Annotated Bibliography for 5 articels
Encouraging Bilingualism in Early Childhood Education: A Focus on
the Development of Metalinguistic Awareness and Preservation of
Cultural Identity
Sarah Jin *
I. INTRODUCTION
The challenge for educators who aspire to being more than a cog in the wheel of social
reproduction is to create conditions for learning that expand rather than constrict students’
possibilities for both identity formation and knowledge generation and that highlight rather than
conceal the historical and current division of p ower and resources in the society. 1
In 2004, more than twenty -five percent of children under age six in the United States
live d in households that spoke a language other than English, 2 with that number continuing to
grow rapidly today .3 As a result of t he massive influx of immigrants in the 1990s and 2000s, the
children of these immigrant parents currently constitute a substantial portion of the country’s
child population. 4 Since the early 1900s, however, the United States has been inundated with
newcom ers , sparking an increasing concern over immigrants’ ability to adapt to American
society , particularly with regard to language and intelligence .5 During this time, psychologists
developed various theories to explain immigrants’ poor performance o n intell igence tests ,6 one
*Juris Doctor Candidate, Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Class of 2014. 1 Jim Cummins, Bilingual Education and English Immersion : The Ramírez Report in Theoretical Perspective , 16
BILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 91, 101 (1992). 2 HANNAH MATTHEWS & DANIELLE EWEN , EARLY EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS :
LEARNING EACH OTHER ’S LANGUAGE 1 (2010). 3 RANDY CAPPS ET AL ., URBAN INSTITUTE , THE HEALTH AND WELL -BEING OF YOUNG CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS 5
(2004). 4 Id. 5 Patrick Lee, Cognitive Development in Bilingual Children: A Case for Bilingual Instruction in Early Childhood
Education , 20 BILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 499, 501 (1996). 6 Id. 2
of which suggested that proficiency in two languages created mental confusion and delayed
cognitive development. 7
Though born in the first half of the twentieth century, this line of thought persists today
with regard to the early stages of education for bilingual children. Many children coming from
households that speak a language other than English begin their schooling as English language
learners (“ELLS”) or dual language learners .8 As part of the linguistic minority , these children
are faced with the task of learning the majority language – English – as a means to utilize the
educational opportunities provided. 9 Though the method of most effectively educating children
with limited English ability has been an inconcl usive discourse, the undisputed goal of many
programs is to help integrate these children into monolingual English classrooms. 10
This Article explores this question of what is the most effective approach to early
childhood education for children whose pr imary language is one other than English. Part II
discusses perceptions of bilingualism held through history, and the definitions that exist today.
Part III.A then outlines the arguments made by opponents of bilingualism in early childhood
education and how they fail. Part III.B then discusses and concludes that bilingualism is a
necessary skill to encourage in early childhood education . Finally, Part IV goes on to explain
why rigid classroom instruction of linguistic education is insufficient, and prop oses a more
comprehensive approach.
