Language and Literacy in Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children: The Bilingual Children: The

Miami ExperienceMiami Experience

Rebecca E. EilersRebecca E. EilersD. Kimbrough OllerD. Kimbrough Oller

Alan Cobo-LewisAlan Cobo-LewisVirginia Mueller GathercoleVirginia Mueller Gathercole

Barbara Zurer PearsonBarbara Zurer Pearson

PrefacePreface

Multilingualism is a global Multilingualism is a global phenomenon.phenomenon.

English monolingualism in the US is English monolingualism in the US is an anomaly.an anomaly.

English has become increasingly a English has become increasingly a ““lingua francalingua franca”.”.

Yet Americans fear “balkanization” Yet Americans fear “balkanization” from exposure to many native from exposure to many native tongues.tongues.

The Question!The Question!

The debate in the US is often framed in The debate in the US is often framed in terms of educational outcome.terms of educational outcome.

The claim is that bilingualism contributes The claim is that bilingualism contributes to academic/intellectual deficits.to academic/intellectual deficits.

The question is: 1. Does bilingualism, in The question is: 1. Does bilingualism, in and of itself, cause intellectual or and of itself, cause intellectual or educational harm and 2. How do we educational harm and 2. How do we appropriately isolate and assess the appropriately isolate and assess the effects of bilingualism?effects of bilingualism?

The Control of Appropriate The Control of Appropriate VariablesVariables

Socio-economic statusSocio-economic status Assessment in home language as well as Assessment in home language as well as

EnglishEnglish Educational opportunities in each Educational opportunities in each

languagelanguage Language entry skills in each languageLanguage entry skills in each language Timing and duration of exposure to each Timing and duration of exposure to each

languagelanguage Perceived status of each languagePerceived status of each language

Why Miami?Why Miami?

Single unified school districtSingle unified school district Multiple strategies across schools for Multiple strategies across schools for

language learninglanguage learning Large number of established, highly- Large number of established, highly-

integrated, Hi SES, Spanish-speaking integrated, Hi SES, Spanish-speaking and bilingual familiesand bilingual families

Significant commerce in both English Significant commerce in both English and Spanish and Spanish

The HypothesesThe Hypotheses

Additive (Lambert)Additive (Lambert) Subtractive (Lambert)Subtractive (Lambert) Interdependence (Cummins)Interdependence (Cummins) The Grand InteractionThe Grand Interaction

TerminologyTerminology

LEP—Limited English ProficiencyLEP—Limited English Proficiency SES—Socio-economic statusSES—Socio-economic status LSH—Language spoken in the homeLSH—Language spoken in the home

• OSH—Only Spanish at homeOSH—Only Spanish at home• ESH—English and Spanish at homeESH—English and Spanish at home• EnglishEnglish

IMS—Instructional method at schoolIMS—Instructional method at school• 2-way– Spanish and English Instruction2-way– Spanish and English Instruction• EI—English immersionEI—English immersion

The Core DesignThe Core Design

Monolinguals BilingualsMonolinguals Bilinguals

Hi Lo

English Immersion Two-Way

ESH OSH ESH OSH

SES

Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo

Replicated at Kindergarten, 2nd and 5th Grades

Probe StudiesProbe Studies

Narrative competenceNarrative competence Complex syntaxComplex syntax Phonological awarenessPhonological awareness

Utilizing subsets of the study Utilizing subsets of the study population—Total N=952population—Total N=952

Goals of Deep Description in Miami Goals of Deep Description in Miami SchoolsSchools

1. Verify that language usage of 1. Verify that language usage of teachers complies with educational teachers complies with educational designdesign

2. Document language usage of 2. Document language usage of children in classrooms and non-children in classrooms and non-instructional environmentsinstructional environments

Methods of Deep DescriptionMethods of Deep Description

Bilingual observersBilingual observers In the classrooms and hallwaysIn the classrooms and hallways Between 25 and 50 observation per Between 25 and 50 observation per

design categorydesign category Census data for school districts and Census data for school districts and

schoolsschools

School MatchingSchool Matching

% % HispanicHispanic

%LEP%LEPFTE/ FTE/ childchild

SAT SAT Math Math scorescore

2-Way 2-Way SchoolsSchools

92.592.5 38.538.5 3.53.5 6767

EIEI 93.793.7 36.736.7 3.63.6 6868

Mono.Mono. 4040 12.712.7 3.43.4 6565

Immigration Demographics of Immigration Demographics of ParentsParents

Mother’s and father’s educational Mother’s and father’s educational attainmentattainment

