This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo]On: 12 November 2014, At: 11:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Theory Into PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Spontaneous Biliteracy: Examining LatinoStudents' Untapped PotentialMaria de la Luz Reyes aa University of Colorado-BoulderPublished online: 02 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Maria de la Luz Reyes (2012) Spontaneous Biliteracy: Examining Latino Students'Untapped Potential, Theory Into Practice, 51:4, 248-255, DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2012.726052

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2012.726052

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Theory Into Practice, 51:248–255, 2012

Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University

ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online

DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2012.726052

Maria de la Luz Reyes

Spontaneous Biliteracy:Examining Latino Students’Untapped Potential

Cultural deficit theories have long been de-

bunked, yet Spanish continues to be treated as an

impediment to Latinos’ school success. With over

5 million emerging bilinguals, of which approxi-

mately 75% are Spanish speakers, Latinos’ bilit-

eracy potential should be examined as a means

to support their learning. This article focuses on

the spontaneous biliteracy of Latinos who, given

the freedom to access their full linguistic re-

sources, engage in frequent translanguaging and

transliteracy to support their learning. The aca-

demic success of the focal students here suggests

that affirming and integrating Latinos’ emerging

bilingual skills is key to their motivation and

interest in learning and literacy.

María de la Luz Reyes is a professor emeriti of

Education at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Maria

de la Luz Reyes at the University of Colorado-Boulder,

c/o 985 San Pablo Drive, San Marcos, CA 92078; 760-

761-0458; E-Mail: maria.reyes@colorado.edu

ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE self-evident that

Latino students can become bilingual by

virtue of living and interacting with other bilin-

guals, few educators recognize that they also have

the potential to become biliterate without formal

literacy instruction in two languages. Emergent

biliteracy as a natural and spontaneous process

is a phenomenon I have studied among young

Latinos. I refer to this acquisition of literacy in

two languages without prescribed instruction in

both languages as spontaneous biliteracy using

the term spontaneous to denote a self-acquired

ability, like spontaneous reading used by Durkin

(1966) and Clark (1976) to refer to children’s

ability to read without instruction.

This article examines spontaneous biliteracy

from the literacy practices of young Latinos

who participated in a 4-year longitudinal study.

I argue that alternate use of Spanish and English

represents not simply instances of codeswitch-

ing, but that it signals a progression toward

biliteracy, an untapped potential that could be

used to advance students’ academic perfor-

mance.

248

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:16

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

de la Luz Reyes Spontaneous Biliteracy

Definition of Biliteracy

Biliteracy here refers to the ability to decode

and encode meaning from written texts in two

languages. In addition to comprehending, speak-

ing, reading, and writing, biliteracy includes

constructing meaning by making relevant cul-

tural and linguistic connections with print and

learners’ lived experiences, and manipulating the

two linguistic systems to make meaning (Reyes,

2001). Biliteracy is essentially a sociocultural

process (Freire & Macedo, 1987; Street, 1984;

Vygotsky, 1978) that involves social interaction

(Barton & Hamilton, 1999; Gee, 1996), talk,

values, and beliefs. All these interrelated aspects

of language and literacy underscore the critical

roles that culture and identity play in learning as

well as in becoming and being literate.

The fluid nature of bilingualism and biliteracy

is evident within Hornberger’s (2003) continua

of biliteracy. Her framework utilizes complex

intersecting and overlaying continua to illustrate

the intricate interrelationship between bilingual-

ism and biliteracy. These bilingual competencies

(e.g., oral/literate, monolingual/bilingual, simul-

taneous/successive, etc.) are viewed as points

along a continuum—points that move in both

directions. Dynamic moves along the continua

explain how an individual can appear to be more

biliterate sometimes and less biliterate at other

times, depending on the context, media, content,

or development present at the time (Hornberger,

2003; Hornberger & Skilton-Sylvester, 2003).

