to the children in Urdu; the teacher read in English and occasionally responded to the children in French. The transcript is offered to demonstrate the flow of an exemplary DLB reading session that supports students’ metalinguistic awareness. In it, the community volunteer reader and teacher supported the children’s linguistic comparisons between Punjabi and Urdu by encouraging code-switching and developed their metalinguistic awareness through discussions of code-switching.

Participants

Community volunteer reader

Mr Uppal was Punjabi and spoke Punjabi, Hindi and English fluently. He and his wife recently immigrated to Canada from India to live with their son, daughter-in-law and their grandson, who was a participant in the study. Mr Uppal had been a school principal in India for many years prior to his retirement. His passion for teaching and learning had inspired him to volunteer as a reader for this study. In a follow-up conversation with a member of the research team, Mr Uppal said:

I really enjoyed my time at [the] school and wanted to participate in the readings as I was a previous principal in my home country of India and was interested in what was happening at the school. I also was interested in helping the school with this dual-language reading project because the school was having a difficult time finding a Punjabi reader.

When asked about the significance of this work for him he added: ‘I was very happy to participate in this project as I found all the children were very excited and enthusiastic. They really seemed to enjoy the Punjabi stories and I was happy to help out.’

Teacher

Ms Pettipas had taught for six years and was a fluent speaker of English and French. When reading the DLBs, she often made cross-linguistic references, such as asking children how to say English words in their home language and in French, and responded positively when the children did so spontaneously. Such interactions between Ms Pettipas and the students reflected her interest in languages and highlighted the positive effect a teacher’s bilingualism can have on linguistically and culturally responsive teaching.

Students

Five students participated orally in this vignette: three girls and two boys. All spoke English and four also spoke their mother tongue. Jal was a Punjabi-speaking boy who was very vocal during the readings in the three languages. He often made cross-linguistic references and repeated words in Punjabi during Urdu readings. Ashprit was a native Punjabi-speaking girl and responded to questions in that language during the reading. Aanisah was an Urdu-speaking girl who clearly has knowledge of the Urdu alphabet as demonstrated by her informing the group of the way ZZZZZZ is written in Urdu. Sahil was a Punjabi-speaking boy and responded to questions in that language during the reading. Cindy spoke only English. Although she did not speak French at home, she sometimes translated English words into French, based on the knowledge she gained as a result of Ms Pettipas’s having translated words into French, which was her custom due to her fluency in French.

Transcript and analysis

Mr Uppal (reading the title in Punjabi as it was written in the text): Assi boo hoo bachay da ki karyay [What shall we do with the boo hoo baby?]

Analysis. The Punjabi text includes the English words, boo hoo, not the Punjabi translation, hoon hoon.

Ms Pettipas (reading the title in English): What shall we do with the boo-hoo baby?

Jal (commenting spontaneously): The English rhymes with the Punjabi!

Analysis. Jal, whose home language is Punjabi, notices that both readers used the words boo hoo. His comment that the two languages rhyme, although not entirely accurate, reflects his awareness of language and readiness to share that awareness as a participant in this literacy event.

Ms Pettipas (agreeing with Jal): Yes.

Mr Uppal: (reading in Punjabi) Assi boo hoo bachay da ki karyay? [What shall we do with the boo hoo baby?]

Ashprit (speaking in Punjabi): Roonda hai [He’s crying]

Analysis. Ashprit responds to Mr Uppal in Punjabi, her home language, demonstrating that DLB reading offers her an opportunity to use her linguistic capital or ‘funds of knowledge’ (Moll et al., 1992: 133) to participate in the literacy activity. According to Taylor et al. (2008: 270), this is a rare occurrence in Canadian classrooms: ‘(D)espite prevalent cultural pluralist discourses in Canadian schools and support for incorporating students’ cultural capital within extra-curricular and even occasional curricular activities, students’ diverse linguistic capital is rarely framed or tapped into as valuable forms of literacy.’

Mr Uppal (responding to Ashprit in Punjabi): Roonda Ha.? Pishi karda hay tey ronda hay! [He’s crying. Maybe he needs a diaper change.]

Mr Uppal (reading in Punjabi): Aino dud pilao kutta bolaya. [“Feed him,” said the dog.]

Ms Pettipas (reading in English): “Feed him,” said the dog.

Ashprit (responding in Punjabi): Kutta. [Dog.]

Analysis. Here again we see evidence of a child, Ashprit, using her linguistic capital to participate in the literacy activity. According to Escamilla and Hopewell (2009), such code-switching supports metalinguistic awareness as children compare similarities and differences between their home language and the dominant language of instruction.