OccupationOccupation Languages spoken at homeLanguages spoken at home Number of bedrooms in homeNumber of bedrooms in home Home ownershipHome ownership Country of originCountry of origin Age at immigrationAge at immigration

Summary of Classroom Language Summary of Classroom Language DataData

Teachers to students: Teachers Teachers to students: Teachers overwhelmingly complied with overwhelmingly complied with classroom design, i.e., Spanish was classroom design, i.e., Spanish was spoken in 2-way schools during spoken in 2-way schools during instruction in Spanish; English was instruction in Spanish; English was spoken in IE classrooms and the spoken in IE classrooms and the English portion of 2-way education to English portion of 2-way education to both classes and individual children.both classes and individual children.

Summary of Classroom Language Summary of Classroom Language DataData

Students spoke to teachers in the Students spoke to teachers in the appropriate language in the overwhelming appropriate language in the overwhelming majority of cases.majority of cases.

Students addressed students in the Students addressed students in the appropriate classroom language except in: appropriate classroom language except in:

a. 2-way Spanish classesa. 2-way Spanish classes

b. 2-way English and EI b. 2-way English and EI kindergartenkindergarten

Fathers years of schoolingFathers years of schoolingSESSES LSHLSH Father (x) SDFather (x) SD

EnglishEnglish

ImmersionImmersion

BilingualsBilinguals

HiHi OSHOSH 14.11 2.8414.11 2.84

ESHESH 14.51 2.6814.51 2.68

LoLo OSHOSH 10.46 3.6810.46 3.68

ESHESH 12.01 1.5112.01 1.51

2-way2-way

BilingualsBilingualsHiHi OSHOSH 15.52 2.7815.52 2.78

ESHESH 14.49 2.5914.49 2.59

LoLo OSHOSH 11.14 3.5111.14 3.51

ESHESH 12.06 2.2112.06 2.21

Monoling-Monoling-ualsuals

HiHi Eng.Eng. 15.61 2.8115.61 2.81

LoLo Eng.Eng. 12.38 2.1012.38 2.10

Age Children Began English AcquisitionAge Children Began English Acquisition

Educational Educational MethodMethod

EnglishEnglish

SESSES LSHLSH meanmean SDSD

EnglishEnglish

ImmersionImmersion

BilingualsBilinguals

HiHi OSHOSH 3.753.75 1.231.23

ESHESH 1.231.23 1.281.28

LoLo OSHOSH 3.903.90 1.551.55

ESHESH 1.341.34 1.231.23

2-way 2-way

BilingualsBilinguals

HiHi OSHOSH 3.333.33 1.441.44

ESHESH 1.171.17 1.341.34

LoLo OSHOSH 4.394.39 1.251.25

ESHESH 1.241.24 1.261.26

MonolingualsMonolingualsHiHi Eng.Eng. 0.080.08 0.270.27

LoLo Eng.Eng. o.48o.48 0.720.72

Mother’s Language ProficiencyMother’s Language ProficiencyEducational Educational

MethodMethodEnglishEnglish SpanishSpanish

SESSES LSHLSH meanmean SDSD meanmean SDSD

EnglishEnglish

ImmersionImmersion

BilingualsBilinguals

HiHi OSHOSH 2.652.65 0.550.55 2.872.87 0.340.34

ESHESH 2.912.91 0.320.32 2.722.72 0.500.50

LoLo OSHOSH 1.431.43 0.680.68 2.792.79 0.410.41

ESHESH 2.802.80 0.460.46 2.702.70 0.540.54

2-way 2-way

BilingualsBilinguals

HiHi OSHOSH 2.352.35 0.730.73 2.952.95 0.220.22

ESHESH 2.792.79 0.490.49 2.812.81 0.400.40

LoLo OSHOSH 1.401.40 0.650.65 2.782.78 0.440.44

ESHESH 2.702.70 0.490.49 2.672.67 0.570.57

MonolingualsMonolingualsHiHi Eng.Eng. 2.992.99 0.080.08 1.221.22 0.490.49

LoLo Eng.Eng. 2.972.97 0.170.17 1.171.17 0.440.44

What we have achievedWhat we have achieved All children born in USAll children born in US Two distinctly different educational models Two distinctly different educational models

