Possibilities and challenges of early critical literacy practices: Bilingual preschoolers’ exploring multiple voices and gender roles

Abstract

Despite the emphasis on the significance of critical literacy, there has been a startling paucity of studies examining how critical literacy pedagogies can be implemented to preschool bilingual settings. In order to address this gap in the research, this qualitative case study examines the possibilities and challenges of critical literacy in bilingual Korean preschool contexts. Based on Freire’s notion that literacy is inherently political, this study focused on six 4-year-old Korean bilingual children’s reading of picture books during a read-aloud session at the Korean Language School in a Midwestern state. The data were collected for 5 months using multiple collection sources such as audio/video recordings, observational field notes, interviews, children’s artifacts, and an informal notebook, including memos and field jottings. Findings suggest that critical literacy helps young bilingual children to explore multiple perspectives and challenge the dominant gender ideologies. For professionals in early childhood education, the study may contribute to our understanding of the significance of critical literacy conversations with bilingual preschool children.

Keywords

case study democracy diversity Korean preschool

Readers play a critical role in the production of meaning (Galda and Beach, 2001; Jones and Clarke, 2007). They organize and reorganize the various data offered them by the text, and continuously anticipate what will come next using their preexisting knowledge (Cai, 2008; Jones and Clarke, 2007). Yet, in traditional literary classrooms, literature instruction often followed the text-centered model that considered teacher/text as the center of knowledge (Newell and Durst, 1993). Since reading was considered a fixed and stable investigation, the role of the readers was limited to figuring out one correct meaning (Cai, 2008). Teachers’ selections of text were also based on facts and information that had to be taught in schools (Trousdale and Harris, 1993). However, this teacher-centered model is not helpful for fostering students’ authentic engagement with texts (Cai, 2008). Because reading requires a great deal of active participation on the part of the readers, literature instruction should focus on promoting their active participation “in a democratic enterprise of negotiating meaning” (Pradl, 1996: ix).

As a pedagogical application for encouraging readers to actively participate in reading and critically examine texts, critical literacy has been emphasized by many researchers and educators during the last few decades (e.g. Dozier et al., 2006; Freire and Macedo, 1987; Lankshear and McLaren, 1993; McLaren, 2007; Vasquez and Felderman, 2012). These professionals claim that a critical literacy curriculum helps students critique the ideologies of the texts and the social inequities portrayed in them. Critical literacy also provides students with the opportunity to develop the sense that literacy is never neutral but always embraces a particular ideology in decision-making (Beck, 2005). Through a critical literacy approach, students can challenge the status quo, and critique the texts they encounter in an effort to discover alternative paths for self and social development (Dozier et al., 2006; Lewison et al., 2002; McLaren, 2007). Taken together, existing studies argue that critical literacy works as an important instructional method to help students question connections among words, social practices, representations, and power.

More recently, a growing body of research has paid attention to a critical literacy curriculum in young children’s contexts. Although the literature in the field of early critical literacy practices is relatively new, studies examining the role of early critical literacy are well documented (e.g. James and McVay, 2009; Meller et al., 2009; Vasquez and Felderman, 2012). For example, Meller et al. (2009) investigated how a critical literacy approach encouraged primary-age children to think about social issues. They claimed that critical literacy helps young children learn to think critically about what they read and challenge the status quo. Wood’s (2009) study supports this claim by arguing that a critical literacy curriculum helps young children be engaged in active discussions about books and reflect on their real experiences. More recently, Vasquez and Felderman’s (2012) study investigated the role of critical literacy, and they argue that critical literacy provides young children with opportunities to understand that literacy is inherently social, cultural, and political. These important pieces of research provide educational possibilities related to early critical literacy practices by breaking down some of the assumptions about young children’s inability to engage text critically. Yet, although these studies created an important dialogue about critical literacy with young children, most of them were conducted in monolingual children’s contexts. Consequently, there is still a startling paucity of studies examining early critical literacy in bilingual settings. In order to address the need for critical literacy in bilingual classrooms, particularly in Korean contexts, the next sections discuss the political discourse on bilingualism/bilingual education and the historical and cultural backgrounds of Korea.

The political discourse on bilingualism/bilingual education

According to Yi (2008), the number of bilingual children enrolled in most US schools increases each year. However, bilinguals often confront a variety of barriers in public and private schools (Cummins, 1996; Fitts et al., 2008; Garcia and Kleifgen, 2010; Igoa, 1995). For example, children from diverse cultural backgrounds often encounter difficulties in school such as low academic achievement (e.g. Cummins, 1996; Minami, 2000). Their challenges also include cultural conflicts between the school and home, and the lack of sufficient curriculum materials in the two languages (Darder, 1995; Garcia and Kleifgen, 2010). However, the challenges of bilingual children have been traditionally described as “bilingualism causes academic difficulties” (Cummins, 1986: 6). Also, within the political context of bilingualism, monolingualism is routinely accepted as “the norm,” and bilingualism as “double monolingualism” (Garcia, 2009: 141).

Bilingual education itself is also not a politically neutral context, with the multiple variations of its program models and designs existing in different education systems around the world (Creese and Blackledge, 2010). According to Ovando and Collier (1985), bilingual education is politically sensitive because there are many different program models (e.g. transitional, maintenance, and immersion bilingual education), and the model selected is determined by the philosophical–political goals of each school district. Also, many variables exist regarding classroom design, including “who teaches” (e.g. a team, a teacher and an aide, or a teacher alone) and how to approach the teaching of two languages (e.g. a concurrent approach or alternating language approach). With these variables, a different classroom design is often chosen according to the different needs of each school (Cummins, 1996; Garcia and Kleifgen, 2010). However, little is known about how we can foster young bilingual children’s critical perspectives about their learning, since most early bilingual studies have focused on dual language and literacy skills such as vocabulary acquisition and sentences completion (e.g. Hu and Commeyras, 2008; Reyes and Azuara, 2008; Yaden and Tardibuono, 2004). In particular, no studies have been documented about early critical literacy practices in Korean/Korean-American contexts.

Critical literacy in Korean/Korean-American contexts

Sung and Apple (2003) argue that Korean students are not accustomed to expressing a critical perspective to their teachers, and this phenomenon is cultural and historical. First, the Confucian tradition has made Korean students less likely to express critical opinions in the classroom (Oh-Hwang, 1993). Since Koreans tend to think of a quiet student as more respectful than one who challenges the teacher’s opinions, few Korean students feel comfortable expressing their opinions freely (Kim, 2012). Sung and Apple (2003) point out that long-standing military dictatorships from the 1960s to the 1980s also influenced Korean students to be hesitant to think critically or accept different voices. Influenced by the historical background of Korea, critical thinking is not emphasized at schools in Korea and Korean Heritage Language schools in the United States.