Ms Pettipas (responding): Kutta. [Dog.]

Analysis. Ms Pettipas reinforced Ashprit’s code-switching and validated it by entering her linguistic world, thereby showing an interest in the languages spoken by her students. This simple exchange is an example of student cultural/linguistic empowerment and culturally and linguistically responsive teaching. Such use of a child’s first language has been shown to result in improved academic achievement (Garcia et al., 2008).

Aanisah (responding in English): In Urdu too.

Analysis. Aanisah uses her linguistic capital to extend the discussion as she drew on her knowledge of Urdu, observing that kutta is the word for dog in Urdu as well as in Punjabi. Notably, this talk is exclusively about linguistic forms, as discrete from the content expressed through the language – a hallmark of metalinguistic awareness and a feat that is difficult for kindergarten-aged children (Edwards and Kirkpatrick, 1999).

Mr Uppal (responding in Punjabi while laughing): Kutta bohat changa lagdya sub ko! [We all like dogs, don’t we!]

Mr Uppal (reading in Punjabi then asking): Bacha booliya kiday bacha boliya? [The baby said – What did the baby say?] Hoon hoon. [Boo-hoo.]

Analysis. Mr Uppal is not only reading in Punjabi but also interrupting the flow of the text to encourage the cognitive engagement of the children (‘The baby said – What did the baby say?’). This technique can reasonably be assumed to derive from his extensive years as an educator and school principal in India. Next, Mr Uppal answered the question, using the Punjabi word for boo hoo (hoon hoon). Earlier in his reading of the text, he used the English boo hoo, as the text was written as such. Here, however, he translated the words into Punjabi. It is reasonable to assume that he does so in response to the children’s comments that indicate that they are engaging with the Punjabi text.

Sahil (responding in Punjabi): Ronay lag gaya. [He started crying.]

Analysis. Sahil’s response is further illustration that this DLB allowed children to use their linguistic capital to participate in the literacy activity and to demonstrate knowledge of the story's content.

Mr Uppal (responding in Punjabi): Haan. [Yes.]

Ms Pettipas (reading in English): “Boo hoo hoo,” said the baby.

Mr Uppal (reading in Punjabi): Anoo sulao batakh ney kayha [“Put him to bed,” said the duck.]

Cindy (responding in French): Se coucher. [To go to bed.]

Analysis. Cindy code-switched to French, a language the book was read in previously. Here Cindy, who was not able to make specific reference to Punjabi or Urdu, seems to have recognized what some other children were doing and seized the opportunity to hold up her own second-language learning for the group as valued linguistic capital.

Ms Pettipas (reading and then responding to Cindy): “Put the baby to bed” – that’s in French, se coucher – “Put the baby to bed,” said the duck.

Cindy (repeating in French): Se coucher. [To go to bed.]

Ms Pettipas (speaking first to Cindy and then to the group): You got it in French too! OK, let’s see what happens.

Analysis. Again, Ms Pettipas acknowledged and reinforced code-switching, this time from English to French.

Aanisah (pointing at Mr Uppal’s book where ZZZZZZ appeared): In Urdu it goes like this (Aanisah writes the Urdu letter zāl with her finger in the air) and a dot – that means zāl ().

Analysis. In so doing, Aanisah pointed out that Urdu has a sound that is equivalent to ZZZZZZ, which is represented by the letter zāl ().

Mr Uppal (responding in Punjabi, haan also means yes in Urdu): Haan [Yes.]

Mr Uppal (responding in English): In Urdu like this. (Mr Uppal nods his head in agreement with Aanisah.)

Analysis. Mr Uppal, who is reading in Punjabi, 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. In other words, 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, whereas Hindi derives from Sanskrit. Here, Mr Uppal acknowledged the unique symbols Aanisah describes and traces in the air to represent ZZZZZZ.

Ms Pettipas (reading): So “ZZZZZZ,” said the baby.

Ms Pettipas: I am going to see if you guys remember the words. What was the word for baby in Punjabi? How do you say baby in Punjabi?

Analysis. Ms Pettipas’s reviewing of the children’s code-switching, as previously stated, supported the children’s metalinguistic awareness through a focus on the various forms a single meaning can take.

Mr Uppal (responding to Ms Pettipas): Bacha. [Baby.]

Ms Pettipas: How do you say baby in Punjabi?

Sahil (speaking to Ms Pettipas): Do you know how to say boy in Punjabi?

