linguistic interdependence hypothesis (cummins)

• Acknowledgements
• 1. Language and Identity
• 1.1. What Is a Speech Community?
• 1.2. Coercive vs. Collaborative Relations
• 1.3. Language Minority Stories
• 2. Who Are English Learners?
• 2.1. Reflection Model
• 2.2. Inclusive Pedagogy
• 2.2. Makoto Critical Incident
• 2.3. Assumptions to Rethink about English Learners
• 2.4. Critical Learning Domains
• 3. Understanding Theory
• 3.1. Communication, Pattern, and Variability
• 3.2. Five Curriculum Guidelines
• 3.3. Indicators of Instructional Conversation (IC)
• 3.4. Indicators of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy
• 3.5. Standards for Effective Pedagogy
• 3.6. Examining Current Realities
• 4.1. Input and Native Language Acquisition
• 4.2. Input and Second Language Acquisition
• 4.3. The Interdependence Hypothesis
• 4.4. The Threshold Hypothesis
• 4.5. Vocabulary Development and Language Transfer
• 4.6. Text Modification
• 5. Interaction
• 5.1. Code Switching and Interaction
• 5.2. Characteristics of Modifications for Interaction
• 5.3. How Can Teachers Help Second Language Learners Begin to Communicate?
• 5.4. Classroom Routines and Participation Structures
• 5.5. We Can Talk: Cooperative Learning in the Elementary ESL Classroom
• 6. Stages of Development
• 6.1. Proficiency Levels Defined
• 7. Errors and Feedback
• 7.1. Points to Remember About Errors
• 7.2. Effective and Appropriate Feedback for English Learners
• 8. Types of Proficiencies
• 8.1. Fostering Second Language Development in Young Children
• 8.2. Instructional Conversation in Native American Classroom
• 8.3. Student Motivation to Learn
• 8.4. Language Learning Strategies: An Update
• 8.5. Three Misconceptions about Age and L2 Learning
• 9. Types of Performances
• 9.1. Understanding BICS and CALP
• 9.2. The Order of Acquisition and The Order of Use
• 9.3. Schumann's Acculturation Model
• 9.4. Implications From the Threshold and Interdependence Hypotheses
• 9.5. Lily Wong Fillmore’s Cognitive and Social Strategies for Second Language Learners
• 10. Classroom Practices and Language Acquisition
• Translations

The Interdependence Hypothesis

Choose a sign-in option.

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

How Knowledge of First Language (L1) Affects Second Language (L2) Acquisition

In linguistic communities all over the world, literate and non-literate, children at the age of four have developed the essentials of basic interpersonal communication. That is, their pronunciation system is approaching that of an adult speaker, their word formation skills are essentially developed, they have a conversational vocabulary of between one and two thousand word families, their basic abilities with conversational sentence structure are nearing those of adult speakers, and they have developed the basic discourse skills which serve as a foundation for social interaction. All of this has happened before they have fully reached Piaget’s concrete operations stage of mental development; that is, before they have developed the intellectual ability to reason as adults do. It has happened before they are capable of discussing language structure, and before they have developed literacy. As a matter of fact, the development of basic conversational skills in a language is not a good indicator of intellectual ability, except in cases of severe disabilities. Neither is the development of BICS a good predictor of academic success. All normal native speakers, even those at the lower end of the curve on standardized academic tests generally have good conversational ability in their language.

On the other hand, there is a strong correlation between academic success and vocabulary development, use of academic discourse, metalinguistic skills and levels of literacy, all of which are a part of CALP and continue to grow throughout childhood and adolescence. It is estimated, for example, that native speakers, on average, learn about 3,000 new word families per year during their elementary and secondary school years. Along with this vocabulary, they learn thousands of concepts in math, science, social studies, and other subjects. In addition, they become better and better readers and writers and develop analytical skills and complex higher-order thinking skills.

So, in addition to developing BICS, the absence of which can act as a temporary bottleneck to the processing of content information, L2 learners have to develop the CALP skills that native speakers are developing from year to year. It should not be surprising then, that in second language development, children immersed in L2 environments, develop BICS to near-native levels in one to three years, while it takes them from five to ten years on average to catch up to native speakers in CALP.

Also, since BICS is acquired primarily through social interaction and it is used primarily in face to face communication and does not place great demands on cognitive resources, children of many different intellectual and academic abilities acquire it in about the same amount of time given similar learning conditions. On the other hand, there are great differences among individuals in their rate of acquisition of CALP. This is where the Interdependence (IH) or Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) Hypothesis comes in.

Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummins, 1981)

Cognitive academic proficiency in the L1 and L2 are interdependent. Increases in the capacity for cognitive activity in one language also enhances the same capacity in the other. Consequently, learners who develop more cognitive skills through the use of their native language before beginning the acquisition of the L2 will develop the ability to manifest those skills in the L2 more rapidly than those who have not.

Simply put, it means that concepts developed in the L1 do not have to be relearned when children learn a second language; if children are already literate in their L1 when they are introduced to theL2, they will learn to read more rapidly in the second language; or children who have a strong background in math in the L1 will be able to use those  skills when they continue to learn math in the L2. What this means in practical terms is that time spent in learning academic content and literacy in the native language is not time lost to educational achievement in the L2. While these claims seem self- evident to people who have worked with second language learners, this hypothesis has been hotly contested by those who are against native-language instruction in American schools. Because of this many studies have been conducted to test this hypothesis. Here we will review only a few of the most important.

An early study that prompted a lot of later research was done by Skutnabb-Kangas (1977). In it she examined the educational performance of Finnish immigrant children in Sweden. When she compared the performance of Finnish speaking children who began studying in Swedish schools in kindergarten with those who had studied in Finnish schools for up to two years before being immersed in Swedish, to her surprise, those who had entered later performed better on academic content measures in Swedish. This is the opposite of what one would predict if language fluency (BICS) were the only factor operating. That is, one would predict that the earlier the exposure to the second language, the better for academic performance in that language.

In a similar study by Gonzalez (1986, 1989) he examined the sixth grade reading skills of two groups of learners, one who attended school for at least two years in Mexico prior to entering school in the U.S. (34 students) and the other group who were Spanish speakers but were born and schooled entirely in the U.S. (36 students). Both were from similar low SES backgrounds. The group with prior education in Mexico outperformed the other group in both Spanish and English reading, while the U.S. born group outperformed the Mexico group in basic oral communication skills in English.

In 1985 the California State Department of Education conducted an evaluation of five schools in which children had been taught initial literacy in their L1. They found consistently higher correlations between English and Spanish reading scores (r= 0.60 to 0.74) in later grades than between English reading and English oral proficiency scores (r=0.36 to 0.59). They also found that the correlations between L1 and L2 reading scores became stronger as oral language proficiency increased.

Cummins (1991) reviews a number of additional studies which support the Interdependence Hypothesis for both reading and writing skills, for languages which are closely related (English-Spanish) as well as languages that are linguistically more distantly related (Japanese-English). He concludes that the relationships between skills across similar languages are stronger than those across more distantly related ones. He attributes this to the fact that for distantly related languages, transfer occurs primarily from cognitive and personality attributes of learners, whereas for more closely related languages, the transfer includes that of linguistic elements as well.

Cummins’ interdependency hypothesis and the research which supports it provide clear evidence that the development of literacy in a first language will support the development of literacy in a second. Becoming literate in their native language will support second language learners’ academic language development, as well as their skills in social interaction.

Cummins, J. (1980). Psychological assessment of immigrant children: Logic or intuition? Journal of multilingual and multicultural development,1, I 97–111.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students (pp. 3–49). In California State Department of Education (ed.) Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center California State University.

Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). In E.-Bialystok (ed.) Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

González, L.A. (1986). The effects of first language education on the second language and academic achievement of Mexican immigrant elementary school children in the United States. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

González, L.A. (1989). Native language education: The key to English literacy skills (pp. 209–224). In D.J. Bixler- Márquez, G.K. Green, and

J.L. Ornstein-Galicia (Eds.) Mexican-American Spanish in its societal and cultural contexts. Brownsville: Pan American University.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1977). Are all Finns in Northern Sweden semilingual? International Journal of the Society of Language, 10, 144 –145.

Adapted with permission from:

Teemant, A. & Pinnegar, S. (2007). Understanding Langauge Acquisition Instructional Guide. Brigham Young University-Public School Partnership. 

Indiana University/Purdue University, Indianapolis (IUPUI)

Brigham Young University

This content is provided to you freely by EdTech Books.