Korean Heritage Language Schools (Korean HL Schools)

Korean HL Schools are weekend schools designed to teach Korean language and culture to immigrant children and first- and second-generation Korean Americans (Lee and Shin, 2008; You, 2009). Korean HL Schools were first established in 1906, and have over 100 years of history in the United States (Yu et al., 2002). Since their establishment, Korean HL Schools have served more than 60,000 students in the United States (Lee and Shin, 2008). Although these schools play a significant role in Korean children’s language and literacy development, recent studies have pointed out that low student motivation caused by “the tedious and unproductive” curriculum at Korean HL Schools is a great challenge (Shin, 2005: 157). According to Shin (2005), most of the instructional time is spent on “rote learning, drills and memorization” (p. 157). As most teachers in Korean HL Schools focus on facts and memorization, Korean-origin students have limited opportunities to discuss diverse social issues, including gender and gender roles. This challenge is strongly felt when considering a tradition of female subservience in the Korean culture (Lee, 2008).

Gender ideologies in the Korean culture

Despite the growing Westernization of Korea, many traditions pertaining to gender roles still exist in Korea. According to Shin and Nam (2004), Korean women were historically refused education. In a male-dominated, agricultural society, they were responsible for the household chores including cooking and cleaning. Daughters were often looked upon as burdens and mistreated by their own families, while sons were highly regarded (Shin and Nam, 2004). Women were taught the virtues of subordination and endurance from a young age, to prepare for their future roles as wife and mother (Lee, 2008). They were also taught to maintain harmony in the household, avoid conflict, and sacrifice themselves for their family (Lee, 2008; Shin and Nam, 2004).

The issue of gender stereotypes is not restricted to Korean contexts, since they are pervasive around the world through media, textbooks, and the popular culture (Aina and Cameron, 2011; Bigler, 1995). For example, the trait of submissiveness pertaining to women is often found in Hispanic culture (e.g. Kulis et al., 2010) and Chinese contexts (Xie, 2013). However, there is scant research on how we can help preschool children avoid gender biases and develop a critical attitude toward gender roles. As early childhood educators, we should not ignore this issue because children’s early understandings of gender can influence their behavior, academic performance, and self-esteem (Aina and Cameron, 2011; Martin and Ruble, 2004).

Purpose

Given this imperative, this qualitative case study examines how critical literacy can be implemented as a medium to help Korean-origin preschool children critique texts and develop critical perspectives about gender roles. The study focuses on the following two research questions:

How does a critical literacy approach help bilingual Korean children deconstruct texts and foster their critical thinking about gender roles?

What are some challenges to implementing a critical literacy curriculum in a classroom of bilingual Korean children?

In defining literacy, the study adopts Freire’s view that “word” and “world” are dynamically intertwined. Freire (1982) argues that literacy is a political instrument, and is a means and proof of power, which is socially situated and constructed. Since all texts are written by someone for a purpose, texts can be used to accomplish social ends. Based on this notion, the study approaches language and literacy within social, institutional, and rhetorical contexts. That is, the study sees power and literacy as intimately related, and language not as a neutral medium but as a form of politics. Critical literacy is defined as one of the critical pedagogies that help students challenge the status quo and enable them to act as creative, active, and critical citizens in a democratic society (Freire and Macedo, 1987). By investigating these two research questions, the study aims to provide insight into how we as teachers can create supportive learning environments in which bilingual children can develop critical thinking skills at a young age. The fundamental goal of this study is to pursue educational equity and quality by providing a more democratic vision for teaching literature in young bilingual children’s classrooms.

Method

The research for this study was conducted utilizing a qualitative case study design to capture the complexity of critical literacy practices, children’s reading of literature, classroom interactions, and children’s use of two languages. Concepts of qualitative inquiry are based on social constructivism, postmodern theory, feminist theory, and a critical theory of society (Denzin, 2001). The method aims to understand phenomena in context-specific settings, rather than finding causal relationships between variables (Patton, 2002; Stake, 2006). The current qualitative case study approach was adopted in order to analyze individual children’s critical literacy experiences in relation to their contexts. A natural observation was necessary to discover engrossing narratives and vivid descriptions of early critical literacy practices in the intersection of language, culture, and schooling.

The setting for this study was a Korean Language School (KLS), one of a group of Korean HL Schools in a Midwestern city in the United States. Park (2007) indicates that in 2005, there were 1021 Korean HL Schools in the United States, 8352 teachers, and 57,744 students. Most classes at the KLS were for young children, and were classified by a grade level, ranging from Pre-K through fourth grade. Classes began at 10:30 every Saturday morning, and lasted for 3 hours. All of the teachers were of Korean descent, and most of them were former teachers from Korea. Most students were of Korean ethnicity.

The KLS was considered for the study since, despite the importance of critical literacy pedagogies, no studies have examined how to implement them in the KLS setting. As at other Korean HL Schools, the curriculum at the KLS focused on facts and rote memorization. While most teachers there focused on worksheets and were unaware of critical literacy, Ms Lee had adopted a critical literacy curriculum and facilitated literary discussions about gender in her classroom (note: all names in this study are pseudonyms). Ms Lee was a Korean woman in her early 30s whose first language was Korean. She had moved to the United States 4 years earlier to pursue a doctoral degree, and had been teaching preschoolers for 2 years at the KLS. As a doctoral student who majored in Early Childhood Education and Language and Literacy at a nearby university, she was familiar with critical literacy pedagogies and the importance of social context in children’s language/literacy development. Also, due to her firm belief in the benefits of reading children’s literature to preschoolers, she had instituted a formal reading time called “동화읽기” (Story Reading).

Ms Lee’s critical literacy curriculum

Story Reading started at 12:20 and lasted for 40 to 50 minutes every Saturday. During this formal session, the teacher read aloud a variety of children’s literature, including multicultural books, Korean folk tales, and classics, to all of the children as one group. During the reading, she discussed the story with her students using both Korean and English. Instead of simply decoding the text, she tried to help them make connections with it based on what they already knew, and she often asked questions to prod them to think about alternative perspectives on the material. During discussions, she allowed her students to talk with peers about their thoughts using both languages. For the second half of Story Reading, the teacher asked the children to create their own stories in a written format from alternative perspectives, in order to provide them with opportunities to perceive the text in a different way. For this activity, Ms Lee provided the children with a blank piece of paper, 24 crayons, and several colored pens. The goal of her critical literacy curriculum was to help the children perceive the text in a different way and challenge the author’s message.