Analysis. In Sahil’s attempt to engage M. Pettipas, he mirrors her questioning style that seeks to have the children display their knowledge. In doing so he has used his knowledge of his home language, Punjabi, to assume the role of teacher – I ask a question and if you don’t know the answer, I will tell you. Clearly, Sahil views his linguistic knowledge as capital in this DLB reading context.

Ms Pettipas (overlooking or missing Sahil’s comment and repeating her question): How do you say baby in Punjabi. Did you forget?

Several children: Bacha. [Baby.]

Ms Pettipas: You guys are so good!

To sum up Vignette 1, linguistically responsive teaching provided opportunities for students to demonstrate their linguistic capital, as evidenced in their use of Urdu, Punjabi and French. This resulted in several instances where children demonstrated their metalinguistic awareness (that word meanings can take multiple forms) and active engagement in the literacy event.

Additional brief example

There were many additional instances of teachers’ and volunteer readers’ culturally and linguistically responsive teaching that encouraged children to think about the form of language separately from its content. To illustrate, in a French/English reading of The Very Hungry Caterpillar (written and illustrated by Eric Carle (1987) and translated into French by Laurence Bourguignon in 2004), the following exchange occurred between Ms Pettipas and an Urdu-speaking girl, Aliya.

Ms Pettipas: I am going to read this story in –.

Aliya (interrupting): English.

Ms Pettipas: No, in French.

Aliya: My mom is going to read this one tomorrow.

Ms Pettipas: In Urdu?

Analysis

In this excerpt, Ms Pettipas explicitly focused on the languages in which the book will be read; thus, language became an object of thought (Herriman, 2005). In emergent literacy teaching there is often little impetus to view language as an object of thought. Rather, discussion typically focuses on the meaning expressed by the language. Indeed, this also happened to a great extent in these readings (‘What do you think is happening in this story?’ and ‘Why do you think the baby is crying?’). Thus, it appears that Ms Pettipas’s linguistically responsive teaching using DLBs resulted in a more comprehensive instructional approach that focuses on both form and meaning.

In a similar vein, in an Urdu/English reading of The Very Hungry Caterpillar (translated by Qamar Zamani in 2004), a Farsi-speaking boy named Ali enthusiastically reported that he knew Urdu.³ The volunteer reader acknowledged Ali’s contribution, speaking first in English and then in Urdu. As the reader continued reading in Urdu, Ali listened attentively and ground his teeth to show how the caterpillar was eating. Later, while reading in English, the teacher asked the class: ‘How do you count in Urdu?’ Ali quickly responded, counting to three in Urdu (‘aik, do, teen’). This particular DLB reading offered an opportunity for Ali to share his linguistic capital, thus allowing his teacher to come to know that he spoke another language in addition to Farsi.

Vignette 2: The Swirling Hijaab

Book synopsis

The Swirling Hijaab was written by Na’ima Bint Robert (2002), illustrated by Nilesh Mistry, translated into Urdu by Qamar Zamani and into Punjabi by Pratima Dave. The book was included in the DLB reading study because of its rich cultural content and the opportunity it offers to introduce culturally and linguistically diverse content and, hence, develop children’s cultural, linguistic and metalinguistic awareness. The book is a colourfully illustrated story of a young girl’s imaginative uses of her mother’s hijaab. Events in the story are linked in a chain (Botvina and Sutton-Smith, 1977) through the main character’s imagination.

Vignette context

Vignette 2 includes two readings of The Swirling Hijaab, presented to two distinct groups of students. In terms of cultural content, the hijaab is not only a head-covering in Islamic cultures, it is also a religious garment worn during prayer. The Hindi and Sikh equivalent of the hijaab is the dupatta, which is a longer and narrower scarf that is sometimes worn as a head-covering during prayer and is also worn on the shoulders.

Vignette 2A: The Swirling Hijaab (Urdu/English reading)

Vignette context

This Urdu/English reading session was the second time the story was read to this particular group of children, who had heard it before in French/English. Eighteen students were in attendance. This brief excerpt was entirely in Urdu. The description of the hijaab given to the students is made more accessible and relevant because the reader is wearing the garment and uses gestures to support her oral description.

Participant

Community volunteer reader. Mrs Zahid had immigrated to Canada from Pakistan with her husband several years earlier. She had two children, both of whom were born in Canada and spoke Urdu at home. Her older son was enrolled in this kindergarten class. Mrs Zahid informed the researchers that she had tried to educate her children to love their heritage, language and customs.