Access it online or download it at https://edtechbooks.org/language_acquisition/jigsaw_reading_d .

• DOI: 10.3102/00346543049002222
• Corpus ID: 145118596

Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children

• James Cummins
• Published 1 June 1979
• Linguistics, Education
• Review of Educational Research

Figures from this paper

3,103 Citations

Transfer in bilingual development: the linguistic interdependence hypothesis revisited, bilingualism and cognitive development., the effect of knowledge about the l1 on foreign language skills and grammar, the impact of canadian french immersion research on theoretical conceptions of, bilingualism and phonological awareness: the case of bilingual (french–occitan) children.

• Highly Influenced

Early Bilingualism: Friend or Foe?

Bilingualism and mathematical reasoning in english as a second language, the entry and exit fallacy in bilingual education, acquiring writing skills in a third language: the positive effects of bilingualism:, acquiring writing skills in a third language: the positive effects of bilingualism, 101 references, the influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development., a comparison of second language learners and monolinguals on divergent thinking tasks at the elementary school level, a longitudinal study of bilingual and cognitive development(1), communication skills of bilingual children., bilingualism and cognitive development., orientation to language in ukrainian-english bilingual children., verbal ability and school achievement of bilingual and monolingual children of different ages1, bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness, the acquisition of english and the maintenance of spanish in a bilingual education program., individual differences in second language acquisition, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Amendments to Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis: Moderating Role of Affective Variables in L1 (Persian)-L2 (English) Academic Reading Relationship

• First Online: 18 September 2021

Cite this chapter

• Seyed Hassan Talebi 10 &
• Javad Fallahi 11  

Part of the book series: Language Policy ((LAPO,volume 25))

203 Accesses

1 Citations

Cross-language transfer (CLT) studies have shifted their narrow focus from merely linguistic to a much broader perspective which sets the premium on the contribution of the non-linguistic factors of the first language to the development of the second language, particularly in the reading skill. Despite such advancement in theory, a fairly large number of reading studies in this line of inquiry tend to be heavily relied on cognitive and linguistic transfer from L1 to L2 and do not further extend, in consequence, the scope of CLT to integrate affective considerations into their framework. Employing a critical content analysis of the available literature, the chapter primarily addresses the particularities of developing L1-L2 literacy in the context of Iran and then moves on to elaborate the dual nature of language proficiency alongside the relationship of languages in one mind with a reference to some seminal work such as Cummins’ (Rev Edu Res 49:222–251, 1979) basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS), cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), and linguistic interdependence hypothesis (LIH) and Cook’s (Lang Learn 42:557, 1992) notion of multi-competence. On the bases of the critical review of the literature on L1-L2 reading, we lean, in consequence, towards a novel proposal that not only reaffirms the long-established interdependence of reading across languages, but also elevates the construct of interdependence to one which integrates affective variables that moderate the relationship between L1 and L2 reading. The chapter concludes by offering a more rigorous framework for future direction of CLT studies which includes linguistic, cognitive and, of course affective variables into consideration and finally a number of practical suggestions for L1 reading teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Dual Focus on Language and Content as an Issue in L2/FL Reading Development

Cognition, engagement, and motivation as factors in the reading comprehension of Dual Language Learners and English Speakers: Unified or distinctive models?

Exploring the interplay between Iranian EFL learners’ first language (L1) literacy resources and their performance on L2 receptive skills

Akbari, H., Ghonsooly, B., Ghazanfari, M., & Ghapanchi, Z. (2019). Enriching the construct structure of L2 reading motivation: Learners’ attitudes in focus. Reading Psychology, 40 (4), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2019.1614126

Article   Google Scholar  

Akbari, H., Ghonsooly, B., Ghazanfari, M., & Shahriari, H. (2017). Attitude toward reading: L1 or L2 or both. SAGE Open . https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017717303

Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 1–24).

Google Scholar  

Alexander, J. E., & Filler, R. C. (1976). Attitudes and reading . International Reading Association.

Atef-Vahid, S., & Kashani, A. F. (2011). The effect of English learning anxiety on Iranian high-school students’ English language achievement. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2 (3), 29–44.

Baghaei, P., Hohensinn, C., & Kubinger, K. D. (2014). Persian adaptation of foreign language reading anxiety scale: A psychometric analysis. Psychological Reports, 114 (2), 315–325.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, research, and classroom perspectives . Ablex.

Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25 , 133.

Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16 , 15–31.

Camiciottoli, B. C. (2001). Extensive reading in English: Habits and attitudes of a group of Italian University EFL students. Journal of Research in Reading, 24 (2), 135–153.

Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics., 12 , 159–179.

Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education: Basque educational research in international perspective . Multilingual Matters.

Book   Google Scholar  

Clarke, M. A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading-or when language competence interferes with reading performance. The Modern Language Journal, 64 (2), 203–209.

Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research, 7 (2), 103–117.

Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42 (4), 557–591.

Cook, V. (1995). Multi-competence and the learning of many languages. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8 (2), 93–98.

Cook, V. (2003). Changing the first language in the L2 user’s mind. Effects of the Second Language on the First, 1 , 1–18.

Cook, V. (2004). Bilingual cognition and language teaching. Draft of Paper for Talk in Taiwan. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/writings/papers/bilcog&teaching.htm

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5 (4), 161–169. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED019903.pdf

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49 (2), 222–251.

Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly , 175–187.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Eds.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework, (pp. 3–49). Sacramento, CA: .

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire . Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2016). Reflections on Cummins (1980),“The Cross-Lingual Dimensions of Language Proficiency: Implications for Bilingual Education and the Optimal Age Issue.”. TESOL Quarterly, 50 (4), 940–944.

Cummins, J. (2017). Teaching for transfer in multilingual school contexts. In O. García, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (Vol. 1, pp. 103–116). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Danesi, M. (1995). Contrastive analysis and second language teaching today: The legacy of Robert J. Di Pietro. In J. Fernández-Barrientos Martín, C. Wallhead, & C. (Eds.), Temas de Lingüística Aplicada (pp. 209–231). Granada.

Day, R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom . Cambridge University Press.

Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). First- and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners. Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 197–238). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dulay, H., & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23 (2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition . OUP.

Foroozandeh, E., & Forouzani, M. (2015). Developing school English materials for the new Iranian educational system. In C. Kennedy (Ed.), English language teaching in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Innovations, trends and challenges (pp. 59–70).

Gholamain, M., & Geva, E. (1999). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in English and persian. Language Learning, 49 (2), 183–217.

Hornberger, N. H. (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings . Multilingual Matters.

Jafarigohar, M., & Behrooznia, S. (2012). The effect of anxiety on reading comprehension among distance EFL learners. International Education Studies, 5 (2), 159–174.

Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2003). Reading in two languages: How attitudes toward home language and beliefs about reading affect the behaviors of “underprepared” L2 college readers. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (1), 35–71.

Keshavarz, M. H., & Mirzaei Jegarlooei, S. H. (2011). Transfer of reading attitude from L1 to L2 among Iranian EFL learners with reference to gender and language proficiency. Teaching English Language, 5 (2), 61–96.

Kheirabadi, R., & Alavimoghaddam, S. B. (2016). Evaluation of Prospect series: A paradigm shift from GTM to CLT in Iran. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7 (3), 619–624.

Kim, K. J. (2010). Reading motivation in two languages: An examination of EFL college students in Korea. Reading and Writing, 24 (8), 861–881.

Kumaradivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching . Yale University Press.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures . University of Michigan Press.

Lee, J. W., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (4), 713–739.

Maleki, A., & Zangani, E. (2007). A survey on the relationship between English language proficiency and the academic achievement of Iranian EFL students. Asian EFL Journal, 9 (1), 86–96.

Mirhassani, S. A., & Hosseini, S. M. H. (2006). The effect of competitive team-based learning on reading comprehension of Iranian senior high school students. Roshd FLT Journal, 20 (77), 42–49.

Moradi, S. (2020). Languages of Iran: Overview and critical assessment. In S. D. Brunn & R. Kehrein (Eds.), Handbook of the changing world language map . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_137

Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning . Cambridge University Press.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1995). Learning strategies in second language acquisition . Cambridge University Press.

Pae, T. I. (2018). A simultaneous analysis of relations between L1 and L2 skills in reading and writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 54 (1), 1–18.

Phakiti, A. (2008). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) strategic competence model over time in EFL reading tests. Language Testing, 25 (2), 237–272.

Piccolo, L. R., Giacomoni, C. H., Julio-Costa, A., Oliveira, S., Zbornik, J., Haase, V. G., & Salles, J. F. (2017). Reading anxiety in L1: Reviewing the concept. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45 (4), 537–543.