During the observation time period, 13 books were read to the children. Among them, the study focused on 아기돼지 삼형제 (Three little pigs) (2005), 백설공주 (Princess Snow White) (2001), 신데렐라 (Cinderella) (2010), and 콩쥐팥쥐 (Kong-gee, Pot-gee) (2003). These books were considered because the children listened more attentively and responded more actively than to the others, going beyond just commenting on the illustrations. Also, since these were classic children’s books, the children were well aware of the stories already, which helped elicit more lively conversations about alternative perspectives and diverse social issues, including different gender roles.

Participants

In Ms Lee’s classroom, there were six students (three boys and three girls) at the time of the study, and they all participated in the study. Since Ms Lee taught different students each semester, the focal students had never been in Ms Lee’s classroom before this study. All of the children were 4 years old and were from affluent families with college-educated parents. Most of them were identified in the school demographics as second-generation Koreans attending private schools.

Andrew was born in Korea and moved to the United States when he was 1 year old. He spoke mostly Korean in both formal and informal contexts. Andrew’s mother indicated that she rarely read to him due to his disinterest in books, yet when doing so, she usually read Korean books, and rarely asked him any questions about what they read. She also reported that although he was less interested in reading at home, he seemed to be engaged in reading at school with teachers and peers.

David moved to the United States when he was 2 years old. His dominant language seemed to be Korean because he indicated that he felt more comfortable when speaking it. Although David’s parents did not read books to him on a daily basis, they still believed in the benefits of reading books to young children. They mostly read Korean books, especially ones about Korean culture, but they rarely discussed them while reading them.

Emily was a second-generation Korean girl, a proficient speaker of both Korean and English with developing abilities. She liked to read books, particularly classics such as Cinderella and Snow White. Emily’s mother read books to her before she went to bed almost every night, interpreting the stories to Emily and rarely asking her about her thoughts.

Sonia was a second-generation Korean girl who was born in the United States. She utilized both Korean and English, but she used English more frequently when talking with her peers. Sonia’s parents read children’s literature to her on a regular basis. They usually read Korean books of various genres, focusing on teaching Korean vocabulary and sentences.

Susan was also a second-generation Korean girl whose dominant language was English. She liked to read books, and sometimes read English books by herself at home. Susan’s mother indicated that she read Korean books to her almost every day. When reading to Susan, she sometimes asked about her ideas, and Susan often shared her thoughts.

Tom was born in the United States and used both Korean and English, with the ability to switch between them with no difficulty. He liked to read every kind of book, especially animal stories. Tom’s mother indicated that, although she did not read to him on a regular basis, she did it as much as possible. When reading books to him, she focused on his comprehension of the stories, but seldom asked about his thoughts.

Data collection and analysis

As part of a larger study, the data were collected for 5 months using multiple collection sources such as (1) audio/video recordings, (2) observational field notes, (3) interviews, (4) children’s artifacts, and (5) an informal notebook including memos and field jottings. First, using audio/video recordings, the children’s conversations were recorded during the whole class session (3 hours), rather than focusing only on the Story Reading session. The researcher wrote up observational field notes focusing on the children’s reading of literature and creation of written texts. In order to record every detail of the research setting, the field notes included as much description as possible, including the feelings and physical expressions of the participants (Dyson and Genishi, 2005; Stake, 2006). Each participant was observed during the whole class period, focusing on Story Reading.

Interviews with parents were also employed to gain a holistic view of the children’s literature-related experiences at home. All interviews were held in Korean (once, 30 minutes), either in Ms Lee’s classroom after class or at public libraries at the participants’ convenience. The interviews with the teacher were conducted in Korean four times after class. Although the interview questions were created in advance, the researcher often asked several follow-up questions based on the participant’s answers. In addition to the formal interviews, some informal interviews were conducted with the children in casual situations (e.g. during breaks) whenever the need arose.

The children’s drawings and writings were key artifacts. All of the children’s artifacts were collected, including written texts and journals created at home and at school. Due to the limitation in access to the students’ original work, the researcher made photocopies of each child’s written texts. After collecting the children’s artifacts and some related materials, the researcher created portfolios to keep track of the children’s written texts and their conversations related to those texts.

The data analysis involved iterative reading of the data related to the children’s discussions about the books. First, Emerson et al.’s (1996) coding methods were adopted, and using a preliminary coding, the researcher transcribed the children’s oral responses to the books during the read-aloud sessions and their conversations while reading books and creating written texts. Also, the interviews with the parents, teacher, and children were transcribed. Once all of the data were transcribed, the researcher grouped together the series of episodes for each literacy activity. Then, the researcher employed Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) open and axial coding methods. In the open coding, the researcher conducted line-by-line and whole-document analyses. By reading the data many times, the researcher coded meaningful segments of text and developed 132 codes. In the axial coding, the researcher grouped the material into three categories in a non-hierarchical manner such as challenging stereotypes, discussing gender roles, and deconstructing stories. After this, the researcher reorganized the data by student to capture important changes in the field over time, and gain fresh insights to reinterpret certain events. Some of the literacy events were selected based on the research questions that directed this study.

In an effort to improve the validity of the analysis of the data, the researcher adopted Patton’s (2002) translation technique, and compared and cross-checked the consistency of the information. In addition, by using a member-check method (Miles and Huberman, 1994), the researcher reviewed all of the data coding with other professionals through face-to-face conversations to gain additional insights about emerging themes. Moreover, the researcher employed Creswell’s (1998) “persistent observation.” Although the data were collected for 5 months, the researcher spent a large amount of time at the research site in order to build close relationships with the participating children and their parents. The extended time together increased the participants’ trust in the researcher, and that contributed to the trustworthiness of the data.

Findings

The current study investigates the possibilities and challenges of critical literacy in bilingual Korean preschool contexts. In this study, the teacher adopted a critical literacy approach in her literacy curriculum, and facilitated the children’s communicative engagement by allowing them to utilize both Korean and English. As the teacher created a safe, comfortable atmosphere in which the children could share their views, the children had the valuable opportunity to speculate about different voices in the texts, consider multiple interpretations, and challenge the gender ideologies of the texts.

