case study literacy development

Working With Academic Literacies: Case Studies Towards Transformative Practice

Theresa Lillis, The Open University

Kathy Harrington, London Metropolitan University

Mary Lea, Open University

Sally Mitchell, Queen Mary University of London

Copyright Year: 2015

ISBN 13: 9781602357617

Publisher: WAC Clearinghouse

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Margaret Haberman, Adjunct Instructor, University of Southern Maine on 3/30/21

This book has a tremendous range and numerous contributions from a variety of fields within this subject matter. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This book has a tremendous range and numerous contributions from a variety of fields within this subject matter.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

I did not find any inaccuracies or bias based on my reading. Since many of the contributions are not within my field of study, I cannot speak to specific accuracy. However, these essays are about practice and application of techniques and strategies within a variety of fields/content areas.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

These topics will be relevant, in my opinion, for future use.

Clarity rating: 4

I found the text to be accessible.

Consistency rating: 5

The text is consistent within the framework of a text with many different contributors.

Modularity rating: 5

Yes, easily adaptable to needs of an instructor.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

I found the organization of the text to be logical and easy to follow.

Interface rating: 5

Easy to navigate.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I did not notice any grammatical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I found this text to be culturally sensitive.

Table of Contents

• Front Matter
• Introduction, Theresa Lillis, Kathy Harrington, Mary R. Lea and Sally Mitchell

Section 1. Transforming Pedagogies of Academic Writing and Reading

• Introduction to Section 1
• A Framework for Usable Pedagogy: Case Studies Towards Accessibility, Criticality and Visibility, Julio Gimenez and Peter Thomas
• Working With Power: A Dialogue about Writing Support Using Insights from Psychotherapy, Lisa Clughen and Matt Connell
• An Action Research Intervention Towards Overcoming "Theory Resistance" in Photojournalism Students, Jennifer Good
• Student-Writing Tutors: Making Sense of "Academic Literacies", Joelle Adams
• "Hidden Features" and "Overt Instruction" in Academic Literacy Practices: A Case Study in Engineering, Adriana Fischer
• Making Sense of my Thesis: Master's Level Thesis Writing as Constellation of Joint Activities, Kathrin Kaufhold
• Thinking Creatively About Research Writing, Cecile Badenhorst, Cecilia Moloney, Jennifer Dyer, Janna Rosales and Morgan Murray
• Disciplined Voices, Disciplined Feelings: Exploring Constraints and Choices in a Thesis Writing Circle, Kate Chanock, Sylvia Whitmore and Makiko Nishitani
• How Can the Text Be Everything? Reflecting on Academic Life and Literacies, Sally Mitchell talking with Mary Scott

Section 2. Transforming the Work of Teaching

• Introduction to Section 2
• Opening up The Curriculum: Moving from The Normative to The Transformative in Teachers' Understandings of Disciplinary Literacy Practices, Cecilia Jacobs
• Writing Development, Co-Teaching and Academic Literacies: Exploring the Connections, Julian Ingle and Nadya Yakovchuk
• Transformative and Normative? Implications for Academic Literacies Research in Quantitative Disciplines, Moragh Paxton and Vera Frith
• Learning from Lecturers: What Disciplinary Practice Can Teach Us About "Good" Student Writing, Maria Leedham
• Thinking Critically and Negotiating Practices in the Disciplines, David Russell in conversation with Sally Mitchell
• Academic Writing in an ELF Environment: Standardization, Accommodation—or Transformation?, Laura McCambridge
• "Doing Something that's Really Important": Meaningful Engagement as a Resource for Teachers' Transformative Work with Student Writers in the Disciplines, Jackie Tuck
• The Transformative Potential of Laminating Trajectories: Three Teachers' Developing Pedagogical Practices and Identities, Kevin Roozen, Paul Prior, Rebecca Woodard and Sonia Kline
• Marking the Boundaries: Knowledge and Identity in Professional Doctorates, Jane Creaton
• What's at Stake in Different Traditions? Les Littéracies Universitaires and Academic Literacies, Isabelle Delcambre in conversation with Christiane Donahue

Section 3. Transforming Resources, Genres and Semiotic Practices

• Introduction to Section 3
• Genre as a Pedagogical Resource at University, Fiona English
• How Drawing Is Used to Conceptualize and Communicate Design Ideas in Graphic Design: Exploring Scamping Through a Literacy Practice Lens, Lynn Coleman
• "There is a Cage Inside My Head and I Cannot Let Things Out", Fay Stevens
• Blogging to Create Multimodal Reading and Writing Experiences in Postmodern Human Geographies, Claire Penketh and Tasleem Shakur
• Working with Grammar as a Tool for Making Meaning, Gillian Lazar and Beverley Barnaby
• Digital Posters—Talking Cycles for Academic Literacy, Diane Rushton, Cathy Malone and Andrew Middleton
• Telling Stories: Investigating the Challenges to International Students' Writing Through Personal Narrative, Helen Bowstead
• Digital Writing as Transformative: Instantiating Academic Literacies in Theory and Practice, Colleen McKenna
• Looking at Academic Literacies from a Composition Frame: From Spatial to Spatio-temporal Framing of Difference, Bruce Horner in conversation with Theresa Lillis

Section 4. Transforming Institutional Framings of Academic Writing

• Introduction to Section 4
• Transforming Dialogic Spaces in an "Elite" Institution: Academic Literacies, the Tutorial and High-Achieving Students, Corinne Boz
• The Political Act of Developing Provision for Writing in the Irish Higher Education Context, Lawrence Cleary and Íde O'Sullivan
• Building Research Capacity through an AcLits-Inspired Pedagogical Framework, Lia Blaj-Ward
• Academic Literacies at the Institutional Interface: A Prickly Conversation Around Thorny Issues, Joan Turner
• Revisiting the Question of Transformation in Academic Literacies: The Ethnographic Imperative, Brian Street in conversation with Mary R. Lea and Theresa Lillis
• Resisting the Normative? Negotiating Multilingual Identities in a Course for First Year Humanities Students in Catalonia, Spain, Angels Oliva-Girbau and Marta Milian Gubern
• Academic Literacies and the Employability Curriculum: Resisting Neoliberal Education?, Catalina Neculai
• A Cautionary Tale about a Writing Course for Schools, Kelly Peake and Sally Mitchell
• "With writing, you are not expected to come from your home": Dilemmas of Belonging, Lucia Thesen
• AC Lits Say
• List of contributors

Ancillary Material

About the book.

The editors and contributors to this collection explore what it means to adopt an "academic literacies" approach in policy and pedagogy. Transformative practice is illustrated through case studies and critical commentaries from teacher-researchers working in a range of higher education contexts—from undergraduate to postgraduate levels, across disciplines, and spanning geopolitical regions including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Cataluña, Finland, France, Ireland, Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Key questions addressed include: How can a wider range of semiotic resources and technologies fruitfully serve academic meaning and knowledge making? What kinds of writing spaces do we need and how can these be facilitated? How can theory and practice from "Academic Literacies" be used to open up debate about writing pedagogy at institutional and policy levels?

About the Contributors

Edited by Theresa Lillis, Kathy Harrington, Mary R. Lea , and Sally Mitchell.

Theresa Lillis is Professor of English Language and Applied Linguistics at The Open University, UK. Her main research area is writing- student writing in higher education, scholarly writing for publication, professional social work writing and writing in grassroots political activity. She has authored and co-authored a number of books, including The Sociolinguistics of Writing (2013), Academic Writing in a Global Context (with Mary Jane Curry, 2010) and Student Writing: Access Regulation, Desire (2001).

Kathy Harrington is Principal Lecturer in Educational Development at London Metropolitan University and Visiting Lecturer at the Tavistock Centre, London. Previously she was Academic Lead - Students as Partners, Higher Education Academy, and from 2005-2010 Director of Write Now, a cross-institutional initiative developing writing and assessment practice within disciplines. She is co-author (with Mick Healey and Abbi Flint) of Engagement through Partnership: Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (2014).

Mary Lea is an Honorary Associate Reader in Academic and Digital Literacies at the Open University, UK. She has researched and published widely in the field of academic literacies. Her more recent work is concerned with the relationship of the digital to knowledge making practices in the university across academic and professional domains. A recent co-edited volume, with Robin Goodfellow, Literacy in the Digital University: Critical Perspectives on Learning, Scholarship and Technology (2013) considers this emerging area of study.

Sally Mitchell is Head of Learning Development at Queen Mary University of London, where in the early 2000s she established "Thinking Writing," a strand of development activity to support academic staff in exploring the uses of writing in their disciplines and their teaching. She is particularly interested in the ways in which writing development is thought about and positioned institutionally and in questions of who is responsible for students' learning through language.

Contribute to this Page

• Open access
• Published: 15 March 2022

A review of academic literacy research development: from 2002 to 2019

• Dongying Li   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6835-5129 1  

Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education volume  7 , Article number:  5 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

16k Accesses

13 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Academic literacy as an embodiment of higher-order language and thinking skills within the academic community bears huge significance for language socialization, resource distribution and even power disposition within the larger sociocultural context. However, although the notion of academic literacy has been initiated for more than twenty years, there still lacks a clear definition and operationalization of the construct. The study conducted a systematic review of academic literacy research based on 94 systematically selected research papers on academic literacy from 2002 to 2019 from multiple databases. These papers were then coded respectively in terms of their research methods, types (interventionistic or descriptive), settings and research focus. Findings demonstrate (1) the multidimensionality of academic literacy construct; (2) a growing number of mixed methods interventionistic studies in recent years; and (3) a gradual expansion of academic literacy research in ESL and EFL settings. These findings can inform the design and implementation of future academic literacy research and practices.

Introduction

Academic literacy as an embodiment of higher order thinking and learning not only serves as a prerequisite for knowledge production and communication within the disciplines but also bears huge significance for individual language and cognitive development (Flowerdew, 2013 ; Moje, 2015 ). Recent researches on academic literacy gradually moved from regarding literacy as discrete, transferrable skills to literacy as a social practice, closely associated with disciplinary epistemology and identity (Gee, 2015 ). The view of literacy learning as both a textual and contextual practice is largely driven by the changing educational goal under the development of twenty-first century knowledge economy, which requires learners to be active co-constructors of knowledge rather than passive recipients (Gebhard, 2004 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is considered as a powerful tool for knowledge generation, communication and transformation.

However, up-till-now, there still seems to lack a clear definition and operationalization of the academic literacy construct that can guide effective pedagogy (Wingate, 2018 ). This can possibly lead to a peril of regarding academic literacy as an umbrella term, with few specifications on the potential of the construct to afford actual teaching and learning practices. In this sense, a systematic review in terms of how the construct was defined, operationalized and approached in actual research settings can embody huge potential in bridging the gap between theory and practice.

Based on these concerns, the study conducts a critical review of academic literacy research over the past twenty years in terms of the construct of the academic literacy, their methods, approaches, settings and keywords. A mixed methods approach is adopted to combine qualitative coding with quantitative analysis to investigate diachronic changes. Results of the study can enrich the understandings of the construct of academic literacy and its relations to actual pedagogical practices while shedding light on future directions of research.

Literature review

Academic literacy as a set of literacy skills specialized for content learning is closely associated with individual higher order thinking and advanced language skill development (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008 ). Recent researches suggest that the development of the advanced literacy skills can only be achieved via students’ active engagement in authentic and purposeful disciplinary learning activities, imbued with meaning, value and emotions (Moje et al., 2008 ). Therefore, contrary to the ‘autonomous model’ of literacy development which views literacy as a set of discrete, transferrable reading and writing skills, academic literacy development is viewed as participation, socialization and transformation achieved via individual’s expanding involvement in authentic and meaningful disciplinary learning inquiries (Duff, 2010 ; Russell, 2009 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is viewed as a powerful mediation for individual socialization into the academic community, which is in turn closely related to issues of power disposition, resource distribution and social justice (Broom, 2004 ). In this sense, academic literacy development is by no means only a cognitive issue but situated social and cultural practices widely shaped by power, structure and ideology (Lillis & Scott, 2007 ; Wenger, 1998 ).

The view of literacy learning as a social practice is typically reflected in genre and the ‘academic literacies’ model. Genre, as a series of typified, recurring social actions serves as a powerful semiotic tool for individuals to act together meaningfully and purposefully (Fang & Coatoam, 2013 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is viewed as individual’s gradual appropriation of the shared cultural values and communicative repertoires within the disciplines. These routinized practices of knowing, doing and being not only serve to guarantee the hidden quality of disciplinary knowledge production but also entail a frame of action for academic community functioning (Fisher, 2019 ; Wenger, 1998 ). Therefore, academic literacy development empowers individual thinking and learning in pursuit of effective community practices.

Complementary to the genre approach, the ‘academic literacies’ model “views student writing and learning as issues at the level of epistemology and identities rather than skill or socialization” from the lens of critical literacy, power and ideology (Lea & Street, 1998 , p. 159). Drawing from ‘New Literacies’, the ‘academic literacies’ model approaches literacy development within the power of social discourse with the hope to open up possibilities for innovations and change (Lea & Street, 2006 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is regarded as a powerful tool for access, communication and identification within the academic community, and is therefore closely associated with issues of social justice and equality (Gee, 2015 ).

The notion of genre and ‘academic literacies’ share multiple resemblances with English for Academic Purposes (EAP), which according to Charles ( 2013 , p. 137) ‘is concerned with researching and teaching the English needed by those who use the language to perform academic tasks’. As can be seen, both approaches regard literacy learning as highly purposeful and contextual, driven by the practical need to ‘foregrounding the tacit nature of academic conventions’ (Lillis & Tuck, 2016 , p. 36). However, while EAP is more text-driven, ‘academic literacies’ are more practice-oriented (Lillis & Tuck, 2016 ). That is rather than focusing on the ‘normative’ descriptions of the academic discourse, the ‘academic literacies’ model lays more emphasis on learner agency, personal experiences and sociocultural diversity, regarded as a valuable source for individual learning and the transformation of community practices (Lillis & Tuck, 2016 ). This view of literacy learning as meaningful social participation and transformation is now gradually adopted in the approach of critical EAP (Charles, 2013 ).

In sum, all these approaches regard academic literacy development as multi-dimensional, encompassing both linguistic, cognitive and sociocultural practices (Cumming, 2013 ). However, up-till-now, there still seems to lack a clear definition and operationalization of the academic literacy construct that can guide concrete pedagogies. Short and Fitzsimmons ( 2007 , p. 2) provided a tentative definition of academic literacy from the following aspects:

Includes reading, writing, and oral discourse for school Varies from subject to subject Requires knowledge of multiple genres of text, purposes for text use, and text media Is influenced by students’ literacies in contexts outside of school Is influenced by students’ personal, social, and cultural experiences.

This definition has specified the main features of academic literacy as both a cognitive and sociocultural construct; however, more elaborations may be needed to further operationalize the construct in real educational and research settings. Drawing from this, Allison and Harklau ( 2010 ) and Fang ( 2012 ) specified three general approaches to academic literacy research, namely: the language, cognitive (disciplinary) and the sociocultural approach, which will be further elaborated in the following.

The language-based approach is mainly text-driven and lays special emphasis on the acquisition of language structures, skills and functions characteristic of content learning (Allison & Harklau, 2010 , p. 134; Uccelli et al., 2014 ), and highlights explicit instruction on academic language features and discourse structures (Hyland, 2008 ). This notion is widely influenced by Systemic Functional Linguistics which specifies the intricate connections between text and context, or linguistic choices and text meaning-making potential under specific communicative intentions and purposes (Halliday, 2000 ). This approach often highlights explicit consciousness-raising activities in text deconstruction as embodied in the genre pedagogy, facilitated by corpus-linguistic research tools to unveil structures and patterns of academic language use (Charles, 2013 ).

One typical example is data driven learning (DDL) or ‘any use of a language corpus by second or foreign language learners’ (Anthony, 2017 , p. 163). This approach encourages ‘inductive, self-directed’ language learning under the guidance of the teacher to examine and explore language use in real academic settings. These inquiry-based learning processes not only make language learning meaningful and purposeful but also help form more strategic and autonomous learners (Anthony, 2017 ).

In sum, the language approach intends to unveil the linguistic and rhetorical structure of academic discourse to make it accessible and available for reflection. However, academic literacy development entails more than the acquisition of academic language skills but also the use of academic language as tool for content learning and scientific reasoning (Bailey et al., 2007 ), which is closely connected to individual cognitive development, knowledge construction and communication within the disciplines (Fang, 2012 ).

Therefore, the cognitive or disciplinary-based approach views academic literacy development as higher order thinking and learning in academic socialization in pursuit of deep, contextualized meaning (Granville & Dison, 2005 ). This notion highlights the cognitive functions of academic literacy as deeply related to disciplinary epistemologies and identities, widely shaped by disciplinary-specific ways of knowing, doing and thinking (Moje, 2015 ). Just as mentioned by Shanahan ( 2012 , p. 70), ‘approaching a text with a particular point of view affects how individuals read and learn from texts’, academic literacy development is an integrated language and cognitive endeavor.

One typical example in this approach is the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) initiated by Chamot and O’Malley ( 1987 ), proposing the development of a curriculum that integrates mainstream content subject learning, academic language development and learning strategy instruction. This approach embeds language learning within an authentic, purposeful content learning environment, facilitated by strategy training. Another example is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP model) developed by Echevarría et al. ( 2013 ). Sheltered instruction, according to Short et al. ( 2011 , p. 364) refers to ‘a subject class such as mathematics, science, or history taught through English wherein many or all of the students are second language learners’. This approach integrates language and content learning and highlights language learning for subject matter learning purposes (Allison & Harklau, 2010 ). To make it more specifically, the SIOP model promotes the use of instructional scaffolding to make content comprehensible while advancing students’ skills in a new language (Echevarría et al., 2013 , p. 18). Over the decade, this notion integrating language and cognitive development within the disciplines has gradually gained its prominence in bilingual and multilingual education (Goldenberg, 2010 ).

Complementary to the language and cognitive approach, the sociocultural approach contends literacy learning as a social issue, widely shaped by power, structure and ideology (Gee, 2015 ; Lea & Street, 2006 ). This approach highlights the role of learner agency and identity in transforming individual/community learning practices (Lillis & Scott, 2007 ). Academic literacy in this sense is viewed as a sociocultural construct imbued with meaning, value and emotions as a gateway for social access, power distribution and meaning reconstruction (Moje et al., 2008 ).