(EI and 2-way) in otherwise matched (EI and 2-way) in otherwise matched schoolsschools

A clean separation between socioeconomic A clean separation between socioeconomic status with both OSH and ESH families status with both OSH and ESH families represented at each level of SES and in represented at each level of SES and in each school typeeach school type

A balanced design with respect to A balanced design with respect to languages spoken at homelanguages spoken at home

A matched monolingual groupA matched monolingual group

Performance on Performance on Standardized English- and Standardized English- and Spanish-language Tests for Spanish-language Tests for Monolingual and Bilingual Monolingual and Bilingual

StudentsStudents

Alan Cobo-LewisAlan Cobo-LewisUniversity of MaineUniversity of Maine

9 Standardized English- and 9 Standardized English- and Spanish-language TestsSpanish-language Tests

(Woodcock Johnson, 1989, 1991; Woodcock-Munoz, 1995(Woodcock Johnson, 1989, 1991; Woodcock-Munoz, 1995

Oral LanguageOral LanguagePicture Vocabulary, Oral Vocabulary, Picture Vocabulary, Oral Vocabulary,

Verbal Analogies + PPVT/TVIPVerbal Analogies + PPVT/TVIP

LiteracyLiteracyWord Attack, Letter-Word, Passage Word Attack, Letter-Word, Passage Composition, Proofing, DictationComposition, Proofing, Dictation

The Group Mean Results inThe Group Mean Results inEnglishEnglish

High-SES children outperform low-SES children, especially in oral language.

TestW

ord

Attack

Lette

r–W

ord

Passa

ge C

omp

Proof

Dict

Pict V

ocab

Verb

Analog

Oral V

ocab

PPVT

Sta

ndar

d S

core

70

80

90

100

110 low SEShigh SES

Monolinguals outperform bilinguals, especially in oral language.

TestW

ord

Attack

Lette

r–W

ord

Passa

ge C

omp

Proof

Dict

Pict V

ocab

Verb

Analog

Oral V

ocab

PPVT

Sta

ndar

d S

core

70

80

90

100

110 MonlingualsBilinguals

Word Attack70

80

90

100

110

Letter–Word70

80

90

100

110

Passage Comp

Sta

ndar

d S

core

70

80

90

100

110

Proofreading70

80

90

100

110

Dictation

K 2nd 5th

70

80

90

100

110

Picture Vocab

Verbal Analogies

Oral Vocabulary

PPVT

K 2nd 5th

Grade

BilingualsMonolinguals

As they get older, bilinguals start to catch up with monolinguals in the tests where they show the biggest deficits (Picture Vocab and Peabody Picture Vocab Test).

TestW

ord

Attack

Lette

r–W

ord

Passa

ge C

omp

Proof

Dict

Pict V

ocab

Verb

Analog

Oral V

ocab

PPVT

Sta

ndar

d S

core

70

80

90

100

110 Monolinguals1-Way Bilinguals2-Way Bilinguals

Bilinguals in Eng Imm schools outperform those inBilinguals in Eng Imm schools outperform those in2-way schools in oral lg2-way schools in oral lg

Bilinguals in 2-way schools do at least as well as those in Bilinguals in 2-way schools do at least as well as those in Eng Imm schools (and about as well as monolinguals) in Eng Imm schools (and about as well as monolinguals) in elementary reading tasks (Word Attack and Letter–Word)elementary reading tasks (Word Attack and Letter–Word)

As they get older, bilinguals in 2-way education programs tend to catch up with bilinguals in Eng Imm education programs (except for Picture Vocab).