Current Thought on Biliteracy

Since the mid 1980s, literacy studies have

shown that bilingual children are quite adept

at crossing linguistic borders. They experiment

with reading and writing in a second language

even before they are fluent in it, and do so

without suffering cognitive losses or interference

to their acquisition of English (Edelsky, 1986;

Hudleson, 1984). This suggests that they can

simultaneously become literate in two languages.

Studies in Canada (Beynon & Toohey, 1991;

Maguire, 1999) and Great Britain (Kenner, 2004)

have also found that simultaneous acquisition of

multiple literacies, even with different writing

systems, is a common occurrence among young

children. In Europe, multilingual literacy enjoys

pedagogical support as a way of acquainting

students with diverse languages and of promoting

their value (Garcia, 2009).

Although emerging bilinguals may produce

writing with invented spelling and grammatical

miscues, their texts are still successful in com-

municating their message. In culturally affirming

learning environments where children are free to

use all their linguistic resources to make sense

of instruction, bilingual children demonstrate re-

markable control over the two languages and

two literacies (Berzins & López, 2001; Dworin,

2003; Moll & Dworin, 1996; Reyes, 2001; Reyes

& Costanzo, 2002). Bilingual children become

adept at lending, borrowing, and blending codes

as means of comprehending and communicating

ideas—largely because they focus more on con-

tent than on the language utilized. This process

helps them make important connections between

their lived experiences and academic content—a

process that can lead to higher order skills.

Background

The study referenced here took place in a

small school district in Colorado. Its goal was

to document students’ acquisition of literacy in

Spanish and English. Forty-four percent of the

students in the K–5 school were from low-

income Mexican-origin households. Participants,

a cohort of 25 kindergarteners, were enrolled

in the school’s transitional bilingual education

program—not in a dual language program where

biliteracy is an expected outcome. Only 11 of

the original members of the cohort remained

at the end of third grade due to administrative

transfers and students’ changes in residence. Of

those, seven students produced writing and read-

ing samples that demonstrate significant levels

of emerging biliteracy (Reyes, 2001; Reyes &

Costanzo, 2002).

Teachers employed an alternate-day En-

glish/Spanish instructional model but gave stu-

dents autonomy in choosing the language

249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:16

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Rethinking Language Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Classrooms

medium for their responses. When students used

their native language, teachers would match their

language before returning to the day’s target

language. Success with this approach varied. The

kindergarten teacher, a Latina, kept true to this

method 98% of the time. The first grade teacher

(a White teacher with moderate fluency in Span-

ish) and the second grade teacher (a bilingual

Mexican American) followed the method 70% of

the time, but the third grade homeroom teacher

followed it only about 30% of the time.

Spontaneous Biliteracy Among

Latino Children

Teachers’ bilingual advocacy and espousal of

Whole Language tenets contributed to a class-

room ethos that treated and valued both lan-

guages, provided ample time for reading and

writing workshops, as well as an independent

reading and writing period where social play

took place. This social play often led to students’

self-directed forays into biliteracy. Students used

a mix of Spanish and English (codeswitching)

for their discussions and follow-up writing as-

signments. In monolingual contexts, codeswitch-

ing is often considered a linguistic deficit. In

bilingual contexts, however, students use both

languages to make sense of assignments, and as

normal practice with little awareness of linguistic

shifts; at other times, students purposely shift lan-

guages to showcase their biliteracy competence.

Researchers in multilingual European contexts

have coined translanguaging and transliteracy

as new terms for this type of biliteracy (Garcia,

2009). They view these practices as normal com-

munication modes of bilinguals who make no

attempt to separate languages according to their

function and context. The focal children in this

study were actively engaged in tranlanguaging

and transliteracy practices that led to their early

biliteracy.

Focal Children

Two children featured here, Humberto and Il-

iana (actual first names), were Spanish monolin-

guals in kindergarten. Both possessed classic at-

risk traits that teachers treat as predictors of low

academic achievement: They spoke no English;

they came from low income homes, and their

parents had little formal schooling. As a result,

they were placed in the Spanish literacy group

where their teacher provided Spanish phonics

instruction, mostly in context of lessons. Students

had ample opportunities to interact with bilingual

books, and with their peers. By first grade,

each was dabbling in some form of spontaneous

biliteracy.