However, despite the various approaches to academic literacy teaching and learning, up-till-now, there still seems to be a paucity of research that can integrate these dimensions into effective intervention and research practices. Current researches on academic literacy development either take an interventionistic or descriptive approach. The former usually takes place within a concrete educational setting under the intention to uncover effective community teaching and learning practices (Engestrom, 1999 ). The later, on the contrary, often takes a more naturalistic or ethnographic approach with the hope to provide an in-depth account of individual/community learning practices (Lillis & Scott, 2007 ). These descriptions are often aligned to larger sociocultural contexts and the transformative role of learner agency in collective, object-oriented activities (Engeström, 1987 ; Wenger, 1998 ).

These different approaches to academic literacy development are influenced by the varying epistemological stances of the researcher and specific research purposes. However, all these approaches have pointed to a common conception of academic literacy as a multidimensional construct, widely shaped by the sociocultural and historical contexts. This complex and dynamic nature of literacy learning not only enables the constant innovation and expansion of academic literacy construct but also opens up the possibilities to challenge the preconceived notions of relevant research and pedagogical practices.

Based on these concerns, the study intends to conduct a critical review of the twenty years’ development of academic literacy research in terms of their definition of the academic literacy construct, research approaches, methodologies, settings and keywords with the hope to uncover possible developmental trends in interaction. Critical reflections are drawn from this systematic review to shed light on possible future research directions.

Through this review, we intended the address the following three research questions:

What is the construct of academic literacy in different approaches of academic literacy research?

What are the possible patterns of change in term of academic literacy research methods, approaches and settings over the past twenty years?

What are the main focuses of research within each approach of academic literacy development?

Methodology

The study adopts mixed methods to provide a systematic review of academic literacy research over the past twenty years. The rationale for choosing a mixed method is to integrate qualitative text analysis on the features of academic literacy research with quantitative corpus analysis applied on the initial coding results to unveil possible developmental trends.

Inclusion criteria

To locate academic literacy studies over the past twenty years, the researcher conducted a keyword search of ‘academic literacy’ within a wide range of databases within the realm of linguistic and education. For quality control, only peer-reviewed articles from the Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science) were selected. This initial selection criteria yielded 127 papers containing a keyword of ‘academic literacy’ from a range of high-quality journals in linguistics and education from a series of databases, including: Social Science Premium Collection, ERIC (U.S. Dept. of Education), ERIC (ProQuest), Taylor & Francis Online—Journals, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, Informa—Taylor & Francis (CrossRef), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (Web of Science), ScienceDirect Journals (Elsevier), ScienceDirect (Elsevier B.V.), Elsevier (CrossRef), ProQuest Education Journals, Sage Journals (Sage Publications), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, JSTOR Archival Journals, Wiley Online Library etc. Among these results, papers from Journal of Second Language Writing, Language and Education, English for Specific Purposes, Teaching in Higher Education, Journal of English for Academic Purposes and Higher Education Research & Development are among the most frequent.

Based on these initial results, the study conducted a second-round detailed sample selection. The researcher manually excluded the irrelevant papers which are either review articles, papers written in languages other than English or not directly related to literacy learning in educational settings. After the second round of data selection, a final database of 94 high-quality papers on academic literacy research within the time span between 2002 and 2019 were generated. However, considering the time of observation in this study, only researches conducted before October 2019 were included, which leads to a slight decrease in the total number of researches accounted in that year.

Coding procedure

Coding of the study was conducted from multiple perspectives. Firstly, the study specified three different approaches to academic literacy study based on their different understandings and conceptualizations of the construct (Allison & Harklau, 2010 ). Based on this initial classification, the study then conducted a new round of coding on the definitions of academic literacy, research methods, settings within each approach to look for possible interactions. Finally, a quantitative keywords frequency analysis was conducted in respective approaches to reveal the possible similarities and differences in their research focus. Specific coding criteria are specified as the following.

Firstly, drawing from Allison and Harklau ( 2010 ), the study classified all the researches in the database into three broad categories: language, disciplinary and sociocultural. While the language approach mainly focuses on the development of general or disciplinary-specific academic language features (Hyland, 2008 ), the disciplinary approach views academic literacy development as deeply embedded in the inquiry of disciplinary-specific values, cultures and epistemologies and can only be achieved via individual’s active engagement in disciplinary learning and inquiry practices (Moje, 2015 ). The sociocultural approach, largely influenced by the ‘academic literacies’ model (Lea & Street, 1998 ) contends that academic literacy development entails more than individual socialization into the academic community but is also closely related to issues as power, identity and epistemology (Gee, 2015 ; Lillis, 2008 ).

Based on this initial coding, the study then identified the research methods in all studies within each approach as either quantitative, qualitative or mixed method. Drawing from Creswell ( 2014 ), quantitative research is defined as ‘an approach for testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables’ (p. 3) and is often quantified or numbered using specific statistical procedures. The use of this approach in academic literacy studies are often closely associated with corpus-driven text analysis, developmental studies, academic language assessment or large-scale intervention studies. This approach is particularly useful in unveiling the possible developmental effects of effective interventions but may fall short to account for the process of development which are often highly idiosyncratic and contextual. The use of qualitative methods can to some extent address this concern, as they often intend to explore deep contextualized meanings that individuals or groups ascribe to a social problem (Creswell, 2014 ). Drawing from the notion of literacy learning as a social practice, qualitative methods and especially linguistic ethnographies are highly encouraged in early academic literacy studies for their potential to provide detailed descriptions of a phenomenon through prolonged engagement (Lillis, 2008 ). In complementary, the use of mixed methods integrates both quantitative and qualitative data to ‘provide a more complete understanding of a research problem than either approach alone’ (Creswell, 2014 , p. 3). This approach embodies huge potentialities in academic literacy research as it can align teaching and learning processes with possible developmental outcomes, which not only preserves the contextualized and practice-oriented nature of academic literacy research but also makes their results generalizable.

Secondly, the study classified all the researches into two types: interventionistic and descriptive. The former entails an intentional pedagogical intervention with an aim to improve individual and community learning practices. The latter, however, tends to adopt a more naturalistic approach under an intention to unveil the complex and dynamic interactions between academic literacy development and the wider sociocultural context. These two approaches complement each other in academic literacy researches in real educational settings, serving distinct purposes.

Thirdly, for a closer inspection of the context of research, the study specifies three general research settings: English as a native language (ENL), English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) (Kirkpatrick, 2007 ). According to Kirkpatrick ( 2007 , p. 27), ‘ENL is spoken in countries where English is the primary language of the great majority of the population’ where ‘English is spoken and used as a native language’. ESL in contrast, ‘is spoken in countries where English is an important and usually official language, but not the main language of the country’ (Kirkpatrick, 2007 , p. 27). These are also countries that are previously colonized by the English-speaking countries, often with a diverse linguistic landscape and complicated language policies (Broom, 2004 ). Therefore, language choices in these countries are often closely connected to issues as power, identity and justice. Academic literacy development in this respect serves both to guarantee social resource distribution and to empower individuals to change. Finally, ‘EFL occurs in countries where English is not actually used or spoken very much in the normal course of daily life’ (Kirkpatrick, 2007 , p. 27). Within these settings, for example in China, English language education used to serve only for its own purposes (Wen, 2019 ). However, dramatic changes have been going on these days in pursuit of a language-content integrated curriculum to achieve advanced literacy and cognitive skills development. (Zhang & Li, 2019 ; Zhang & Sun, 2014 ).

Finally, the study conducted detailed keywords analysis in terms of their frequency within each approach (language, disciplinary and sociocultural). Based on these, the researcher then merged the raw frequencies of similar constructs for example: testing and assessment, teaching and pedagogy to get a better representation of the results. This analysis reveals the focus of research within each approach and helps promote further operationalization of the academic literacy construct.

The coding was conducted by two independent coders, with coder one in charge of the coding of all data, and coder two responsible for 30% of the coding of the total data. Coder one, also the main researcher trained coder two in terms of the coding procedures in detail with ample practices until the threshold of intercoder reliability was reached. Coder two then coded the remaining 30% of the data independently with an interrater reliability of over 80%. The coding was done on an excel worksheet which makes data access and retrieval readily available. The statistical software R was used for keywords frequency analysis.

Data analyses in the study mainly involve three parts: (1) specifying the construct and operationalization of the academic literacy research; (2) investigating the dynamic interactions among research approaches, methods and settings; (3) identifying the focus of research within each approach through keywords analysis. The following parts deal with these questions respectively.

Definition and operationalization of the academic literacy construct

The study extracted all the explicit definitions of academic literacy within each approach (language, disciplinary and sociocultural) and conducted detailed thematic analysis recategorizing them into different themes (see Table 1 ).

Table 1 shows that the definitions of academic literacy vary with respect to the different conceptualizations and epistemologies of academic literacy development within each approach. For instance, the language-based approach mainly defines academic literacy from two aspects: (1) language use in academic settings; and (2) language competence required for academic study (Baumann & Graves, 2010 ; Sebolai, 2016 ). The former takes a relatively narrow view of academic literacy development as learners’ gradual appropriation of the linguistic and rhetorical features of the academic discourse (Schleppegrell, 2013 ; Uccelli et al., 2014 ). The latter in complementary specifies academic literacy development for content learning purposes, entailing the kind of competence students need to possess for academic study (Kabelo & Sebolai, 2016 ). Academic language learning in this sense does not serve for its own sake but is considered as a tool for content learning and cognitive development. Overall, the language-based approach to academic literacy development lays much emphasis on the acquisition of academic language features which serves as a prerequisite for learners to examine and explore the meaning-making potential of the academic language (Schleppegrell, 2013 ).

The disciplinary-based approach on the other hand focuses on an integrated development of advanced language and cognitive skills within the disciplines, with language learning closely intertwined with the appropriation of disciplinary-specific values, cultures and practices. In this sense, academic literacy development is viewed as a dynamic process of higher-order language socialization in pursuit of deep, collaborative contextual meaning (Lea & Street, 2006 ). During this process, academic literacy development goes hand in hand with cognitive development and knowledge production within the disciplines, along with learners’ gradually expanding involvement with the disciplinary-specific ways of doing knowing and thinking (Granville & Dison, 2005 ). Other researches within this approach regard academic literacy development as more than language socialization but widely shaped and constrained by issues of power, epistemology and identity (Lea & Street, 1998 ). This definition is also widely used in the sociocultural approach, regarding academic literacy development as a sociocultural enterprise, widely related to the identification, reification and transformation of the social practices (Wenger, 1998 ).

The sociocultural approach also known as the ‘academic literacies’ model views literacy learning at the level of power struggle, structure reconstruction and social justice (Gee, 2015 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is not only a shared repertoire for individual access to social communities but also a tool for emancipation and transformation, which is object-oriented, practice-driven and value-laden (Lillis & Scott, 2007 ).

Academic literacy research approaches, methods and settings

The study also analyzed changes in the approaches, methods and settings of academic literacy research over the past twenty years. Table 2 and Fig.  1 in the following present the number of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies within the language-based, disciplinary-based and sociocultural approach respectively.

Methods approach interaction in academic literacy studies

Table 2 and Fig.  1 show that the research methods chosen tend to vary with the approaches. To begin with, the number of qualitative studies generally surpassed the quantitative ones in both the disciplinary and the sociocultural approach, especially in the latter where qualitative studies dominated. However, their numbers tended to decrease in the past five years giving way to the rising mixed method researches. This was particularly evident in the growing number of mixed-methods language and disciplinary studies observed after 2015, which can also be an indication of the emergence of more robust designs in relevant educational researches. Finally, while the sociocultural approach was mainly featured by qualitative research, research methods in the language approach were more evenly distributed, which can possibly be accounted by its relatively longer research tradition and more well-established research practices.

In addition, the study also specified changes in the number of descriptive and intervention studies each year (see Table 2 , Fig.  2 ). Results showed that: (1) generally there were more qualitative researches in both the intervention and descriptive approach compared to the quantitative ones, although their numbers decreased in the past five years, especially in terms of the number of qualitative intervention studies; (2) a growing number of mixed-methods intervention studies were perceived in recent years. The findings echoed Scammacca et al.’s ( 2016 ) a century progress of reading intervention studies, indicating the emergence of more ‘standard, structured and standardized group interventions’ with ‘more robust design’ compared to the previous ‘individualized intervention case studies’ (p. 780). This developmental trend can indicate a possible methodological shift towards more large-scale intervention studies in the future based on recursive and reflective pedagogical practices. For more detailed descriptions of the methods-approach interaction, the study further investigated changes in the number of descriptive and intervention studies within each approach (see Table 3 , Fig.  3 ).

Diachronic changes in academic literacy research methods

Methods-approach interaction in academic literacy studies

Table 3 suggests that while the sociocultural approach tended to be more descriptive, the language and disciplinary approaches were more likely to interventionist. Another developmental trend was a dramatic decrease in descriptive language studies after 2015, giving way to an evident increase in intervention studies. This phenomenon entails an intricate connection among academic literacy development, education and pedagogy, indicating that language socialization does not come naturally, and well-designed, explicit pedagogical interventions are often in need.

Furthermore, the study tracked diachronic changes in the settings of academic literacy research. Results show that among the 94 selected academic literacy researches, 81 take place in a higher education context, accounting for about 86% of the total. Only 10 out of the 13 remaining researches take place in secondary school settings and 3 in elementary school settings. These results suggest that up-till-now, discussions on academic literacy development are mainly restricted to higher education settings, closely linked to the learning of advanced language and thinking skills. However, future researches may also need to attend to academic literacy development in secondary or primary school settings, especially in face of the growing disciplinary learning demands for adolescents (Dyhaylongsod et al., 2015 ).

Finally, the study recorded the specific countries where academic literacy studies take place, among which South Africa stands as the highest with 22 studies amounting to 20.95% of the total, followed by the United States (17.14%), United Kingdom (12.38%), Australia (11.43%) and China (9.64%). These results suggest that academic literacy research most often take place in ENL or ESL settings with relatively long traditions of literacy teaching and learning, and prominent demands for academic literacy development within subject areas. In the meantime, the study attributes the high number of academic literacy research in the South African context to its complex linguistic realities and historical legacies, where literacy development is closely associated with issues of power, identity and equality (Broom, 2004 ; Lea & Street, 2006 ). Based on this, the study specified the approaches of academic literacy research within the ENL, ESL and EFL settings respectively (see Table 4 , Fig.  4 ).

Academic literacy research settings

Table 4 shows that while the ENL settings dominated most of the academic literacy researches, relevant studies in ESL and EFL settings gradually increased in recent years, indicating an expanding influence of the academic literacy construct in different educational settings. Another pattern was the observation of more balanced research approaches or more evenly distributed language, disciplinary and sociocultural researches in all three settings. This phenomenon suggests that there seems to be an increasing flexibility in academic literacy research in recent years under the intention to address specific contextual issues. All these developmental trends reinforce the notion of academic literacy as a multi-dimensional construct (Cumming, 2013 ).

Focus of academic literacy research

To investigate the focus of academic literacy research within each approach, the study conducted detailed keywords analysis in all studies (see Fig.  5 ). Results show that academic literacy development is a situated educational practice, closely linked to issues as content learning, teacher education, assessment and pedagogy. Another feature that stands out is the frequent appearance of ‘writing’ and its related practices, such as: academic writing, student writing etc. This phenomenon suggests that compared to reading, writing seems to share a greater emphasis in academic literacy research. This can possibly be accounted by the intricate connections among writing, language and content learning and the gradual shift of focus from learning to write to writing to learn in higher education settings (Prain & Hand, 2016 ).

Keywords analysis of academic literacy research

From Fig.  5 , it can be seen that different approaches share common and distinct research focuses. For instance, the disciplinary approach is mainly featured by content learning and the development of subject-matter knowledge and skills, with a close relation to situated educational practices as genre and pedagogy, disciplinary-specific teaching and learning, reading interventions and teacher education. The language approach on the other hand tends to be more text-oriented, focusing on the development of advanced cognitive and academic language skills, widely influenced by the notions of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and genre pedagogy. In addition, assessment and testing are also a key issue in the language-based approach, indicating that language testing practices today are still largely text-oriented, focusing on the acquisition of specific academic language skills. Finally, keywords analysis results in the sociocultural approach revealed its deeply held assumptions of academic literacy development as a situated, complex sociocultural practice. One emerging feature is its growing attention to multilingualism, multiculturalism and international students. In an era of rapid globalization and academic exchange, academic literacy development has gradually become a global issue as is manifested in a rapid expansion of international students in ENL countries (Caplan & Stevens, 2017 ). These students, however, often face double barriers in language and content learning, especially in terms of advanced literacy skills development required for content learning and inquiry (Okuda & Anderson, 2018 ). In this sense, more attentions are needed for the implementation and innovation of effective community learning practices.

Data analysis results in the study reveal that: (1) academic literacy development is a multidimensional construct (Cumming, 2013 ); (2) there is a growing number of mixed-methods intervention studies in recent years especially within the language approach; (3) a gradual expansion of academic literacy research in ESL and EFL settings is perceived with increasing attention to international and multilingual students. The following parts of the discussion and conclusion will provide detailed analyses on these aspects.

Definition and keywords analysis of the academic literacy studies reveal that academic literacy is a multidimensional construct, embodying both textual and contextual practices and bears huge significance for individual language and cognitive development. Drawing from this, future researches may need to cross the boundaries to integrate the language, disciplinary and sociocultural aspects of academic literacy development within a holistic view of literacy teaching and learning. In this respect, academic literacy development can widely draw from various research domains as language acquisition, language socialization, genre and pedagogy and critical literacy (Duff, 2010 ; Gee, 2015 ; Hyland, 2008 ; Lea & Street, 2006 ; Russell, 2009 ). Future researches may need to pay more attention to these multiple aspects which closely intertwine and mutually shape one another to serve for the innovation and design of effective practices.

Data analysis in the study also demonstrated the intricate connections between literacy learning and pedagogical interventions. The development of academic literacy does not come naturally, but often calls for explicit instruction and interventions to address situated learning needs (Shanahan, 2012 ). It is hoped that in the future larger-scale interventions with more rigorous designs are necessary in pursuit of more effective pedagogical practices (Scammacca et al., 2016 ). This assumption, however, are not in contradiction to the dynamic and contextual nature of academic literacy development, as more sophisticated designs can generally provide more detailed account of the practice-driven and contextualized learning processes which are often cyclical and recursive in nature.