Pishghadam, R., & Saboori, F. (2014). A socio-cultural study of language teacher status. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 2 (1), 63–72.

Rahemi, J. (2009). Reciprocal teaching as a tool to foster autonomy: Practical considerations in Iranian high schools. Roshd FLT Journal, 89 (23), 29–36.

Rahimi, M., Sadighi, F., & Dastkhezr, Z. A. (2009). Do L2 proficiency and L1 reading strategies affect Persian EFL learners’ use of English Reading strategies? Threshold hypothesis revisited. Journal of Asia TEFL, 6 (3).

Razavi, R. (2008). Cooperative learning in university ESP classes. Zaban Journal, 3 (2), 13–17.

Sadeghi, K., & Ghaderi, F. (2018). EFL education in Iran. In the TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (Eds. J. I. Liontas, T. International Association and M. DelliCarpini). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0935

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10 (1–4), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209

Sharwood Smith, M., & Kellerman, E. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition: An introduction. In M. Sharwood Smith & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 1–9). Pergamon Press.

Talebi, S. H. (2007). Reading in L1 (Persian) and L2 (English): Total separation, total integration, or interconnection? South Asian Language Review, 17 (1), 86–99.

Talebi, S. H. (2014). Cross-linguistic transfer among Iranian learners of English as a foreign language. Issues in Educational Research, 24 (2), 212.

Talebi, S. H. (2012). Reading in L2 (English) and L1 (Persian): An investigation into reverse transfer of Reading strategies. English Language Teaching, 5 (3), 217–229.

Talebi, S. H. (2015). Where should reading strategies be taught first: In Persian (L1), English (L2) or Arabic (L3)? Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT), 3 (2), 33–45.

Urquhart, A. H., & Weir, C. J. (2014). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice . Routledge.

Yamashita, J. (2004). Reading attitudes in L1 and L2, and their influence on L2 extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 16 (1), 1–19.

Yamashita, J. (2007). The relationship of reading attitudes between L1 and L2: An investigation of adult EFL learners in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (1), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00041

Zoghi, M. (2012). An instrument for EFL reading anxiety: Inventory construction and preliminary validation. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 9 , 31–56.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R., & Schiefele, U. (2015). Development of achievement motivation and engagement. In R. M. Lerner & M. Lamb (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp. 657–700). Wiley.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of English Language and Literature, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Mazandaran, Iran

Seyed Hassan Talebi

University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Mazandaran, Iran

Javad Fallahi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seyed Hassan Talebi .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abbas Aghdassi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Talebi, S.H., Fallahi, J. (2021). Amendments to Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis: Moderating Role of Affective Variables in L1 (Persian)-L2 (English) Academic Reading Relationship. In: Aghdassi, A. (eds) Perspectives on Academic Persian. Language Policy, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75610-9_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75610-9_3

Published : 18 September 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-75609-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-75610-9

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children

1979, Review of Educational Research

The central thesis of this paper is that a cognitively and academically beneficial form of bilingualism can be achieved only on the basis of adequately developed first language (L1) skills. Two hypotheses are formulated and combined to arrive at this position. The “developmental interdependence” hypothesis proposes that the development of competence in a second language (L2) is partially a function of the type of competence already developed in L1 at the time when intensive exposure to L2 begins. The “threshold” hypothesis proposes that there may be threshold levels of linguistic competence which a bilingual child must attain both in order to avoid cognitive disadvantages and allow the potentially beneficial aspects of bilingualism to influence his cognitive and academic functioning. These hypotheses are integrated into a model of bilingual education in which educational outcomes are explained as a function of the interaction between background, child input and educational treatment...

Related Papers

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Norbert Francis

Jim Cummins

Abstract: Studies conducted with middle-class balanced bilinguals in" additive" environments, where both languages are prestigious, have generally reported that bilinguals showed a higher level of cognitive performance than monolinguals. In these ...

Barbara Nagy

This research makes an attempt through a case study and the use of previous studies to the test hypotheses of prominent researchers (e.g.: Francois Grosjean, Ellen Bialystok, Jürgen Meisel) and show that bilingual development depends on environmental influence as much as on the children’s individual aptitude and general intelligence. The paper is divided into two parts. The first part presents the controversial theories on bilingual children’s language development, based on previous research, and makes a comparison between bilingual and monolingual children’s language development. The second part is going to carry out the case study, focusing on eight bilingual children’s (between the age of 4 and 11) language development process, and more closely on three of the most common assumptions: 1. Bilingual children start speaking later than monolingual children. 2. Bilingual children are equally proficient in their languages. 3. Code-switching is caused by bilingual children’s inability to distinguish their languages.

Advances in applied …

Bernardo M Ferdman

ENSAYOS. Revista de la Facultad de Educación de Albacete

Jesús Paz-Albo

This article offers an examination of how learning two languages from an early age may be an asset to children's development. Although discourses on language learning development are not new, it is crucial to understand the benefits of being bilingual from a very early age. At the interface of bilingual development, the present review article provides a summary of the knowledge gained by science into the effects on children's cognitive development during the language acquisition process. Results from this review suggest that bilingual children enjoy cognitive gains which are critical for students' success but there are some challenges that can be addressed to further enhance bilingual children's learning. Rather than causing any kind of delay, being bilingual improves cognitive skills and more research on early childhood bilingualism must be further developed.

Marial Cudera

Amir Torkashvand

Robbayani Shoghiro

Yavuz Akbulut

ABSTRACT. The belief that learning a second language (L2) poses challenges to cognitive performance in early childhood is questioned along with the ideas of proponents and opponents. It is regarded colorable to claim that development in bilinguals and monolinguals can be different because of the functions or advantages of specific experiences in each language.

Farin Ahmed

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

ΝΕΟΣ ΠΑΙΔΑΓΩΓΟΣ online - ISSN: 2241-6781 - Τεύχος 19ο - Ιούλιος 2020

Urania Sarri

Cascadilla Press eBooks

Vikki Janke

nurul raazika

Lingua Cultura

Risa Simanjuntak

Virginia Yip

Linda Espinosa

Canadian Journal of Linguistics-revue Canadienne De Linguistique

Jordana Garbati

Child Development

Anita Worrall

Joseph O Prewitt Diaz

Rangsit University

RJAS Rangsit Journal of Arts and Sciences

Journal of Current Debates in Social Sciences

Journal of Child Language

Cynthia Core

mehdi Abbasi

Bill Wullur , Bill Wullur

Telma Velez

International Journal of Bilingualism

Michael Daller

Joanne Paradis , Theres Grüter

Elsevier eBooks

Marko Zlovic

Ana Diaz Lopez

Asih Santihastuti

Developmental Psychology

Ashley Chung-Fat-Yim

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Assessing the Phonological Skills of Bilingual Children From Preschool Through Kindergarten: Developmental Progression and Cross-Language Transfer

Lisa m. lópez.

University of South Florida

The developmental progression hypothesis for phonological awareness states that children perform better on lower level tasks; and has mainly been addressed in the literature with children beginning at age 5. In addition, there has been limited amount of research done regarding the performance of dual language learners on phonological awareness tasks under the age of 5. There is a need for a valid measure of phonological awareness for bilingual preschool children at an earlier age. This article addresses three purposes: 1) developing a reliable measure of phonological awareness for bilingual preschool children, 2) testing the developmental progression hypothesis in both English and Spanish, and 3) comparing longitudinal performance across language on the measure. Two hundred and forty-one Spanish-English bilingual children were assessed on the author-developed Phonological Awareness Test at three time points (mean age of 4.58; mean age of 4.96; mean age of 5.94). Findings indicate differences in developmental progression by language as well as shifts in performance across language as children go through school. The children in this study transition from a language specific model of phonological awareness to a more skill specific model of phonological awareness as they progress through school.

The development of phonological awareness skills in young children has been at the center of the research literature relating to early literacy for decades. Theories have emerged regarding the role of phonological awareness in the process of learning to read in English. Research regarding the importance of phonological awareness in the development of literacy skills in languages other than English has led to additional theories being postulated and further leading to the study of a cross-language transfer, which may facilitate the acquisition of second language literacy skills for immigrant children. This article introduces a new measure created to capture bilingual children’s performance on phonological awareness skills in both English and Spanish in their early development of these skills, and further investigates the relationship and development of these skills across languages.