7 Id. 8 MATTHEWS & EWEN , supra note 2, at 1. 9 Lily Wong Fillmore, When Learning a Second Language Means Losing the First , 6 EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH
QUARTERLY , 323, 323 (1991). 10 Kenji Hakuta & Eugene E. Garcia, Bilingualism and Education , AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST , 374, 376 (1989). 3
II. PERSPECTIVES OF BILINGUALISM THROUGH HISTORY
In the first half of the twentieth century, environments exposing children to bilingualism
were thought to hin der their cognitive growth. 11 Empiricists believed that bilingualism,
particularly in children, led to low levels of intelligence. 12 Proponents of the hereditarian
viewpoint, like nativists Carl Brigham, Lewis Terman, and Florence Goodenough, stated that
immigrants were simply genetically inferior .13 Relying on immigrants’ poor performance on
intelligent tests, hereditarians maintained that intelligence was inherent and therefore,
immigrants were geneticall y and innately unintelligent .14
Monolingualism has traditionally been the standard, and biling ualism was viewed as a
social stigma. 15 Children have often been deprived of bilingual education because of the “myth
of the bilingual handicap” – a belief that children who speak a language other than English fail in
school because of that linguistic diff erence. 16 In the 1950s, however, studies began to examine
the cognitive aspect of bilingualism over the empirical or societal view, and “bilingualism” was
defined as the proficiency in two languages. 17 Similarly, bilingualism in the context of early
childh ood refers to children learning two languages during the first five years of their lives. 18
Though the stigma has lessened in recent years, children who speak a language other than
11 Id. at 375. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Lee, supra note 5, at 501. 15 BEVERLY A. CLARK , FIRST - AND SECOND -LANGUAGE ACQUISITI ON IN EARLY CHILDHOOD 183 (2000). 16 Lee, supra note 5, at 513. 17 Id. at 503. This definition was followed by theories examining the relationship between thought and language,
and eventually led to studies that showed positive effects of bilingualism. Id. 18 EUGENE E. GARCIA & STEVE MARTINEZ , MEXICAN AMERICAN STUDIES & RESEARCH CENT ER ’S WORKING PAPER
SERIES , BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE EDUCATION OF BILINGUAL CHILDREN DURING EARLY CHILDHOOD 3
(1981). “The definition includes the following conditions: (a) Children are able to comprehend and/or produce some
aspects of each language be yond the ability to discriminate that either one language or another is being spoken…(b)
Children are exposed ‘naturally’ to the two systems of languages as they are used in the form of social interaction
during early childhood…(c) The simultaneous charact er of development must be apparent in both languages. Id. 4
English at home are faced with the daunting task of learning English when they enter school.
Teachers are thus faced with the equally dauntin g task of determining first, whether or not to
encourage use of that language (“L1”) amidst instruction in English (“L2”) and if they decide to
do so, then how.
III . ARGUMENTS SURROUNDING BILINGUALISM IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
A. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROMOTING BILINGUALISM
Much of the debate about bilingual education has centered on the method of teaching L1,
the language other than English spoken at home, with regard to how long and how much it
should be taught. 19 At one end, proponents of bilingual education favor vigorous develop ment of
L1 befor e introducing English , reasoning that it will establish the foundations in cognitive
learning that are necessar y to learn a second language. 20 This argument relies heavily on the fact
that this approach will enable children to more easily transfer the skills from L1 to L2. 21
Opponents of bilingual education , however, argue for the instruction of English from the st art of
children’s education with little use of L1. 22 This particular approach is often implemented in the
form of English as a Second Language (ESL), teaching simplified English to help with
comprehension. 23
It is also based in part on the concept shared by many opponents of bilingual education –
that practice makes perfect, expressed in the educational terms “time on task. ”24 This argument
states that “time on task” is a major component in language acquisition, and therefore, immersion
19 Hakuta & Garcia, supra note 10 , at 376. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id. See also Cummins, supra note 1, at 93. 5
in English is the m ost effect ive way to learn the language. 25 In conjunction with the “time on
task” argument, opponents of bilingual education claim that immersion in English will allow
language -minority students to quickly learn enough English to survive academically witho ut any
more assistance. And further, they assert that this immersion should begin as soon as possible
since younger children can learn language better than older children.
