CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES

Supporting Positive Language and Literacy Outcomesfor Young Dual Language Learners: Introduction

Behnosh Najafi

Society for Research in Child Development Fellow (2006–2008)Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation ⁄ACF ⁄DHHS

ABSTRACT—The 5 articles that constitute this special sec-

tion follow a roundtable meeting that took place on April

16–17, 2008 in Washington, DC, on the topic of support-

ing positive language and literacy outcomes for young

dual language learners (DLLs; 0–5 years of age). The

2-day meeting in Washington was the outcome of planning

efforts by prominent researchers and representatives from

several federal agencies interested in articulating the

many complex and challenging research issues on

language and literacy development that are particular to

young culturally and linguistically diverse children.

KEYWORDS—dual language learners; English language

learners; bilingual education; early childhood education

The five articles that constitute this special section follow a

roundtable meeting that took place April 16–17, 2008 in Wash-

ington, DC, on the topic of supporting positive language and

literacy outcomes for young dual language learners (DLLs;

0–5 years of age). The 2-day meeting in Washington was the out-

come of planning efforts by prominent researchers and represen-

tatives from several federal agencies interested in articulating

the many complex and challenging research issues on language

and literacy development that are particular to young culturally

and linguistically diverse children.

The organizers made many efforts to include the voices of

stakeholders outside the academy, which greatly enriched and

enlivened the meeting. To this end, half of the attendees at the

roundtable were scholars from various institutions, and the other

half were directors and practitioners in early childhood programs

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toBehnosh Najafi; e-mail: behnoshn@gmail.com.

ª 2011 The Author

Child Development Perspectives ª 2011 The Society for Research in Child Development

Volume 5, Numbe

and federal representatives. Organizing the meeting in this man-

ner ensured that policy and practice considerations were at the

forefront of most of the research discussions that took place. In

the articles to follow, we have asked the authors to take into

account these practical concerns as they summarize critical

research issues in their domain of expertise and provide sugges-

tions on how to move the field forward.

THE PRACTICE AND POLICY CONTEXT

What became apparent in the discussions is the considerable lag

between what the research can clearly demonstrate and the

concerns of practitioner audiences. This recurring theme drew

attention to the great need for building research capacity related

to the topics under discussion. Early child-care and education

practitioners need to know, for example, what to do on the

ground when children in their care speak multiple languages

and how to provide accurate assessments that truly demonstrate

a child’s knowledge base, irrespective of their fluency with

English. There are certainly recommendations on best practices

for these questions and others, some of which are presented in

the articles in this section. We need additional research studies

to corroborate findings or to demonstrate reliable positive

outcomes.

The urgent need for additional research is underscored by the

presence in the United States of large numbers of young children

whose first language is not English. For example, U.S. children

from immigrant families constitute 22% of all children under

6 years, and 93% of these children are born in the United States

(Capps, Fix, Ost, Reardon-Anderson, & Passel, 2005). In many

areas of the country, this growth has been extremely rapid

(within a period of 10 years), with some states experiencing more

than a 150% increase in young children of immigrants. In addi-

tion, work by the National Task Force on Early Childhood

Education (2008) has established that low reading achievement

r 1, Pages 1–3

2 Behnosh Najafi

among Hispanics, compared with their White counterparts, is

well established by the end of fifth grade. The reader will find

other dismaying statistics in some of these articles that fore-

ground the necessity of doing more research in this area in the

near future.

As we move toward doing research that is oriented more

toward policy and practitioner, audiences, it is important to con-

sider and promote studies that articulate the positive as well as

normative language and literacy developmental trajectories for

some DLLs. When we focus exclusively on avoiding negative

outcomes, particularly in the policy arena, it is easy to overlook,

for example, the importance of better understanding variation in

literacy outcomes among DLLs. Their successful developmental

trajectories may look very different from their White, middle-

class counterparts, suggesting multiple pathways to positive out-

comes. In addition, most studies of research questions on DLL

language and literacy development use low-income samples,

leaving our knowledge of middle- and upper-income families

incomplete. Scholars and practitioners alike have much to learn

from these research questions.

Most research on culturally diverse populations and literacy

development has taken place in the context of K–12 education

(see August & Shanahan, 2006, for review). Because research

with younger DLLs is relatively sparse, bodies of K–12 research

are often referenced to frame questions and thinking in the liter-

ature with younger children. Although the K–12 research may

be a useful resource in mapping out the terrain of language and

literacy issues for younger children, additional research efforts

must produce findings for this unique population. This is a call

to action that you will hear across all articles in this section. The

issue becomes particularly salient when one considers the range

of early child-care and education settings that exists (including

friend and family care, family day care, and others), which differ

significantly from formal child-care programs in many ways. This

latter body of research is limited, and unfortunately the present

articles do not address it.

Finally, research on language and literacy development among

DLLs should not be confined to U.S. populations alone. Addi-

tional countries in Europe and other developed nations also face

similar challenges in promoting positive outcomes for their young

immigrant populations. The authors of the present articles pri-

marily address U.S. practitioners and policy concerns to main-

tain a focus on pressing domestic issues, but clearly more work

across transnational contexts would be useful. Studies like these

would allow a better understanding of the impact of accultura-

tion, community values, and perspectives on bilingualism as well

as national and local policies on young children’s language and

literacy practices.