Phonological Awareness

“Phonological awareness” is a term used to indicate that words are made up of a series of different sound units, both large (i.e., syllables, onsets, rimes), and small (i.e., phonemes) ( International Reading Association, 1998 ). Phonological awareness tasks involve the manipulation of these units of oral speech ( Lonigan, Barker, Burgess, & Anthony, 1995 ). Chard and Dickson (1999) define phonological awareness as “the understanding of different ways that oral language can be divided into smaller components and manipulated” (p. 262). These divisions can occur at various levels. Sentences may be broken down into individual words, and words, in turn, can be broken down in several ways (e.g., syllables, onset-rime, or phonemes). Phonological awareness, along with vocabulary development and letter knowledge, is one of the precursors to literacy for children learning English as their first or second language ( Lipka & Siegel, 2007 ; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000 ; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998 ).

Phonological Awareness Theories

A series of theories has developed through the years explaining what skills constitute phonological awareness (see Anthony & Lonigan, 2004 , for a review). One of the most recently explored and most pertinent theories relating to phonological awareness within education is that of developmental progression, in which phonological awareness is considered a single factor in the development of early literacy skills, yet consists of numerous tasks evident at different levels of development ( Chard & Dickson, 1999 ; Cisero & Royer, 1995 ; Treiman & Zukowski, 1996 ). Tasks used in determining the degree of competency in phonological awareness tap into a continuum spanning from easy to more complex abilities. The degree of difficulty found in individual phonological awareness tasks differs depending on the type of sound manipulation involved and the size of the unit, as well as the location of the unit in the word. The easier tasks involve manipulating longer strings of phonemes, such as words, while harder tasks include manipulation at the individual phoneme level. Tasks requiring discrimination of phonemes are more taxing than the discrimination of words or syllables, a combination of phonemes. Sounds are easier for young children to pronounce when they are attached to other sounds. As sounds become shorter, it is more taxing to pronounce these individual sounds, and young children have not yet developed these skills. Although these skills differ in their complexity and age of acquisition, research has shown that they encompass one single factor, that of phonological awareness ( Anthony & Lonigan, 2004 ; Branum-Martin et al., 2006 ).

While developmental progression focuses on the development of phonological awareness by monolingual English speakers, a different focus has been placed on the development of phonological awareness among bilingual learners. Based on Cummins’ linguistic interdependence hypothesis, which states that children’s performance on one language directly relates to their performance in their second language, the cross-language theory has emerged in explaining the development of phonological awareness among bilingual language learners. Durgunoglu and colleagues empirically determined that Spanish and English literacy development is very similar, with phonological awareness playing a significant role for both languages. Durgunoglu (1998) found that children used their Spanish skills to help them in developing English literacy skills. Those children with strong Spanish literacy were able to more easily develop English literacy skills.

The Role of Phonological Awareness in Early Literacy Development

Rhyme and alliteration are key to a child’s acquisition of phonological awareness. Their ability to comprehend the structure behind rhyming and alliteration is one of the first steps in their grasping the true underpinnings of literacy ( Chard & Dickson, 1999 ). This indicates that the child is starting to pay attention to the sounds made in each word ( Stahl & Murray, 1994 ). Rhyming and alliteration are introduced to children at a very young age, mainly through children’s books. Some children are capable of performing tasks involving rhyming and alliteration as early as 3 years of age. A greater number of children are capable of completing these tasks at age 4. Children’s understanding of the structure of language, as represented in these tasks, is primarily developed in the first five years of the child’s life. Most children acquire this abstract representation of linguistic structure through observations of their communicatory surroundings ( Lindfors, 1987 ).

Phonemic segmentation, the most difficult phonological awareness task, is considered the best predictor of reading ability in children by fourth grade ( Bryant, MacLean, Bradley, & Crossland, 1990 ; Calfee & Norman, 1998 ; Juel, 1988 ; Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Taylor, 1997 ; Nation & Hulme, 1997 ; Raz & Bryant, 1990 ; Yopp, 1988 ). This segmentation task develops in concordance with the understanding of the functions of print. Isolating individual sounds in words, as well as manipulating these sounds by deleting the sound from, or adding the sound to, a word to create a new word or pseudoword, is by far the most difficult task for a child. In fact, not all children are capable of achieving these tasks, with about 20% of children unable to master these tasks by the 1st grade without direct intervention or special instruction ( International Reading Association, 1998 ; Troia, Roth, & Graham, 1998 ). It is important, then, to note that prior to this stage, rhyming, the easiest phonological awareness task, is considered a reliable predictor of phonemic awareness ( Anthony & Lonigan, 2004 ; Bryant et al., 1990 ).

Phonological Awareness in Dual Language Learners

In determining the pathways to literacy for dual language learners, phonological awareness plays a crucial role in both identifying phonological deficits and in ameliorating the transfer of literacy skills from the first to the second language. Bialystok and her colleagues ( Bialystok, Majumder, & Martin, 2003 ; Bialystok, McBride-Chang, & Luk, 2005 ) have focused their bilingualism research specifically on identifying the components of phonological awareness that transfer across languages and serve as a buffer for the development of parallel skills in the new language. Tracing the development and transfer of these skills across languages has shown differences, based on inter-language relationships. For languages sharing a similar writing system, such as Spanish and English, the transfer of the phonological system is simplified ( Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010 ). Bilingualism research has tied the development of oral language proficiency, in both the native and second language, to the facilitation of phonetic transfer ( Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993 ; Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1995 ; Lopez & Greenfield, 2004a , 2004b ; Quiroga, Lemos-Britton, Mostafapour, Abbott, & Berninger, 2002 ). This research has indicated that until the child has developed some proficiency in both languages, full transfer of phonological skills cannot occur. Genishi and Dyson (1984) point to the complicated nature of language development with additional factors, such as “personality, verbal memory, quality of adult input, and cultural expectations always interacting” (p. 21). These differing characteristics result in children varying in their rate and approach to language learning in both their first and second language.

The Assessment of Phonological Awareness Skills

Assessment is of concern in the study of phonological awareness. The variety of tasks used to measure both phonological and phonemic awareness and their varying degrees of difficulty result in inconsistencies when assessing phonological ability. Two main purposes have been identified for the use of phonological awareness assessments with monolingual children. Primarily, assessments are used to identify those students who may have difficulty in emergent reading activities. Once these students have been identified, assessments are then used to monitor their progress in intervention programs focusing on the instruction of phonological awareness.

It is important to assess children’s phonological awareness in order to determine whether there is a possible language delay, which may be remediated through intervention efforts. For this reason, there are a number of assessments, both standardized and informal, that help to categorize children into distinct groups. These assessments primarily focus on monolingual children in kindergarten and first grade, when learning to read is the main focus of education. Little is still available for children under the age of 5, although research has shown that predictions for reading success can be made in children as young as 3 ( Lonigan, Burgess, Anthony, & Barker, 1998 ) and that children’s language development thrives in preschool and is well developed by age 5 ( Lindfors, 1987 ).

Little is available in terms of assessments for the preschool population ( Troia et al., 1998 ); however, that is beginning to change. The most widely used phonological processing assessment, the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) ( Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999 ), has been standardized for use with young children starting at age 5. For 5- and 6-year-old children, the subtests making up the phonological awareness composite are recommended and include Elision, Blending Words, and Sound Matching. A preschool version of the CTOPP, the pre-CTOPP, is being developed but is not yet available for general distribution, and it is unclear whether the tasks being used, such as elision, may result in floor effects for preschool children. The Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening: Pre-K (PALS: Pre-K) is available for use with the preschool population, but is not specific to phonological awareness. In addition, such subtests as nursery rhyme awareness require background knowledge that is limited to a certain population of preschool children.

All other phonological awareness assessments currently available focus mainly on children in elementary school, with the majority of the assessments administered in English. When testing a bilingual child, it is commonplace for the assessment to be translated on site for use in the child’s home language. The translation of these assessments is problematic, due to the language specific nature of the task and therefore not recommended. Phonological awareness plays an important role in early literacy development. Consequently, developing a tool that specifically measures this development earlier than kindergarten is necessary. Furthermore, given the increasing number of children entering school for whom Spanish is their first language, developing a tool with an appropriate Spanish counterpart is important.