Transcript and analysis

Mrs Zahid (discussing the book in Urdu): Yeh kitaab hijaab key baray main hai. Hijaab patta hay kiss ko kahtay hain? Yeh dekho jaisay mein ney sar peh lya hoa hay. Sar dhaka hoa hay hain na! Is ko Arbi main kehtay hain hijaab. Hain na! To yeh ud raha hey, lehra raha hai. [This book is about the hijaab. Do you know what the hijaab is? Look (pointing to her head). It’s what I am wearing on my head. You see my head is covered. In Arabic we call this hijaab. So this is swirling (hand gesture depicting the floating motion of a scarf). It’s flowing in the air.]

Analysis. The reader in this vignette sets the tone for this reading well. She begins by explaining what a hijaab is by: (1) directing the children’s attention to her garment (‘Look. It’s what I am wearing on my head.’); (2) making explicit reference to the linguistic origin of the word (‘In Arabic we call this hijaab’ – literally translated hijaab means cover); and (3) explaining the meaning of swirling through gestures and words. Through her explanation of the book’s title, the reader introduces the hijaab as a cultural artefact and normalizes it within the classroom. This brief excerpt is significant as current literature points to the limited roles minority-group parents typically play in their children’s literacy learning. Much of their expertise and knowledge is unrecognized and so they struggle to contribute meaningfully to their children’s schooling experience (Delgado-Gaitan, 1990; Diaz Soto, 1997; Gregory and Williams, 2000; Lareau, 1989; Pacini-Ketchabaw and Schechter, 2002; Schechter and Ippolito, 2006, 2008). DLB reading offers a broader and more inclusive form of linguistic and cultural experience for minority-group parents and children that enables them to build on a variety of linguistic and cultural repertoires (Taylor et al., 2008).

Vignette 2B: The Swirling Hijaab (Punjabi/English reading)

Vignette context

This reading session was the second time the story had been read to this group of children. The first reading was done in Urdu/English. Ten students were in attendance and, in this brief excerpt, one participated verbally.

Participants

Community volunteer reader. See Vignette 1 for a description of Mr Uppal.

Student. Aanisah was an Urdu-speaking girl. She also participated in the What Shall We Do with the Boo Hoo Baby? vignette.

Transcript and analysis

Mr Uppal (pointing to the cover of the book and asking in Punjabi): Duppatta janday ho? [Do you know what the word dupatta means?]

Analysis . The reader first introduces the students to the Punjabi word, duppatta, which is the word used for the long scarf-like head-covering traditionally worn by women in India. In the Punjabi/English version of the book, the word duppatta is used instead of hijaab, which is used in the Urdu/English version. The word hijaab draws its linguistic origins from the Arabic tradition, whereas duppatta draws its origins from the Indian/Punjabi context. Thus, in the two readings (Urdu/English and Punjabi/English) students are exposed to two terms for the head-covering discussed in the story. This is an illustration of culturally responsive pedagogy, where the presence of the readers and their personal associations with the words and languages are used to bring meaning to the story.

Aanisah (speaking in English): We say in Urdu dupatta too.

Analysis. Instead of directly responding to the reader’s question (‘Do you know what the word dupatta means?’), Aanisah identified the Punjabi–Urdu cognate (dupatta) and, in so doing, causes the conversation to move from meaning to form. She insightfully observed that, in this case, one word carries the same meaning in two languages. Such discussions of word form potentially helps other children reflect on how meaning is expressed and conveyed, in addition to what meaning is expressed and conveyed.

Mr Uppal (nodding his head and responding in English): Yes, Yes.

Analysis. As discussed in Vignette 1, because this reader also speaks Hindi, he can understand oral Urdu, as the two languages are jointly understood when spoken but not when written.

Mr Uppal (reading in Punjabi): Dupatta. Gumman Geri Varga dupatta. [Hijaab. The Swirling Hijaab.] Gumman Geri. Janday ho ki hota hay? [Swirling. Do you understand what swirling means?] (he accompanies his question with a gesture in which his hand rotates) Gumman Geri. [Swirling.]

Analysis. Mr Uppal offered visual support through his gesture, as did Mrs Zahid. It is informative to contrast the gestures of the two readers, as each captures the unique movement of the two slightly different head-coverings. The rotating motion of Mr Uppal captures the movement of the longer narrower dupatta, which might well twist like a rope because of its length. In contrast, Mrs Zahid’s gesture captures the flowing movement of the square hijaab. Such subtle differences might, of course, not be discernible to kindergarten students.

Aanisah (responding in English): It’s like a rope going round.

Mr Uppal (translating): Need. [Rope.] Gumman Geri [Swirling] (gesturing with his hands in a circular movement, he nods his head in agreement).

Analysis. Visual supports such as gestures are effective with all learners, but they have been shown to be particularly effective with ELLs (Dickinson and Tabors, 2001).