Word Attack70

80

90

100

110

Letter–Word70

80

90

100

110

Passage Comp

Sta

ndar

d S

core

70

80

90

100

110

Proofreading70

80

90

100

110

Dictation

K 2nd 5th

70

80

90

100

110

Picture Vocab

Verbal Analogies

Oral Vocabulary

PPVT

K 2nd 5th

Grade

1-way Bilinguals

2-way Bilinguals

Monolinguals

Bilinguals who speak English & Spanish at home Bilinguals who speak English & Spanish at home outperform those who speak only Spanish at home, outperform those who speak only Spanish at home,

especially in oral languageespecially in oral language

TestW

ord

Attack

Lette

r–W

ord

Passa

ge C

omp

Proof

Dict

Pict V

ocab

Verb

Analog

Oral V

ocab

PPVT

Sta

ndar

d S

core

70

80

90

100

110 MonolingualsBilinguals: Eng & SpBilinguals: Sp only

As they get older, bilinguals who speak only Spanish at home start to catch up with bilinguals who speak English & Spanish at home in the tests where they show the biggest deficits (Picture Vocab and Peabody Picture Vocab Test).

Word Attack70

80

90

100

110

Letter–Word70

80

90

100

110

Passage Comp

Sta

ndar

d S

core

70

80

90

100

110

Proofreading70

80

90

100

110

Dictation

K 2nd 5th

70

80

90

100

110

Picture Vocab

Verbal Analogies

Oral Vocabulary

PPVT

K 2nd 5th

Grade

Bilinguals: Eng & Span

Bilinguals: Span only

Monolinguals

Summary of theSummary of theGroup Mean Results in EnglishGroup Mean Results in English

Outside-of-school influences—SES, “linguality” Outside-of-school influences—SES, “linguality” (monolinguals vs bilinguals), and language (monolinguals vs bilinguals), and language spoken at home—have their largest effects in oral spoken at home—have their largest effects in oral lg.lg.

Outside-of-school influences other than SES wane Outside-of-school influences other than SES wane as children grow older.as children grow older.

Bilinguals in Eng Imm schools outperform those in Bilinguals in Eng Imm schools outperform those in 2-way schools in oral lg, but those in 2-way 2-way schools in oral lg, but those in 2-way schools outperform those in Eng Imm schools in schools outperform those in Eng Imm schools in elementary reading tasks. elementary reading tasks. Learning to read in Learning to read in Spanish may help students’ general reading skills Spanish may help students’ general reading skills regardless of language being tested regardless of language being tested (more on this (more on this later).later).

The Group Mean Results in The Group Mean Results in SpanishSpanish

Children who speak only Spanish at home outperform those who speak English & Spanish

at home, especially in oral lg.

TestW

ord

Attack

Lette

r–W

ord

Passa

ge C

omp

Proof

Dict

Pict V

ocab

Verb

Analog

Oral V

ocab

PPVT

Sta

ndar

d S

core

60

70

80

90

100

110 Eng & Sp at homeonly Sp at home

High-SES children outperform low-SES children, but not in oral language.

TestW

ord

Attack

Lette

r–W

ord

Passa

ge C

omp

Proof

Dict

Pict V

ocab

Verb

Analog

Oral V

ocab

PPVT

Sta

ndar

d S

core

60

70

80

90

100

110 low SEShigh SES

Children in 2-way schools outperform those in Eng Imm schools, especially in elementary

reading (Word Attack & Letter–Word).

TestW

ord

Attack

Lette

r–W

ord

Passa

ge C

omp

Proof

Dict

Pict V

ocab

Verb

Analog

Oral V

ocab

PPVT

Sta

ndar

d S

core

60

70

80

90

100

110 1-way2-way

Children in Eng Imm and 2-way schools perform very similarly in Kindergarten. Dramatic differences emerge later.

Word Attack60708090

100110120130

Letter–Word60708090

100110120130

Passage Comp

Sta

ndar

d S

core

60708090

100110120130

Proofreading60708090

100110120130

Dictation

K 2nd 5th

60708090

100110120130

Picture Vocab

Verbal Analogies

Oral Vocabulary

PPVT

K 2nd 5th

Grade

2-way1-way

Summary of theSummary of theGroup Mean Results in SpanishGroup Mean Results in Spanish

SES effects were more straightforward in English SES effects were more straightforward in English tests than in Spanish tests, where low-SES tests than in Spanish tests, where low-SES bilinguals sometimes outperformed high-SES bilinguals sometimes outperformed high-SES bilinguals.bilinguals.