Lastly, results of the study revealed a growing trend of academic literacy research in EFL settings especially with respect to English language learners and international students. Compared to the ENL and ESL settings, academic literacy research in EFL settings, although a relatively recent issue, embodies huge potentialities. Drawn by the demand to promote higher-order thinking and learning and the need to innovate traditional form-focused, skilled-based EFL pedagogy, the notion of academic literacy development as a disciplinary-based, socioculturally constructed, dynamic academic socialization process offers a sensible option for pedagogical innovation and curriculum development in these contexts. In this sense, the notion of academic literacy as a multidimensional construct has provided a possible solution to the long-standing problems concerning the efficacy the efficiency of EFL education, the alignment of language and content learning as well as the challenges in curriculum design and material development in EFL settings (Wen, 2019 ).

Conclusion and implication

Results of the study suggest a relatively straight-forward agenda for the development of effective academic literacy pedagogies. Firstly, the study revealed an intricate connection between academic literacy development and disciplinary-specific knowledge construction and inquiry activities. Academic literacy development is by no means only a textual issue, but agentive scaffolded learning activities that are meaningful, purposeful and authentic. Literacy activities such as reading and writing in this sense are often object-oriented to serve for real knowledge production and communicative needs. Therefore, effective academic literacy instruction often aligns language development with content learning within meaningful disciplinary and social inquiries.

Secondly, in an era of rapid globalization and communication, the development of academic literacy often takes a critical role in resource distribution and power reconstruction. This has also led to an increasing attention to academic literacy development of international students in multilingual contexts, who often face multiple challenges in learning disciplinary literacy. However, contrary to the traditional ‘deficit model’ seeking for a remediation for their relatively ‘disadvantaged’ language background, the notion of academic literacy highlighted the role of teacher and learner agency in the development of new pedagogical practices. These innovative approaches often acknowledge and build on students’ diverse language and cultural backgrounds to make literacy learning a cognitively meaningful and culturally valuable practice.

The study can shed light on future research from both an empirical and pedagogical perspective. From an empirical perspective, future research may need to pay more attention to the multidimensionality of the construct of academic literacy. As revealed in the current study, academic literacy development embodies multiple dimensions as language learning, cognitive development and social transformation. Future research may need to transcend the epistemological boundaries to seek for a more integrated definition of academic literacy in which language, cognitive and social development mutually transform one another. From a pedagogical perspective, an activity-based, integrated pedagogy should be proposed in academic literacy development. In the case, students generally use language to engage in authentic communication and practices relating not only to the advancement of disciplinary knowledge but also for the betterment of society. As it is through these practices that students’ engagement in complex meaning making and higher order thinking are ensured, and the internalization of language knowledge and transformation of social practices gradually occur.

The study also bears some limitations. Although it seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of the general trend, method and focus of academic literacy research for nearly two decades, it does not go deeper into specific studies of their findings and implications. Future studies can possibly narrow down their scope of investigation to delve deeper and provide a more thorough analysis of specific research findings.

Availability of data and materials

The studies reviewed can be referred from the reference citations in the supplementary materials.

Abbreviations

Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach

Data driven learning

English for Academic Purposes

English as a native language

English as a second language

Systemic Functional Linguistics

Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol

Allison, H., & Harklau, L. (2010). Teaching academic literacies in secondary school. In G. Li & P. A. Edwards (Eds.), Best practices in ELL instruction. The Guilford Press.

Google Scholar  

Anthony, L. (2017). Introducing corpora and corpus tools into the technical writing classroom through Data-Driven Learning (DDL). In J. Flowerdew & T. Costley (Eds.), Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice. Routledge.

Bailey, A. L., Butler, F. A., Stevens, R., & Lord, C. (2007). Further specifying the language demands of school. In A. L. Bailey (Ed.), The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. Yale University Press.

Basturkmen, H. (2017). Developing writing courses for specific academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & T. Costley (Eds.), Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice. Routledge.

Baumann, J. F., & Graves, M. F. (2010). What is academic vocabulary? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54 (1), 4–12.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bigelow, M., & Vinogradov, P. (2011). Teaching adult second language learners who are emergent readers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31 , 120–136.

Broom, Y. (2004). Reading English in multilingual South African primary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7 (6), 506–528.

Caplan, N. A., & Stevens, S. G. (2017). “Step out of the cycle”: Needs, challenges, and successes of international undergraduates at a U.S. University. English for Specific Purposes, 46 , 15–28.

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (2), 227–249.

Charles, M. (2013). English for academic purposes. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 137–155). Wiley-Blackwell.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Sage.

Cumming, A. (2013). Multiple dimensions of academic language and literacy development. Language Learning, 63 (1), 130–152.

Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30 , 169–192.

Dyhaylongsod, L., Snow, C. E., Selman, R. L., & Donovan, M. S. (2015). Toward disciplinary literacy: Dilemmas and challenges in designing history curriculum to support middle school students. Harvard Educational Review, 85 (4), 587–608.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2013). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model . Pearson Education.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research . Cambridge University Press.

Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In R.M.R.-L.P. Yrjo Engestrom (Ed.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Fang, Z. (2012). Approaches to developing content area literacies: A synthesis and a critique. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56 (2), 103–108.

Fang, Z., & Coatoam, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy: What you want to know about it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56 (8), 627–632.

Fisher, R. (2019). Reconciling disciplinary literacy perspectives with genre-oriented Activity Theory: Toward a fuller synthesis of traditions. Reading Research Quarterly, 54 (2), 237–251.

Flowerdew, J. (2013). Introduction: Approaches to the analysis of academic discourse in English. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse. Routledge.

Gebhard, M. (2004). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy practices. The Modern Language Journal, 88 (2), 245–265.

Gee, J. P. (2015). Literacy and education . Routledge.

Goldenberg, C. (2010). Improving achievement for English learners: Conclusions from recent reviews and emerging research. In G. Li & P. A. Edwards (Eds.), Best practices in ELL instruction (pp. 15–44). The Guilford Press.

Granville, S., & Dison, L. (2005). Thinking about thinking: Integrating self-reflection into an academic literacy course. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4 , 99–118.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2000). An introduction to functional grammar . Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41 (4), 543–562.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching . Cambridge University Press.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23 (2), 157–172.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The “Academic Literacies” model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45 (4), 368–377.

Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing” closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication , 25 (3), 353–388.

Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (1), 5–32.

Lillis, T., & Tuck, J. (2016). Academic literacies: A critical lens on writing and reading in the academy. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 30–44). Routledge.

Lillis, T., & Turner, J. (2001). Student writing in higher education: Contemporary confusion, traditional concerns. Teaching in Higher Education , 6 (1), 57–68.

Moje, E. B. (2015). Doing and teaching adolescent literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85 (2), 254–278.

Moje, E. B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78 (1), 107–154.

Okuda, T., & Anderson, T. (2018). Second language graduate students’ experiences at the writing center: A language socialization perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 52 (2), 391–413.

Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2016). Coming to know more through and from writing. Educational Researcher, 45 (7), 430–434.

Russell, D. R. (2009). Texts in contexts: Theorizing learning by looking at genre and activity. In R. Edwards, G. Biesta, & M. Thorpe (Eds.), Rethinking contexts for learning and teaching: Communities, activities and networks. Routledge.

Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., Williams, J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., et al. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research , 86 (3), 756–800.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63 (1), 153–170.

Sebolai, K. (2016). Distinguishing between English proficiency and academic literacy in English. Language Matters, 47 (1), 45–60.

Shanahan, C. (2012). How disciplinary experts read. In T. L. Jetlon & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies. The Guilford Press.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78 (1), 40–59.

Short, D. J., Echevarría, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 363–380.

Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York . Alliance for Excellent Education.

Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 52 (2), 77–91.

Uccelli, P., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., Galloway, E. P., Meneses, A., & Sanchez, E. (2014). Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36 (5), 1077–1109.

Wen, Q. (2019). Foreign language teaching theories in China in the past 70 years. Foreign Language in China, 16 (5), 14–22.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Wingate, U. (2018). Academic literacy across the curriculum: Towards a collaborative instructional approach. Language Teaching, 51 (3), 349–364.

Zhang, L., & Li, D. (2019). An integrated development of students’ language and cognition under the CLIL pedagogy. Foreign Language Education in China, 2 (2), 16–24.

Zhang, L., & Sun, Y. (2014). A sociocultural theory-based writing curriculum reform on English majors. Foreign Language World, 5 , 2–10.

Zhao, K., & Chan, C. K. K. (2014). Fostering collective and individual learning through knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 9 , 63–95.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere thanks to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the original manuscript.

The study was supported by the start up research funding for young scholars in Nanjing Normal University (No. 184080H202A135).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Foreign Languages, Nanjing Normal University, Wenyuanlu #1, Qixia District, Nanjing, 210023, Jiangsu, China

Dongying Li

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dongying Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, D. A review of academic literacy research development: from 2002 to 2019. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 7 , 5 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00130-z

Download citation

Received : 20 September 2021

Accepted : 01 February 2022

Published : 15 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00130-z

Share this article

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

• Academic literacy
• Academic language
• Cognitive development
• Intervention
• Sociocultural context

Home » Resources » Case study of Amelia, a five-year-old reader who enjoys reading at home

Case study of Amelia, a five-year-old reader who enjoys reading at home

Felicity holt-goldsmith.

• Case Studies of young readers / 

Amelia* is a middle ability pupil in a mixed ability class of thirty one children, with a ratio of eighteen boys and eleven girls. The school is average size for a primary school and most of the pupils are drawn from the immediate neighbourhood. When I met Amelia she was graded at Level 1c for her reading, slightly below average for the class. The school endeavours to provide an atmosphere where the enjoyment of reading is promoted and nurtured. Children have reading books from the Oxford Reading Scheme which they take home every day and home and school links are made through reading journals. There is also a selection of books in the classroom and the school is in the process of renovating the library.

Comprehension

To try and gain an understanding of Amelia as a reader I undertook a reading conference and made observations of her reading in a range of different contexts. However, the limited amount of time spent at the placement means that only a speculative analysis can be made. Amelia was still learning to decode but she was able to utilise higher order reading skills such as comprehension. She was an able meaning maker and engaged with a variety of texts. In terms of The Simple View of Reading (Rose, 2006: 40) she would be placed in the section of ‘poor word recognition; good comprehension’ although her skills of decoding words improved quite significantly even during the short time I was at the school. Cain (2010) argues that to understand a text’s meaning a reader needs to establish local and global coherence. Local coherence is described as the ability to make links between adjacent sentences and global coherence is described as the ability to make sense of a text as a whole and relate this to personal experiences (p. 52). Amelia was able to understand the narrative of a story and could relate stories to her own life and other texts. During the reading conference I asked her about a book that she had read a few weeks ago; she was able to retell the story in great detail and described which parts were her favourite. There was also evidence that Amelia was able to engage with the meanings of individual words. For example, when reading aloud to me she read the word ‘buggy’ and said that ‘pram’ could be used as an alternative. It would be important to encourage this interest in the meanings of words in order for Amelia to progress with her comprehension skills. As Cain (2010) suggests, vocabulary knowledge is strongly associated with good reading comprehension.

Phonics and other strategies

Amelia was still learning to decode and used a number of different strategies. She used her knowledge of phonics as one way to decode words. She would split a word up into individual phonemes and then blend these together to read the word aloud. She often used her finger to cover up parts of the word in order to try and make this process easier. However, for some words she did not use this strategy. She struggled to read the word ‘children’ and said that it was too difficult to sound out because it was too long. However, when we read a different book the week after she did not have any trouble reading this word. She explained that she was able to read it because she recognised it and not because she sounded it out, suggesting that she read it from sight. Amelia did use her knowledge of phonics to read although this strategy was used in addition to others. On several occasions she looked at the pictures before attempting to read the text and would subsequently make predictions of what was going to happen in the story. She was also receptive to learning new reading strategies. When she struggled to read the word ‘snowball’ I suggested she split it into two words that she may recognise: ‘snow’ and ‘ball’. The next week we read the same book again and she used the same strategy. Amelia’s use of different reading strategies appeared to be effective and it would be important to encourage her to continue to use a variety of strategies in order for her reading to progress.

Taking it further

Amelia is an enthusiastic reader and enjoys reading at home. She reads to her mother and father on a daily basis and explained that her father reads to her and her sister every night before bed. It appeared that her home life fosters a positive attitude to reading and this was arguably beneficial to her reading progress. Clark (2011) has found that there is a positive relationship between the number of books a child has at home and their reading attainment level. Goouch and Lambirth (2011) also suggest that children who read at home would have a head start at school ‘with their knowledge of how stories work, patterns and tunes in stories, the relationship between illustration and print as well as some clear information about print drawn from reading and re-reading favourite tales’ (p. 8). As previously discussed Amelia seemed to be an able meaning maker and this could partly be due to the fact that reading is a part of her daily routine at home.

It would be crucial to encourage Amelia’s enthusiasm and enjoyment of reading in order for her reading to progress further. Ofsted reports have consistently argued for a greater emphasis on reading for pleasure within the taught curriculum in both primary and secondary schools (Ofsted, 2012: 42). Amelia enjoys reading books about animals and it would be important to consider her interests and try and incorporate this when suggesting reading books. Lockwood (2008) argues that it is important to discuss children’s reading choices and reflect this when updating book stocks. This would be a way of promoting reading for pleasure not only for Amelia but for all the children in the class.

In conclusion, Amelia appeared to have good comprehension skills and her ability to decode was developing. She engaged with texts and was able to express opinions on books that she had read. She used her knowledge of phonics to decode words but did not rely on this strategy alone. Amelia enjoys reading and reads in a variety of different contexts. It would be crucial to encourage this positive attitude to reading in order for her reading to develop further. This could be done in various ways, including ensuring that her interests were reflected in the books that were available to read in the classroom. It would also be important to provide choice and to demonstrate the joy of reading by reading stories together as a class. Trying to promote reading for pleasure would be beneficial not only for Amelia but for all the children in the class.

* A pseudonym

Cain, K. (2010) Reading Development and Difficulties West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Clark, C. (2011) Setting the Baseline: The National Literacy Trust’s first annual survey into reading London: National Literacy Trust.

Goouch, K. and Lambirth, A. (2011) Teaching Early Reading and Phonics London: Sage.

Lockwood, M. (2008) Promoting reading for pleasure in the primary school London: Sage.

Ofsted (2012) Moving English Forward. Available at:

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/moving-english-forward  (Accessed: 3rd March 2014).

Rose, J. (2006) Independent review of the teaching of early reading. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401…

https://www. education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderi… (Accessed: 5th March 2014) 

Also in this collection

Ukla minibook extract: talk for spelling.

©2024 United Kingdom Literacy Association, All rights reserved

Subscribe to our Newsletter

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

The Language and Literacy Development of Young Dual Language Learners: A Critical Review

Carol scheffner hammer.

Temple University, Davis

Florida Atlantic University, Davis

Yuuko Uchikoshi

University of California, Davis

Cristina Gillanders

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Dina Castro

Arizona State University

Lia E. Sandilos

Temple University

Associated Data

The number of children living in the United States who are learning two languages is increasing greatly. However, relatively little research has been conducted on the language and literacy development of dual language learners (DLLs), particularly during the early childhood years. To summarize the extant literature and guide future research, a critical analysis of the literature was conducted. A search of major databases for studies on young typically developing DLLs between 2000–2011 yielded 182 peer-reviewed articles. Findings about DLL children’s developmental trajectories in the various areas of language and literacy are presented. Much of these findings should be considered preliminary, because there were few areas where multiple studies were conducted. Conclusions were reached when sufficient evidence existed in a particular area. First, the research shows that DLLs have two separate language systems early in life. Second, differences in some areas of language development, such as vocabulary, appear to exist among DLLs depending on when they were first exposed to their second language. Third, DLLs’ language and literacy development may differ from that of monolinguals, although DLLs appear to catch up over time. Fourth, little is known about factors that influence DLLs’ development, although the amount of language exposure to and usage of DLLs’ two languages appears to play key roles. Methodological issues are addressed, and directions for future research are discussed.

Children’s oral language and early literacy development serve as the foundation for later reading abilities and overall academic success. It is well documented that children with low oral language abilities are at risk for poor outcomes as they progress through school ( Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998 ). Much research has examined the language and literacy development of children learning one language. Unfortunately, insufficient attention has been paid to the language and literacy development of children learning two languages or dual language learners (DLLs), particularly during the early childhood years. This is a crucial issue, because children who are DLLs represent one of the fastest growing populations in the United States ( Basterra, Trumbull, & Solano-Flores, 2010 ). Nearly 30% of children in Head Start are DLLs, with 85% being speakers of Spanish ( Mathematica Policy Research, 2010 ). This percentage is expected to increase over the next several decades.

Children learning two languages vary widely in their early experiences with their two languages. As a result, they are extremely heterogeneous in the language and early literacy abilities they possess when they enter kindergarten. Given that children’s academic success is dependent on children’s early language and literacy abilities, understanding the abilities of this substantial segment of the population is essential. There is particular reason to be concerned about DLLs in this regard. On average, children in the U.S. who speak English and also are exposed another language at home show lower levels of academic achievement throughout school and graduate high school at lower rates than monolingual English-speaking children ( National Center for Education Statistics, 2013 ; Oller & Eilers, 2002 ). Additionally, research has shown that DLLs’ English language abilities in kindergarten predict their academic achievement trajectories through eighth grade ( Halle, Hair, Wandener, McNamara, & Chien, 2012 ; Han, 2012 ).

Home language and literacy skills are also relevant to DLLs’ long-term outcomes. In immigrant families, children’s abilities to speak their families’ home languages are related to the quality of relationships within the family and to measures of psychosocial adjustment ( Tseng & Fuligni, 2000 ). Additionally, some literacy-related skills transfer across languages making strong home language skills of use in acquiring English literacy ( Bialystok & Herman, 1999 ; Hammer, Davison, Lawrence, & Miccio, 2009 ; Riches & Genesee, 2006 ). Furthermore, DLLs have a unique opportunity to become proficient bilinguals as adults and enjoy the attendant cognitive, social, and economic benefits ( Bialystok, 2009 ).

Improving the field’s understanding of the language and literacy development of young DLLs’ language and literacy skills is critical, given the importance of these areas to later academic success ( Scarborough, 2001 ; Snow et al., 1998 ). Such information will assist educators, researchers, and policy makers in understanding the developmental trajectories of DLLs and can be used to help understand when DLLs have learning concerns. Therefore, this manuscript presents the results of a critical review of the research literature from 2000–2011 on the early language and literacy development of DLLs.