Current Study

With few measures available for children under the age of 5, it is difficult to determine the validity of the developmental progression hypothesis ( Cisero & Royer, 1995 ) at preschool, nor how well the children are obtaining the phonological skills being incorporated into their instruction. Additionally, with the large number of dual language learners in preschool programs in the United States 1 , it is equally important to determine how well they are performing in both their first language and in English. Research has determined that a cross-language transfer of phonological skills occurs when Spanish-speaking children are proficient in their first language and have obtained phonological skills in that language in 1st grade ( Durgunoglu, 1998 ; Quiroga et al., 2002 ) and, more recently, at preschool ( Lopez & Greenfield, 2004b ). Thus, it is important to validate a measure of phonological awareness for younger children that can be administered in both English and Spanish, taking into account the difficulty continuum previously discussed. This will then help in determining the abilities of younger children on these tasks and the relationship of these abilities across languages.

Studying the effect of cross-language transfer longitudinally will help determine how children perform in phonological awareness as they go through schooling, validating the findings by Bialystok and colleagues ( Bialystok et al., 2003 , 2005 ), as well as those findings by Durgunoglu and colleagues ( Durgunoglu et al., 1993 ; Durgunoglu, 1998 , 2002 ), which state that children must first develop phonological abilities and language proficiency in their first language, before obtaining the metalinguistic capacity to process phonology cross-lingually. Metalinguistic ability in monolingual children is thought to develop once these children have a grasp of the language system. Bilingual children have been shown to develop this capability earlier on as they manipulate two languages ( Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004 ). This capacity for understanding the mechanics of language assist bilingual children in transferring their skills from one language to another, helping them to view skills with less focus on a specific language and more focus on the skill itself. This process has recently been coined “translanguaging” in emerging bilinguals, meaning that skills are developed without regard to a specific language but instead take into account the interaction across languages ( Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010 ).

Developing a New Measure of Phonological Awareness

In the current study, the phonological awareness measure used by López and Greenfield (2004a , 2004b ) was adapted to create a more effective and more comprehensive measure of phonological awareness at the preschool level. This measure was adapted taking into consideration work done previously on this topic by such researchers as Dickinson ( Dickinson, McCabe, Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003 ) and Miccio ( Miccio, López, & Hammer, 2003 ). The original measure consisted of three subtests: rhyme matching, alliteration matching, and sentence segmenting. For the present measure, two new subtests were included — rhyme production and syllable segmenting — as Spanish “has a better defined syllabic structure than the English language” ( Jimenez-Gonzalez & Haro-Garcia, 1995 , p. 198), making the process of segmenting syllables easier in Spanish than in English.

The results reported by López and Greenfield (2004a) provide an understanding of children’s abilities on these tasks and indicate that, unlike in previous studies, the tasks were at an appropriate level for preschool Spanish/English bilingual children. They also provide an understanding of the link between language proficiency and cross-language transfer. The purpose of this article is threefold: 1) report on the reliability of this revised measure; 2) look at children’s performance on the measure in both languages at three time points, from the beginning of the 4-year-old preschool year through the end of kindergarten; and 3) compare children’s performance across subtests, across languages, at the three time points.

Based on previous research on bilingualism, two hypotheses have emerged regarding the development of phonological awareness skills in Latino children. First it is hypothesized that the children will perform better on the phonological awareness assessment as they go through school. In looking at phonological performance across the two languages longitudinally, phonological awareness skills are thought to move from being language specific, as they are beginning to understand language use and phonological abilities, to more task specific, as they gain oral proficiency and the cross-language effect becomes more evident ( Anthony et al., 2009 ; Durgunoglu et al., 1993 ; Jimenez et al., 1995 ). This is expected as students will have obtained phonological awareness training in school and will have developed better proficiency in the languages. Second, it is hypothesized that the students’ English skills will grow at a faster rate than their Spanish skills, as they spend more time in classrooms where the instruction predominantly occurs in English, a result of the school systems these children attend. “Emergent bilinguals come into school as users of a home language that dynamically develops (or not) in relationship to the development of English” ( Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010 , p. 110). This information will help inform classroom-based instruction for Latino English language learners.

Participants

The children being reported on are part of a larger project, the Early Childhood Study of Language and Literacy Development of Spanish-Speaking Children (hereafter, the Early Childhood Study). The Early Childhood Study was designed to study the longitudinal development of bilingual language and literacy skills of Latino dual language learners (see Tabors, Paez, & Lopez, 2003 , for a description of the study). Children were recruited to participate in the Early Childhood Study when they were entering their 4-year-old preschool year. The children were invited to participate if they lived in Spanish-speaking homes and were age-eligible for kindergarten the following year. Recruitment took place in three communities in Massachusetts and one community in Maryland. The majority of the children (84%) were attending Head Start centers, although some public preschool programs also were represented. A total of 241 children (123 females; 118 males) completed the English and Spanish versions of the phonological awareness assessment at the three time points being reported on. At Time 1, the children had a mean age of 4.58 and were assessed at the beginning of their preschool year. At Time 2, the children had a mean age of 4.96 and were assessed at the end of their preschool year. At Time 3, the children had a mean age of 5.94 and were assessed at the end of their kindergarten year. 2 These children represented families who immigrated to the United States from 16 different countries, along with the United States territory of Puerto Rico. Some of the parents (7%) also were born in the United States but continued to use Spanish at home. Eighty-eight percent of the families had an income of less than $40,000 3 , with an average of five people living in the house.

Phonological Awareness Test

As mentioned previously, the Phonological Awareness Test was developed for use in the Early Childhood Study. It was predominantly based on the Phonological Sensitivity Test used by López and Greenfield (2004a , 2004b ). The task consists of five subtests: Rhyme Recognition, Rhyme Production, Initial Phoneme Recognition, Sentence Segmenting, and Syllable Segmenting. There are two versions of the test, one in Spanish and one in English. These two versions tap into the same skills and were constructed separately to demonstrate the children’s phonological abilities in their two languages, taking into account their development of bilingualism. The scoresheet for each language is available in Appendices 1 and 2.

The rhyme recognition subtest consists of two practice items, followed by six test items. Children are shown a target picture (such as a picture of a cat) and choice pictures (such as pictures of a hat and a ball) and provided with the names of each of the pictures. They are then asked to point to the picture whose name rhymes with the name of the target picture. For test items 1 through 3, the child chooses the correct picture from two pictures, and for test items 4 through 6, the child chooses the correct picture from four pictures. The rhyme production subtest consists of two practice items and four test items. Children are asked to produce a rhyme for a word spoken by the assessor, such as “day” or “fly.” Credit is given if the word the child provides is a rhyme, regardless of whether it is a real word or not, as the child is asked to provide a rhyme, not necessarily a real word.

The initial phoneme recognition subtest is similar in format to the rhyme recognition subtest, differing only in that the child is asked to match pictures of words that have names with the same initial sound. Again, for the first three items, the child chooses the correct picture from two pictures. For the second three items, the child chooses the correct picture from four pictures.

The sentence-segmenting subtest consists of two practice items and five test items. The child is provided with a set of colorful tiles to use in this task. The assessor reads a sentence from two to five words in length, and the child is asked to move one tile for each word in the sentence. The syllable-segmenting subtest is similar in format to the sentence-segmenting task, differing only in that the assessor says a word and the child is asked to move one tile for each syllable in that word.

During the two preschool administrations of the task, administration rules are in place. For each subtest, the child needs to pass at least one of two practice (or screening) items in order for the subtest to be administered. Additionally, rhyme production is not administered if the child does not correctly answer at least four out of the six rhyme recognition items, and syllable segmenting is not administered if the child does not correctly answer at least three of the five sentence segmenting items. These administration rules are similar to that of obtaining a ceiling on a standardized test, whereby if the child gets a certain number incorrect, the assessment is stopped. Therefore, the child is assigned a score of zero on that subtest, based on the conceptual understanding that the probability is high the child will not be able to correctly answer the following items. During the third administration the child is administered the entire test.

The Phonological Awareness Test was one of a battery of language and literacy assessments administered to each of the children. The battery took approximately 45 minutes and was administered to the children individually at their school. Children were assessed in English and Spanish on different days, at least one week apart. When the children were assessed at Time 1, they were assessed in their stronger language first and then in the other language. Their stronger language was determined by asking parents on the consent forms what language they thought their children spoke best. Of the 241 children, 70% were assessed first in Spanish, with the remaining 30% being first assessed in English. Children were assessed using the same battery at Time 2 and Time 3. The languages of the administrations were counterbalanced in Times 2 and 3, no longer dependent on the child’s stronger language. After the assessment sessions, children were given a book and a pencil as a reward for their participation.