Humberto. When Humberto enrolled in

kindergarten, his father warned him against los-

ing his home language, explaining that without

Spanish he would be unable to communicate

with his grandfather in Mexico—a grandfather

whom Humberto adored. At the time, no one was

aware of this admonition, or that learning English

presented an emotional conflict for Humberto.

He never spoke about it, and despite all his

interactions with teachers and peers, he spoke no

English in his first three years of school. From

his conversations with others, it was clear that

he wanted nothing to sever his bond with his

grandfather, often emphasizing his preference for

Spanish.

Shy, but friendly, Humberto possessed a nat-

ural intelligence and charming personality that

won him many friends. Social play provided var-

ied opportunities to share his expert knowledge

of Spanish, and time for his bilingual peers to

mediate his English comprehension. To compen-

sate for his determination not to use English,

Humberto sharpened his senses, often sitting in

the front row listening attentively, and raising his

hand to answer questions—always in Spanish.

Humberto’s devotion to his grandfather was

evident. At the end of kindergarten, he produced

his first piece of writing, accompanied by a

drawing of his grandfather. Using beginning con-

sonants to represent words he wrote: “FRTaPsr

a mejiso a v”–Fueron todos a pasearse a Mejico

a ver (“They all went on a trip to Mexico to

see”), verbally completing the sentence, “a su

abuelo que está triste porque sus hijos no lo vis-

itan” (“their grandfather who is sad because his

250

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:16

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

de la Luz Reyes Spontaneous Biliteracy

Figure 1. Humberto’s Writing Summary of an English Science Lesson

children don’t visit him”). Humberto ended this

sentence with a stick drawing of his grandfather

leaning on a cane, with a frown on his face—

the first of a series of writings he would produce

over the 4 years, many about his grandfather and

family.

By September of first grade, Humberto’s writ-

ing illustrated knowledge of letter-sound corre-

spondence and standard spelling of polysyllabic

Spanish words. His writing, accompanied by

drawings, showed impressive gains in form and

conveyance of ideas. Accompanying a short story

about school, for example, he drew an artful

rendition of a pyramid-like school suggesting

his awareness of the iconic status of pyramids

in Mexico. He drew a Mexican flag flying next

to the school, underscoring his identity and his

inextricable connection to his culture, an impor-

tant element in the literacy process. As Freire

and Macedo (1987) asserted, “Reading does not

consist merely of decoding the written word or

language; rather it is preceded by and intertwined

with knowledge of the world” (p. 27, emphasis

mine). At this point, Mexico still loomed large

in Humberto’s world.

In spring of first grade, the bilingual teacher

teamed up with a nonbilingual teacher to teach

a science unit. The bilingual teacher taught the

lesson in Spanish to fluent English students while

the nonbilingual teacher taught the same lesson

in English to Spanish speakers. Afterward, the

groups returned to their homerooms, where they

were asked to write three facts they had learned

from the lesson. In Figure 1, Humberto shows

impressive understanding of academic content in

English.

In column 1, Humberto writes: “What I learned

about light is that opaque does not allow light

to pass and transparent allows all the light to

pass.” In column 2, he writes: “I learned that

translucent allows only a little light to pass.”

Finally, in column 3 he writes: “I learned that

the light bulb at home gives us (provides) light.”

Humberto’s writing illustrates a clear grasp of

key facts from the lesson and an ability to

transfer that knowledge back to Spanish, a good

example of transliteracy. The quality of his writ-

ing shows use of simple and complex compound

sentences, conformity to standard spelling in

Spanish, and ability to express clear, concise

thoughts with command of punctuation.