In February 1991, the United States Department of Education released fi ndings from an
eight -year study called the Ramirez Report, discussing education programs that would work best
to help Latino students succeed. 26 The study compared the academic progress of Latino
elementary school children in three types of educational programs: (1) E nglish “immersion” with
almost exclusive use of English; (2) early -exit bilingual, where Spanish was used for one -third of
the time for two years and thereafter phased out; and (3) late -exit bilingual with primary
instruction in Spanish for the first year, and then English for one -third of the time for the next
two years, half the time the following year, and about sixty percent of the time thereafter. 27
The results from the Ramirez Report directly refuted the arguments made by oppo nents
of bilingual educati on. 28 First, if the “time on task” argument were valid, the early -exit
bilinguals would have performed at a much lower level than English immersion students, which
they did not. 29 Furthermore, the late -exit students were catching up academically to student s in
the general population, despite the fact that they had received much less instruction in English
than those in the early -exit and immersion programs. 30
25 Cummins, supra note 1, at 93. 26 Id. at 91. 27 Id. at 96. 28 Id. at 98. 29 Id. at 97. 30 Id. 6
B. ARGUMENTS FOR BILINGUALISM
As reflected in the Ramirez Report findings, research has largely supported the benefits
of bilingualism in the classroom. When children who start school speaking L1 and continue to
hone those skills while learning L2, they develop a better understanding of language and how to
communicate effectively. 31 Research also su ggests that bilingual children are more flexible in
the way they think as a result of processing information through two different language
systems. 32 A foundation in L1 allows for stronger development in literacy abilities when
learning L2 in school. 33 In terms of cognitive development, bilingual children’s L1 and L2 are
interdependent, and the transfer across languages can go both ways. 34 For example, when
children’s L1 is encouraged at school in the bilingual education setting, many of the concepts
and l inguistic skills the children learn in L2, the majority language, can transfer to L1. 35
Essentially, the two languages work together if the educational environment is conducive to it. 36
Three psychoeducational principles provide the foundation for the argu ments maintained
by proponents of late -exit bilingual education: (1) development of both languages promotes
children’s educational and cognitive development; (2) literacy -related skills are interdependent
across languages; and (3) while conversational abil ities may be developed relatively quickly in
an L2, up to five years is typically necessary for children to achieve grade norms in the
academically -related aspects of L2 .37 Considerable evidence demonstrates that acquisition of
31 Jim Cummins, Bilingual Children’ s Mother Tongue: Why is I t Im portant for Education? , 19 SPROGFORUM NR.,
15, 17 (2001). 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Cummins, supra note 1, at 95. 7
two or more languages promo tes metalinguistic development. 38 Bilingual children can transfer
the knowledge and skills obtained from L1 to their process of learning L2 without abandoning
those L1 skills. 39
IV. PROPOSAL FOR A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO ENCOURAGING BILINGUALISM THROUGH
DEVELOPMENT OF M ETALINGUISTIC AWARENESS AND PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL IDENTITY
Effective implementation of bilingual education programs must consider how crucial the
early years are for children’s social, linguistic, and cognitive development. 40 Despite the various
perspectives taken towards throughout history, bilingualism is embodied in various linguistic
shapes and forms, and subsequently represents vast linguistic diversity. 41 However, the
linguistic domain composes only a small part of what bilingualism ultimately entails, which
includes the cognitive and social domains as well. 42 As one researcher noted, “the acquisition of
language or languages coincides with identifiable periods of cognitive development withi n
significant social contexts.” 43
“Banking education,” as coined by Paulo Freier, is a model of pedagogy where the
teacher instructs students and the students are limited in their scope of action to essentially
receiving instruction and memorizing information .44 Under this model, studen ts rarely produce
any language since they are merely listening to the teacher’s instruction or responding with either
38 Id. 39 Mark R. Stewart, Phonological Awareness and Bilingual Preschoolers: Should We Teach It and, If So, How? , 32
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION JOURNAL , 31, 34 (2004). 40 Lee, supra note 5, at 514. 41 GARCIA & MARTINEZ , supra note 18 , at 2. 42 Id. 43 Id. 44 PAULO FREIRE , PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED 72 (Myra Bergman Ramos trans.) (2005). 8
non -verbal actions or recall statements. 45 This method of teaching ultimately restricts students’
ability to freely create language and en gage in complex learning. 46
The “banking education” approach emphasizes academic skills that are incontrovertibly
crucial, but fails to take into account the importance of development in other areas, such as
physical, social, cultural, or emotional skills. 47 The comprehensive approach proposed in this
paper takes into account the academic aspect of learning language, including phonological
awareness; 48 however, educators can help children preserve their cultural identity and promote
use of L1 by providing po sitive affirmation and encouraging children to embrace the values
lea rned and words spoken at home. For instance, educators can communicate to bilingual
children that bilingualism is a valuable skill and a significant accomplishment by initiating
classroo m projects that showcases the cultural and linguistic diversity in the classroom. 49
Successful early education efforts are comprehensive, providing services in education, health,
mental health and family involvement. 50
Children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds may experience
difficulties and discomfort in the classroom. 51 Particularly if they are unfamiliar with English,
simply interacting in the classroom may be difficult due to lack of a mutual language. 52 Children
who enter school with L1 and fail to maintain and develop that language as they are expected to
learn L2, may experience a loss of cultural identity and decreased contact with family members
45 Cummins, supra note 1, at 99. 46 Id. 47 MARIELA PAEZ ET AL ., LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 5 (2006). 48 Phonological awareness is the ability to process and manipulate the various sounds of a language. Phonological
awareness is necessary for comprehending the alphabetic principle of a language and understanding the alphabet. Id.