Language spoken at home affects performance in Language spoken at home affects performance in expected directions, with effects being most expected directions, with effects being most salient in oral language.salient in oral language.

2-way children outperform Eng Imm children in 2-way children outperform Eng Imm children in Spanish, Spanish, especially in reading.especially in reading.• Recall that this was Recall that this was also true in English tests.also true in English tests.• We’ll see this again in the upcoming We’ll see this again in the upcoming analysis of analysis of

individual differences.individual differences.

Individual DifferencesIndividual Differences

Individual Differences:Individual Differences:Principal Components Analysis of Bilinguals’ Principal Components Analysis of Bilinguals’

EnglishEnglish & & SpanishSpanish Data DataFactor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Word Attack .82.82 .71.71     ––.01.01  

Letter–Word .79.79 .82.82 .35.35     .25.25

Passage Comp .64.64 .61.61 .37.37     .28.28

Proofing .70.70 .66.66 .32.32     .34.34

Dictation .61.61 .70.70 .48.48     .40.40

Picture Vocab     .80.80 ––.05.05 ––.00.00 .78.78

Verbal Analogies     .69.69 .38.38   .61.61

Oral Vocabulary     .74.74     .78.78

PPVT     .74.74     .72.72

Individual Individual DifferencesDifferencesComparativeComparativeFactor Analyses ofFactor Analyses ofAll Subjects’ DataAll Subjects’ Data

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5Monolingualsin English

walw

pcprd

pv

ovvappvt

wa

lw

pcpr

d

pv ovvappvt

walw

pcprd

pv

ovva

ppvt

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5Bilingualsin English

wa

lw

pcpr

d

pv ovvappvt

wa lw

pc prd

pv

ovvappvt

wa lw

pc prd

pv

ovvappvt

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5Bilingualsin Spanish

Literacy Factor

0.2 0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6 0.7

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.2

0.3

0.4Monolinguals

in English

wa

lwpc

pr

d

pv

ov

va

ppvt

walw

pcpr

d

pvov

va

ppvt

wa

lwpc

pr

d

pv

ov

vappvt

0.2 0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6 0.7

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.2

0.3

0.4Bilingualsin English

walw

pcpr

d

pvov

va

ppvt

wa

lw pc

pr

d

pv

ov

vappvt

wa

lwpc

pr

d

pv

ov

va

ppvt

0.2 0.3 0.4

0.4 0.5 0.6

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.4Bilingualsin Spanish

Language-specific Factors

Individual Individual DifferencesDifferencesComparativeComparativeFactor Analyses ofFactor Analyses ofAll Subjects’ DataAll Subjects’ Data

Language-Specific

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.8

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4Monolinguals

in English

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5Bilingualsin English

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.8

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4

Bilingualsin Spanish

Literacy

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.8

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4Monolinguals

in English

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5Bilingualsin English

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.8

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4

Bilingualsin Spanish

Individual DifferencesIndividual DifferencesComparative Factor Analyses of All Subjects’ DataComparative Factor Analyses of All Subjects’ Data

Factor Scores to Summarize Major Factor Scores to Summarize Major Group EffectsGroup Effects

-0.5

0.0

0.5

SocioeconomicStatus

LanguageSpoken at Home

Instructional Methodin the School

Low High Only Sp Eng & Sp Eng Imm Two-Way

Literacy

Eng OralSp Oral

Fact

or

Sco

re

ConclusionsConclusions

Implications for Implications for Educational Educational ProgramsPrograms• 2-way education leads to 2-way education leads to better better

SpanishSpanish skills. skills.

• 2-way education 2-way education does not detract does not detract (much) from English(much) from English skills (at least by skills (at least by 2nd grade).2nd grade).

• Neither Eng Imm nor 2-way Neither Eng Imm nor 2-way bilingualsbilinguals spoke English as well as spoke English as well as monolinguals.monolinguals.

ConclusionsConclusions

LinguisticLinguistic Conclusions Conclusions

•ReadingReading and and WritingWriting skills skills cross cross language.language.

•OralOral skills are more skills are more language-language-specificspecific..