Because Humberto excelled academically, and

Spanish and English were accepted equally in

class, his teachers were unaware that he did not

speak or use English in school. In the privacy of

his journal, however, Humberto was experiment-

ing with English writing. In second grade, he

shared with me an English entry he had written

about his grandfather’s birthday party. The fact

251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:16

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Rethinking Language Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Classrooms

that he kept this writing from the teacher and his

peers suggests that Humberto still felt conflicted

about the overpowering influence of English

around him, and feared losing his bond with his

grandfather. Although his story included inven-

tive spelling, it demonstrated emerging knowl-

edge of English and a good sense of humor. He

ends by pointing out the irony amidst his joy,

explaining, “There will be enchiladas (but) I can’t

eat enchiladas!”

Humberto’s biliteracy illustrates the key role

that language, culture, and emotion plays in

the development of literacy and underscores the

importance of providing bilinguals the freedom

to use all their linguistic resources. Given Hum-

berto’s reluctance to use English publicly, it

is doubtful that he would have produced any

English texts under duress. Although English ad-

vocates might question the wisdom of allowing a

student to cling to his native language for his first

3 years in school, in this case, the Spanish safety

net did not interfere with Humberto’s attainment

of academic content or with his interest and

motivation to learn. On the contrary, he earned

good grades in all subject areas. His teachers and

peers viewed him as a model student and a well-

adjusted child.

Iliana. Iliana was intelligent and assertive.

Though she spoke only Spanish in kindergarten,

by the beginning of first grade, she was a gregar-

ious English speaker. That same year, she wrote

a letter to Santa Claus in English, requesting

special gifts. As she moved up the grades, she

continued using both languages to suit her needs

(Reyes, 2001).

Iliana continued to make impressive academic

gains. At the end of second grade, she scored

at a 3.0 grade level in Spanish and a 2.2 grade

level in English literacy in the district’s liter-

acy assessment, making her eligible to partici-

pate in an experimental biliteracy language arts

class in 3rd grade. In the experimental class,

a new bilingual teacher provided instruction in

both English and Spanish literacy, but still al-

lowed children language choice when making

sense of texts. The following examples of Il-

iana’s biliteracy illustrate how the two languages

were woven seamlessly and how translanguag-

ing and transliteracy contributed to her critical

thinking.

Iliana and Brittany (another focal student) sit

on a swivel chair reading alternating pages of

Strega Nona’s Magic Lessons (dePaola, 1982).

Although, up to this point, Iliana has had no

English phonics or English reading instruction,

she reads fluently, as evidenced by the following

transcription of her oral reading.

“I think I know how to help you,” Strega Nona

says after hearing Bambalona’s sad tale. “So

many people come to me with their troubles: : : :

We’ll start today,” said Strega Nona. [Finish-

ing the page, she pauses and says proudly to

Brittany,] Thank you. I didn’t need that much

help—only 2 times.

Iliana had asked for help pronouncing the Italian

names of the two characters—a nonissue given

that pronunciation of foreign names is a common

problem even for proficient adult readers.

Another day, the teacher asks students to read

their journal entries for The Art Lesson (dePaola,

1989). Iliana’s hand shoots up to read what she

has written in English.

[Iliana reads from her journal:] Tommy wanted

to be an artist. In his birthday, his mom and

Dad gave him a book of 64 crayolas. Tommy

is very nice because he draws pictures for us.

Tommy made his dream come true by practicing

and practicing. He is friendly. [She adds,] End

of story.

Besides the ability to read her own written work

in English, Iliana has a clear understanding of the

storyline. She summarizes it, beginning with a

thesis sentence, “Tommy wanted to be an artist.”

Her sentences are short and she misuses the

preposition in for on—a common problem for

Spanish speakers because the Spanish proposi-

tion en has the same meaning as the English

prepositions in and on. Iliana’s sentences, how-

ever, follow standard form in spelling, punc-

tuation, and grammatical structure—self-taught

English writing skills. Even more impressive is

that she extrapolates the lesson implied in the

252

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:16

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

de la Luz Reyes Spontaneous Biliteracy

story: “Tommy made his dream come true by

practicing and practicing.” Iliana raises her hand

again and comments freely in Spanish:

“Me gusta escribir los libros. Quiero ser au-

tora.” (“I love to write books. I want to be an

author.”)

