Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children: The Miami Experience Rebecca E. Eilers D. Kimbrough Oller Alan Cobo-Lewis Virginia Mueller Gathercole Barbara Zurer Pearson Preface Multilingualism is a global phenomenon. English monolingualism in the US is an anomaly. English has become increasingly a “lingua franca”. Yet Americans fear “balkanization” from exposure to many native tongues. The Question! The debate in the US is often framed in terms of educational outcome. The claim is that bilingualism contributes to academic/intellectual deficits. The question is: 1. Does bilingualism, in and of itself, cause intellectual or educational harm and 2. How do we appropriately isolate and assess the effects of bilingualism? The Control of Appropriate Variables Socio-economic status Assessment in home language as well as English Educational opportunities in each language Language entry skills in each language Timing and duration of exposure to each language Perceived status of each language Why Miami? Single unified school district Multiple strategies across schools for language learning Large number of established, highlyintegrated, Hi SES, Spanish-speaking and bilingual families Significant commerce in both English and Spanish The Hypotheses Additive (Lambert) Subtractive (Lambert) Interdependence (Cummins) The Grand Interaction Terminology LEP—Limited English Proficiency SES—Socio-economic status LSH—Language spoken in the home • OSH—Only Spanish at home • ESH—English and Spanish at home • English IMS—Instructional method at school • 2-way– Spanish and English Instruction • EI—English immersion The Core Design Replicated at Kindergarten, 2nd and 5th Grades Monolinguals Bilinguals Two-Way English Immersion ESH Hi Lo Hi Lo OSH Hi Lo SES ESH Hi Lo OSH Hi Lo Probe Studies Narrative competence Complex syntax Phonological awareness Utilizing subsets of the study population—Total N=952 Goals of Deep Description in Miami Schools 1. Verify that language usage of teachers complies with educational design 2. Document language usage of children in classrooms and noninstructional environments Methods of Deep Description Bilingual observers In the classrooms and hallways Between 25 and 50 observation per design category Census data for school districts and schools School Matching % Hispanic %LEP 2-Way Schools 92.5 38.5 3.5 SAT Math score 67 EI 93.7 36.7 3.6 68 Mono. 40 12.7 3.4 65 FTE/ child Immigration Demographics of Parents Mother’s and father’s educational attainment Occupation Languages spoken at home Number of bedrooms in home Home ownership Country of origin Age at immigration Summary of Classroom Language Data Teachers to students: Teachers overwhelmingly complied with classroom design, i.e., Spanish was spoken in 2-way schools during instruction in Spanish; English was spoken in IE classrooms and the English portion of 2-way education to both classes and individual children. Summary of Classroom Language Data Students spoke to teachers in the appropriate language in the overwhelming majority of cases. Students addressed students in the appropriate classroom language except in: a. 2-way Spanish classes b. 2-way English and EI kindergarten Fathers years of schooling SES Hi Hi LSH OSH ESH OSH ESH OSH ESH OSH ESH Eng. Lo Eng. 12.38 English Immersion Bilinguals Lo 2-way Bilinguals Hi Lo Monolinguals Father (x) SD 14.11 2.84 14.51 2.68 10.46 3.68 12.01 1.51 15.52 2.78 14.49 2.59 11.14 3.51 12.06 2.21 15.61 2.81 2.10 Age Children Began English Acquisition Educational Method English SES LSH mean SD Hi OSH 3.75 1.23 ESH 1.23 1.28 OSH 3.90 1.55 ESH 1.34 1.23 OSH 3.33 1.44 ESH 1.17 1.34 OSH 4.39 1.25 ESH 1.24 1.26 Hi Eng. 0.08 0.27 Monolinguals Lo Eng. o.48 0.72 English Immersion Bilinguals Lo Hi 2-way Bilinguals Lo Mother’s Language Proficiency Educational Method SES LSH English mean SD Hi OSH 2.65 0.55 2.87 0.34 ESH 2.91 0.32 2.72 0.50 Lo OSH 1.43 0.68 2.79 0.41 Hi ESH OSH 2.80 2.35 0.46 0.73 2.70 2.95 0.54 0.22 ESH 2.79 0.49 2.81 0.40 Lo OSH 1.40 0.65 2.78 0.44 Hi ESH 2.70 Eng. 2.99 0.49 0.08 2.67 1.22 0.57 0.49 Monolinguals Lo Eng. 