Exploring diverse voices

Ms Lee was an experienced teacher who had teaching experience in both Korea and the United States. As an early childhood teacher and educator, her goal in teaching was not only to teach young children language and literacy skills but also to help them grow up as democratic citizens who appreciate differences in a racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse world. Her critical literacy efforts helped the children challenge the author’s message, deeply examine the texts, and develop critical attitudes about what they read. This was particularly obvious when the children read the book 아기돼지 삼형제 (Three Little Pigs), one of the most famous children’s stories, that tells the story of three pigs and a wolf.

“The wolf was just hungry.”

As the class read the book, the teacher asked questions that explored the author’s voice, and encouraged the children to generate alternative perspectives. The following is the conversation the children and the teacher had about the wolf:

Teacher:

근데 왜 늑대는 아기 돼지 집을 망가트리려고 했어요? [Why did the wolf try to destroy the pig houses?]

Tom:

잡아먹을라구요 [Because he wanted to eat (them)!].

Teacher:

늑대는 어떤거 같애? [What do you think of the wolf’s behavior?]

Children:

나빠요 [Bad].

Teacher:

맞아. 늑대는 나쁜짓을 했어요. 근데 늑대는 왜 그랬어요? [That’s right. The wolf’s behavior is very bad. But why did the wolf do that?]

Emily:

배가 고파서 [Because (he was) hungry].

Teacher:

맞아요. 늑대는 배가 고팠어. 우리친구들은 배고프면 어떻게 해요? [Yes. The wolf was hungry. What do you usually do when you are hungry?]

Susan:

Eat!!

Teacher:

맞아요. 근데 우리 먹을게 하나도 없으면 어떡하지? [Right. But what if we have nothing to eat?]

Children:

(Thinking)

Teacher:

늑대는 배가 고팠데. 어쩌면 아기 돼지를 잡아 먹을라구 그런게 아니라 집에 먹이가 있나 그랬을수도 있지 않을까? [The wolf was hungry. He could have tried to destroy the pigs’ houses not because he wanted to eat pigs but because he wanted to get some food in their houses.]

Children:

(Thinking)

Sonia:

늑대 was just hungry! [The wolf was just hungry!]

Emily:

근데 어.. 다른거 먹으면 돼요. (with an excited voice) like strawberry! [But he could have eaten other things.. like strawberry!]

Andrew:

No. wolf는 strawberry 안먹어요 [No. Wolfs don’t eat strawberry].

In the conversation, the teacher attempted to help the children approach the story of The Three Little Pigs from the wolf’s perspective. In response to the teacher’s questions, the children expressed different ideas utilizing both languages. Bilingual/multilingual children often manipulate their linguistic codes in order to convey the meaning of the intended idea accurately (Zentella, 1997). They also “translanguage” as a way to access different linguistic features and make meaning in their multilingual worlds (Garcia, 2009; Garcia and Wei, 2014). When discussing the book with peers and the teacher, the children in Ms Lee’s classroom were translanguaging as a “common, natural, and distinctive” feature of bilingual behavior (Gort and Pontier, 2012: 4). As they shared their views about the wolf’s behavior using two languages, the children could expand the schema and deconstruct the story from the wolf’s point of view. For example, Emily suggested an alternative way for the wolf to keep from starving, while Andrew challenged Emily’s idea, bringing his background knowledge about a wolf’s dietary habits. As the discussion continued, the children’s negative responses toward the wolf were reduced, and this was reflected in their drawings. When the teacher asked the children to create written texts from the wolf’s perspective, some students described the wolf as a friendly character. Figure 1 gives examples of the children’s work.

Figure 1.

Emily’s and Susan’s written texts about Wolf (from left).

As seen in Figure 1, Emily’s drawing included a house, one small pig, and a big wolf on the bottom. While the original book described the wolf as a negative character, Emily and Susan portrayed the wolf as a smiling figure. The following is the conversation between the researcher and Susan about her work:

Researcher:

와~ 여기 큰 집이 있네. 이건 누구집이야? [Wow, we have a large house here. So, who owns this house?]

Susan:

(with an excited voice) Wolf!

Researcher:

아. 이건 늑대 집이 구나. 근데 집이 하나밖에 없네? [Oh. I see. This is the wolf’s house. So, do we have only one house here?]

Susan:

여기서 pigs 랑 같이 살아요 [Yes. They live all together here.]

Researcher:

아. 근데 아기돼지들은 어디있어? [Oh. I see. But where are the pigs?]

Susan:

They are inside!

In Susan’s imaginary world, the three pigs and wolf got along with each other, and they even lived in the same house. Deconstructing the story from the wolf’s perspective resulted in the children generating a new story about three little pigs. Such textual deconstruction was also observed when the children read the book Cinderella.

“What if stepsisters were pretty?”

When the children discussed Cinderella’s struggles, they revealed unfavorable feelings toward both the stepmother and stepsisters, but as they had a conversation about the situation from the stepsisters’ perspective, they seemed to understand the stepsisters’ behavior better. In expressing their views, they used both Korean and English as follows:

Teacher:

신데렐라 언니들은 왜 신데렐라를 미워했을까? [Why do you think that the stepsisters hated Cinderella?]

Children:

(thinking)

Emily:

신데렐라 언니들은 jealous 해요 [The stepsisters are jealous of Cinderella].

Teacher:

왜? [Why?]

Emily:

Because they are ugly and she is pretty.

Susan:

(pointing out the illustration) 여기요 [Look at this].

Teacher:

그럼 신데렐라 언니들이 이쁘면 신데렐라를 안미워했을까? [Then, do you think that the stepsisters would not have hated Cinderella if they were pretty?]

Emily:

네. 그럼 잘지내요. [Then, they must be getting along].

Susan:

(smiling) 아니야. 그럼 신데렐라가 미워해요. [No. Then Cinderella hates them.]

As the teacher asked critical questions about the stepsisters’ behavior, the children were able to deconstruct the story from the stepsisters’ perspective. In this process, they were bringing their prior knowledge and trying to make connections between the new information and what they already knew. The original story described Cinderella as “good” and the stepsisters as “bad.” Yet, in their new stories, the relationship between Cinderella and her stepsisters was more complex. That is, Cinderella might have been a “bad” character if her stepsisters had been more beautiful than she. While they critically examined the text, the children were able to reconstruct the relationship between Cinderella and the stepsisters. The teacher’s critical literacy approach also helped the children challenge textual ideologies about gender.