Critical reviews of DLLs’ development have been done previously; however, none have focused on the language and literacy development of children from birth through age five. August and Shanahan’s (2006) Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth reviewed research articles published between 1980 and 2002 that targeted elementary school children, with some studies of preschoolers being included. More recently, Dixon and colleagues (2012) synthesized information from four bodies of work: foreign language education, child language research, sociocultural studies, and psycholinguistics to highlight an integrated understanding across typically isolated perspectives on the optimal conditions for second language acquisition. Studies included in the review targeted children of various ages from preschool through twelfth grade.

Therefore, this critical review fills an important need by analyzing the recent research literature on the language and literacy development of DLLs from birth through age five. Specifically, the purpose was to: (a) synthesize the research findings on the trajectories of DLLs’ language and literacy development and factors that influence these areas of development, (b) identify methodological concerns, and (c) identify gaps in the research base and determine future research needs.

For the purposes of the critical literature review on language and literacy development, dual language learners were broadly defined as children who were exposed to two languages during early childhood ( Bialystok, 2001 ). This includes children who were exposed to two languages from birth as well as children who were exposed to their second language sometime during the preschool years. There are two primary reasons for this inclusive definition. First, the research community has not developed an agreed upon definition of who is a dual language learner. A researcher’s theoretical perspective and associated research question(s) often dictate the definition of DLLs used in an investigation. Second, in much of the research on DLLs’ language and literacy development, descriptions of existing research samples often do not include inclusion/exclusion criteria. Therefore, many valuable studies would have been excluded from the review if a strict definition of DLL were applied.

The criteria used to identify articles included in this review were based on those defined by the Center for Early Care and Education Research-DLL. These included the following: published peer-reviewed journal articles from 2000–2011; a focus on typically-developing DLLs from birth through five years of age (with studies focusing only on kindergarteners excluded); a measurement plan that included at least one assessment point during this age span; analyses that focused on DLLs either exclusively or as a subgroup; and research designs that included case study, descriptive, cross-sectional, longitudinal, and qualitative methods. (Note that on a few occasions, findings on older children are reported when a study compared data on preschoolers as well as on older children. In these instances, the findings on preschoolers would be meaningless without a discussion of the findings on children of older ages.)

Prior to searching the literature, a list of key search terms was developed by the team, which consisted of the four authors of this paper. The terms were divided into 40 superordinate terms or primary search terms and 143 subordinate or secondary terms. The superordinate terms consisted of terms that focused on the targeted population (e.g., dual language learn*, bilingual, English language learn*, English language learn*, limited English proficiency), age groups (infant*, toddler*, preschool*, early childhood, early development, Head Start), and languages and cultures (e.g., Spanish-speaking, Latino, Chinese-speaking, Mandarin, language minorit*). The subordinate terms consisted of terms specific to contemporary academic vocabulary in the fields of language and literacy development, as well as terms that captured the influence of home and family on these areas of development. There were 78 language terms (e.g., phonetic*, phonology, prosody, vocabulary, auditory process*), 20 literacy terms (e.g., alphabetic principle, book reading, concepts of print, early reading, letter knowledge, reading), and 35 home and family terms (e.g., caregiver interaction, home literacy environment, middle-SES, famil*, parent*).

Next, a systematic search protocol was followed using both superordinate and subordinate search terms. Multiple searches were run across the major academic databases to identify all possible national and international articles that were available through search engines commonly used in the United States. The following databases were used to conduct the search: CINAHL, Elsevier, ERIC, Google Scholar, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, Medline, PsychInfo and PubMed. The search was limited to journals published in English that were available through these search engines.

The searches returned 3,543 unique citations published in English-language journals. Each citation was passed through multiple levels of review. An abstract was printed for every citation returned in the database search. These abstracts were then read by the first author and marked for inclusion or exclusion using the team’s criteria. Articles that clearly did not meet the criteria were excluded by the first author ( N = 3,082; e.g., intervention studies, studies focusing on kindergarteners or older children, etc.). Following this, 461 full articles were obtained and sent to members of the research team. Team members then read the articles in their assigned areas (e.g., language articles on birth to three populations, language articles on three- to five-year olds, studies targeting Asian languages, and literacy) and made further exclusions using the review criteria as necessary. During this step of the process, articles that clearly did not meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria were discussed by the team as a whole. A decision was made by consensus about whether or not the article should be included. Through this process, 92 articles that focused on DLL populations in the United States and 90 articles on international DLL populations were chosen.

To assist with the critical review, information from each article was coded and entered into a table. Information extracted from the articles included: the purpose and design of the study; the languages studied; the sample including sample size, ages studied, and characteristics of the sample; definition of DLLs used; constructs and outcome measures; results; limitations; and implications/conclusions.

Three graduate students in Communication Sciences and Disorders were trained on the coding procedures and were closely supervised by the first author, who met with the students on a weekly basis. The graduate students entered the information about each article into the table with the exception of coding the results, limitations, and implications/conclusions. Once the students completed the initial portion of the table, the table was shared with the members of the research team. Each team member assumed responsibility for articles within her area of expertise. The team members reviewed the graduate students’ coding of their assigned articles, revised the entries as needed, and then completed the results, limitations, and implications/conclusions sections. The table is provided in the online supplemental material to this manuscript.

Before summarizing the findings, a brief discussion about terminology is needed. First, it should be pointed out that a number of terms were used to refer to children who were learning two languages in the studies included in this review, such as DLLs, bilinguals, English language learners, and second language learners. For consistency, we decided to use DLL when summarizing the specific findings of the studies. Second, the term infant/toddler is used to refer to findings on children from birth through two years and eleven months of age. Preschooler refers to children from three through five years of age.

Description of the Samples in the Articles Reviewed

The samples found in the articles varied in terms of the languages spoken, DLL status and socio-demographic characteristics. The vast majority of the articles focused on DLLs who were learning English as a second language ( N = 152, 84%). The most commonly studied non-English language was Spanish ( N = 81, 45%), with 63 studies being conducted in the United States and of those, two involved children living in Puerto Rico. The dialect of Spanish varied among studies, although a large number of studies did not identify the dialect spoken by the children. Fifty-three (29%) of the articles included DLL children learning to speak an Asian language: Chinese ( N = 23; 10 Mandarin, 6 Cantonese, 7 no dialect specified), Korean ( N = 6), Persian/Farsi ( N = 4), Turkish ( N = 9), Japanese, ( N = 3), Hmong ( N = 3), Arabic ( N = 2), Hebrew ( N = 1), Gujarati ( N = 1), Urdu ( N = 1), Moroccan Arabic ( N = 1) Tongan ( N = 1), Samoan ( N = 2), Marathi ( N = 1), and East Indian language not specified ( N = 1). Sixty-nine (38%) of the studies focused on DLL children learning European languages: French ( N = 27), German ( N = 12), Catalan ( N = 8), Italian ( N = 7), Dutch ( N = 6), Russian ( N = 4), Swedish ( N = 1), Greek ( N = 1), Welsh ( N = 1), Finnish ( N = 1), and Norwegian ( N = 1). Two studies focused on indigenous languages, with one focusing on children learning Inuktitut, and another study focusing on Lajamanu Warlpiri and Light Warlpiri. Thirteen (7%) of the articles combined DLL children who spoke a variety of languages into one group. These articles focused on children’s development of English. (Note that an article could include two to three groups of DLLs who spoke different languages. Thus the percentages reported above total more than 100%).

As alluded to earlier, the studies reviewed focused on children who were labeled using a variety of terms, including, but not limited to dual language learners, English language learners, bilingual children, Spanish-speaking children, etc. Consistent definitions of the various terms were not used, and in some cases, specific criteria were not established when labeling children. Children were simply labeled with the term chosen by the authors without further definition. In addition, the amount of information provided about the children’s dual language exposure and usage varied. Ninety-three (51%) of the studies specified whether children were simultaneous learners (i.e., children who learn two languages from birth) or sequential language learners (i.e., children who learn their home language from birth and their second language at age three or later). Fifty-two (29%) of the articles provided information about the amount of exposure children had to their two languages, with more recent articles being more likely to include this information.

The samples also varied with regard to their socio-economic status (SES), although the SES of the children was not always specified. Only 60 (32%) of the studies provided information about maternal education; 84 (46%) included information about SES (as indicated by maternal education level and/or income). In general, the majority of studies conducted in the US that specified the sample’s SES involved children of low-SES. The exceptions to this were case studies, which typically focused on children of high SES, often the authors’ own children. With regard to articles on samples from outside the U.S., many of the studies included children from middle-SES backgrounds and/or who spoke the dominant languages of their respective countries. However, the SES of the children was not always provided. There was a subset of national and international studies that focused on immigrant populations, which typically involved children of lower SES and who spoke a minority language. SES is a factor to consider when studying DLL children, because research on monolingual children has shown that children from low-SES homes have lower vocabulary abilities and display different language abilities than children from middle-SES homes ( Hart & Risley, 1995 ; Hoff, 2003 ; Pan, Rowe, Singer, & Snow, 2005 ). Because many DLL children grow up in low-SES homes, SES and bilingualism can be confounded in studies of children’s development.

Research Designs

The studies employed a variety of research designs. Thirty-four (19%) of the articles were case studies, with 21 of the studies focusing on infants/toddlers. Seventeen (9%) were descriptive, meaning that no group comparisons were made, and 50 (28%) were cross-sectional. Fifteen (8%) were correlational, meaning that relationships among variables were investigated. Sixteen (9%) were experimental or quasi-experimental. Fifty (27%) were longitudinal, with the majority of these having collected data at two points in time.

Research Questions Addressed by the Studies

The studies reviewed focused on a wide range of research questions. These included questions regarding the basic descriptive facts about the course of DLLs’ development, the influence of environmental factors, and the relation between language and literacy development. In addition, the studies addressed theoretical questions about bilingualism, including the influence of dual language exposure on early speech perception, whether DLL children develop one or two language systems, and whether there is transfer of knowledge from one linguistic system to the other. Often, studies compared the development of DLL children to monolingual children, either directly or indirectly through the use of standardized tests normed on monolingual children. The reader is reminded that children learning two languages should not be expected to perform at the same level as monolinguals in all areas of language development, because DLL children are learning two linguistic systems ( Hoff, Core, Place, Rumiche, Señor, & Parra, 2012 ).

Findings about Development

Children’s language development.

The discussion of the literature published on dual language learners from birth through age five is organized around the following aspects of language: language processing (including behavioral and neurophysiological measures), vocabulary development, word learning processes, semantic development, oral comprehension, grammatical development, and pragmatic development. Also reviewed are studies that investigated code switching and transfer as well as factors that influence children’s development.

Language processing

Three studies were categorized as investigations of language processing in DLLs. The first study examined the latency and location in the brain of the electrical activity evoked by the presentation of words to 19- to 22-month-old Spanish-English DLLs in their dominant and non-dominant languages ( Conboy & Mills, 2006 ). The findings revealed a faster speed of processing of known words as indicated by shorter latency of evoked response potential (ERP) relative to the latency of response to unknown words. This difference in processing speed occurred earlier in DLL children’s dominant language than their non-dominant language. In addition, faster processing of known words was found for children who were more advanced on a composite language measure compared to children with less advanced language. It was also determined that the brain regions involved were different for children’s dominant and non-dominant languages ( Conboy & Mills, 2006 ). These findings suggest that the organization of the brain for language processing and the speed of language processing may be different for DLL children’s two languages if the children have more experience, and relatedly, more knowledge in one language than the other.

The second study provided additional evidence that DLLs are more efficient at processing the language they hear more and know better. In this study, children were presented with a familiar word aurally and shown two pictures, one of which corresponded to the word that was spoken. The time it took children for to look at the correct picture was then measured. Results showed that Spanish-English DLL toddlers (aged 2 ½ years) were faster at processing the language they heard more, and individual differences in speed of processing were related to vocabulary size within a language but not across languages ( Marchman, Fernald, & Hurtado, 2010 ).

The third study compared Turkish-English DLL and Turkish monolingual kindergarteners’ abilities to process language, using tasks in Turkish. Monolingual children outperformed DLL children on six of the eight processing tasks; however, minimal information was provided about the language experiences of the DLL children. Additionally, the language processing tasks were not well described, making it difficult to interpret the findings presented in the study ( Sevinç & Önkol, 2009 ).

Phonological Development

Phonological development has received more attention than other areas of DLLs’ language development. Studies focusing on infants/toddlers targeted children’s speech sound discrimination abilities and early speech sound development. Most of these studies were conducted with populations outside the U.S. In contrast, the majority of investigations involving preschoolers focused on speech sound development and were conducted primarily with Spanish-English DLLs living in the United States.

The research focusing on infants finds no difference between DLLs and monolinguals in their ability to distinguish between two different languages. Specifically, Bosch and Sebastián-Gallés (2001) found no differences among Spanish monolingual infants, Catalan monolingual infants, and Spanish-Catalan DLL infants’ abilities to discriminate Spanish from Catalan at four-months of age.

Definitive evidence has not been found as to whether or not differences exist in the developmental trajectories of monolingual and DLL infants’ abilities to distinguish contrasting speech sounds within a language. It is well known that all infants begin life able to perceive essentially every sound contrast languages use, but by the age of six to twelve months (depending on the particular sound contrast) monolingual infants’ speech perception has been “tuned” to their one language ( Kuhl, Stevens, Hayahsi, Deguchi, Kiritani, & Iverson, 2006 ; Werker & Tees, 1984 ). This means that they discriminate sounds that are different phonemes in the ambient language, but they no longer discriminate between different sounds that do not mark a difference in meaning. Infants exposed to two languages are able to discriminate the sound contrasts of both their languages at the end of their first year. However, studies that focused on the course of development yield different results depending on: (a) the particular language pairs the infants hear, (b) the sound contrasts that are under study, and (c) the measure of discrimination used.

Some evidence suggests that DLL infants pass through an intermediary stage between having the newborn’s ability to perceive essentially all contrasts and the tuning of perception to only the native language contrasts. During this intermediary stage, DLL infants appear not to discriminate between contrasts in one of their languages. This U-shaped developmental pattern, one in which discrimination is evident at four months, not at eight months, and then reemerges at twelve months, has been found in more than one study ( Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés, 2003 ; Burns, Yoshida, Hill, & Werker, 2007 ; Sundara, Polka, & Molnar, 2008 ). For example, one study that used brain measures of phonetic discrimination (i.e., ERPs) found that Spanish-English DLL infants between 6- and 9-months of age did not show evidence of neural discrimination of Spanish or English contrasts that monolingual infants showed at that age. Evidence of neural discrimination of contrasts did not occur until 10- to 12-months of age in DLLs ( Garcia-Sierra et al., 2011 ). It is thought that this U-shaped pattern may occur because children exposed to two languages require more time to accumulate sufficient data to discriminate the two sets of phonetic categories they must learn.

In contrast, other investigations have shown that DLL infants are able to maintain their abilities to discriminate sounds between 8- and 10-months of age and do not show the U-shaped pattern. One study that used a different behavioral method for testing infants’ discrimination abilities found that 8-month-old Spanish-Catalan DLL infants could discriminate a specific vowel contrast, results not found in other studies ( Albareda-Castellot, Pons, & Sebastián-Gallés, 2011 ). Another study suggested that if the two languages a DLL infant hears are rhythmically different--as in Spanish and English, then DLL infants maintain their ability to differentiate different phonetic categories like monolinguals. Specifically, 8-month-old, Spanish-English DLL infants were able to discriminate a vowel contrast that exists only in English ( Sundara & Scutellaro, 2011 ). The authors of this study suggested that the rhythmic differences between Spanish and English allowed infants to tag the speech they heard as belonging to one or the other language, and thus the infants did not require any additional data to pull apart the properties of their input that arise from each language ( Sundara & Scutellaro, 2011 ).

Additionally, studies demonstrated that DLL infants’ sensitivity to the phonotactic constraints (i.e., allowable syllable structures, and consonant clusters) of the target language(s) ( Sebastián-Gallés & Bosch, 2002 ) and sensitivity to vowel contrasts ( Ramon-Casas, Swingley, Sebastián-Gallés, & Bosch, 2009 ) may differ from monolinguals’ in the non-dominant language. But on other tasks, DLL infants perform at levels that are not different from monolinguals’ performance. For example, in one study, DLL infants showed preference for familiar words in both their languages at the same age as monolingual infants showed this preference ( Vihman, Thierry, Lum, Keren-Portnoy, & Martin, 2007 ). Another study of infant word learning found that DLL infants accommodate phonetic variation (i.e., variations in productions that might be associated with accented speech) better than monolingual infants ( Mattock, Polka, Rvachew, & Krehm, 2010 ; Ramon-Casas et al., 2009 ).

Studies that targeted children’s production of speech sounds addressed a variety of research questions, including the presence of one or two phonological systems, the composition of children’s phonetic (speech sound) inventories, and children’s phonological accuracy and complexity. Many of the studies involved samples of 10 or fewer DLLs.

The vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that DLL infants/toddlers and preschoolers have two separate phonological systems, meaning that DLLs have different mental representations for each sound in their two languages ( Anderson, 2004 ; Brice, Carson, & O’Brien, 2009 ; Fabiano & Goldstein, 2005 ; Fabiano-Smith & Barlow, 2010 ; Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010b ; Gildersleeve-Neumann & Wright, 2010 ; Gildersleeve-Neumann, Peña, Davis, & Kester, 2009 ; Paradis, 2001 ; Simon, 2010 ). However, cross-linguistic effects are observed in children’s speech sound productions, with some evidence suggesting that the dominant language has a great influence over the weaker language ( Mok, 2011 ; Paradis, 2001 ). As children develop their speech sound abilities over time, these effects are observed less frequently ( Fabiano-Smith & Barlow, 2010 ; Gildersleeve-Neumann et al., 2009 ; Gildersleeve-Neumann & Wright, 2010 ; Lin & Johnson, 2010 ).

With regard to children’s speech sound production, DLL infants/toddlers’ speech sound development may be delayed in their less dominant language in comparison to monolinguals. For example, DLL infants/toddlers’ vowel acquisition was delayed in their second language (L2) in comparison to monolinguals, although no differences were observed between DLLs’ L1 vowel learning and monolinguals ( Kehoe, 2002 ). Also, German-Spanish DLLs’ voice-onset time was not clearly established by age two, the age where this was established in monolinguals ( Kehoe, Lleó, & Rakow, 2004 ). However, one study indicated that DLL infants/toddlers seem to have an advantage over monolinguals when learning more complex speech sound patterns ( Kovács & Mehler, 2009 ).