The children attended two different schools/classrooms during the course of this study. At Times 1 and 2, they attended either a federal preschool program or a public preschool program. These programs have a set curriculum to help enhance language and literacy development before children enter formal schooling. The language used in the classroom is not monitored, although the majority of the classrooms used English as the primary language. At Time 3, the children were attending the first year of formal schooling (kindergarten). Although most children were attending bilingual programs, where Spanish instruction occurs for part of the year and then English is introduced, this instruction changed to English early in the year due to changes in educational policy within the state. Therefore, all children were receiving some level of English instruction by Time 3. No formal assessment of the classroom language environment or curriculum was completed.

Statistical Approach

A series of analyses were done using the data from the three time points in order to look, first, at statistical properties of the measure; second, to track children’s development of phonological skills as they go through preschool and kindergarten; and, third, to compare children’s phonological awareness cross-linguistically. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the test in each language at each time point as a measure of reliability. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was then used to test the hypothesized models of performance across languages on the test at each time point. The models focus on the hypothesis that these skills begin as language-specific abilities and develop into task-specific abilities as children go through phonologically based instruction and develop a better sense of language proficiency. Additionally, in order to track children’s development on each skill, in each language, over time, a Repeated Measures MANOVA (5 subtests×2 languages×3 timepoints) tested for a main effect by subtest, language, and time, along with language*time, language*subtest, time*subtest, and language*time*subtest interactions, in determining whether children performed differently across the time periods on the subtests in each language. The Wilks’ Lambda test statistic is reported, along with the significance coefficient and effect sizes. Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc tests were calculated for the significant main effects in analyzing the differences. Additionally, Bonferonni-adjusted post-hoc comparisons were computed for the interactions.

Internal Reliability Analysis

In order to determine the internal consistency of this new measure, reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each of the tests in each language at all three time points. For the English assessment, the 26 test items showed moderately high consistency at all three time points, with between 238 and 240 subjects (α = 0.81, 0.86, and 0.85). For the Spanish assessments, the 26 test items showed moderate consistency at all three time points, with between 237 and 241 subjects (α = 0.78, 0.79, 0.74). The internal reliability of this measure in both languages and throughout the three time points allows us to proceed confidently with the statistical analysis of this measure using mean scores.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Both face validity and content validity were taken into consideration when creating the measure in each language. The measure was created based on developmental theory regarding phonological awareness and its developmental progression. Of additional interest was an empirical investigation of how well the subtests that make up the test across languages stand together and fit within the hypothesized model. A confirmatory factor analysis using EQS software tested the models for each time point. Goodness of fit statistics for each model determined the appropriateness of each model. This was done at each of the three time points individually in observing the effect of development of both language and phonological abilities on the subtests.

The model represented in Figure 1 is the hypothesized model for Time 1. The model has a statistically significant goodness of fit index (χ 2 = 91.71, p < .001; GFI = .93, CFI = .89, NNFI = .84, RMSEA = .10, SRMR = .07), with four factors being defined at this stage ( Kline, 1998 ). The four factors are Spanish Skills, English Segmenting, English Recognition, and Rhyme Production. The Spanish Skills factor includes the following Spanish subtests: rhyme recognition, initial phoneme, sentence segmenting, and syllable segmenting. The English Skills were divided into two factors: sentence and syllable segmenting; and rhyme recognition and initial phoneme. Rhyme Production in English and Spanish constitutes the final factor.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis model at Time 1.

The model represented in Figure 2 is the hypothesized model for Time 2. The model has a statistically significant goodness of fit index (χ 2 = 92.06, p <.001; GFI = .93, CFI = .87, NNFI = .82, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .07), with three factors being defined at this stage ( Kline, 1998 ). The three factors are Spanish Skills, English Skills, and Rhyming. Spanish Skills in Figure 2 contain the same variables as Figure 1 . English Skills includes initial phoneme, along with the two English segmenting tasks. Rhyming is made up of the two English rhyming tasks and Spanish rhyme production.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model at Time

The model represented in Figure 3 is the hypothesized model for Time 3. The model has a statistically significant goodness of fit index (χ 2 = 70.82, p < .001; GFI = .94, CFI = .92, NNFI = .88, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .06), with three factors being defined at this stage ( Kline, 1998 ). The three factors are Segmenting, Initial Phoneme, and Rhyming. Spanish Sentence Segmenting was removed from the model at this time point, as this skill is no longer considered a task of phonological awareness at this level in Spanish, due to the phonological make-up of the language ( Jimenez-Gonzalez & Haro-Garcia, 1995 ).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model at Time 3.

Repeated Measures Multivariate Analysis of Variance

Measures of central tendency are reported in Table 1 . A three-way MANOVA (language×time×subtest) was conducted on the data to determine whether significant change occurs cross-linguistically, across subtests, over time.

Means and Standard Deviations for the Five Subtests and the Total Score of the Phonological Awareness Test (N=241)

The MANOVA resulted in significant main effects for language ( F (1, 237) = 22.05, p <.001, h p 2 = .09), time ( F (2, 236) = 814.48, p < .001, h p 2 = .87), and subtest ( F (4, 234) = 440.82, p < .001, h p 2 = .88). Significant interactions also were evident for language*time ( F (2, 236) = 65.77, p < .001, h p 2 = .36), language*subtest ( F (4, 234) = 37.06, p < .001, h p 2 = .39), time*subtest ( F (8, 230) = 46.46, p < .001, h p 2 = .62), and language*time*subtest ( F (8, 230) = 14.44, p < .001, h p 2 = .33).

Post Hoc Comparisons

Pairwise comparison of the language main effect is unnecessary, as the indication of a significant main effect points to significant differences across the two languages. Pairwise comparisons were calculated for the time main effect in determining whether significant differences existed across the three timepoints. Accounting for Bonferroni adjustments, Time 1 is significantly different from Times 2 and 3 ( p s <. 001). Additionally, Time 2 is significantly different from Time 3 ( p < .001).

Pairwise comparisons were calculated for the subtest main effect in determining whether significant differences in performance existed across the five subtests. Accounting for Bonferroni adjustments, the children performed significantly different in subtest 1 (rhyme recognition) in comparison with each of the other four subtests ( p s < .001). The same held true for subtest 2 (rhyme production), subtest 3 (initial phoneme), subtest 4 (sentence segmenting), and subtest 5 (syllable segmenting). Children performed significantly different across all subtests ( p s < .001).

Posthoc pairwise comparisons also were calculated for the individual interactions, using a Bonferonni adjustment. Pairwise comparisons for the time*language interaction indicate a significant improvement in both English and Spanish at each time point ( p s < .001). Additionally, there is a significant difference in performance by language at Time 2 ( ps < .001) and Time 3 ( p < .001), with Spanish dominating at Time 2 and English dominating at Time 3. Further analysis of the subtest*language interaction indicates that, overall, children performed better in Spanish on rhyme recognition (approximating significance) and significantly better in English on rhyme production ( p < .001) and sentence segmenting ( p < .001). Posthoc analysis of the subtest*time and subtest*time*language interactions indicates that children performed significantly better as they got older on all subtests ( p s < .001) in each language ( p s < .01).

The purpose of this study is threefold. First, it is necessary to identify a reliable measure of phonological awareness for a Spanish/English bilingual preschool sample. Second, it is important to identify how these children progress on their phonological skills in both English and Spanish as they proceed through preschool and kindergarten. Third, because these children are interacting with two languages, it is necessary to understand how they are developing each of these phonological skills in both languages, as well as cross-linguistically.

Phonological awareness has been the focus of many investigations in the last few years, and its role in the development of literacy has brought it to the forefront in early literacy curricula. Past studies have begun identifying phonological awareness in children as young as 3 years old ( Bryant et al., 1990 ). However, measuring these abilities in low-income preschool children has been a challenge. Taking into account the developmental progression hypothesis ( Anthony & Lonigan, 2004 ; Cisero & Royer, 1995 ) and using a more efficient and comprehensive version of the phonological sensitivity task used by López and Greenfield (2004a , 2004b ), the Phonological Awareness Test, created for use in the Early Childhood Study, has shown to be a reliable task for emergent bilinguals with moderate internal consistency at all three time points in both languages. The children’s performance on this task also improved significantly as they increased in age and moved through school. This indicates the task’s ability to measure growth in rhyme awareness, initial sound awareness, and segmenting abilities.

Confirmatory factor analysis provided an indication of how these tasks fit into the model taking into account age and language proficiency. Phonological awareness tasks develop at different stages, have overlapping properties, and for this population, interact across languages. This finding is in agreement with the growing phonological awareness literature pointing to the influence of instruction on the development of these skills for monolingual low-income children ( Torgesen & Davis, 1996 ). Researchers have shown the effect of intervention on the growth of these skills for both monolingual and bilingual children ( Quiroga et al., 2002 ; Troia, 2004 ).