2.97 0.17 1.17 0.44 English Immersion Bilinguals 2-way Bilinguals Spanish mean SD What we have achieved All children born in US Two distinctly different educational models (EI and 2-way) in otherwise matched schools A clean separation between socioeconomic status with both OSH and ESH families represented at each level of SES and in each school type A balanced design with respect to languages spoken at home A matched monolingual group Performance on Standardized English- and Spanish-language Tests for Monolingual and Bilingual Students Alan Cobo-Lewis University of Maine 9 Standardized English- and Spanish-language Tests (Woodcock Johnson, 1989, 1991; Woodcock-Munoz, 1995 Oral Language Picture Vocabulary, Oral Vocabulary, Verbal Analogies + PPVT/TVIP Literacy Word Attack, Letter-Word, Passage Composition, Proofing, Dictation The Group Mean Results in English ic D t of ic ro t er Vo b c O An ab ra a l V lo oc g a P b P V T V P P or Le d A P a s tte tta s a r– c k ge W o C rd om p W S ta n d a rd S co re High-SES children outperform low-SES children, especially in oral language. 110 lo w S E S h ig h S E S 100 90 80 70 Test ic D t of ic ro t er Vo b c O An ab ra a l V lo oc g a P b P V T V P P or Le d A P a s tte tta s a r– c k ge W o C rd om p W S ta n d a rd S co re Monolinguals outperform bilinguals, especially in oral language. 110 M o n lin g u a ls B ilin g u a ls 100 90 80 70 Test 110 100 M o n o lin g u a ls B ilin g u a ls 90 80 W o rd A tta ck 70 110 100 90 S ta n d a rd S c o re 80 L e tte r– W o rd 70 P ictu re V o ca b 110 100 90 80 70 P a ssa g e C o m p V e rb a l A n a lo g ie s P ro o fre a d in g O ra l V o ca b u la ry D icta tio n PPVT 110 100 90 80 70 110 100 90 80 70 K 2nd 5 th K G ra d e 2nd 5 th As they get older, bilinguals start to catch up with monolinguals in the tests where they show the biggest deficits (Picture Vocab and Peabody Picture Vocab Test). M o n o lin g u a ls 1 -W a y B ilin g u a ls 2 -W a y B ilin g u a ls 110 100 90 80 Test O V er b tV ic P A oc ab n ra a l V lo oc g a P b P V T t ic D of ro P o L e rd A P a s tte tta s a r– c k ge W o C rd om p 70 W Bilinguals in Eng Imm schools outperform those in 2-way schools in oral lg Bilinguals in 2-way schools do at least as well as those in Eng Imm schools (and about as well as monolinguals) in elementary reading tasks (Word Attack and Letter–Word) S ta n d a rd S co re As they get older, bilinguals in 2-way education programs tend to catch up with bilinguals in Eng Imm education programs (except for Picture Vocab). Bilinguals who speak English & Spanish at home outperform those who speak only Spanish at home, especially in oral language As they get older, bilinguals who speak only Spanish at home start to catch up with bilinguals who speak English & Spanish at home in the tests where they show the biggest deficits (Picture Vocab and Peabody Picture Vocab Test). Summary of the Group Mean Results in English Outside-of-school influences—SES, “linguality” (monolinguals vs bilinguals), and language spoken at home—have their largest effects in oral lg. Outside-of-school influences other than SES wane as children grow older. Bilinguals in Eng Imm schools outperform those in 2-way schools in oral lg, but those in 2-way schools outperform those in Eng Imm schools in elementary reading tasks. Learning to read in Spanish may help students’ general reading skills regardless of language being tested (more on this later). The Group Mean Results in Spanish Children who speak only Spanish at home outperform those who speak English & Spanish at home, especially in oral lg. Eng & Sp at hom e o n ly S p a t h o m e 100 90 80 70 V P ic t er Vo b c O An ab ra a l V lo oc g a P b P V T t ic D of ro P o L e rd A P a s tte tta s a r– c k ge W o C rd om p 60 W S ta n d a rd S c o re 110 Test ic D t of ic ro t er Vo b c O An ab ra a l V lo oc g a P b P V T V P P or Le d A P a s tte tta s a r– c k ge W o C rd om p W S ta n d a rd S c o re High-SES children outperform low-SES children, but not in oral language. 