During the preschool years, DLL children catch up to their monolingual peers in their ability to produce speech sounds. Specifically, a case study of two Japanese-English DLLs found that the children’s ability to differentiate the voice onset time for voiceless stops (/p/, /t/, /k/) in their two languages emerged as children developed ( Johnson & Wilson, 2002 ). Additionally, studies of DLL preschoolers’ learning a variety of languages, including Spanish, Russian, Arabic, and Chinese and living in different countries demonstrated that DLL children’s phonetic inventories (i.e., the range of speech sounds produced) are as complex as monolinguals during the preschool years ( Fabiano-Smith & Barlow, 2010 ; Gildersleeve-Neumann, Kester, Davis, & Peña, 2008 ; Gildersleeve-Neumann & Wright, 2010 ; Khattab, 2002 ; Lin & Johnson, 2010 ). Sequential language learners, or children who began learning their second language after age three, appear to use their knowledge of their L1 to aid them in acquiring the phonological system of their L2 ( Anderson, 2004 ).

In general, DLL preschoolers’ accuracy of their speech sound productions (as measured by percent consonants produced correctly) is high in their two languages ( Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010a ; Lin & Johnson, 2010 ; MacLeod, Laukys, & Rvachew, 2011 ). However, their phonological accuracy appears to be higher for sounds that are shared between their two languages than for sounds that are not shared ( Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010a ).

Whether children’s accuracy is higher in their first language (L1) or their second (L2) is unclear. A study by Anderson (2004) found that DLLs who spoke either Korean, French, or Russian and English had higher accuracy in their L1 than in English, their L2 ( Anderson, 2004 ). The opposite was observed by Brice et al. (2009) whose results showed that children’s accuracy in English, their L2, was higher than their L1. Brice and colleagues concluded that this finding might be due to the amount of English to which the children had been exposed. However, Fabiano-Smith and Goldstein (2010a) did not observe an impact of children’s exposure to their languages on the accuracy of their speech sound production. Given the small sample sizes of these studies, a conclusion about the role of language exposure on children’s speech sound development cannot be made at this time.

Studies also compared the speech sound accuracy and complexity of DLL and monolingual children. The findings were inconclusive. One investigation found that English monolinguals had higher speech sound accuracy and complexity as measured by PCC (percent consonants correct) and pMLU (a measure of word length and consonant accuracy) than Spanish-English DLL children ( Bunta, Fabiano-Smith, Goldstein, & Ingram, 2009 ). Another found no differences between Spanish-English DLL children and monolinguals, but found that Spanish monolinguals had higher PCCs than DLLs but not higher pMLUs ( Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010a ).

In sum, the evidence is clear that infants exposed to two languages can discriminate one language from the other and can learn the sound contrasts used by both, although questions remain about their developmental trajectories. Additionally, DLL infants/toddlers show evidence of having two distinct phonological systems, although cross-linguistic influences may be observed, particularly in the speech of younger children. DLL infants/toddlers’ speech sound production may not be equivalent to monolinguals in their less dominant language during their early years; however, DLL preschoolers appear to catch up to monolingual levels. Overall, it can be concluded that there are many similarities between DLL and monolingual children’s speech sound development during the preschool years ( Goldstein & Washington, 2001 ).

Vocabulary Development

Studies of DLL children’s vocabulary development investigated both vocabulary composition and size. Studies involving preschoolers compared the development of monolingual and DLL children, sequential and simultaneous learners, and older and younger children. The effect of school entry on children’s development has also been studied. Most of the investigations discussed were conducted in the United States or Canada, with three conducted in Europe. Note that three classic studies published before 2000 were included in the discussion to provide needed background information.

Studies of vocabulary composition analyzed the distribution of infants/toddlers’ vocabulary knowledge across different types of words (e.g., social function words, nouns, predicates, and closed class words). Specifically, four studies ( Conboy & Thal, 2006 ; David & Wei, 2008 ; Holowka, Brosseau-Lapré, & Petitto, 2002 ; Levey & Cruz, 2003 ) and one classic study ( Pearson, Fernández, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997 ) addressed this area. All found that DLL children showed distributions much like those described for monolingual English-speaking children. Additionally, the studies found that, as in monolingual English-speaking children, nouns dominate early vocabularies more than later vocabularies. For example, Mandarin Chinese-English DLL infants/toddlers produced significantly more nouns than verbs when their vocabularies in both languages were combined. In fact, out of the 100 words produced by all 17 DLLs in the study, 70 were nouns and 13 were verbs. This is in contrast to monolingual Chinese-speaking children who tended to produce more verbs than nouns ( Levey & Cruz, 2003 ). Moreover, DLL children produced nouns in both Chinese and English, but verbs were produced only in Chinese, suggesting that these verbs were produced in Chinese during adult-child interactions and pointing to the influence of adult-child interaction on language development.

When estimating DLLs’ vocabulary knowledge combined across their two languages, DLL infants/toddlers were found to have the same rate of vocabulary growth as monolinguals from the ages of one and one-half years to three years ( Pearson, Fenández, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997 ). In addition, DLL infants/toddlers’ conceptual vocabularies (i.e., the number of vocabulary concepts known in their two languages combined) are the same size as monolinguals’ vocabularies ( Junker & Stockman, 2002 ; Lundén & Silvén, 2011 ; Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1993 ), with some overlap in the words/concepts known in both languages. It has been suggested that the degree of overlap in young children’s vocabularies may be greater when the children’s two languages are typologically related, resulting in the similarity in forms of words across the two languages ( Schelletter, 2002 ). Also, the overlap between DLL children’s vocabularies supports the theory that children have two separate linguistic systems ( Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1995 ). That is, for many concepts, DLL children know two different words, one in each language.

With regard to the size of DLL infants/toddlers’ vocabularies in their individual languages, studies consistently found that DLLs have smaller vocabularies and slower rates of growth over time in each language when compared to monolinguals ( Marchman et al., 2010 ; Place & Hoff, 2011 ; Vagh, Pan, & Mancilla-Martnez, 2009 ). However, many DLL infants/toddlers have vocabulary sizes within the normal range of variation for monolingual children, particularly in their dominant language (cf. Pearson et al., 1993 ; Vagh et al., 2009 ). These findings give rise to some confusion in the literature. Some findings have been interpreted and widely cited as evidence that bilingualism has no effect on the development of each language, because DLL children’s vocabularies can fall within the normal range of monolingual children ( Pearson et al., 1993 ). As Bialystok (2001) has pointed out, however, the normal range of variation is wide. Further, reanalysis of Pearson et al.’s (1993) data showed that more of the DLL than monolingual children fell below the 10 th percentile with respect to monolingual norms ( Bialystok, 2001 ). Our interpretation is that DLLs acquiring two languages take longer to build their vocabularies in each language than children who are acquiring only one language, but not so much longer as to necessarily be outside the normal range of variation in their stronger language.

Studies of preschoolers also show that DLL children’s vocabularies in their individual languages are smaller than those of their monolingual peers. This finding is supported by Bialystok, Luk, Peets, and Yang (2009) who studied DLLs who were learning English and a variety of home languages (SES not specified) and Bialystok, Barac, Blaye, and Poulin-Dubois (2010) who studied middle-SES DLLs learning English and French. In both studies, DLLs, who lived in Canada, scored lower on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test –III than monolingual English speakers. The conclusion is also supported by the two studies of Spanish-English preschoolers living in the U.S from low-SES homes. Both found that DLL children scored two or more standard deviations below the English and Spanish norms on standardized vocabulary tests administered ( Hammer, Lawrence, & Miccio, 2008a ; Tabors, Páez, & López, 2003 ). It is important to note that the children in Hammer et al.’s investigation were enrolled in Head Start programs where English was the language of instruction, and thus came from homes of low-socioeconomic status (SES). The sample involved in Tabors et al.’s study also involved a large percentage of children from low-SES homes who attended English-speaking preschools.

Differences in vocabulary abilities, however, were identified between children who are simultaneous learners and sequential learners. Hammer and her colleagues (2008a) observed that simultaneous learners entered and exited Head Start programs with higher English vocabulary scores than sequential learners. The opposite pattern was found for children’s Spanish vocabularies.

Bilingual children, however, appear to make gains relative to their monolingual peers over time. Hammer et al. (2008a) observed that both sequential and simultaneous learners’ standardized vocabulary scores increased over their two years in Head Start. Simultaneous learners began Head Start with a below-average English vocabulary, and ended Head Start with a vocabulary within the lower end of the average range for monolingual speakers. Sequential learners’ English vocabulary grew at a faster rate than simultaneous learners. Sequential learners also made gains on the monolingual norms in Spanish and developed at a faster rate than simultaneous learners, ending up in the average range for monolingual speakers of Spanish. Thus, both groups made gains on monolinguals in English over the two-year period and sequential learners also made gains in Spanish.

Two studies focused on preschoolers’ development of their second language (L2) after school entry. A study of Dutch-Turkish DLLs living in the Netherlands showed that children’s L2 vocabulary development accelerated when they entered school between the ages of three and four, but they did not catch up to monolingual peers by the end of the study ( Leseman, 2000 ). However, Goldberg, Paradis, and Crago (2008) also observed that DLL children living in Canada, who spoke a variety of languages, caught up to monolinguals over time in English. Specifically, five-year-old DLL children from a variety of home language backgrounds and who lived in Canada caught up to monolingual norms of the PPVT-III after an average of 34 months of exposure to English. The studies of Goldberg et al. (2008) and Hammer et al. (2008a) demonstrate that DLL children can catch up to monolingual English children, but need time to do so.

Two studies compared the development of younger and older DLL children enrolled in preschool programs in the U.S., without reference to monolinguals ( Kan & Kohnert, 2005 ; Sheng, Lu, & Kan, 2011 ). In one study, it was found that five-year-old children outperformed three-year-old children in English for both receptive and expressive vocabulary, but not in Hmong, indicating a relative stabilization of L1 skills, alongside more robust growth in L2. Additionally, the results showed that although there were no significant differences in performance between receptive and expressive vocabulary in English, receptive scores were significantly higher than expressive scores in Hmong for both age groups. Moreover, younger children showed no L1–L2 difference on expressive vocabulary, but older children’s performance on this same task was significantly greater in English. The authors suggested that a shift from relative L1 to L2 “dominance” may be under way after an average of only 20 months in the early educational setting.

The second study found similar results in that younger and older groups of Mandarin-English speaking DLLs had larger vocabularies in English than Mandarin. In addition, the children showed significant increases in English vocabulary, but minimal gains in Mandarin. Receptive-expressive gaps in vocabularies were noted, with differences being greater in Mandarin ( Sheng et al., 2011 ).

Another study investigated the English vocabulary development of over 1,200 DLLs during one year in preschool using the Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDI) for picture naming. The growth of children who spoke Somali, Spanish, and English were compared. Results revealed the DLLs who spoke Somali had greater vocabulary growth than children who spoke the other two languages; however, factors that may have contributed to this difference were not investigated ( Estrem, 2011 ).

In summary, the findings in the literature concur that during infancy, DLL children, as a group, lag behind monolingual children in vocabulary growth in each of their languages. However, their conceptual vocabularies are within the typical limits of monolingual children during infancy. The picture these data present is one in which DLL children proceed along the same path in building lexicons in each of their languages as monolingual children. The children may proceed at a different pace in each language, but the composition of the lexicons in each language is a function of where in the path the child is (as the composition of children’s vocabularies changes over time), rather than being a function of the children’s age or the children’s total lexical knowledge across both languages.

During the preschool years, DLL children’s vocabularies appear to be lower than those of their monolingual peers in their individual languages; however, it should be recalled that the studies in this area were conducted primarily on children from low-SES homes and who attend preschools where their L2 is the language of instruction. There is some evidence that DLL children catch up to monolinguals over time, as suggested by Cummins (1981) . Also, there appear to be differences between sequential and simultaneous learners’ development and differences in the vocabulary abilities of younger and older children, with a shift in dominance to the children’s L2 occurring over time.

Word learning processes

Four studies were identified that examined word learning processes in young DLL children. Two studies examined infant/toddler word learning using the switch task. In this task, novel words are paired with pictures of novel objects until the child habituates, and then recovery from habituation is measured in response to when the pairing of objects and words is switched. One study found DLLs use relevant language sounds to direct word learning developmentally later than monolinguals ( Fennell, Byers-Heinlein, & Werker, 2007 ). This study tested whether 14- to 20-month-old DLLs could learn minimally different words (e.g. bih and dih ). The DLL sample included a heterogeneous sample of children who were exposed to English and another language and two homogeneous samples of English-Chinese and English-French children residing in Canada. These DLLs did not learn these similar-sounding words until 20 months, whereas monolingual infants/toddlers succeed at this task at the age of 17 months. The authors hypothesized that this difference between DLL and monolingual children may be due to the increased cognitive load of learning two languages. However, another study comparing English-French DLL children to English and French monolinguals found that the DLLs performed better than the monolinguals and were successful in word learning at 17 months, as measured by the switch task, provided the phonological properties of the syllables to be learned were consistent with their DLL experience ( Mattock et al., 2010 ).

Two studies examined older DLL children’s fast mapping abilities (i.e., the ability to learn a word after a limited number of exposures). In one study, German-English DLLs living in Germany were better at fast mapping in their L1 than in their second language, English. Although a second study of Hmong-English DLLs in the U.S. showed that children did slightly better in L1 (Hmong) than L2 (English) on the fast mapping tasks, the differences were not significant. The authors explained that this could be due to the large amount of individual variation in performance along with the limited number of fast mapping trials ( Kan & Kohnert, 2008 ). Unlike past findings with monolingual children, there was no effect of age on the fast mapping tasks. Although no relationships were found between existing vocabulary knowledge and fast mapping in the children’s LI, Hmong, or the children’s L2, English, in this latter study, there were statistically significant relationships between vocabulary knowledge and fast mapping across the two languages. English expressive fast mapping was negatively correlated with Hmong vocabulary knowledge, which the authors interpreted as suggesting a temporary cross-linguistic interference ( Kan & Kohnert, 2008 ). Based on the studies that have been conducted, it is unclear if DLL children are better at fast mapping in their first language as compared to their second language.

Semantic development

Two studies targeted DLL children’s semantic development. One case study that followed a child from 18 to 36 months of age examined whether vocabulary development in DLLs is affected when the conceptual distinctions that are lexicalized in one language are not in the other ( Silva-Corvalán & Montanari, 2008 ). The example studied is the acquisition of the verb to be in English and the acquisition of ser and estar , in Spanish. Ser and estar are both translated as to be , but they are not interchangeable. Roughly, ser is used in reference to essential characteristics and permanent states ( El es un hombre-He is a man ) and estar refers to location and temporary states ( El está en la sala-He is in the living room ). The author concluded that the child learned to distinguish the constructions that required each form in Spanish without difficulty and suggested that this was because each was learned directly from input—as opposed to acquisition being conceptually driven.

Another study was identified that investigated semantic development during the preschool years ( Sheng, McGregor, & Marian, 2006 ). This study compared five- to eight-year old Mandarin-English DLL children’s ability to produce word associations in their two languages and in relation to age-matched monolingual children’s word association abilities. The results suggested parallel development in DLLs’ L1 and L2 lexical-semantic skills. Paradigmatic performance, or the ability to associate words within a language, was similar in L1 and L2, and the results showed that paradigmatic responding correlated the most for L1 and L2 nouns, and the least for verbs, suggesting that word associations for nouns proceed in a more similar manner across languages than for verbs. In addition, both monolingual and DLL groups achieved similar paradigmatic performance in the English word association test. Also, there was a DLL advantage for verbs, with more DLLs responding paradigmatically than monolinguals.

Given the limited number of studies in this area, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions. Clearly more research is needed to answer the question of how bilingualism shapes children’s lexical-semantic organization.

Oral Comprehension

Minimal attention has been paid to young DLL children’s comprehension of their two languages. Only two articles were identified. Both of these articles were from Hammer, Lawrence, and Miccio’s (2008a , 2008b ) longitudinal investigation of DLL Head Start children. The first focused on simultaneous and sequential learners’ growth in oral comprehension during the children’s two years in Head Start. Similar to children’s vocabulary abilities, simultaneous learners began and ended Head Start with higher English comprehension, and sequential learners had consistently higher Spanish comprehension. Both groups’ abilities to comprehend Spanish and English were below monolingual norms at the beginning of Head Start. The groups’ English abilities increased over the two-year period, with simultaneous learners’ scoring within the typical monolingual range by the end of Head Start. The two groups’ Spanish abilities increased initially but then decreased during their time in Head Start classrooms where English was the language of instruction, indicating that their development was not keeping up with the monolingual norms ( Hammer et al., 2008a ).

The second study investigated the effect of summer vacation on DLL children’s oral comprehension development ( Hammer et al., 2008b ). Children were divided into groups depending upon whether their scores increased or decreased during two years. The results showed that summer vacation had a differential effect on children’s comprehension. Children whose scores increased during their two years in preschool experienced decreases in their comprehension over the summer whereas as children whose scores decreased during preschool experienced increased scores during the summer months.

Grammatical development

Studies of DLL children’s early grammatical development during infancy focused on determining if children learning two languages simultaneously from birth have two separate language systems, with most of these being case studies. Other studies targeted DLL children’s morpho-syntactic development, fluency, and metalinguistic awareness of grammatical constructions.

Based on nine case studies involving DLL infants/toddlers living in a variety of countries including the U.S., DLL children have two separate grammatical systems. This conclusion is supported by investigations that examined the phenomenon of subject realization. These studies found that DLL children had no difficulty learning the grammatical rules of their two languages when one of their languages did not require the subject to be expressed (e.g., Spanish, Italian, and Catalan) and their other language required an explicit subject (e.g., English) ( Juan-Garau & Perez-Vidal, 2000 ; Paradis & Navarro, 2003 ; Serratrice, 2002 ; Serratrice, Sorace, & Paoli, 2004 ; Silva-Corvalán, 2007 ). Support for the conclusion that DLL children have two separate systems was also provided by a study that showed that a Spanish-English DLL child used different aspectual markers for the two languages that the child was learning ( Castro & Gavruseva, 2003 ) and by another study that showed Japanese DLL children learned the linguistic devices for formulating questions in their two languages ( Mishina-Mori, 2005 ).