The additional factor present in this study is the presence of a dual language component as early as preschool. Research in the realm of cross language transfer has pointed to the high transferability rate of phonological awareness in dual language learners ( Durgunoglu, 2002 ). A significant variable in aiding this transfer is that of language proficiency. Children who have obtained proficiency in at least one of their languages gain the metalinguistic capacity to transfer. This is shown in this study as the change in the model across the three time points is demonstrating the influence of school and the interaction of cultures, along with their growth in language proficiency, on their phonological skills.

At the beginning of their preschool program, when the children were 4, and coming into school from homes where Spanish is spoken, all of the Spanish phonological skills combine into one factor. At this time point the children are beginning to develop their English skills. The English tasks were divided into two factors, segmenting and recognition. At this level in children’s development, recognition skills are more developed than segmentation skills.

By the end of preschool, it is expected that children were exposed to some phonological awareness instruction in their classrooms. However, at this stage one would still expect there to be a distribution of skills by language as previous research has shown the limited oral language proficiency of low-income children in preschool ( Tabors, Páez, & López, 2003 ). This was represented by two distinct language factors, English and Spanish. A third factor included skill of rhyme recognition in English, as well as rhyme production in both Spanish and English. Although rhyme production is a more difficult task, this skill is being emphasized in the preschool classrooms. Both rhyme production and rhyme recognition in English play an important part in literacy instruction during the preschool day. It is therefore of no surprise that these variables come together in this factor, along with Spanish rhyme production. The appearance of Spanish rhyme production in this factor may be a result of cross-language transfer of rhyming, the easiest of the phonological skills ( López & Greenfield, 2004b ). The phonological skills remain language specific throughout preschool (Time 1 and Time 2), with only rhyming standing out.

At the end of kindergarten, it is expected that children will have been exposed to a significant amount of instruction with regard to phonological awareness. The hypothesized factors are no longer language specific, but instead show the three types of phonological awareness being measured by the task, rhyme awareness, initial sound, and segmenting. This result is indicative of the instruction the children have received and their dual language abilities in these tasks, as well as the cross-language transfer ability of phonological awareness. On the other hand, Spanish sentence segmenting does not appear to be as appropriate a measure of phonological awareness in Spanish as it is in English. Spanish is a syllabic language in which sounds are segmented at the syllable level and not at the word level ( Jimenez-Gonzalez & Haro-Garcia, 1995 ). This is a function of the sound system; therefore, it is not an easy task for children in Spanish. As Spanish is a language in which children develop the ability to divide sounds by syllables early on, it makes sense, then, not to fit this task in with the other tasks in the segmenting factor.

The development of phonological skills identified in this emerging bilingual population brings in to play the context these children are living in. The sociocultural knowledge of language they bring with them into the preschool classroom is evident in the findings from the beginning of preschool. These children have an understanding of their home language that has emerged as they have come to observe and take part in language interactions within their community ( Rogoff, 2003 ; Siegel & Lukas, 2008 ). As English becomes part of the children’s language repertoire, the development of the two systems in tandem influence each other. Development in each language is neither linear nor is it identical, yet these children have the capacity to interact and manipulate with sounds within and across the two languages ( Genishi & Goodwin, 2008 ; Valdés, 2001 ).

As was indicated by the MANOVA, the children’s performance in both languages significantly increased on all of the tasks as they went through the two years of schooling (see Figure 4 ). Children started off performing best on rhyme recognition, doing slightly better in Spanish than in English. This is also in agreement with past research, in which rhyming was shown to be the easiest phonological task for young children to accomplish. Matching tasks also have been found to be easier for young children than oddity tasks ( Lopez & Greenfield, 2004a ).

Mean bar graphs of subtest performance by language by time.

It is interesting to note that the progression of skills from easiest to hardest stays almost intact as children are finishing kindergarten, with the exception of syllable segmenting in Spanish and sentence segmenting in English. While children are also improving on the rhyme production task, this remains the most difficult task for them to complete at Time 3. This is in agreement with Anthony and Lonigan’s (2004) finding that rhyme production is too difficult a task for many children to complete, even by age 6. By the end of two years of schooling, children are also doing better on the phonological tasks in English. This may be a result of their instruction being predominantly in English in both language and pre-literacy skills. The increase in instruction in English being experienced by these children may increase their rate of growth in English over Spanish. Garcia (2009) refers to the interchange in growth of English and Spanish skills as dynamic bilingualism. There is no linear growth, but instead the growth is complex and interrelated.

Other language researchers consider the rapid development of English to incur Spanish loss, also known as L1 attrition ( Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004 ). Taking into account this perspective, one would say that attrition is already visible in these children as they attend their first year of formal schooling, when the instructional emphasis in the United States moves from allowing first language instruction to requiring English instruction for these L2 learners. This is evident as the children perform significantly better on these skills in Spanish at Time 2, yet perform significantly better in English at Time 3. These children will continue to develop their English skills and abilities as they are schooled in English. Yet, as pointed out by Garcia and Kleifgen (2010) , “Emergent bilinguals are increasingly being educated in mainstream classrooms with little specialized educational support either in English or in their home languages” (p. 55). It would be necessary to follow these children further in their schooling to determine whether they are experiencing the effects of dynamic bilingualism or L1 attrition.

It is also likely, based on the cross-language hypothesis ( Durgunoglu, 1998 , 2002 ), that those children who are still receiving Spanish input at home and immersed in their home culture within their community ( Rogoff, 2003 ) will be able to transfer the skills they have learned in English to Spanish. However, if they are no longer receiving any language input in Spanish at home or in their communities, it will be very difficult for them to continue to show any gains in their Spanish abilities from this point on. It will be important to look at the input these children are receiving at home and at school when tracking their skills in order to determine whether this reverse transfer will occur. Future research should continue studying the developmental progression of phonological awareness in bilingual children, taking into account the child’s exposure to each language, and noting the differences in the continuum across languages. This information will help in determining the best way to instruct English language learners with regard to these skills while supporting them as emergent bilinguals.

This study does show that these children are improving in their phonological awareness abilities, with rhyme recognition being the easiest task at the preschool level, and initial phoneme and segmenting skills improving through the end of preschool and kindergarten. Also evident are differences in progression of skills across languages. For example, segmenting syllables is an easier task for children to do in Spanish than is segmenting sentences, while the reverse is true for English. Although these children come from homes where Spanish is spoken, it is important to note that their skills in English surpass their Spanish skills after being exposed to only two years of schooling. While they have not yet lost some of their abilities in Spanish, reduced exposure to the language may result in significant Spanish loss for this population.

Implications

The findings reported on in this study provide three major implications for practitioners and researchers working with young dual language learners. First, the importance of assessing children exposed to two languages in both of their languages should not be left unsaid. While much discussion pertaining to this issue is available in the literature (e.g., Pearson, Fernandez, & Oller, 1993 ), this study provides further evidence for the need to understand the influence of each language on the other language and on the assessed skill. The metalinguistic interaction across languages provides the necessary information in grasping the child’s abilities, disabilities, and progression with regard to language.

This information leads to the second set of implications with regard to the findings presented here. The information regarding the progression of phonological awareness skills for bilingual, low-income children provides the educational team a better understanding of what should be expected of the child in each of his or her languages. Research has indicated that impairments in language abilities are not specific to one language, unless that skill occurs only in that language ( Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004 ). Consequently, when diagnosing a child with a language impairment, it is imperative that the diagnostic information be obtained in the first language. Therefore, a child exhibiting difficulties with phonological awareness tasks in the first language will exhibit similar difficulties in the second language. The findings presented here provide a guide as to what normally developing, bilingual low-income children are capable of accomplishing in each of their languages during preschool and their first year of formal schooling.

The final implication points to the phonological awareness intervention research. This research has shown the effectiveness of phonological awareness training for non language-impaired students ( Torgesen & Davis, 1996 ). This training is as imperative for dual language learners as it has been shown to be for monolingual speakers ( Quiroga et al., 2002 ). Conducting the training in the language the child know best will likely stimulate performance across languages as the skill becomes more metalinguistic and less language specific. It is evident that the children participating in this study obtained most of the training once they entered formal schooling. Providing more systematic and explicit training earlier in their first language, while enhancing their oral language skills in this first language through exposure at home and at school to that language, may serve beneficial to these children in their transition to English.

