Search
On-Site Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Unit
Browse By Session Type
Search Tips
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
Bluesky
Threads
X (Twitter)
YouTube
Emergent bilingual (EB) students represent a growing population in the U.S. and worldwide (NCES, 2020; OELA, 2020). To support these students, research to understand patterns of literacy development should focus on foundational skills in multiple languages and incorporate the role of the instructional language.
This study examines heterogeneity in EBs’ biliteracy development through the following research questions:
1. What patterns/profiles are evident in EBs’ early literacy skills in English and Spanish?
2. Do students experiencing dual language instruction (DLI) develop skills more evenly across languages than do students in English-only classrooms?
Theoretical Framework
Researchers have explored cross-linguistic transfer (Genesee et al., 2006), finding that development of the first language can facilitate development of the second (Cummins, 1979; Genesee et al., 2006; MacSwan & Rolstad, 2005). Despite an established understanding of relations between English and Spanish reading skills (e.g., Grimm et al., 2019; Gonzalez et al., 2015; Shen & Goodrick, 2024; Solari et al., 2022), more research examining code-based and language-comprehension skills in both languages is needed to understand the various ways EBs develop foundational biliteracy. Examining performance on these skills across language(s) of instruction can further support this population.
Methods
We used data from early literacy screeners administered in Fall 2024 to 282 EBs in second grade, 80% of whom were enrolled in DLI. The screeners include subtests in code-based skills: encoding and decoding (real and pseudoword) and language-based skills: narrative retell and expressive comprehension. All subtests were administered in both English and Spanish. While the Spanish and English subtests measure the same literacy skills, the Spanish tests were developed using Spanish language and reading development research and are not translations of the English subtests.
We calculated weighted percentage scores for each of the eight subtests using item factor loadings obtained via confirmatory factor analysis. We then used latent profile analysis to uncover score patterns in our sample. Finally, we examined the proportion of students in each profile who were enrolled in DLI.
Results
We uncovered five profiles (Figure 1). Two profiles showed similar performance on both versions of each subtest. Two profiles showed students scoring higher on the Spanish versions (in either only language-based subtests or all subtests), and the fifth profile showed students scoring higher on the English language-comprehension subtests. Around 80% of students in each profile were in DLI, matching the overall sample.
Discussion
This study extends prior research on variability in EBs’ biliteracy development by examining performance on measures of code-based and language-comprehension skills in both English and Spanish. We also broadened the understanding of the role language of instruction plays in biliteracy development by examining the interaction between biliteracy profiles and instructional programs.
We found that EBs’ skill levels vary across both languages and literacy domains. Moreover, because DLI students were proportionately represented in each profile, instructional program is not a reliable indicator of students’ strengths/needs, as heterogeneity in literacy skills in English and Spanish exists regardless of the language(s) of instruction. This information is crucial to practitioners who make decisions about instructional intervention.