Six studies investigated DLLs development of morphology and/or syntax, with four studies being conducted in Australia, Germany, France, and Canada. In general, the studies found that DLLs’ abilities to produce morphological and syntactic targets were less accurate than monolinguals, but that DLLs’ generally followed the same pattern of development as monolinguals ( Bland-Stewart & Fitzgerald, 2001 ; Bonnesen & Chilla, 2011; Nicholls, Eadie, & Reilly, 2011 ; Nicoladis & Marchak, 2011 ; Paradis, Nicoladis, Crago, & Genesee, 2010 ). Also, it was concluded that difference in the amount of input that DLLs receive in their individual languages explained the differences between DLLs and monolinguals accuracy in producing various grammatical structures (Bonnesen & Chilla, 2011; Nicholls et al., 2011 ; Paradis et al., 2010 ).

In addition to studying morphological development, one study investigated DLL children’s fluency, as measured by their production of grammatical revisions ( Bedore, Fiestas, Peña, & Nagy, 2006 ). Four- to six-year-old Spanish-English DLLs’ expressive language was compared to the expressive language of their functionally monolingual peers. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the percentage of grammatical revisions produced or revision strategies used. Children’s revisions were related to their language productivity as measured by mean length of utterance and the number of words produced. The authors concluded that DLLs do not have greater linguistic uncertainty than monolinguals.

Two studies focused on comparing the metalinguistic abilities of DLLs and monolinguals through tasks that required children to identify grammatically correct utterances. Using a sample of children ranging from two- to six-years in age, Foursha-Stevenson and Nicoladis (2011) found that French-English DLLs had better syntactic awareness than their monolingual peers. Similarly, Davidson, Raschke, and Pervez (2010) found that five- and six-year-old DLLs, who spoke Urdu and English, were better at identifying grammatically incorrect utterances than their Urdu- and English-speaking monolingual peers. In contrast, three- and four-year old DLLs outperformed their monolingual peers who spoke Urdu but not their monolingual peers who spoke English. Thus, the finding suggested that DLLs may have an advantage over monolinguals in metalinguistic awareness as their language abilities develop.

In summary, the studies reviewed on children’s grammatical development paint a picture of DLL children proceeding down two relatively independent paths of development in acquiring two languages, similar to the evidence presented on children’s phonological and vocabulary development. In comparison to monolinguals, DLL children appear to be acquiring morpho-syntactic structures in the same general order as monolinguals, although DLLs’ accuracy is less than their monolingual peers. More studies, however, are needed in this area. Also, it appears that DLLs may have an advantage over monolinguals in their metalinguistic awareness, although more evidence is needed before a firm conclusion can be made.

Pragmatic Development

Five studies were identified that focused on children’s pragmatic development, with three involving children living outside of the United States. Two of the studies investigated children’s abilities to repair communicative breakdowns. The results of one of these studies demonstrated that young French-English DLLs were able to repair communicative breakdowns by matching the language of the adults with whom they were interacting. However, when the language being spoken was not the reason for the communicative breakdown, children did not change languages when attempting to repair their message ( Comeau, Genesee, & Mendelson, 2007 ). The second study found no differences between young DLL and monolingual children’s abilities to repair conversational breakdowns.

The remaining studies addressed different research questions. One case study showed that a young DLL had learned the pragmatic functions described by Halliday early in life ( Keshavarz, 2001 ). The child, who was learning Farsi and English, showed independent use of the pragmatic categories in both languages, providing further evidence that DLL children have two separate systems. Another study found that DLL preschoolers were better at using tone of voice to judge the emotion of a speaker than monolinguals ( Yow & Markman, 2011 ). The final study found that unlike their parents, 3- and 4-year-old DLLs did not adjust their language to the language of a third-party when engaged in a conversation. Children tended to use English, which was the language of their schooling ( Tare & Gelman, 2011 ).

Code switching

Code switching is a phenomenon that is observed in the language usage of DLL children and adults. It is thought to be a result of the interaction of two independent linguistic systems ( Bernardini & Schlyter, 2004 ; Cantone & Muller, 2008 ). Relatively few studies have investigated young DLL children’s code switching. Those that were conducted focused on preschoolers and populations outside the United States. These few studies showed that DLL children adhere to adult-like structural constraints in most of their code switching. This implies that they have complex knowledge of how to fit their two languages together in one utterance during production and that they possess language-specific syntactic knowledge early on ( Paradis, Nicoladis, & Genesee, 2000 ).

The studies also demonstrate that code switching is affected by language dominance ( Bernardini & Schlyter, 2004 ; Dahl, Rice, Steffensen, & Amundsen, 2010 ; Jisa, 2000 ; Paradis & Nicoladis, 2007 ). Bernardini and Schlyter (2004) found that in nearly all mixed utterances produced by three young Swedish-Italian and Swedish-French DLL infants/toddlers, the stronger language filled in the gaps of the weaker language. The authors presented this as the Ivy Hypothesis, where the weaker language grew “like ivy on the structural tree of the stronger language” (p. 49). Other studies have also found code switching to serve as a compensatory strategy when DLL children do not know the target word in one language ( Wei & Lee, 2001 ). Wei and Lee found that when examining the knowledge of Cantonese classifiers among British-born Chinese children, many of the children code-switched from Cantonese to English when they did not know the word in Cantonese.

Several studies found that the role and patterns of language dominance vary by age and level of language production in the stronger language ( Jisa, 2000 ; Paradis & Nicoladis, 2007 ). Very preliminary evidence indicates that the age when the DLL child begins to produce his/her weaker language has an impact on the type and frequency of code switching ( Jisa, 2000 ). Specifically, Jisa found differences between two DLL siblings, who were both French-dominant and raised in a bilingual household with a French-speaking father and an English-speaking mother from birth. The older sister (aged 3;6), who had more advanced grammatical development in her stronger language than her younger sibling (aged 2;3), replaced French grammatical functors with equivalent English functors more quickly than her younger sibling (aged 2;3). The older sister also showed more sensitivity to the language of her addressee than her younger sister.

Other studies have also found that DLL preschoolers are able to use their two languages appropriately depending on the situation, but whether they did so depended on their language dominance and their sensitivity to the DLL speech patterns of the greater community ( Dahl et al., 2010 ; Kyratzis, 2010 ; Paradis & Nicoladis, 2007 ). Another study found a relation between parental discourse strategies and a DLL child’s rate of code switching. Specifically, a- 2-year-old Mandarin-English DLL child code switched more with her father than her mother. Her father accepted more code switching, whereas her mother expected that the child speak in one language ( Min, 2011 ). Additionally, it has been found that code switching serves communication purposes and occurs very little when the DLL child talks with no communicative partner present ( Dolitsky, 2000 ).

There is also evidence that some characteristics of code switching are language-specific, whereas other code-switching behaviors are similar across languages ( Bader & Minnis, 2000 ). Examining the speech of an Arabic-English child living in Jordan, Bader and Minnis (2000) found that some characteristics of the child’s code-switching behavior, such as attaching affixes from one language to verbal or nominal stems from the other, mixing definite and indefinite articles, deleting the copulative be , and switches related to word order, were found in other DLLs such as French-English, Spanish-English, and Dutch-English children. However, unique characteristics of the Arabic-English DLL were also found.

Several studies examined relations between the components of the children’s two languages and how children’s abilities might transfer across the two languages. These studies targeted a variety of research questions including the associations between lexical and grammatical development, the nature of cross-linguistic influences, and the direction of transfer.

The associations between lexical and grammatical development were addressed by two larger-scale studies of Spanish-English DLL toddlers ranging in age from 18 to 30 months of age ( Conboy & Thal, 2006 ; Marchman, Martínez-Sussman, & Dale, 2004 ). Both studies found that lexical and grammatical development were related within each language, as they are in monolingual development, but lexical and grammatical development were not related across languages. In Conboy and Thal’s study, Spanish-English DLL toddlers acquired predicate and closed class words for each language at levels predicted for their vocabulary size in each respective language. The use of grammatical terms and complexity of language were related more strongly to same-language vocabulary development than to broader lexical-conceptual development across languages. Marchman et al. (2004) also found that within-language vocabulary-grammar relationships were stronger than cross-language relationships with Spanish-English DLL toddlers. Similarly, Parra, Hoff, and Core (2011) found significant language-specific relations in 2-year-old Spanish-English DLLs among the phonological accuracy of the children’s nonword repetition, their productive vocabulary size, and the grammatical complexity of their speech.

Two studies examined the relationships between specific components of children’s two languages in older children. Kan and Kohnert (2008) found a significant positive relationships between receptive and expressive vocabulary in both Hmong and English, as well as positive cross-linguistic relationships between receptive vocabulary in Hmong and expressive vocabulary in English within three- to five-year-old Hmong-speaking DLLs. This suggests that preschoolers who understood more Hmong words were more likely to know more words in English. Tabors et al. (2003) , however, found a small negative relationship between DLL preschoolers’ Spanish and English expressive vocabularies. They did find positive relationships between Spanish and English on other early literacy and oral proficiency measures such as letter-identification skills and memory for sentences. The reason for the differences between Tabors et al.’s findings and Kan and Kohnert’s findings on vocabulary may be due to the fact that Kan and Kohnert’s children attended a bilingual preschool program whereas Tabors et al.’s children attended an English-speaking preschool program. Given that both studies had large individual variation on the measures, and that there were only two studies on this topic, more exploration is necessary to understand the complex relationships between the two languages of DLL children.

Other studies examined whether cross-linguistic influences may be specific to the language structure examined or influenced by the dominant language ( Kupisch, 2007 ; Paradis, 2001 ; Yip & Matthews, 2000 ; Zwanziger, Allen, & Genesee, 2005 ). For example, Zwanziger et al. (2005) found no evidence of crosslinguistic influence on morpho-syntax from English to Inuktitut or Inuktitut to English. However, other studies found considerable interactions between DLL children’s two languages, resulting in a developmental profile that is quite unlike monolingual children’s ( Paradis, 2001 ; Yip & Matthews, 2000 ). Transfer from the dominant language, Cantonese, to the weaker language, English, was evident in the syntactic development (wh-in-situ interrogatives, null objects, and pronominal relatives) of a Cantonese-English DLL child in Hong Kong ( Yip & Matthews, 2000 ). In another study with a French-English two-year-old child, Paradis (2001) also found that French-dominant DLLs, but not English-dominant DLLs, had a stronger tendency to treat English words like French words, suggesting that language dominance may be responsible for the directionality of cross-linguistic effects in phonological systems.

Although language dominance may serve as a determinant of unidirectional transfer ( Paradis, 2001 ; Yip & Matthews, 2000 ), other studies have pointed out that properties of the target language and input ambiguity also play a role in the transfer effects ( Kupisch, 2007 ; Yip & Matthews, 2000 ). Kupisch suggested that transfer in a particular domain might occur only if the dominant language has language-internal properties that promote the acquisition of a particular domain. If the dominant language is not beneficial to the acquisition of that grammatical domain, then transfer does not happen. Additionally, Yip and Matthew discuss Müller’s (1998) study where transfer may occur when two different grammatical hypotheses are compatible in one language (input ambiguity) regardless of language dominance. In Müller’s study, German was the target of transfer regardless of whether it was the dominant language for German-English DLLs for verb-object order in subordinate clauses. This was due to the fact that German allows both verb-object and object-verb order, while English has fixed verb-object order. As such, no transfer from German to English was expected regardless of language dominance. Moreover, in a later study, Müller and Hulk (2001) provide further evidence that it is not language dominance that promotes crosslinguistic syntactic influence in Dutch-French, German-French, and German-Italian DLL children, but that it is the grammatical properties of a language that determine when and where transfer occurs.

Two studies reported that transfer is bi-directional ( Foroodi-Nejad & Paradis, 2009 ; Gu, 2010 ). Foroodi-Nejad and Paradis found both English influence on Persian and Persian influence on English in the Persian-English DLLs’ production of novel compound words. These results showed partial evidence for the structural overlap hypothesis, where crosslinguistic influence occurs when there is structural overlap between the two languages, and partial evidence for the language dominance hypothesis. Gu (2010) also found bidirectional crosslinguistic influences with Cantonese-English DLLs. Crosslinguistic influences were seen in English prepositional datives and Cantonese inverted double object datives, two domains that were also difficult for monolingual children. Transfer effects were due to language dominance and input ambiguity.

As structural overlap between the two languages (French and English) and language ambiguity did not completely explain the cross-linguistic transfer of adjective placement among French-English DLLs, Nicoladis (2006) proposed to consider cross-linguistic transfer as a manifestation of speech production errors. When there were two syntactic rules in one language (e.g. adjective noun strings in French where both adjective-noun and noun-adjective order are allowed, versus only adjective-noun order in English), results showed that children not only reversed more adjective-noun strings in French as predicted by the overall/ambiguity hypothesis, but they also reversed more adjective-noun strings in English than monolinguals. More studies need to examine this idea that cross-linguistic transfer is an “epiphenomenon of speech production.”

In general, these studies demonstrate that factors such as language dominance and language-internal properties may influence the transfer of children’s abilities across languages. However, additional studies are clearly needed in this area. The small number of studies on a given research question and the discrepancies in findings make it difficult to draw firm conclusions about transfer.

Factors that influence DLLs’ development

Studies have also investigated factors that influence DLLs’ language development. Most of these focused on the language input children received. Two also examined the role of children’s language usage. One study investigated the relationship between child characteristics and language abilities. Others examined the role of parental responsivity and vocabulary development and children’s attachment to their parents and teachers. Another group of studies examined the role that the home literacy environment and television play. Most participants in these studies were Spanish-English DLLs, some from low-income homes and some from high SES homes in the U.S.

During infancy, studies on children’s language exposure found that DLLs’ vocabulary size and grammatical abilities in each language are related to the children’s relative amount of exposure to each language ( Blom, 2010 ; Marchman & Martínez-Sussman, 2002 ; Parra et al., 2011 ; Pearson et al., 1997 ; Place & Hoff, 2011 ; Scheele, Leseman, & Mayo, 2010 ; Vagh et al., 2009 ). Estimates of the variance in English (L2) and Spanish (L1) vocabularies were accounted for by the relative amount of exposure to each range from 10% to 49%, from birth through age three ( Marchman & Martínez-Sussman, 2002 ; Patterson, 2002 ; Place & Hoff, 2011 ). DLL infants/toddlers who hear and/or use relatively more English than Spanish have English vocabulary sizes that are more similar to monolingual English-speaking infants/toddlers than do DLL infants/toddlers who hear and/or use relatively more Spanish than English ( Vagh et al., 2009 ). DLLs with approximately balanced English and Spanish exposure and/or use score somewhere in between the English-dominant and Spanish-dominant groups in their English language skills ( Vagh et al., 2009 ). These findings are also supported by a study involving Moroccan (Tarifit-Berber) Dutch and Turkish bilingual children who were three years of age. This study found that differences in the patterns of language exposure largely explain differences in children’s abilities in their two languages ( Scheele et al., 2010 ).

There is preliminary evidence that the relative amount of exposure also predicts individual differences in DLLs’ phonological accuracy in nonword repetition tasks. Among Spanish-English DLL 2-year-olds, accuracy of repeating Spanish-like and English-like nonwords was significantly related to the children’s relative amount of exposure to Spanish and English ( Parra et al., 2011 ).

In addition, one study has shown that DLL infants/toddlers’ development is affected by whether or not parents are native speakers. Specifically, Place and Hoff (2011) found that two-year-olds’ language abilities in their two languages varied as function of whether the children’s mother, father, or both parents were native Spanish speakers. Children with a native English-speaking mother (and native Spanish-speaking father) were the most advanced in English. Children with two native Spanish-speaking parents were the most advanced in Spanish. Note that these children were the only children who were Spanish dominant. Children with a native Spanish-speaking mother and native English-speaking father scored between the other two groups of children. These differences in children’s language abilities based on parental language background were fully mediated by home language use. This study also found that the amount of language mixing children experienced in these environments had no effect on their language development. This finding runs contrary to the widely held belief that DLL children are helped if their two languages are kept separate in their experience ( Goodz, 1989 ; Pearson, 2008 ).

During the preschool years, significant relations have been found between the amount of exposure and children’s vocabulary, similar to research on infants/toddlers ( Quiroz, Snow, & Zhao, 2010 ; Thordardottir, 2011 ). However, preliminary evidence suggests that the amount of exposure to a particular language may or may not have an effect on DLLs’ vocabulary growth over time. Specifically, one study examined mothers’ reported usage of Spanish and English to their children during their children’s two years in Head Start and kindergarten programs that were primarily English-speaking ( Hammer, Davison, Lawrence, & Miccio, 2009 ). In general, mothers increased their usage of English over time; however, changes in maternal language usage from “all/more Spanish than English” to “equal Spanish and English” or “more/all English” had no impact on children’s English vocabulary growth during this period. Neither did mothers’ continued use of Spanish. (Note that differences were not found for sequential or simultaneous learners.) It was suggested that children had sufficient exposure to English at school and the community that maternal usage of English did not accelerate children’s English language development. Similarly, Mancilla-Martinez and Lesaux (2011a) found that Spanish usage in the home did not negatively impact DLLs’ English vocabulary growth.

The opposite was true for children’s Spanish vocabulary development. Mothers’ increased usage of English over time had a negative impact on children’s Spanish vocabulary development. Children whose mothers used increasingly more English had slower Spanish vocabulary growth. Children whose mothers continued to use Spanish had faster Spanish vocabulary growth. This is not surprising as the children’s homes were the primary source of support for children’s Spanish language development, given that English was the language of instruction. Thus, usage of Spanish in the home was needed to enhance children’s Spanish vocabulary development.

Another study investigated the relation between children’s exposure to English by their preschool teacher and children’s vocabulary development ( Bowers & Vasilyeva, 2011 ). The results revealed that the total number of words (i.e. tokens) the teacher produced was related to vocabulary growth, whereas the number of words per sentence produced by the teacher had a negative effect on vocabulary growth.