To conclude Vignette 2, the two transcripts were offered to demonstrate how to introduce linguistic and cultural content in DLB readings using community readers. The similarity in the content of Vignettes 2A and 2B is quite noticeable. Each reader first introduced the word for a head-covering (hijaab and duppata) and then ensured that the students knew the Urdu and Punjabi words for swirling, through the use of words and gestures. Moreover, students heard a number of cross-linguistic and cultural references and we suggest that these references support their metalinguistic and cultural awareness.

Additional brief example

There were numerous additional instances of students sharing their cultural and linguistic capital throughout the DLB reading programme. To illustrate, in another Punjabi/English reading of The Swirling Hijaab, Amrita, a Canadian-born child who spoke only Hindi at home, mentioned that her father and brother wore turbans at home and explained through words and gestures that her mother also covered her head with a hijaab.

Ms Lambert (English-speaking teacher): Have many of you seen someone who wears a hijaab on his or her head before? Have you seen that before?

Amrita: My dad wears a thing on his head (gestures to indicate a turban).

Analysis. Ms Lambert’s incorrect use of the pronoun ‘his’ seems to have opened the door to introducing the head-coverings worn by males.

Amrita (continuing): And my mom wears a hijaab (her gestures start from her head and show how a hijaab falls around her shoulders). I saw that girl in the story!

Ms Lambert: (attempting to reframe Amrita’s comment so that it does not have a specific referent): You did. You saw somebody wearing a hijaab?

Amrita (insisting on the specific referent): I saw that girl (pause). I saw that girl (pointing to illustration in book) where I go.

Similarly, Abshir, a Canadian-born boy of African descent whose primary home language was Nuer, shared his culturally based knowledge of the hijaab during a first reading of the book with his class in Punjabi and English.

Ms Lambert: Who can tell me what you think this story is going to be about?

Abshir: It’s like this thing and some people use it and so they can like put them over their head.

Ms Lambert: What did you notice about this book?

Abshir: Sometimes they wear it on their head and sometimes they use it to relax.

To sum up, in the above vignettes and brief excerpts, the hijaab, as a cultural artefact, serves as a mediator between the children and the literacy event. ‘Mediation occurs when something comes between us and the world and acts in a shaping, planning or directing manner’ (Swain et al., 2011: 2). That something, in the present instance, was a material and symbolic item (Swain et al., 2011), namely, the hijaab. The children’s schema or mental blueprint of the hijaab allowed them to: (1) express their ‘funds of knowledge’ (Moll et al., 1992: 133; ‘It’s like this thing and some people use it and so they can like put them over their head.’); (2) elaborate on the topic under discussion (‘My dad wears a thing on his head,’ gesturing to indicate a turban); and (3) compare across languages (‘We say in Urdu dupatta too.’). As such, it empowered them cognitively and socially encouraged their participation in emergent literacy learning.

Conclusion

The aim of the research was to identify linguistically and culturally responsive teaching in DLB reading contexts and to document its effect on children’s linguistic, metalinguistic and cultural engagement. Our work was based on the premise that providing young linguistic-minority children with multilingual literacy experience, in the form of read-aloud DLBs, enables them to use their linguistic and cultural capital within mainstream classrooms. After viewing the 132 videotaped sessions (11 books, each read three times in four classrooms), we identified approximately 35% of the sessions as showing some evidence of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching. That is to say, volunteer readers and teachers focused explicitly on cultural and linguistic aspects of the DLBs and encouraged children throughout the readings to use their fund of linguistic and cultural knowledge. However, only 10% of the sessions showed substantive evidence. The low percentage of sessions that demonstrated substantive evidence of linguistically and culturally responsive teaching speaks to the necessity to support professional learning communities involving in-service teachers as well as integrating such learning opportunities within teacher preparation programmes. Our current efforts in this regard involve developing language and literacy interventions that serve as cultural bridges between children, families and schools, and include teacher preparation courses, graduate courses and work with self-selected interested educators. To illustrate, Naqvi and Pfitscher (2011) examined how teachers are being prepared to work within culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms in elementary schools by following the trajectory of one teacher inductee. Several significant challenges to teaching in a linguistically and culturally responsive fashion were identified, including locating culturally relevant stories, the variability in the approaches of guest readers’ DLB reading strategies, and the ubiquitous time-management issue. Additionally, ongoing curriculum development work within an undergraduate teacher education programme focuses on how DLBs can be used as a teaching resource. Finally, in collaboration with the Language Research Center, University of Calgary, partnerships are being developed with community organizations, such as the Southern Alberta Heritage Language Association, with the aim of developing further multilingual resources. In particular, working with public school teachers of heritage languages, a language awareness curriculum for pre-service teachers is being developed.