Challenging traditional gender roles

The children’s critical investigation of books using two languages prompted the children to critique the texts and to challenge traditional gender roles. Aina and Cameron (2011) argue that children start to learn about gender at an early age as they observe the different characteristics associated with the male and female genders, including their physical attributes and activities. Through her critical literacy approach, Ms Lee encouraged the children to think deeply about gender issues, and with her assistance they challenged the dominant gender discourses in the texts, rethinking traditional and non-traditional roles.

Snow White as a hunter

While the children read a scene in Snow White in which she was cleaning and cooking in the dwarfs’ house, the teacher helped the children think critically about traditional gender roles by asking some questions. The following is the example of this:

Teacher:

근데 만약에 백설공주가 사냥을 하면 어떨까? [Then, what do you think if Snow White does hunting for the dwarfs?]

Tom:

Not good.

Teacher:

여자들도 사냥 잘 하는데? 백설공주가 사냥 더 잘할수도 있어요 [Really? Women can hunt too. Snow White could have hunted better.]

David:

Little bird 잡을수 있어요 [She could hunt little birds].

Susan:

(smiling) Maybe a lion too!

Teacher:

맞아요. 그럼 난쟁이들이 cook 하는건 어때? 맛있을거 같아? [Then, what do you think about the dwarfs’ cooking? Do you think that their food is delicious?]

Tom:

(shaking head negatively)

Teacher:

남자들이 cook 더 잘 하기도 해요. 예를 들면 선생님 아빠는 요리를 정말 잘해요. [But sometimes, men cook better (than women). For example, my father is really a good cook!].

In the conversation above, the teacher introduced the non-traditional gender roles of women hunting and men cooking. As the teacher initiated critical conversations about traditional and non-traditional gender roles, the children could consider the differences between the male and female roles. Tom considered cooking as work for females and hunting as a task for males, while Susan classified hunting as work for both males and females.

The children’s critical discussions about traditional/non-traditional gender roles also helped the children deconstruct the story of Snow White as a hunter. For instance, Andrew’s Snow White was hunting in mountains and the sea. In his imaginary world, Snow White hunted in the deep forest, and thus the queen was not able to find her. Tom also created his written text about Snow White hunting in the forest, and he described her as a skillful hunter. Like Andrew and Tom, David drew a picture of Snow White hunting, but he focused on the forest animals’ reactions to Snow White’s beauty. Figure 2 shows the written texts created by Andrew, Tom, and David about Snow White as a hunter.

Figure 2.

Andrew’s, Tom’s, and David’s written texts about Snow White’s hunting (from left).

The children’s use of critical literacy as a means for deconstructing gender ideologies was also evident when they read the book 콩쥐팥쥐 [Kong-gee, Pot-gee] (2003).

Exploring female/male roles at home

The book 콩쥐팥쥐 [Kong-gee, Pot-gee] is one of the most popular Korean folk tales, dealing with Kong-gee, who lives in unfortunate circumstances that are suddenly changed into remarkably good fortune (an Asian version of Cinderella). After reading the book, the teacher and children discussed Kong-gee’s roles as cook and housekeeper, and such conversations helped them to speculate about gender roles at home:

Teacher:

콩쥐는 맨날 이렇게 일만했데요. 하루종일 이렇게 밥하구 빨래하고 청소하고 그러면 어떨까? [Kong-gee worked hard all day long. How would you feel if you cooked, did laundry, and cleaned every day?]

Tom:

힘들어요 [Tired].

Teacher:

근데 콩쥐는 맨날 이렇게 일만했어요. 만약에 내가 콩쥐면 우리 친구들은 어떻게 할거같아요? [But Kong-gee worked like this every day. If you were Kong-gee, how would you do?]

Susan:

같이 하자고 해요 [(I might) ask a help].

Teacher:

누구한테? [to whom?]

Susan:

엄마랑 언니랑한테 [to mom and sisters].

Teacher:

그럼 오빠한테 같이 해달라고 하면 어때? [Then, what about asking help to a brother?].

Children:

(thinking)

Emily:

Yeah, I can do that!

In the excerpt above, the children shared their different views about female and male roles in the home. It seemed that for Susan, cooking and doing laundry was female work, while Emily considered cooking as being for both males and females. In expressing their different ideas, Susan employed Korean, whereas Emily used English. In addition, their bilingual discussions about Kong-gee’s hard work at home provided them with the chance to ponder what they would do if they were in her position, and it helped them deconstruct the story. Figure 3 shows how the children challenged the traditional female/males roles through reconstructing the story.

Figure 3.

Andrew’s written texts about Kong-gee and Sa-to.

In Andrew’s text, he drew two figures side by side (Kong-gee and Sa-to) and a blue airplane above them. In his new story, Kong-gee does not need to work alone at home because Sa-to (a Prince Charming character) visits her by airplane and helps her do her household chores. Andrew was a student who was not interested in reading at home. Yet as the teacher created a supportive literary environment where the children could explore diverse viewpoints and freely express their ideas, he became engaged in the story, critically explored the text, and recreated the story from an alternative perspective. In an interview with the teacher, she emphasized the importance of teaching a critical perspective to young children as follows: Teacher:

아이들에게 “다른 관점” 에대해서 가르치는건 참 중요하다고 생각하는데Critical literacy 는 아이들이 다른 관점으로 볼 수 있도록 도움이 되는거 같아요. 사물을 다각도로 보면 그동안 당연하게 생각하던 것에 대해 다시 생각해 볼수도 있고…창조적인 생각은 비판적인 사고 없이는 불가능한거 같아요. [I think it is important to teach young children different perspectives, and critical literacy helps them develop their critical thinking skills. It also helps them rethink about the things that they took for granted. I think that creative thoughts are not possible without critical thinking.]

In the interview above, Ms Lee emphasized the importance of teaching young children through critical literacy to have a critical perspective. Yet, at the same time, she revealed some challenges in implementing a critical literacy approach in bilingual Korean classrooms in several aspects. First, in terms of classroom management, the KLS teachers were required to finish two to three workbooks during a semester. Since the curriculum focused on language and literacy skills such as vocabulary acquisition and sentence completion, Ms Lee always had a tight class schedule, and sometimes could not finish reading and do the drawing activities afterward. Also, the absence of a model was an obstacle for Ms Lee in creating her critical literacy classroom. Critical literacy originated from Western counties, and most Korean teachers do not acknowledge the critical literacy approach (Kim, 2012). Although Ms Lee was aware of the significance of critical literacy, she experienced some difficulty in finding critical literacy models that were suitable for bilingual contexts: Teacher:

이런 커리큘럼이 너무 중요하다고 생각하는데요. 아무래도 Bilingual 이나 동양에 맞는 그런 모델이 없는게 좀 아쉬워요. 그리고 다른 선생님들도 이런걸 이용하면 같이 정보도 교환하고 할텐데 그런 분들이 한명도 없어서 아쉽더라구요 [I think that this curriculum (critical literacy curriculum) is very important, but I wish we had critical literacy models that fit bilingual and Asian classrooms. Also, I wanted to share information with other teachers who used a critical literacy curriculum, but in fact I have never seen any other teacher who was even aware of it.]