110 100 lo w S E S h ig h S E S 90 80 70 60 Test Children in 2-way schools outperform those in Eng Imm schools, especially in elementary reading (Word Attack & Letter–Word). 1 -w a y 2 -w a y 100 90 80 70 V P ic t er Vo b c O An ab ra a l V lo oc g a P b P V T t ic D of ro P or Le d A P a s tte tta s a r– c k ge W o C rd om p 60 W S ta n d a rd S c o re 110 Test S ta n d a rd S c o re 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 1 -w a y 2 -w a y W o rd A tta ck P ictu re V o ca b L e tte r– W o rd V e rb a l A n a lo g ie s P a ssa g e C o m p O ra l V o ca b u la ry P ro o fre a d in g PPVT D icta tio n K 2nd 5 th K G ra d e 2nd 5 th Children in Eng Imm and 2-way schools perform very similarly in Kindergarten. Dramatic differences emerge later. Summary of the Group Mean Results in Spanish SES effects were more straightforward in English tests than in Spanish tests, where low-SES bilinguals sometimes outperformed high-SES bilinguals. Language spoken at home affects performance in expected directions, with effects being most salient in oral language. 2-way children outperform Eng Imm children in Spanish, especially in reading. • Recall that this was also true in English tests. • We’ll see this again in the upcoming analysis of individual differences. Individual Differences Individual Differences: Principal Components Analysis of Bilinguals’ English & Spanish Data Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Word Attack .82 .71 –.01 Letter–Word Passage Comp .79 .64 .82 .61 .35 .37 .25 .28 Proofing Dictation Picture Vocab .70 .61 .66 .70 .32 .48 .80 –.05 –.00 .34 .40 .78 Verbal Analogies Oral Vocabulary .69 .74 .61 .78 PPVT .74 .38 .72 Literacy Factor Individual Differences Comparative Factor Analyses of All Subjects’ Data lw lw 0.5 0.8 pr wa pr pc d wa 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 pc d Bilinguals in Spanish 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 pv ov ppvtva pv ov ppvt va lw 0.8 wa 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.5 wa 0.8 0.7 pc pr d 0.4 lw d pc pr 0.6 0.5 va 0.5 Bilinguals in English 0.4 0.3 ov pv ppvt 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 ov va 0.2 pv ppvt lw wa 0.5 0.8 0.7 dpc pr d pc pr 0.6 0.5 Monolinguals in English 0.5 0.4 ov va 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 ppvt pv wa ov va ppvt pv lw Language-specific Factors Individual Differences Comparative Factor Analyses of All Subjects’ Data ov pv ppvt ov pv ppvt va va pr Bilinguals in Spanish 0.4 lw 0.2 0.2 wa pv ppvt 0.5 0.7 ov va 0.4 0.3 d lw wa 0.6 0.6 pc d 0.5 0.5 pr pc 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 pv ppvt ov 0.7 0.6 va 0.5 Bilinguals in English pr 0.4 d lw pc pr lw d 0.3 pc 0.2 0.2 wa 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 ov 0.7 wa ov 0.7 va 0.6 ppvt pv va 0.5 Monolinguals in English pr 0.4 pclw d 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 wa pr lw d wa pc ppvt pv Individual Differences Comparative Factor Analyses of All Subjects’ Data Language-Specific Literacy 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.4 Bilinguals in Spanish 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 Bilinguals in English 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 Bilinguals in English 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.6 Monolinguals in English 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.6 Monolinguals in English 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.6 Bilinguals in Spanish 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 Factor Scores to Summarize Major Group Effects Literacy Eng Oral Sp Oral Factor Score 0.5 0.0 -0.5 Low High Socioeconomic Status Only Sp Eng & Sp Language Spoken at Home Eng Imm Two-Way Instructional Method in the School Conclusions Implications for Educational Programs • 2-way education leads to better Spanish skills. • 2-way education does not detract (much) from English skills (at least by 2nd grade). • Neither Eng Imm nor 2-way bilinguals spoke English as well as monolinguals. Conclusions Linguistic Conclusions • Reading and Writing skills cross language. • Oral skills are more languagespecific.