Although a great deal more work is necessary to support teaching and learning in diverse classrooms, successful efforts are being made, as the foregoing analyses demonstrate. Specifically, through DLBs, participants were introduced to translation and cognates that highlight the relationships among various languages. By recognizing and labelling languages, the children demonstrate that they are attuned to differences and similarities in sound, meaning and script. Additionally, children’s cross-linguistic references provide opportunities for discussions around diverse cultural practices often unrecognized by mainstream society. In these discussions, metalinguistic awareness partnered with cultural knowledge in a culturally and linguistically responsive context to promote children’s identities as capable learners and valued multilinguals. Thus, the study showcased how linguistic-minority students discover reading as an important skill, valued not only by the dominant language society, but also by members of their own or other language-minority communities. This was accomplished through the cooperation and interaction of teachers and volunteer readers. When ELLs contributed a comment about their home language, all children were encouraged to learn from it and ELLs’ linguistic and cultural capital became social capital within the classroom. Multilingualism was positioned as normal and diversity was embraced, as cultural artefacts were included in the classroom in oral, textual, graphic and physical forms. Monolingual English-speaking children were included in the celebration of diversity by their inclusion in the DLB readings.

While the volunteer readers’ presence may serve as a cultural artefact, their contribution to the class gives them social capital – an understanding that the Canadian education system values not only family participation but also the linguistic bonus that comes from embracing the different languages and cultures afforded by the parents. A link is therefore established between home and school that may not previously have existed. If this approach is to be profitably utilized, however, it is essential that teachers recognize the linguistic and cultural capital of all students in the classroom. Although teachers cannot possibly learn all of the languages spoken by the children in their classroom, they can model on the DLB reading process discussed herein as a way of connecting with children and parents, thus strengthening identities while promoting biliteracy.

To sum up the results, the current examples suggest a rethinking of classroom practices based on family support and a subtle shift in the balance of authority and expertise among teachers, children and families. This broader perspective on emergent literacy builds on minority languages and highlights the need to recognize students’ home language(s) as being ‘an educationally significant component of their cultural capital’ (Bernhard and Cummins, 2004: 45). Moreover, we argue that such experiences broaden the understanding of all students’ repertoires, which enables them to recognize the multiplicity of languages and cultural practices. Finally, we see the research as representing a step towards addressing the cognitive and sociocultural complexities of becoming literate within a culturally and linguistically rich environment.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We wish to gratefully acknowledge the participation of the research team members and partner educators. We also thank the parents, volunteer readers, teachers and support staff, as well as the student participants who took part in the DLB reading programme. Finally, we thank Dean Dennis Sumara for his interest in and support of the work.

The work was supported by the Alberta Center for Child Family and Community Research (grant number 070415).

Notes

References

August

Shanahan

(2006) Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Banks

Cochran-Smith

Moll

(2005) Teaching Diverse Learners. In: Darling-Hammond

Bransford

(eds) Preparing Teachers for a Changing World, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bernhard JK and Cummins J (2004) ‘Cognitive Engagement and Identity Investment in Literacy Development among English Language Learners: Evidence from the Early Authors Program.’ Paper presented at the English Language Learners Conference, National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems, Scottsdale, AZ, November.

Bialystok

McBride-Chang

Luk

(2005) Bilingualism, Language Proficiency and Learning to Read in Two Writing Systems. Journal of Educational Psychology 97(4): 580–590.

Botvina

Sutton-Smith

(1977) ‘The Development of Structural Complexity in Children’s Fantasy Narratives’. Developmental Psychology 13(4): 377–388.

Bruner

(1966) ‘On Cognitive Growth’. In: Bruner

Oliver

Greenfield

(eds) Studies in Cognitive Growth, New York: Wiley.

Campbell

Sais

(1995) ‘Accelerated Metalinguistic (Phonological) Awareness in Bilingual Children’. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 13(1): 61–68.

Carle

(1987) The Very Hungry Caterpillar, New York: Philomel Books.

Cass School of Education (2008) Using and Researching Dual Language Books for Children. Available at: http://www.uel.ac.uk/education/research/duallanguagebooks/what.htm.

10.

Castro

Pa’ez

Dickinson

Frede

(2011) ‘Promoting Language and Literacy in Young Dual Language Learners: Research, Practice and Policy’. Child Development Perspectives 5(1): 15–21.

11.

Cazden

(1974) ‘Play with Language and Metalinguistic Awareness: One Dimension of Language Experience’. The Urban Review 7(1): 28–29.