Ms Lee’s challenges also included the parents’ inattention to teaching their children a critical perspective. In the interview with the parents, most of them indicated that although they acknowledged the importance of teaching children to have a critical attitude, they rarely encouraged their child to read texts from alternative perspectives.

Discussion

Critical literacy as a means of transformation

The findings of this study add important conversations related to reading literature in young children’s classrooms in three aspects. First, the study suggests the possibility of early critical literacy practices as a means of transformation. Critical literacy establishes critical conversations among young children about the world around them (Leland et al., 2005; Vasquez, 2004; Vasquez and Felderman, 2012). As one of the critical pedagogies, critical literacy works as “a means of expression, interpretation, and/or transformation of our lives and the lives of those around us” (Quintero, 2009: 2). In this study, Ms Lee employed critical literacy as an instructional tool to teach her students to examine alternative perspectives and analyze text ideologies. As the teacher created a curriculum space where the children could look at stories from different perspectives, the children were able to critically examine texts, challenge the authors’ voice, and question the status quo.

The critical literacy approach also provided the children with a valuable opportunity to challenge the gender ideologies of the texts and explore diverse perspectives on gender roles. Vasquez (2004) argues that a critical literacy approach helps children explore diverse social issues, and engage in some form of social action. The children in this study used critical literacy as a tool for deconstructing texts and challenging traditional gender roles. As the teacher created a supportive atmosphere where the children could openly discuss their diverse thoughts about the traditional and non-traditional gender roles, the children were able to deconstruct the dominant gender discourse in text. For instance, Tom was able to think of Snow White as a hunter in the forest, and Andrew could recreate the story of 콩쥐팥쥐 [Kong-gee, Pot-gee] as a story that Sa-to helps Kong-gee do her household chores. As the children had critical discussions about gender, they could challenge the dominant gender ideologies, question their initial understanding about gender roles, and develop their own new interpretations. This finding enhances previous studies that highlight the significant role of early critical literacy as “taking action to promote social justice” (Beck, 2005: 395).

Translanguaging in bilingual classrooms

The study also confirmed the potential of translanguaging practices in young bilingual classrooms. Traditionally, many bilingual educators have insisted on the separation of the two languages as a way to promote bilinguals’ language development (Creese and Blackledge, 2010), yet there is increasing evidence that following only monolingual instructional strategies is not always appropriate (e.g. Creese and Blackledge, 2010; Cummins, 2007; Martin-Jones and Saxena, 1996). The findings of this study corroborate the previous research that suggests that a strict separation approach can hinder the natural social interaction of bilinguals. Garcia (2009) argues that “translanguaging” helps young bilinguals not only develop both their first and second languages but also construct deeper understanding of texts. In Ms Lee’s classroom, the children were translanguaging in order to accommodate their different communicative needs, such as sharing comments, asking questions, and answering the teacher’s questions. For these children, translanguaging included not only code-switching but also shifting between the two languages according to context. As translanguaging provided safe language-use opportunities, they were able to “shuttle” between the two languages in a natural manner (Canagarajah, 2006). In this process, they could make meaning, shape their experiences, and gain a deeper understanding of multiple perspectives. The findings of this study support the possibility of using translanguaging as a pedagogic practice to “maximize communicative potential” (Garcia, 2009: 140), and to help preschool bilinguals develop a critical perspective toward texts and gender roles.

Challenges of implementing critical literacy in bilingual Korean classrooms

Despite the promise of a more democratic society through critical literacy, the study also found some challenges to implementing the method in bilingual Korean classrooms. According to Lewison et al. (2002), “initial efforts toward implementing a critical literacy curriculum are often shadowed by hesitations and uncertainties of what critical literacy looks like in classrooms” (p. 390). In this study, Ms Lee revealed her struggle in implementing critical literacy in her classroom due to the lack of appropriate methods and models in preschool and bilingual classrooms, particularly in Korean contexts. This finding suggests that although there might be some bilingual teachers who want to utilize a critical literacy curriculum in their classrooms, they may experience challenges in implementing this new mode of inquiry. Also, some critical literacy teachers may be pressured to adopt practices that conform to the existing school culture, and to undertake a complicated balancing act between conventions of the current school system and the new strategy (Beck, 2005).

Limitations of the study

The study asserts the possibility of critical literacy as a medium to create supportive learning environments where young bilingual children can develop their critical thinking skills and challenge the dominant gender ideologies. In making this claim, there are some limitations. First, the results may not be applicable to children from different racial, cultural, or socioeconomic backgrounds. In this study, the focal children were from affluent families with college-educated parents. Because the findings in this study were specific to the particular case, their relevance may not extend directly to different contexts. Thus, further research is needed in this area in different bilingual classrooms.

Another limitation of this study is related to the limited access for the researcher to participants’ homes and their main schools. Information about the children’s critical literacy experiences outside the KLS was obtained only through conversations with their parents. Although the in-depth interviews with the parents helped to understand the children’s experiences outside the KLS, it is possible that the limited contact with the participants outside of the KLS could have affected the findings. However, despite the limited data set, this study still can be beneficial for bilingual and literacy educators by helping illuminate the role of translanguaging in literary discussions. For professionals in early childhood education, the study may contribute to our understanding of the significance of critical literacy conversations with preschool children. Also, since no studies about critical literacy with bilingual preschool children have been documented, this study may open doors for future research about critical literacy practices in preschool and bilingual settings.

Practical implementation

The findings of this study provide important instructional recommendations for early literacy practices. First, teachers should provide young children with opportunities to examine the ideologies of texts by asking critical questions. According to Meller et al. (2009), “primary-age (younger) children are able to participate in discussions based on teachers’ use of critical questions” (p. 77). Young children do not simply decode texts when reading books. Instead, they are “text participants,” “text users,” and critical analysts of texts (Fisher, 2008; Leland et al., 2005). Since they use spoken and written texts as part of everyday life, teachers should pay attention to how they interrogate, deconstruct, and analyze their “everyday texts” in order to make sense of their worlds (Vasquez, 2004). To this end, it is important for teachers to help young children engage in a thoughtful exploration of texts, question the status quo, and critique texts (Fisher, 2008; Smith, 2005). Also, instead of providing traditional teacher-centered literacy practices, teachers should facilitate young children in understanding the plurality of voices and becoming co-creators to make meaning of texts.