Two studies included preschoolers’ language usage as a key factor. The first investigation found that parental estimates of children’s usage of their two languages predicted DLL children’s abilities to produce speech sounds in their two languages ( Goldstein, Bunta, Lange, Rodriguez, & Burrows, 2010 ). The second study examined the role of children’s usage of their two languages as well as the role of language exposure and specific demographic factors ( Bohman, Bedore, Peña, Medez-Perez, & Gillam, 2010 ). Specifically, Bohman et al. (2010) investigated the role these factors played in Spanish-English preschool and kindergarten children’s semantic and syntactic abilities. The results showed that different factors predicted DLL children’s outcomes in their two languages. Maternal education played a role in children’s English semantic abilities and family income played a role in English semantics and Spanish semantics and syntax. The most significant finding was that children’s language usage along with language exposure played a larger role in both children’s English and Spanish language development than language exposure alone. Traditionally, attention has been placed on children’s language exposure with minimal or no attention paid to their language usage. Bohman and his colleagues suggested that one explanation for this finding is that “using a language (i.e., output) forces the learner to process the language in a way that only hearing it (i.e., input) does not” (p. 339).

Other studies looked at children’s characteristics as well as the role of acculturation and children’s attachment relationships. Specifically, a negative relation was found between shyness-anxiousness and children’s English receptive vocabulary development over a 6-month period; however, this relation was mediated by the children’s communicative competence, as defined as the children’s ability to understand and use language and to participate in conversations ( Strand, Pula, Parks, & Cerna, 2011 ). A different study found that children from families who were highly acculturated had higher English language abilities than children from families who were bicultural or had low acculturation ( Oades-Sese & Li, 2011 ). This study also found that children’s attachment to their mothers and warm and affectionate relationships with their teachers were related to higher English language abilities. In fact, children’s relationships with their teachers contributed to higher language abilities above and beyond parental attachment.

Additionally, four studies addressed the role of the home literacy environment on DLL children’s language development. All found relationships between parental literacy practices in their children’s L2 (as measured by either frequency of book reading or library usage) and children’s language outcomes in their second language ( González & Uhing, 2008 ; Kalia, 2007 ; Patterson, 2002 ). However, the study by Farver, Xu, Eppe, and Lonigan (2006) found that the relationship between parental literacy activities and language outcomes was mediated by children’s interest in reading.

In addition to investigating the role of the home literacy environment, one study examined the role of television viewing on DLL infants/toddlers’ vocabulary development. This study concluded that television viewing had no effect on DLLs’ vocabularies in either language ( Patterson, 2002 ).

In general, the findings from studies discussed in this section suggest that DLLs’ abilities in their two languages are impacted by the amount of language exposure they received during the infant/toddler and preschool years. As preschool Spanish-English DLL children enter the school system, preliminary evidence suggests usage of Spanish at home is needed to support children’s development of this language. Also, there is preliminary evidence that children’s language usage plays an important role in their development of their two languages. Studies of the home literacy environment suggest that children’s literacy experiences in their second language are related to children’s language abilities in their second language.

Children’s Literacy Development

The study of young DLL children’s literacy development has received less attention than children’s language development. The studies identified through the review focused on children’s phonological awareness, emergent literacy, emergent writing, the relationship between oral language and literacy outcomes and the home literacy environment. Most of these studies were conducted on U.S. populations.

Phonological awareness

Studies which involved both preschool and kindergarten DLL children found that phonological awareness skills are related across languages and appear to transfer between languages ( Anthony et al., 2009 ; Dickinson, McCabe, Clark-Chiarelli, & Wolf, 2004 ; Kim, 2009 ; López & Greenfield, 2004 ; Tabors, Páez, & López, 2003 ). This suggests that there is an underlying ability to manipulate and segment the sounds of language that can transfer from one language to the other. These findings are consistent with those of studies conducted on older DLL children ( Durgunoğlu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993 ).

Less clear, however, are the factors that might facilitate or constrain DLLs’ ability to develop phonological awareness skills, and the aspects of phonological awareness that are more susceptible to being transferred. One factor of particular relevance for DLL children’s phonological development is vocabulary development. As children acquire more vocabulary, they become increasingly better at distinguishing phonemes, and therefore, at phonological awareness (Walley, Metsala, & Garlock, 2003). Two studies examined the role of vocabulary in English and Spanish in the development of bilingual phonological awareness. In one of the studies, the results showed that vocabulary development in Spanish was a significant predictor of phonological awareness abilities in both English and Spanish ( Anthony et al., 2009 ), whereas in the other, only English receptive vocabulary growth during preschool was predictive of English phonological awareness abilities in kindergarten ( Scarpino, Lawrence, Davison, & Hammer, 2011 ). Discrepancies in these findings might be explained by differences in the vocabulary measures used. Anthony et al. (2009) used an expressive vocabulary test whereas Scarpino et al. (2011) used a receptive vocabulary measure. As suggested by Scarpino et al., it might be possible that expressive vocabulary tests are better measures of children’s vocabulary development so that cross-linguistic relationships can be found between vocabulary and phonological awareness.

Another factor is the influence of language exposure and proficiency. In a study of Korean-English DLL kindergarteners, Kim (2009) found differences in children’s phonological awareness depending on their experience with English. Children with higher proficiency in Korean than in English had phonological awareness levels consistent with those of Korean monolingual children. For example, children in this group found the onset-rime unit predominant in Korean, more accessible than the onset-rime unit more prevalent in English. In contrast, those children who had more extensive exposure to English did not show a difference in their performances on the onset-rime and rime awareness tasks, suggesting that their phonological representations were influenced by both languages’ phonological structures.

Other studies investigated whether young DLL children have an advantage over monolingual children in their phonological awareness. The evidence from these studies is mixed. One study compared the phonological awareness of 5- and 6-year-old Mandarin-English DLL children and of monolinguals who either spoke Mandarin or English ( Marinova-Todd, Zaho, & Bernhardt, 2010 ). The results identified a bilingual advantage in phonological awareness skills. Specifically, a significant advantage in phonological awareness skills for the DLLs was found not only in their stronger language (Mandarin) but also in their weaker language (English). However, Loizou and Stewart (2003) found that English-Greek DLLs outperformed English monolinguals on phonological awareness tasks, but Greek-English DLLs did not. The authors interpreted their findings as showing that DLLs are at an advantage over monolinguals when the second language was phonologically simpler than their first language.

Studies by Loizou and Stuart (2003) and Anthony et al. (2011) demonstrated that the relationship of phonological awareness between languages might vary depending on the phonological structure of the languages involved. Two studies conducted on populations living outside the U.S. suggest that there are both universal and language-specific constraints on the development of phonemic awareness ( Laurent & Martinot, 2009 ; Saiegh-Haddad, Kogan, & Walters, 2010 ). For example, word length (i.e. long multisyllabic words are more difficult for children to analyze than shorter words) is a universal constraint, whereas phoneme position (i.e. initial versus final) seems to be dependent on the phonological structure of the language ( Saiegh-Haddad et al., 2010 ).

Thus, the work conducted on DLLs’ phonological awareness shows that children’s abilities may transfer between their two languages and that there are factors such as vocabulary, language proficiency and exposure, and phonological characteristics of the languages, that might influence this transfer. Evidence is mixed as to whether preschool DLLs are at an advantage over monolinguals in phonological awareness, given their exposure to two languages. Clearly, more work is needed in this area.

Emergent literacy

Little information about DLL children’s emergent literacy development was found in the studies reviewed. Two studies showed that Spanish-English DLL preschoolers performed below their monolingual peers in letter-word identification and overall emergent literacy during the preschool years in English and Spanish ( Hammer, Miccio, & Wagstaff, 2003 ; Páez, Tabors, & Lopez, 2007 ). Another study found a small positive relationship between children’s abilities to identify letters and words in Spanish and English (Tabors et al., 2004).

Furthermore, the studies indicated that DLLs perform better on standardized tests of emergent literacy than oral language ( Hammer, Lawrence, & Miccio, 2007 ; Mancilla-Martínez & Lesaux, 2011b ; Páez et al., 2007 ; Rinaldi & Páez, 2008 ). A follow-up investigation of children who spent two years in Head Start where English was the language of instruction showed that DLL children’s English letter word identification and emergent literacy abilities in English were at the monolingual norm in kindergarten. Further, children’s Spanish letter-identification abilities were not as well advanced; however, children did not receive literacy instruction in Spanish ( Hammer et al., 2007 ). These results are similar to a study of Samoan/Tongan-English DLLs living in New Zealand. The findings showed that children’s early literacy abilities in their L1 declined when they transitioned into an English-only school ( Tagoilelagi-LeotaGlynn, McNaughton, MacDonald, & Farry, 2005 ).

In general, it appears that DLL children perform below monolinguals in emergent literacy during the preschool years, but may catch up to monolinguals in their L2 (English) in early grades when the focus is on decoding. DLL children’s early reading abilities in their L1 seem to decline when they are schooled in their L2.

Emergent writing

Six studies examined emergent writing development of DLL children. Studies suggest that DLL children follow a similar developmental progression to monolingual children and recognize that their two writing systems are separate ( Buckwalter & Gloria Lo, 2002 ) and that children learn the form and function of written language over time ( Reyes, 2006 ; Yaden & Tardibuono, 2004 ). Another study showed a small positive relationship between Spanish-English DLL children’s writing abilities as measured by a dictation task (Tabors et al., 2004). Some evidence suggests that DLLs who speak a variety of home languages can perform higher than monolinguals in tasks that require an understanding of the written system as a form of symbolic representation ( Bialystok, Shenfield, & Codd, 2000 ).

One study examined the differences in phonemic representation and early spelling errors in Mandarin-English DLLs who spoke either mostly Mandarin or mostly English ( Yeong & Liow, 2010 ). Using a cloze task, the researchers found that while spelling for common phonemes in English and Mandarin was equivalent for both groups of children, those children with Mandarin dominance showed poorer spelling of English-only phonemes. These results mirror those found in the phonological awareness studies described earlier, in which language proficiency in each language and differences in the phonological structure of the language have an influence in the development of phonemic awareness in DLLs.

Oral language abilities, early literacy, and early reading outcomes

Studies discussed in this section investigated the association between oral language and reading outcomes, the role of the home language in emergent literacy development, and the relation of emergent literacy abilities to later reading outcomes.

Of particular importance for DLL children is the relationship between oral language and emergent literacy skills. In older DLLs, oral language proficiency plays a critical role in reading comprehension ( Geva, 2006 ). This relationship was found for young DLLs as well. Three studies found that oral language abilities in their L2 predicted DLL children’s emergent literacy skills, their ability to identify letters and words in English in kindergarten and in first grade ( Hammer et al., 2007 ; Rinaldi & Páez, 2008 ; Tagoilelagi-LeotaGlynn, et al., 2005 .), and reading comprehension by age 11 ( Mancilla-Martínez & Lesaux, 2011b ). Additionally, Hammer et al. (2007) and Davison, Hammer, and Lawrence (2011) found that growth of children’s Spanish and English oral language abilities during their two years in Head Start predicted their English emergent literacy and English and Spanish letter-word identification abilities in kindergarten and reading outcomes in first grade. However, Tagoilelagi-LeotaGlynn, et al. (2005) did not find cross-linguistic relationships. The difference in the design of the two studies may explain these conflicting findings. Tagoilelagi-LeotaGlynn, et al. (2005) examined children’s language abilities at one point in time whereas Hammer et al. (2007) documented language growth over children’s two years in preschool. Moreover, in their longitudinal study, Mancilla-Martínez and Lesaux (2011b) found that children’s growth in English word reading and vocabulary abilities (not Spanish) from ages 4.5 to 11 years predicted English comprehension skills at age 11. These results suggest that as children are exposed to English instruction over the years, they demonstrate less cross-linguistic transfer from their L1 to English.

Additionally, Rinaldi and Páez (2008) found that preschool English vocabulary and recalling skills and Spanish vocabulary were more predictive of English word reading skills in first grade than phonological awareness. These studies suggest that DLL children seem to use their knowledge in one language to support their literacy development of the other language, as has been found with older children ( Dressler & Kamil, 2006 ). However, these studies were conducted with DLLs who were exposed to English and Spanish, which share the same alphabetic system. Less is known about the oral language and literacy relationships in children who are learning two languages with different written systems.

In addition, one study investigated the role of home language usage on children’s emergent literacy development ( Hammer et al., 2009 ). Specifically, this investigation examined mothers’ reported language usage over time and children’s English emergent literacy development during children’s two years in Head Start and kindergarten. Continued maternal usage of Spanish or increased usage of English over the three-year period had no impact on children’s developing emergent literacy abilities in English. It was suggested that children’s exposure to English in the classroom and community negated the influence of home language usage on emergent literacy development.

One international study investigated the association between emergent literacy and later reading outcomes. The investigation, which involved Indian-English DLLs living in India, found that English recognition in kindergarten was related to later reading outcomes in English. This is similar to findings on monolinguals; however, the DLL children in this study struggled with reading comprehension in early elementary school ( Sen & Blatchford, 2001 ).

In summary, it appears that children’s oral abilities in their L1 and L2 are related to later outcomes in each language. However, evidence is mixed as to whether cross-linguistic influences exist or if they only appear in the early childhood years. Preliminary findings showed the usage of L1 or L2 in the home does not impact emergent literacy development in the children’s L2, and that L2 emergent literacy abilities in preschool are related to decoding in L2 in early elementary school.

Home language literacy environments

Three studies investigated the home literacy environments of DLL preschoolers and the relationship to literacy outcomes. The results of these studies are somewhat mixed. A study by Hammer, Miccio, and Wagstaff (2003) found no relationship between literacy events in the home and Spanish-English DLL children’s emergent literacy abilities in Head Start. However, studies by Kalia (2007) and Kalia and Reese (2009) identified a relationship between Indian parents’ book reading practices and teaching about print in English and children’s English literacy abilities. The difference between these findings may be accounted for by the parents’ educational status. The mothers who participated in Hammer et al.’s (2003) study averaged less than 12 years of education whereas the parents in Kalia’s studies had a college education on average. Also, the context in which the children were raised may play a role. The families’ participating in Hammer et al.’s study lived in the United States and the families in Kalia’s studies lived in India. It is interesting to note that families in the studies did not read frequently. Mothers of simultaneous learners in Hammer et al.’s (2003) investigation read to their children 2–4 times per week and mothers of sequential learners read books to their children once a week on average. The mothers in Kalia’s study reported reading “sometimes.” It may be the maternal educational advantages of the children living in India explain the difference between the two studies.

This review critically analyzed the research literature on the language and literacy development of young DLLs. Such a review is greatly needed given the increasing numbers of DLLs entering the educational system in the U.S. and the importance of children’s early language and literacy development for later academic success. In the following sections, the key findings from the research on children’s developmental trajectories are identified along with methodological concerns, gaps in the research base, and future research needs.

Key Findings on DLLs’ Language and Literacy Development

Overall, this review demonstrated that great variability exists within the DLL population. Children vary with regard to their country of origin, the languages spoken, their experiences (both exposure and usage) with their two languages and their SES, among other characteristics. In addition, it was found that the majority of studies conducted on children living in the U.S. focused on Spanish speakers, who constitute the largest group of DLLs in the country by far.

The review also identified the range of research questions that were asked about children’s language and literacy development during early childhood. Despite the range of questions, there were few studies conducted on any given question, making it difficult to come to a true consensus in most areas. Therefore, many of the conclusions provided in the following discussion should be considered preliminary.

First, there is solid evidence that DLLs have two separate language systems very early in life. This means that DLLs are not confused by being exposed two languages. However, influences between their two languages can be observed, although these influences may disappear over time. This conclusion is supported by studies that investigated phonology, vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics, and emergent writing.

Second, there is some evidence that the rate and development of DLLs’ ability levels in each of their languages vary depending on when they were first exposed to their two languages. This evidence comes primarily from studies of children’s vocabulary development.

Third, DLLs’ development may differ from that of monolinguals in some areas of language and literacy, which makes sense given that DLLs are learning two languages and monolinguals are only learning one. For example, research on infants/toddlers’ phonological (or speech sound) development indicates that DLLs phonological abilities are behind monolinguals early in life, but that they catch up to monolinguals during the preschool years. With regard to vocabulary development, DLLs’ vocabularies in their individual languages are smaller than monolinguals; however, DLLs’ conceptual vocabularies are equal to that of monolinguals during the first two to three years of life. When DLLs enter preschool, their vocabularies in their individual languages are below monolingual test norms. Evidence also suggests that DLLs’ grammatical development follows a similar pattern as that of monolinguals, although it may take DLLs longer to achieve mastery of various morpho-syntactic constructions. With regard to children’s literacy development, there is some evidence to suggest that DLLs enter preschool with literacy skills that are lower than those of monolinguals; however, these studies focused on children from low-income homes. It appears that DLLs may catch up to monolinguals in letter-word knowledge in their second language. In addition, DLLs may have an advantage in their phonological awareness abilities over monolinguals, given DLLs’ experiences with two languages. This advantage, however, may differ based on the languages spoken.

Fourth, little is known about factors that influence DLLs’ language and literacy development. It appears that children’s exposure to their two languages affects DLLs’ language development, with more exposure to a particular language promoting children’s abilities in that language. Also, preliminary evidence suggests that children’s usage of their two languages, and not just exposure, should be considered. However, much more research is needed on factors that affect development to make a strong conclusion.

Methodological Concerns Encountered

Numerous methodological issues were identified through the critical review. The first significant concern involved the size of the samples. Often, sample sizes were small, with many studies of infants and toddlers involving a single child. Second, there were limitations with respect to study design. Investigations often studied children at a particular point in time or were cross sectional.

Third, studies varied with regard to the definition of dual language learners used. This is a great concern. Often, a general definition was used or the criteria used to classify children as DLL were not well specified, if at all. Related to this, data on the characteristics of the samples were typically not provided or were limited (e.g., exposure and usage of two languages, demographic characteristics and SES). This makes it particularly difficult to draw conclusions, to generalize findings, or to make comparisons across studies.

Finally, most studies were impacted by the limited availability of valid and reliable assessment instruments in nearly all areas of language and literacy development. In general, the studies utilized assessment instruments of children’s English language and literacy abilities that were standardized on monolingual samples. Instruments used to assess children’s Spanish abilities often were developed on monolingual Spanish speakers from Latin America. Additionally, few standardized instruments are available to document the abilities of DLL children who speak languages other than Spanish and English. Given the lack of availability of instruments designed for DLL children, researchers had no choice but to use the limited tools available.

Gaps in the Research and Future Needs

Numerous gaps in the research exist. This section identifies the most significant gaps and research needs. The list should not be viewed as exhaustive. Instead, it should be considered a list of key areas were research is greatly needed.