Teacher (matching Iliana’s Spanish): “¿O, sí?

Esta es una meta que tienes?” (“Oh, yes? Is

this a goal you have?”)

Continuing the discussion in English, the teacher

asks other students to share their book responses

while helping them understand that having a

dream and working toward that dream go hand

in hand. She encourages students to ask each

other questions. Iliana’s best friend, Brittany,

shares her thoughts and ends by saying she does

not know anyone famous like Tommy. Instantly,

Iliana raises her hand:

I have a question [looking directly at Brittany].

Do you think you’re going to know somebody

like that? : : : I see that you want to be a singer,

right? So, maybe : : :

You could start right now [she emphasizes]

: : : like Daniela : : : like when you get home!

Maybe, like : : : she started it when she was

little. Look at her now: She’s big! She’s in

telenovelas! : : : You could do that, too!

The class erupts in laughter as they recognize

“Daniela” from the telenovelas they watch at

home. Here, Iliana is clearly engaged in critical

thinking. Not only does she understand that

dreams require work and persistence, but she

understands that the dreamer needs to seize the

moment and launch upon her dream to make it a

reality. With freedom and encouragement to use

the linguistic resources at her disposal, her funds

of knowledge (Gonzalez et al., 2005), Iliana

reaches higher levels of conceptual thinking. In

this example, she makes real-life connections

with the characters in the books and the world

around her—key cultural connections that can

only be reached when learners fully identify with

the reading content—connections that pique their

interest and motivation to learn.

It would be an insult to Humberto’s and

Iliana’s intelligence to assume that their use

of two language codes indicates dual language

deficiency, as English monolinguists might be

tempted to conclude. On the contrary, their bilin-

gual practices illustrate engagement in translan-

guaging and transliteracy and their awareness

that, in bilingual contexts, using bilingualism and

biliteracy is part and parcel of who they are, of

their world, and of their learning process. Lan-

guages need not be treated separately if bilinguals

can control them for their own use and present

their work to a bilingual audience.

Discussion

Spontaneous biliteracy is indicative that bilin-

gualism is a deeply formative way of life for

Latino students (Moll, 2011). It is an essential

learning tool used to navigate within and between

two worlds. It makes little sense, then, to demand

that students ignore the reality of their dual

language existence and insist that they refrain

from using their knowledge of Spanish as a way

to support their learning.

As evidenced in Humberto’s and Iliana’s

biliteracy examples, spontaneous biliteracy can

emerge in learning environments where students’

cultures are explicitly affirmed and where their

native languages are treated as aids to learning.

Even though it is easier for bilingual teachers

to integrate both languages for instruction with

the goal of full biliteracy for their students, there

are also lessons here for all teachers of emerg-

ing bilinguals (aka, English language learners).

With knowledge that cultural affirmation is a

key ingredient to academic success, teachers can

make simple adjustments to their instructional

practices. After reading an English passage, for

example, teachers could allow 5 min for Latino

students to utilize translanguaging and translit-

eracy to unlock or clarify meaning and make

personal applications to their own experiences.

This would signal respect for students’ native

languages and acknowledge their funds of knowl-

edge. What matters here is not the teacher’s

monolingualism but that students have every

253

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:16

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Rethinking Language Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Classrooms

opportunity to develop critical thinking skills that

support higher levels of literacy before returning

to the larger discussion with the rest of the

class.

Teachers can also provide students access to

multicultural books that reflect diverse peoples

and cultures, even books in non-English lan-

guages. Not all students or even the teacher may

be able to read these, but just having them avail-

able in a classroom conveys a strong message

that all languages are valuable.

The possibility of spontaneous biliteracy does

not imply that bilingual programs are not essen-

tial. On the contrary, 21st-century schools should

have (at minimum) the goal of graduating all

students as biliterate with interest and appre-

ciation for multilingualism and multiliteracies.