Second, it is crucial that teachers create supportive literature surroundings where preschool children critique the dominant gender ideologies. Early critical literacy practices help young readers to act as creative, active and critical citizens in a democratic society (Fisher, 2008; Knoblauch and Brannon, 1993; Smith, 2005). In particular, a critical literacy approach provides students with the opportunity to reexamine the social complexity such as race, class, and gender issues within the educational structure (Lankshear and McLaren, 1993). Children start to develop gender stereotypes immediately after they become aware of their gender (Aina and Cameron, 2011). Thus, by incorporating critical literacy practices into their classrooms, teachers should help children understand how gender discourses can be constituted by social practice.

Third, the findings of this study suggest that bilingualism/biliteracy studies should not be restricted to the teaching and learning of skills in two languages. Being bilingual means more than speaking two separate languages because it involves learning different norms, expectations, and worldview (Darder, 1995). Indeed, young bilingual children are exposed to an increasingly heterogeneous world (Cummins, 1996; Garcia, 2009). Therefore, bilingual education should help them challenge social norms and develop a critical perspective on “differences.” To this end, it is vital to create environments in which bilingual readers learn about multiple perspectives and develop critical thinking skills from an early age (Martínez-Roldán, 2000).

It is furthermore crucial for teachers to help young bilinguals engage in books by facilitating critical conversations with them, using both languages. In bilingual and multilingual classrooms, young children often code-switch, not due to a lack of knowledge in one or the other language, but for different communicative aims (Garcia, 2009; Garcia and Wei, 2014). Bilingual literary discussions help children engage in meaningful conversations about the books, deepen their understanding, and allow them to develop responses to issues (López-Robertson, 2010; Martínez-Roldán, 2000). Thus, it is important that teachers create a “translanguaging space” where young bilinguals can integrate two (or more) languages during literacy activities and use their full range of conversational abilities (Wei, 2011).

Finally, in order to create more supportive literary surroundings for young bilingual Korean children, the curriculum at the Korean HL Schools should be more than teaching “facts” and information (Shin, 2005). The lack of creative and critical lessons has been recognized as one of the major challenges faced by the Korean HL Schools (Shin, 2005; You, 2009). Therefore, teachers at the Korean HL Schools should create a curriculum space where the children can tune in to the voice of a text, and refer to the ideas of others in interpreting that text (Smith, 2005). It is also crucial that policy makers at the Korean HL Schools pay attention not only to language/literacy skills but also to the children’s growth as “critically literate readers” (Vasquez and Felderman, 2012) who can investigate the world of a text in relation to their own lived reality. They should also consider how they could enable bilingual Korean children to bring together different perspectives of “their personal history, experience and environment, their attitudes, beliefs, and performance” (Wei, 2011: 1223).

Hall (1998) argues, “there are multiple ways to present the world and to be in the world” (p. 184). Thus, reading literature with young bilingual children should be the first step in exploring diverse voices and developing a critical attitude toward real-life problems. This is important because, when teachers create environments where young bilingual children can develop a critical perspective toward their reading, they can grow up as democratic individuals who “talk back” (Enciso, 1997) to the world they live in.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Aina

Cameron

(2011) Why does gender matter? Counteracting stereotypes with young children. Dimensions of Early Childhood 39(3): 12–20.

Beck

(2005) A place for critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 48(5): 394–400.

Bigler

(1995) The role of classification skill in moderating environmental influences on children’s gender stereotyping: a study of the functional use of gender in the classroom. Child Development 66: 1072–1087.

Cai

(2008) Transactional theory and the study of multicultural literature. Language Arts 85(3): 212–220.

Canagarajah

(2006) TESOL at forty: what are the issues? TESOL Quarterly 40(1): 9–34.

Creese

Blackledge

(2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal 94: 103–115.

Creswell

(1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Cummins

(1986) Psychological assessment of minority students: out of context, out of focus, out of control? In: Willig

Greeberg

(eds) Bilingualism and Learning Disabilities. Chatham, NJ: American Library Publishing Co., Inc., pp. 3–14.

Cummins

(1996) Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society. Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.

10.

Cummins

(2007) Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(2): 221–240.

11.

Darder

(1995) Buscando America: the contributions of critical Latino educators to the academic development and empowerment of Latino students in the U.S. In: Sleeter

McLaren

(eds) Multicultural Education, Critical Pedagogy, and Politics of Difference. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 310–318.

12.

Denzin

(2001) Interpretive Interactionism. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

13.

Dozier

Johnston

Rogers

(2006) Critical Literacy Critical Teaching: Tools for Preparing Responsive Teachers. New York: Columbia University.

14.

Dyson

Genishi

(2005) On the Case. New York: Teachers College Press.

15.

Emerson

Fretz

Shaw

(1996) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

16.

Enciso

(1997) Negotiating the meaning of difference: talking back to multicultural literature. In: Rogers

Soter

(eds) Reading across Cultures: Teaching Literature in a Diverse Society. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 13–41.

17.

Fisher

(2008) Teaching comprehension and critical literacy: investigating guided reading in three primary classrooms. Literacy 42(1): 19–28.

18.

Fitts

Winstead

Weisman

(2008) Coming to voice: preparing bilingual-bicultural teachers for social justice. Equity & Excellence in Education 41(3): 357–371.

19.

Freire

(1982) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

20.

Freire

Macedo

(1987) Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

21.

Galda

Beach

(2001) Theory into practice: response to literature as a cultural activity. Reading Research Quarterly 36(1): 64–73.

22.

Garcia

(2009) Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In: Skutnabb-Kangas

Phillipson

Mohanty

al.

(eds) Social Justice through Multilingual Education. New York: Multilingual Matters, pp. 140–158.

23.

Garcia

Kleifgen

(2010) Educating Emergent Bilinguals: Policies, Programs, and Practices for English Language Learners. New York: Teachers College Press.

24.

Garcia

Wei

(2014) Translanguaging Language: Bilingualism and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

25.

Gort

Pontier

(2012) Exploring bilingual pedagogies in dual language preschool classrooms. Language and Education. Available at: http://www.education.miami.edu/FacultyStaff/media/164/LangEd2012.pdf

26.