First, there is a critical need for assessment instruments that are standardized on DLL populations. This includes instruments that can be used to assess children’s abilities in English as well as their home language. Of course, this is not an easy task given the variation in the ages at which DLLs are exposed to their second language and the amount of exposure DLLs have to their two languages.

Second, there is a paucity of studies on DLLs’ language and literacy development, particularly in comparison to the number of studies conducted on monolinguals. Of the research that has been conducted on DLL populations in the United States, most focused on Spanish-English DLLs, with few examining the development of children learning Asian languages, and even fewer focusing on other language groups. Although additional studies are needed that investigate the language development of Spanish-speaking children, there is a critical need for studies of DLL children from other language groups. Such investigations will assist the field in understanding how language development occurs when children are acquiring various home languages. Additionally, these investigations will help identify aspects of DLLs’ development that are common to and that differ across languages and populations ( Hammer et al., 2011 ).

Related to the previous point, studies are greatly needed that examine DLLs’ emergent reading and writing development, as well as the relationships among oral and written language development. In particularly, studies need to examine and compare the development of children learning alphabetic and non-alphabetic languages.

Third, there is a great need for longitudinal investigations that involve more than two data points. Specifically, studies are needed that examine children’s development of their two languages and that study the relationship between children’s languages over time. When conducting such studies, it will be imperative for researchers to carefully document the characteristics of the children and families, the languages spoken, children’s experiences with their two languages (e.g., timing of exposure, amount of exposure and use, etc.) and changes in children’s experiences with their two languages over time ( Hammer, Lawrence, Rodriguez, Davison, & Miccio, 2011 ). Additionally, there is a gap in coverage between research on infant/toddler bilingualism (i.e., studies that focus on children younger than two years) and research on preschool-aged DLL children and then follow the children through the elementary years. As a result, limited information exists about the course of early DLL development and how it affects children’s school readiness and early school performance.

Fourth, additional research is needed on factors that influence language and literacy development among young DLL children, including characteristics of the children, their families and children’s language experiences at home, childcare, and preschool. For example, studies are greatly needed that examine the differential effects of bilingualism and SES. The majority of studies that were conducted in the U.S. targeted children from families of low-SES or do not provide information about the children’s SES. However, studies that involve children from various SES groups will assist the field in disentangling the effects of SES and bilingualism. Additionally, more information is needed on the effects of children’s experiences (i.e., exposure and usage) on the development of their two languages, including acquiring a better understanding of the overall amount of experience with each language (as opposed to relative amount), the quality of input, and the effect on children’s outcomes.

Finally, studies that investigate children’s development in various language contexts and communities are needed. For example, it would be beneficial to compare the development of children who attend English-only programs versus programs that promote native language as well as English development. Similarly, research is required that investigates children who live in communities with varying concentrations of individuals who speak the children’s L1. Related to this, the cultural context in which language and literacy development occurs needs to be considered, as language, communication and culture are inextricably linked.

Studies in each of these areas will greatly improve researchers’, educators,’ and policy makers’ understanding of DLLs’ language and literacy development. The findings from these studies, combined with the existing knowledge base, can then be used to inform interventions that are designed to promote children’s academic outcomes and ultimately, children’s overall well being.

• We conducted a critical literature review on language and literacy development of young dual language learners (DLLs).
• A total of 182 articles were identified and reviewed through the process.
• We identified numerous methodological concerns, including lack of a description of the language experiences of young DLLs.
• The studies addressed a wide range of research questions, making it difficult to make solid conclusions in most areas.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgements.

This manuscript was supported by grants from the Administration for Children and Families, Center for Early Care and Education Research: Dual Language Learners (90YR0041) and the National Institutes of Health-Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01-HD051542, R01-HD068421, U01-HD060296).

Also, the authors would like to thank the following individuals for their valuable assistance with the review: Tracy Chin, Bonnie Jang, Karen Jury, Nadine Graham, Nora Whittaker Jones, Lindsay Powers, and Alexander Tucci.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributor Information

Carol Scheffner Hammer, Temple University, Davis.

Erika Hoff, Florida Atlantic University, Davis.

Yuuko Uchikoshi, University of California, Davis.

Cristina Gillanders, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Dina Castro, Arizona State University.

Lia E. Sandilos, Temple University.

References 1

1 References marked with an asterisk were included in the review.

Advertisement

EFL Learners’ Critical Literacy Practices: A Case Study of Four College Students in Taiwan

• Published: 13 September 2012
• Volume 22 , pages 221–229, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• Mei-yun Ko 1 &
• Tzu-Fu Wang 2  

975 Accesses

19 Citations

Explore all metrics

This qualitative case study explored four English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners’ critical literacy practices by analyzing their reflective essays on a gender-related article and their perceptions of critical literacy. Four participants with varying English proficiency were purposefully selected from a critical literacy-oriented reading class at a university in Taiwan. Drawing on the concept of the dialectical relationship between discourse and society from critical discourse analysis, the analyses of students’ reflective essays focused on how discourses presented in students’ essays are shaped by and shaping their social contexts. Findings show that all four students demonstrated a certain degree of critical literacy despite their different English proficiency. However, they adopted different strategies to read critically. The two higher-level students tended to focus on careful analysis of the text itself, without much reference to social or cultural dimensions of gender differences when responding to this gender-related news story. In contrast, the other two lower-level students focused on the social and cultural contexts of the text, instead of carefully analyzing the text. In conclusion, this study suggests that EFL learners, no matter at what English proficiency level, should be provided with opportunities to enhance their critical literacy when developing their discrete language skills.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Orientations to Critical Literacy for English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EAL/D) learners: A case study of four teachers of senior English

Jennifer Alford & Anita Jetnikoff

Negotiating Gender and Sexual Diversity in English Language Teaching: ‘Critical’-Oriented Educational Materials Designed by Pre-Service English Teachers at a South African University

Practicing Critical Literacy in Extracurricular Settings: Discourses of Power and Teaching

This large study includes three parts: first, the teacher’s critical literacy teaching; second, the whole-class critical literacy development; and third, four focused students’ critical literacy practices. This paper reports the third part.

This reading article is a news story from the New York Times, around 1,400 words ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/science/24women.html ). The story reports a debate over the science gap between boys and girls, i.e., why boys outperform girls in science and mathematics. This article was selected for analysis because the gender differences issue had caused heated critical discussions in class.

In this paper, we define a discourse as “a particular way of talking about and understanding the world or an aspect of the world” (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002 , p. 1); in other words, a discourse is a theory or a cultural model people hold to make sense of their everyday world (Gee 1999 ).

An essentialist discourse holds the view that knowledge or Reality is based on some pre-given changeless essences.

A constructivist discourse holds the view that our knowledge and representations of the world are “products of our ways of categorizing the world” (Burr 1995 , cited in Jorgensen and Phillips 2002 , p. 5); that is, our knowledge of the social reality is socio-culturally and historically constructed and subject to change.

A diversity discourse holds the view that everything, though different, is equally good. It, therefore, advocates the concept of diversity and celebrates individual differences, cultural differences, and gender differences. However, a diversity discourse may be an essentialist discourse exoticizing and essentializing the Other (Kubota 2004 ).

Behrman, H. (2006). Teaching about power, language, and text: A review of classroom practices that support critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49 , 490–498.

Article   Google Scholar  

Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism . London: Sage.

Cervetti, G., Pardales, M. J., & Damico, J. S. (2001). A tale of differences: Comparing the traditions, perspectives, and educational goals of critical reading and critical literacy. Reading Online , 4 (9). Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/cervetti .

Fairclough, N. (Ed.). (1992). Critical language awareness . London: Longman.

Google Scholar  

Fries, C. (1963). Linguistics and reading . New York: Holt, Reinhart.

Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses . London: Falmer.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method . London: Routledge.

Ghahremani-Ghajar, S., & Mirhosseini, S. (2005). English class or speaking about everything class? Dialogue journal writing as a critical EFL literacy practice in an Iranian high school. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18 , 286–299.

Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6 , 126–135.

Huang, S. Y. (2011). “Critical literacy helps wipe away the dirt on our glasses”: Towards an understanding of reading as ideological practice. English Teaching Practice and Critique, 10 (1), 140–164.

Janks, H., & Ivanic, R. (1992). CLA and emancipatory discourse. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 305–331). London: Longman.

Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis . London: Sage.

Ko, M. (2013). A case study of an EFL teacher’s critical literacy teaching in a reading class in Taiwan. Language Teaching Research , 17 .

Ko, M., & Wang, T. F. (2009). Introducing critical literacy to EFL teaching: Three Taiwanese college teachers’ conceptualization. Asian EFL Journal, 11 (1), 174–191.

Kramer-Dahl, A. (2001). Importing critical literacy pedagogy: Does it have to fail? Language and Education, 15 (1), 14–32.

Kubota, R. (2004). Critical multiculturalism and second language education. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 30–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kuo, J. (2006). Collaborative action research on critical literacy: Investigating an English coversation class in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University.

Kuo, J. M. (2009). Critical literacy and a picture-book-based dialogue activity in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10 , 483–494.

Lankshear, C., & McLaren, P. (1993). Critical literacy and the postmodern turn. In C. Lankshear & P. McLaren (Eds.), Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern (pp. 379–420). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Lo, Y. F. (2010). Assessing critical reflection in Asian EFL students’ portfolios: An exploratory study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19 , 347–355.

Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). Further notes on the four resources model. Reading Online. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from http://www.readingonline.org/research/lukefreebody.html .

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33 , 329–348.

Pennycook, A. (2004). Critical moments in a TESOL praxicum. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 327–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work . Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Serafini, F. (2003). Informing our practice: Modernist, transactional, and critical perspectives on children’s literature and reading instruction. Reading Online , 6 (6). Retrieved December 10, 2008, from www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/serafini .

Shin, H., & Crookes, G. (2005). Exploring the possibilities for EFL critical pedagogy in Korea: A two-part case study. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 2 (2), 113–130.

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change . London: University of Chicago Press.

Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1985). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education . Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.

Sunderland, J. (2004). Gendered discourses . New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Wallace, C. (2003). Critical reading in language education . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wong, C., Chan, C., & Firkins, A. (2006). School-based critical literacy programme in a Hong Kong secondary school. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, 5 , 129–139.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Formosa University, Huwei, Yunlin, Taiwan, (ROC)

National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Douliou, Yunlin, Taiwan

Tzu-Fu Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mei-yun Ko .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ko, My., Wang, TF. EFL Learners’ Critical Literacy Practices: A Case Study of Four College Students in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 22 , 221–229 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0013-5

Download citation

Published : 13 September 2012

Issue Date : August 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0013-5

Share this article

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

• Critical literacy
• Critical discourse analysis (CDA)
• English as a foreign language (EFL)
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Aspen Institute

©2024 The Aspen Institute. All Rights Reserved

• 0 Comments Add Your Comment

Messaging Guide: Making the Case for Learning & Employment Records with Employers

April 23, 2024  • Haley Glover

Over the last year, UpSkill America has held dozens of conversations and interviews with employers on the topic of skills first approaches and specifically, employers’ awareness, understanding, and challenges with Learning and Employment Records (LERs). While there is still much to learn about the impacts of these tools, and an ever-increasing pace of change in the skills-based movement, we share this guide to support the field’s efforts to better engage employers in the design, development, and deployment of LERs.

A messaging guide can be a powerful tool to ensure your communications are consistent, clear, and targeted. This guide is designed to:

• Empower the stakeholders, including government, academic, and technical leaders who are developing and advocating for LER solutions, to communicate clearly and consistently about their tools and the value of these innovations.
• Enable more effective engagement of employers in LER pilots and expansion projects, particularly relating to skills-based hiring and talent management.
• Support employer involvement in discussions about LERs, the design and development of these tools, and integration with existing policies, practices, and processes.

About UpSkill America

UpSkill America, an initiative of the Aspen Institute  Economic Opportunities Program , supports employers and workforce organizations to expand and improve high-quality educational and career advancement opportunities for America’s front-line workers. We seek to create a movement of employers, civic organizations, workforce intermediaries, and policymakers working collaboratively to implement education, training, and development strategies that result in better jobs and opportunities for front-line workers, more competitive businesses, and stronger communities. Follow us on  LinkedIn  and learn more at  upskillamerica.org .

Related Posts

April 16, 2024 The Aspen Partnership for an Inclusive Economy

April 8, 2024 Douglas Kruse

The best of the Institute, right in your inbox.

Sign up for our email newsletter

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

This article is part of the research topic.

Destination Advertising in the Digital Age

A Study on the Construction of Destination Image for China's County-Level Integrated Media Centers: A Case Study of Four Counties in Fuzhou Provisionally Accepted

• 1 Communication University of China, China
• 2 South China University of Technology, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Today, as social media plays an increasingly important role in disseminating destination images, short videos have emerged as the primary channel through which tourists obtain information about their desired destinations. In comparison to traditional methods of using text and pictures, the new media accounts of local government agencies offer a means to convey more comprehensive local news and shape destination images that are more accurate and diverse, leveraging the potential of the short video platform. This study utilizes a combination of manual analysis (subject terms classification) and computer-assisted techniques (key-frame extraction and text mining) to examine the short videos posted on the TikTok (Douyin) platform by the integrated media centers of Minhou County, Yongtai County, Minqing County, and Lianjiang County in Fuzhou City, China. The objective is to explore the shared characteristics and variations in the dimensional aspects of destination images. The findings reveal that the short video contents released by the governmental new media accounts in these four locations primarily highlight three dimensions: stakeholders, urban infrastructures, and regional landscapes. These dimensions are evident in both descriptive texts and visual symbols.However, in terms of the presented destination image, a notable degree of homogeneity is observed, and there is a lack of emphasis on uncovering and presenting the cultural dimensions, thus failing to fully reflect the distinctive local characteristics.Consequently, it is essential for local integrated media centers to thoroughly explore the cultural uniqueness of their respective regions and enhance the development of thematic dimensions in creating short video content. This approach will effectively strengthen tourists' association with and perception of destination images.

Keywords: Short videos, Destination images, TikTok Platform, Governmental New Media, visual symbol

Received: 29 Nov 2023; Accepted: 23 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Lin, Wen and Ma. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Mx. Hanzheng Lin, Communication University of China, Beijing, China

People also looked at

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

China’s Cities Are Sinking Below Sea Level, Study Finds

Development and groundwater pumping are causing land subsidence and heightening the risks of sea level rise.

By Delger Erdenesanaa

As China’s cities grow, they are also sinking.

An estimated 16 percent of the country’s major cities are losing more than 10 millimeters of elevation per year and nearly half are losing more than 3 millimeters per year, according to a new study published in the journal Science .

These amounts may seem small, but they accumulate quickly. In 100 years, a quarter of China’s urban coastal land could sit below sea level because of a combination of subsidence and sea level rise, according to the study.

“It’s a national problem,” said Robert Nicholls, a climate scientist and civil engineer at the University of East Anglia who reviewed the paper. Dr. Nicholls added that, to his knowledge, this study is the first to measure subsidence across many urban areas at once using state-of-the-art radar data from satellites.

Subsidence in these cities is caused in part by the sheer weight of buildings and infrastructure, the study found. Pumping water from aquifers underneath the cities also plays a role, as do oil drilling and coal mining, all activities that leave empty space underground where soil and rocks can compact or collapse.

Beijing is among the places in the country sinking the fastest. So is nearby Tianjin, where last year thousands of residents were evacuated from high-rise apartment buildings after the streets outside suddenly split apart. Within these cities, sinking is uneven. When pieces of land next to each other subside at different rates, whatever is built on top of that land is at risk of damage.

Other countries, including the United States , have similar problems.

“Land subsidence is an overlooked problem that almost exists everywhere,” said Manoochehr Shirzaei, a geophysicist at Virginia Tech who has studied subsidence in American coastal cities using similar methods. Dr. Shirzaei also reviewed the new study on Chinese cities by Zurui Ao of South China Normal University, Xiaomei Hu and Shengli Tao of Peking University, and their colleagues.

“I believe the majority of the adaptation strategies that we have, and resiliency plans to combat climate change, are inaccurate, just because they did not include land subsidence,” he said. “It hasn’t been studied the way, for example, sea level rise has been studied.”

The new study was based on satellite radar measurements of how much the ground surface in 82 major cities, accounting for three-quarters of China’s urban population, moved up or down between 2015 and 2022. The researchers compared these measurements to data on potential contributing factors, like the weight of buildings in these cities and changing groundwater levels underneath them.

The researchers also combined their subsidence measurements with projections of sea level rise to figure out which cities might end up below sea level. One caveat with these findings is that they assumed a constant rate of subsidence over the next 100 years, but these rates can change along with human activity.

About 6 percent of land in China’s coastal cities currently has a relative elevation below sea level. If the global average sea level rises by 0.87 meters, or a little less than 3 feet, by 2120 (the higher of two commonly used scenarios considered by the researchers) that proportion could rise to 26 percent, this study found.

Being below sea level doesn’t mean a city is automatically doomed. Much of the Netherlands is below sea level and sinking, but the country has been extensively engineered to prevent flooding in places and to accommodate it in others .

The key to minimizing damage is limiting groundwater extraction, the researchers wrote. Shanghai is already taking this approach and is sinking more slowly than other Chinese cities. In Japan, groundwater management over the years has proved successful at stabilizing subsidence in Tokyo and Osaka.

Some places are even combating subsidence by injecting water into depleted aquifers in a process called managed recharge.

It’s difficult to stop subsidence entirely, Dr. Nicholls said. “You’ve got to live with what’s left.” Mainly, he said, this means adapting to sea level rise in coastal areas; not just the sea level rise caused by climate change, but also the effects of sinking land.

Delger Erdenesanaa is a reporter covering climate and the environment and a member of the 2023-24 Times Fellowship class, a program for journalists early in their careers. More about Delger Erdenesanaa

Learn More About Climate Change

Have questions about climate change? Our F.A.Q. will tackle your climate questions, big and small .

Paris is becoming a city of bikes. Across China, people are snapping up $5,000 electric cars. Here’s a look at a few bright spots  for emission reductions.

In theory, online shopping can be more efficient  than driving to the store. But you may still want to think before you add to cart.

“Buying Time,” a new series from The New York Times, looks at the risky ways  humans are starting to manipulate nature  to fight climate change.

Big brands like Procter & Gamble and Nestlé say a new generation of recycling plants will help them meet environmental goals, but the technology is struggling to deliver .

Did you know the ♻ symbol doesn’t mean something is actually recyclable ? Read on about how we got here, and what can be done.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.