Findings from this study introduce a new reliable measure of phonological awareness for Latino children under the age of 5. More importantly, however, the developmental progression theory for phonological awareness often discussed with monolingual populations is also valid with dual language learners, taking into account a cross-linguistic approach. Dual language learners are moving from being successful at language-specific skills to being successful at specific skills, cross-linguistically. Overall, it is important to note that young dual language learners perform better on phonological awareness skills as they get older and transition from better Spanish to better English performance as they complete kindergarten.

1 About 27% of children enrolled in Head Start are from homes where a language other than English is spoken (Administration of Children, Youth, and Families, 2000).

2 Children not tested at the three time points were not included in the analysis. During the course of the study, 88 children either moved out of the state or attended a public school in which the project was not allowed entry.

3 Families at 175% of the Federal Poverty Guideline, an income of $39,568 for a family of five, are considered low-income in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

• Anthony JL, Lonigan CJ. The nature of phonological awareness: Converging evidence from four studies of preschool and early grade school children. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004; 96 (1):43–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anthony JL, Solari EJ, Williams JM, Schoger KD, Zhang Z, Branum-Martin L, Francis DJ. Development of bilingual phonological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners: The roles of vocabulary, letter knowledge, and prior phonological awareness. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2009; 13 (6):535–564. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E, Majumder S, Matin MM. Developing phonological awareness: Is there a bilingual advantage? Applied Psycholinguistics. 2003; 24 :27–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E, McBride-Chang C, Luk G. Bilingualism, language proficiency, and learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2005; 97 (4):580–590. [ Google Scholar ]
• Branum-Martin L, Mehta PD, Fletcher JM, Carlson CD, Ortiz A, Carlo M, Francis DJ. Bilingual phonological awareness in students and classrooms: Multilevel construct validation among Spanish-speaking kindergarteners in transitional programs. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006; 98 (1):170–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryant PE, MacLean M, Bradley LL, Crossland J. Rhyme and alliteration, phoneme detection, and learning to read. Developmental Psychology. 1990; 26 :429–438. [ Google Scholar ]
• Calfee RC, Norman KA. Psychological perspectives on the early reading wars: The case of phonological awareness. Teachers College Record. 1998; 100 (2):242–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chard DJ, Dickson SV. Phonological awareness: Instructional and assessment guidelines. Intervention in School and Clinic. 1999; 34 :261–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cisero CA, Royer JM. The development and cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 1995; 20 :275–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickinson DK, McCabe A, Anastasopoulos L, Peisner-Feinberg ES, Poe MD. The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships between vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2003; 95 (3):465–481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Durgunoglu AY. Acquiring literacy in English and Spanish in the United States. In: Durgunoglu AY, Verhoeven L, editors. Literacy development in a multilingual context. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998. pp. 135–146. [ Google Scholar ]
• Durgunoglu AY. Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Annals of Dyslexia. 2002; 52 :189–204. [ Google Scholar ]
• Durgunoglu AY, Nagy WE, Hancin-Bhatt BJ. Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1993; 85 :453–465. [ Google Scholar ]
• García O. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• García O, Kleifgen JA. Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genesee F, Paradis J, Crago MB. Dual language development & disorders: A handbook on bilingualism & second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genishi C, Dyson AH. Language assessment in the early years. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genishi C, Goodwin AL. Diversity in early childhood education: Rethinking and doing. New York, NY: Routledge; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• International Reading Association. Phonemic awareness and the teaching of reading. A position statement from the board of directors of the International Reading Association [Brochure] Newark, DE: Author; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jimenez RT, Garcia GE, Pearson PD. Three children, two languages, and strategic reading: Case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading. American Educational Research Journal. 1995; 32 (1):67–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jimenez-Gonzalez JE, Haro-Garcia CR. Effects of word linguistic properties on phonological awareness in Spanish children. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1995; 87 (2):193–201. [ Google Scholar ]
• Juel C. Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first to fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1988; 80 (4):437–447. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindfors JW. Children’s language and learning. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipka O, Siegel LS. The development of reading skills in children with English as a second language. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2007; 11 :105–131. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Barker TA, Burgess SR, Anthony JL. Relations between language, phonological awareness, and reading development in two- to six-year-old children. Society for Research in Child Development Abstracts. 1995; 10 :529. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Burgess SR, Anthony JL, Barker TA. Development of phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5-year-old children. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1998; 90 :294–311. [ Google Scholar ]
• López LM, Greenfield DB. The identification of pre-literacy skills in Hispanic Head Start children. NHSA Dialog. 2004a; 7 (1):61–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• López LM, Greenfield DB. The cross-language transfer of phonological skills of Hispanic Head Start children. Bilingual Research Journal. 2004b; 28 (1):1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miccio AW, López LM, Hammer CS. In: Solé MJ, Recasens D, Romero J, editors. Bilingual phonological acquisition of preschool children of Puerto Rican descent; Proceedings for the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences; Barcelona, Spain: The 15th ICPhS Organizing Committee; 2003. Aug, pp. 1549–1552. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muter V, Hulme C, Snowling M, Taylor S. Segmentation, not rhyming, predicts early progress in learning to read. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1997; 65 :370–396. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nation K, Hulme C. Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading and spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly. 1997; 32 (2):154–167. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearson BZ, Fernandez SC, Oller DK. Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning. 1993; 43 (1):93–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quiroga R, Lemos-Britton Z, Mostafapour E, Abbott RD, Berninger VW. Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology. 2002; 40 (1):85–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raz IS, Bryant P. Social background, phonological awareness, and children’s reading. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 1990; 8 :209–225. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogoff B. Cultural nature of human development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegel M, Lukas S. Room to move: How kindergartners negotiate literacies and identities in a mandated balanced literacy curriculum. In: Genishi C, Goodwin AL, editors. Diversity in early childhood education: Rethinking and doing. New York, NY: Routledge; 2008. pp. 29–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stahl SA, Murray BA. Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1994; 86 :221–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabors PO, Páez MM, López LM. Dual language abilities of Spanish-English bilingual four-year-olds: Initial findings from the Early Childhood Study of Language and Literacy Development of Spanish-speaking Children. NABE Journal of Research and Practice. 2003; 1 :70–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Davis C. Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1996; 63 :1–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Treiman R, Zukowski A. Children’s sensibility to syllables, onsets, rimes, and phonemes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 1996; 61 (3):193–215. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Troia GA. Phonological processing and its influence on literacy learning. In: Stone CA, Silliman ER, Ehren BJ, Apel K, editors. Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2004. pp. 271–301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Troia GA, Roth FP, Graham S. An educator’s guide to phonological awareness: Assessment measures and intervention activities for children. Focus on Exceptional Children. 1998; 31 (3):1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valdés G. Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Torgesen JK, Rashotte CA. The comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitehurst GJ, Lonigan CJ. Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development. 1998; 69 :848–872. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yopp HK. The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly. 1988; 23 (2):159–177. [ Google Scholar ]

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

7. The Threshold and Interdependence Hypotheses Revisited

From the book language, power and pedagogy.

• Jim Cummins
• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Chapters in this book (15)

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit for those who enjoy learning about flags, their place in society past and present, and their design characteristics

Flag of Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast, Russia

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Eastern Europe
• Moscow Oblast

Elektrostal

Elektrostal Localisation : Country Russia , Oblast Moscow Oblast . Available Information : Geographical coordinates , Population, Altitude, Area, Weather and Hotel . Nearby cities and villages : Noginsk , Pavlovsky Posad and Staraya Kupavna .

Information

Find all the information of Elektrostal or click on the section of your choice in the left menu.

• Update data

Elektrostal Demography

Information on the people and the population of Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Geography

Geographic Information regarding City of Elektrostal .

Elektrostal Distance

Distance (in kilometers) between Elektrostal and the biggest cities of Russia.

Elektrostal Map

Locate simply the city of Elektrostal through the card, map and satellite image of the city.

Elektrostal Nearby cities and villages

Elektrostal Weather

Weather forecast for the next coming days and current time of Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Sunrise and sunset

Find below the times of sunrise and sunset calculated 7 days to Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Hotel

Our team has selected for you a list of hotel in Elektrostal classified by value for money. Book your hotel room at the best price.

Elektrostal Nearby

Below is a list of activities and point of interest in Elektrostal and its surroundings.

Elektrostal Page

• Information /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#info
• Demography /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#demo
• Geography /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#geo
• Distance /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#dist1
• Map /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#map
• Nearby cities and villages /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#dist2
• Weather /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#weather
• Sunrise and sunset /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#sun
• Hotel /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#hotel
• Nearby /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#around
• Page /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#page
• Terms of Use
• Copyright © 2024 DB-City - All rights reserved
• Change Ad Consent Do not sell my data