at 1. 49 Cummins, supra note 31 , at 19. 50 Matthews & Ewen, supra note 2, at 1. 51 PATTON O. TABORS , PBS TEACHER LINE , WHAT EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS NEED TO KNOW : DEVELOPING
EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS FOR LINGUISTICALLY AND CULTURALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 3 (2004) . 52 Id. 9
who speak that L1. 53 Rather than requiring educators t o be proficient in the various languages
that they may encounter in the classroom, educators can utilize parents or caregivers in
encouraging L1 use while still teaching other skills, including L2. In some parent training
programs, professionals instruct parents or caregivers in techniques that they can use to support
language development in their children. 54 Just as English -language instruction to children should
not base itself exclusively in the academic aspect of learning language, parent or caregiver
training does not consist of only written handouts or homework assignments. 55 Rather, the
techniques focus on language facilitation strategies (e.g., modeling, imitation, responsive
feedback), and embrace various instructional methods (e.g., demonstration, coaching, role
playing). 56 Family or caregiver involvement is vital in preserving and strengthening children’s
L1 and continuing cognitive growth, particularly if the children’s teachers do not speak every
child’s L1.
Studies have suggested that higher de grees of bilingualism are associated with higher
cognitive ability, metalinguistic awareness, concept formation, and creativity. 57 Furthermore,
research on language use by bilingual children demonstrates that they are able to transition from
one language t o the other, depending on the conversational context , a process known as code -
switching .58 Lev Vygotsky, one of the first philosophers to examine the effects of bilingualism,
asserted that bilingual children are able to view a language merely as one of man y systems,
manifesting in their awareness of their own linguistic abilities. 59 Moreover, their experience
53 Kathryn Kohnert, I ntervention with Linguistically Diverse Preschool Children: A Focus on Developing Home
Language(s) , 36 LANGUAGE , SPEECH , AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS , 251, 253 (2005). 54 Id. at 258. 55 Id. 56 Id. 57 Hakuta & Garcia, supra note 10 , at 376. 58 Id. 59 Lee, supra note 5, at 510. 10
with more than one language system may lead to a better comprehension of “the arbitrariness of
language.” 60 Similarly, another theory states that bili nguals, through learning two languages,
develop an understanding of the form and function of languages in general. 61 Accordingly,
studies have shown that the interdependence of literacy -related skills across languages lead to
more development in conceptual abilities. The correlation between the skills in L1 and L2
suggest that these language abilities are “manifestations of a common underlying proficiency.” 62
V. CONCLUSION
This paper first posed the question of whether or not bilingualism should be encouraged
in early childhood question. Research and various studies have demonstrated that it should be.
However, the question then is by what method should this approach be employed in the
classroom. While no definitive answer exists as to maximize an d reach each bilingual child’s
educational potential in the classroom, this paper proposes a shift of focus from instructional
language and “banking education” to a more comprehensive approach involving parental or
caretaker involvement, interactive instru ction across multiple mediums, and exploration of social
and cultural influences. Utilizing children’s existing language ability, in English or any other
language, to develop the metalinguistic awareness will allow them to learn a second language
while st ill maintaining the first language. This approach also considers familial and cultural
background and interpersonal relationships, creating an environment conducive to learning.
Providing not only the academic knowledge but also an environment conducive to learning, are
key to developing cognitive ability in bilingual children entering early childhood education.
60 Id. 61 Id. 62 Cummins, supra note 1, at 95.