12.

Census 2000 Brief (2003) Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf.

13.

Cole

Bruner

(1971) ‘Cultural Differences and Inferences about Psychological Processes’. American Psychologist 26(10): 867–876.

14.

Cowell

(2000) What Shall We Do with the Boo Hoo Baby?, New York: Scholastic Press.

15.

Cummins

(2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

16.

Cummins

(2009) ‘Pedagogies of Choice: Challenging Coercive Relations of Power in Classrooms and Communities’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12(3): 261–271.

17.

Cummins

Bismilla

Chow

(2005) ‘Affirming Identity in Multilingual Classrooms’. Educational Leadership 63(1): 38–43.

18.

de Graaf

Kraaykamp

(2000) ‘Parental Cultural Capital and Educational Attainment in the Netherlands: A Refinement of the Cultural Capital Perspective’. Sociology of Education 73(2): 92–111.

19.

Delgado-Gaitan

(1990) Literacy for Empowerment: The Role of Parents in Children’s Education, New York: Falmer.

20.

Diaz Soto

(1997) Language, Culture and Power: Bilingual Families and the Struggle for Quality Education, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

21.

Dickinson

Tabors

(2001) Beginning Literacy with Language: Young Children Learning at Home and School, Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

22.

Edwards

Kirkpatrick

(1999) ‘Metalinguistic Awareness in Children: A Developmental Progression’. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28(4): 313–329.

23.

Escamilla

Hopewell

(2009) ‘Transitions to Biliteracy: Creating Positive Academic Trajectories for Emerging Bilinguals in the United States’. In: Petrovic

(eds) International Perspectives on Bilingual Education Policy, Practice and Controversy, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

24.

Garcia

Kleifgen

Falchi

(2008) From English Language Learners to Emergent Bilinguals. Equity Matters: Research Review No. 1, New York: Teachers College Press.

25.

Gay

(2000) Culturally Responsive Reaching: Theory, Research, and Practice, New York: Teachers College Press.

26.

Gogolin

(2002) ‘Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in Europe: A Challenge for Educational Research and Practice’. European Educational Research Journal 1(1): 132–137.

27.

Gregory

Williams

(2000) City Literacies: Learning to Read across Generations and Culture, London: Routledge.

28.

Gutiérrez

Bien

Selland

Pierce

(2011) ‘Polylingual and Polycultural Learning Ecologies: Mediating Emergent Academic Literacies for Dual Language Learners’. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 11(2): 232–261.

29.

Heath

(1983) Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Hélot

(2008) ‘Awareness Raising and Multilingualism in Primary Education’. In: Hornberger

(eds) The Encyclopedia of Language and Education, New York: Springer.

31.

Hélot

Young

(2006) ‘Imagining Multilingual Education in France: A Language and Cultural Awareness Project at Primary Level’. In: Garcia

Skutnabb-Kangas

Torres Guzman

(eds) Imagining Multilingual Schools: Language in Education and Globalization, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

32.

Herriman

(2005) ‘Imagination and Meta-Linguistic Awareness in the Development of Literacy’. Teaching Education 16(1): 81–88.

33.

Hollins

(1996) Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

34.

Koda

(2008) ‘Impact of Prior Literacy Experience on Second-Language Learning to Read’. In: Koda

Zehler

(eds) Learning to Read across Languages: Cross-Linguistic Relationships in First- and Second-Language Literacy Development, New York: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Ladson-Billings

(1992) ‘Reading between the Lines and Beyond the Pages: A Culturally Relevant Approach to Literacy Teaching’. Theory into Practice 31(4): 312–320.

36.

Lareau

(1989) Home Advantage, New York: Falmer.

37.

Laurent

Martinot

(2009) ‘Bilingualism and Phonological Segmentation of Speech: The Case of English–French Pre-Schoolers’. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 9(1): 29–49.

38.

Lindholm-Leary

(2000) Biliteracy for a Global Society: An Idea Book on Dual Language Education, Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

39.

McKeough

(1992) ‘The Structural Foundations of Children’s Narrative and its Development’. In: Case

(eds) The Mind’s Staircase: Stages in the Development of Human Intelligence, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 171–188.

40.

Mendoza J and Reese Ds (2001) ‘Examining Multi-Cultural Picture Books for the Early Childhood Classroom: Possibilities and Pitfalls’, Early Childhood Research and Practice 3(2). Available at: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n2/mendoza.html.

41.

Moll

Amanti

Neff

González

(1992) ‘Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms’. Theory into Practice 31(2): 132–141.

42.