Showcasing Latino children’s spontaneous bilit-

eracy, however, can help dispel persistent myths

that nurturing bilingualism retards acquisition

of English, and that at-risk students need only

a strong instructional diet of phonics and ba-

sic skills to be academically successful—absurd

hegemonic assertions. Spontaneous biliteracy re-

veals the intellectual and linguistic potential that

ordinary Latino children possess—a potential

that goes untapped generation after generation,

often contributing to their disengagement in a

learning process that requires rejection of their

bilingual identity. Promoting formal and informal

biliteracy can foster and prevent the erosion of

children’s natural linguistic resources while of-

fering teachers a tool for ameliorating the dismal

levels of literacy achievement of Latinos on tests

that measure only half their potential.

References

Barton, M., & Hamilton, M. (Eds.). (1999). Situated

literacies: Reading and writing in context. London,

UK: Routledge.

Beynon, J., & Toohey, K. (1991). Heritage language

education in British Columbia: Policy and pro-

grammes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 47,

606-16.

Berzins, M. E., & López, A. E. (2001). Starting off

right: Planting the seeds for biliteracy. In M. Reyes

& J. J. Halcón (Eds.), The best for our children:

Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students

(pp. 81–95). New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Clark, M. M. (1976). Young fluent readers: What can

they teach us? London, UK: Heinemann.

dePaola, T. (1982). Strega Nona’s magic lessons.

Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Brace, Javanovich.

dePaola, T. (1989). The art lesson. New York, NY:

G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early: Two lon-

gitudinal studies. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Dworin, J. (2003). Insights into biliteracy develop-

ment: Toward a bidirectional theory of bilingual

pedagogy. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,

2, 171–186.

Edelsky, C. (1986). Writing in a bilingual program.

Había una vez. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the

word and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and

Garvey.

Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st

century: A global perspective. Oxford, England,

UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies:

Ideology in discourses. Bristol, PA: Taylor and

Francis.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.).

(2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices

in household, communities and classrooms. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Hornberger, N. H. (Ed.). (2003). Continua of biliter-

acy: An ecological framework for educational pol-

icy, research, and practice in multilingual settings.

Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Hornberger, N. H., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2003).

Revisiting the continua of biliteracy: International

and critical perspectives. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.),

Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework

for educational policy, research, and practice in

multilingual settings (pp. 35–67). Clevedon, Eng-

land: Multilingual Matters.

Hudleson, S. (1984). Kan yu ret an rayt en Ingles:

Children become literate in English as a second

language. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 221-238.

Kenner, C. (2004). Becoming literate: Young children

learning different writing systems. Staffordshire,

England: Trentham.

Maguire, M. (1999). A bilingual child’s choices and

voices: Lessons in noticing, listening, and under-

standing. In E. Franklin (Ed.), Reading and writing

254

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:16

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

de la Luz Reyes Spontaneous Biliteracy

in more than one language: Lessons for teachers

(pp. 115–149). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Moll, L. C. (2011). Foreword. In M. Reyes (Ed.).

Words were all we had: Becoming biliterate against

the odds (pp. ix–xi). New York, NY: Teachers

College Press.

Moll, L. C., & Dworin, J. (1996). Biliteracy develop-

ment in classrooms: Social dynamics and cultural

possibilities. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learn-

ing, and schooling (pp. 221–246). Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Reyes, M. de la Luz. (2001). Unleashing possibilities:

Biliteracy in the primary grades. In M. Reyes &

J. J. Halcón (Eds.), The best for our children:

Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students

(pp. 96–121). New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Reyes, M. de la Luz, & Costanzo, L. C. (2002). On

the threshold of biliteracy: A first graders’ personal

journey. In L. D. Soto (Ed.), Making a difference in

the lives of bilingual/bicultural children (pp. 145–

156). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The de-

velopment of higher psychological process. Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

255

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:16

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14