Hall

(1998) Critical literacy and the case for it in the early years of schooling. Language, Culture and Curriculum 11(2): 183–194.

27.

Commeyras

(2008) A case study: emergent biliteracy in English and Chinese of a 5 year-old Chinese child with wordless picture books. Reading Psychology 29(1): 1–31.

28.

Igoa

(1995) The Inner World of the Immigrant Child. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

29.

James

McVay

(2009) Critical literacy for young citizens: first graders investigate the first thanksgiving. Early Childhood Education Journal 36: 347–354.

30.

Jones

Clarke

(2007) Disconnections: pushing readers beyond connections and toward the critical. Pedagogies 2(2): 95–115.

31.

Kim

(2012) Critical literacy in East Asian classrooms. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 11(1): 131–144.

32.

Knoblauch

Brannon

(1993) Critical Teaching and the Idea of Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton.

33.

Kulis

Marsiglia

Nagoshi

(2010) Gender roles, externalizing behaviors, and substance use among Mexican-American adolescents. Journal of Social Work 10(3): 283–307.

34.

Lankshear

McLaren

(1993) Critical Literacy: Politics, Praxis, and the Postmodern. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

35.

Lee

Shin

(2008) Korean heritage language education in the United States: the current state, opportunities, and possibilities. Heritage Language Journal 6(2): 1–20.

36.

Lee

(2008) Understanding gender through Disney’s marriages: a study of young Korean immigrant girls. Early Childhood Education Journal 36(1): 11–18.

37.

Leland

Harste

Huber

(2005) Out of the box: critical literacy in a first-grade classroom. Language Arts 82(5): 257–268.

38.

Lewison

Flint

Sluys

(2002) Taking on critical literacy: the journey of newcomers and novices. Language Arts 79(5): 382–392.

39.

López-Robertson

(2010) “Lo agarraron y lo echaron pa’tras”: discussing critical social issues with young Latinas/Discutiendo críticas y temas sociales con niñas Latinas. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 12(2): 43–54.

40.

McLaren

(2007) Life in School. Los Angeles, CA: Pearson.

41.

Martin

Ruble

(2004) Children’s search for gender cues: cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in Psychological Science 13(2): 67–70.

42.

Martin-Jones

Saxena

(1996) Turn-taking, power asymmetries, and the positioning of bilingual participants in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education 8(1): 105–123.

43.

Martínez-Roldán

(2000) Bilingual children’s responses to multicultural literature on discrimination. The Dragon Lode 18(2): 17–23.

44.

Meller

Richardson

Hatch

(2009) Using Read-Alouds with critical literacy literature in K-3 classrooms. Available at: http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200911/PrimaryInterestWeb1109.pdf

45.

Miles

Huberman

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

46.

Minami

(2000) Crossing borders: the politics of schooling Asian students. In: Ovando

McLaren

(eds) The Politics of Multiculturalism and Bilingual Education: Students and Teachers Caught in the Cross Fire. New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 188–207.

47.

Newell

Durst

(1993) Introduction: toward a framework for improving the teaching of literature. In: Newell

Durst

(eds) Exploring Texts: The Role of Discussion and Writing in the Teaching and Learning of Literature. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, pp. 1–22.

48.

Oh-Hwang

(1993) Linkage between home environments, child psychosocial maturity, and child academic achievement. Gifted International 8(1): 32–37.

49.

Ovando

Collier

(1985) Bilingual and ESL Classrooms: Teaching in Multicultural Contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

50.

Park

(2007) Maintaining Korean as a heritage language. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.

51.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

52.

Pradl

(1996) Literature for Democracy: Reading as a Social Act. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook.

53.

Quintero

(2009) Critical Literacy in Early Childhood Education: Artful Story and the Integrated Curriculum. New York: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.

54.

Reyes

Azuara

(2008) Emergent biliteracy in young Mexican immigrant children. Reading Research Quarterly 43(4): 374–398.

55.

Shin

Nam

(2004) Culture, gender roles, and sport. Journal of Sport & Social Issues 28(3): 223–244.

56.

Shin

(2005) Developing in Two Languages: Korean Children in America. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

57.

Smith

(2005) Making Reading Mean. Royston: UKLA.

58.

Stake

(2006) Multiple Case Study Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

59.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

60.

Sung

Apple

(2003) Democracy, technology and curriculum: lessons from the critical practices of Korean teachers. In: Apple

(ed.) The State and the Politics of Knowledge. New York: Routledge, pp. 177–192.

61.

Trousdale

Harris

(1993) Missing links in literary response: group interpretation of literature. Children’s Literature in Education 24: 195–207.

62.

Vasquez

(2004) Negotiating Critical Literacies with Young Children. New York: Routledge Press.

63.

Vasquez

Felderman

(2012) Technology and Critical Literacy in Early Childhood. New York: Routledge.

64.

Wei

(2011) Moment analysis and translanguaging space: discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics 43(5): 1222–1235.

65.

Wood

(2009) Critical literacy and social justice in a urban kindergarten. Voices of Practitioners. Available at: https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/vop/VoicesWood.pdf

66.

Xie

(2013) Gender and family in contemporary China. Available at: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr13–808.pdf

67.

Yaden

Jr Tardibuono

(2004) The emergent writing development of urban, Latino preschoolers: developmental perspectives and instructional environments for second language learners. Reading and Writing Quarterly 20: 29–62.

68.

(2008) Voluntary writing in the heritage language: a study of biliterate Korean-Heritage adolescents in the U.S. Heritage Language Journal 6(2): 72–93.

69.

You

B-K

(2009) Stakeholder views of Korean and Chinese heritage language-community language (HL-CL) schools and education in Phoenix: a comparative study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.

70.

Choe

Han

(2002) Korean population in the United States: 2000 demographic characteristics and socio-economic status. Available at: http://web.calstatela.edu/centers/ckaks/publication_info/Korean_pop.pdf

71.

Zentella

(1997) Growing Up Bilingual. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

72.

애플비 [Applebee Publisher] (2010) 신데렐라 [Cinderella]. Seoul, South Korea.

73.

애플비 [Applebee Publisher] (2003) 콩쥐팥쥐 [Kong-gee, Pot-gee]. Seoul, South Korea.

74.

예름아이 편집부 [Yerim-i] (2001) 백설공주 [Princess Snow White]. Seoul, South Korea.

75.

지경사 [Jikyungsa] (2005) 아기돼지 삼형제 [Three Little Pigs]. Seoul, South Korea.