Najafi

(2011) ‘Supporting Positive Language and Literacy Outcomes for Young Dual Language Learners: Introduction’. Child Development Perspectives 5(1): 1–3.

43.

Naqvi

(2007a) ‘Créer des liens en littératies multiples: Moyen d’accélerer l’intégration des enfants immigres’. In: Archibald

Chiss

(eds) La langue et l'intégration des immigrants: Sociolinguistique, politique linguistiques, didactique, Paris: Harmattan.

44.

Naqvi

(2007b) ‘Expérience de lecture croisée en littérature jeunesse’. Français dans Le Monde 350: 26–28.

45.

Naqvi R (2009) ‘Building Bridges: Acknowledging Children’s First Languages.’ Paper presented to the American Education Researchers Association, San Diego, CA, USA, April.

46.

Naqvi

Pfitscher

(2011) ‘Living Linguistic Diversity in the Classroom: A Teacher Inductee Explores Dual Language Books’. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education: Studies in Migration, Integration, Equity, and Cultural Survival 5(4): 235–244.

47.

Naqvi R, Thorne KJ, McKeough A and Pfitscher CM (2010) Building Bridges: Acknowledging Children’s First Languages: A Final Report. Calgary: Alberta Centre for Child, Family and Community Research. Available at: http://www.research4children.com/admin/contentx/dpDocuments/launch.cfm?ItemId=5817.

48.

Naqvi R, Thorne KJ, Pfitscher CM, Nordstokke DW and McKeough A (accepted) ‘Reading Dual Language Books: Improving Early Literacy Skills in Linguistically Diverse Classrooms’, Journal of Early Childhood Research.

49.

Pacini-Ketchabaw

Schecter

(2002) ‘Engaging the Discourse of Diversity: Educators’ Frameworks for Working with Linguistic and Cultural Difference’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood Education 3(3): 400–414.

50.

Peterson

Heywood

(2007) ‘Contributions of Families’ Linguistic, Social and Cultural Capital to Minority-Language Children’s Literacy: Parents’, Teachers’ and Principals’ Perspectives’. Canadian Modern Language Review 63(4): 517–538.

51.

Purcell-Gates

(1998) ‘Growing Successful Readers: Homes, Communities and Schools’. In: Lehr

Osborn

(eds) Literacy for All: Issues for Teaching and Learning, New York: Guilford.

52.

Purcell-Gates

(2007) Cultural Practices of Literacy: Case Studies of Language, Literacy, Social Practice and Power, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

53.

Purcell-Gates

Milzi

Najafi

Faulstich Orellan

(2011) ‘Building Literacy Instruction from Children’s Sociocultural Worlds’. Child Development Perspectives 5(1): 22–27.

54.

Robert

(2002) The Swirling Hijaab, London: Mantra Lingua.

55.

Rodriguez

(2006) ‘Language and Participation’. California Law Review 94(3): 687–767.

56.

Roessingh

(2004) ‘Effective High School ESL Programs: A Synthesis and Meta-Analysis’. The Canadian Modern Language Review 60(5): 611–636.

57.

Schechter SR and Ippolito J (2006) ‘Intergenerational Learning in Multilingual and Multicultural Urban Schools.’ Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities, Toronto, ON, Canada, May.

58.

Schechter

Ippolito

(2008) ‘Parent Involvement in AS Education: Activist Research in Multilingual and Multicultural Urban Schools’. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy 5(1): 163–183.

59.

Sneddon

(2008a) ‘Magda and Albana: Learning to Read with Dual Language Books’. Language and Education 22(2): 137–154.

60.

Sneddon

(2008b) ‘Young Bilingual Children Learning to Read with Dual Language Books’. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 7(2): 71–84.

61.

Sneddon

(2009) Bilingual Books – Biliterate Children: Learning to Read through Dual Language Books, London: Trentham Books.

62.

Statistics Canada (2001) Education in Canada: Raising the Standard, 2001 Census. Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=96F0030X2001012&lang=eng.

63.

Statistics Canada (2007) 2006 Census: Topic-Based Tabulations. Available at: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/tbt/index-eng.cfm.

64.

Swain

Kinnear

Steinman

(2011) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education: An Introduction through Narratives, Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

65.

Taylor

Bernhard

Garg

Cummins

(2008) ‘Affirming Plural Belongings: Building on Students’ Family-Based Cultural and Linguistic Capital through Multiliteracies Pedagogy’. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 8(3): 269–294.

66.

Zepeda

Castro

Cronin

(2011) ‘Preparing Early Childhood Teachers to Work with Young Dual Language Learners’. Child Development Perspectives 5(1): 10–14.