THE PRESENT ARTICLES

Although the focus of the roundtable was on supporting young

children’s language and literacy development, the topic was

Child Development Perspectives, V

explored from a holistic view of the child that typifies many

efforts in the field of early child care and education. Thus, per-

spectives included not only promoting the development of appro-

priate program design but also with the intent to extend the

research base related to professional teacher training, measure-

ment and assessment, special education, culture, and family

involvement, as well as the language trajectories of bilingual

children.

Many of the topics these articles cover tend to receive less

attention, particularly in the field of intervention research with

DLLs. Understanding the impact of interventions becomes more

complex when one considers the multiple issues at play in

children’s language and literacy development, which likely

determine both short- and long-term outcomes. The complexity

and range of issues involved in this area of research should

encourage interdisciplinary perspectives, which not only are

better suited to address the multiplicity of issues, but also pro-

vide sorely needed, innovative, and fresh approaches to scientific

inquiry in this area of study. These articles are a step in that

direction, and much more can be done. The present authors

come from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds including

education, psychology, and the communication sciences.

These articles are not meant to be exhaustive of all topics rele-

vant to the field of supporting DLL language and literacy devel-

opment. Rather, the authors that have contributed to this section

represent a consensus of research perspectives respective to

their areas of expertise. In the first article, Hammer, Jia, and

Uchikoshi provide a summary of research to date on what we

know about the language and literacy development of young

Latino and Asian DLLs. This latter group of children have

received less attention in the literature, yet as the authors point

out, the further study of various subgroups of DLLs will help us

recognize common as well as divergent patterns of development

that are undoubtedly related to country of origin, immigration

experiences, and language. The authors also include studies that

take an alternative yet promising approach to define groupings of

DLLs by age of exposure to English, rather than the typical cate-

gorization of ethnic background.

Zepeda, Castro, and Cronin present a review of teaching stan-

dards suggested for DLLs among professional organizations and

highlight variation in recommendations for supporting diversity,

linguistic or otherwise. They follow this discussion with a sum-

mary of research that supports the five major content areas for

DLLs endorsed by professional organizations focused on early

childhood teacher preparation. Some of the content areas func-

tion as previews for more thorough discussions of these topics in

the rest of this special section, including DLL language develop-

ment and the importance of understanding the relationship

between language and culture. The authors report in this discus-

sion the troubling finding that only a relatively small percentage

of teachers do indeed learn this content.

Castro, Paez, Dickinson, and Frede discuss the research

that can inform best practices around language and literacy

olume 5, Number 1, Pages 1–3

Dual Language Learning 3

programming for young DLLs in early childhood and education

settings. They answer the urgent call to connect what the

research suggests to date and policy and practitioner concerns

regarding DLL language and literacy instruction. They maintain

that high-quality early childhood programs can support academic

success for DLLs, but this alone is not enough: Instructional

practices should address some of the unique and specific needs

of this population.

Purcell-Gates, Melzi, Najafi, and Orellana state that we should

study culture as dynamic and as ‘‘patterned ways of organizing

life,’’ highlighting the important variable of change in studies

that examine language and literacy among children whose first

language is not English. This working definition of culture also

avoids the complicated issue of stereotyping groups on the basis

of ethnic or national backgrounds. The authors further argue that

all children’s language and literacy develop within specific social

and cultural contexts but take different forms and trajectories

depending on the settings in which they occur. When consider-

ing how to best address the educational needs of young DLLs in

formal learning environments, the authors view existing (non-

academic) language and literacy practices as resources rather

than deficits. From this starting point, they suggest programs of

research that would further articulate and examine these tenets

among younger populations.

Finally, but not least importantly, Pena and Halle discuss

the formal evaluation of young DLLs. They outline the various

complications that arise when using standardized assessment

procedures and measures with young DLLs, including their

understanding of testing procedures as well as threats to test

validity and reliability. This topic becomes more important

when we consider that the appropriateness of measures directly

affects much of what we can accurately summarize about the

Child Development Perspectives, V

research in this area. The authors also argue that there are not

enough appropriate measures available. Many of the measures

used to evaluate young children have been normed on Eng-

lish-speaking samples, and we need more that can accurately

reflect varied languages, dialects, cultures, and sociolinguistic

contexts.

It is interesting to note that language use by young DLL chil-

dren changes over time, with a shift to English as the dominant

language. Assessment procedures need to capture this level of

change, and future studies would do well to provide a more

detailed description of how and why language shifts occur. For

example, we can better understand the socioemotional impacts

of this language shift with research that suggests greater feelings

of alienation and emotional distance from the family that occur

as a result of not speaking one’s native language.

In closing, I trust that you will enjoy reading the articles in

more detail and sincerely hope that it marks the start of a genu-

ine, large-scale effort to produce (and draw on existing) research

that can benefit young DLL children.

REFERENCES

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel onLanguage-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Capps, R., Fix, M. E., Ost, J., Reardon-Anderson, J., & Passel, J. S.(2005). The health and well-being of young children of immigrants.Retrieved October 6, 2009, from http://www.urban.org/publications/311139.html

Garcia, E. E., & Miller, L. S. (2008). Findings and recommendations ofthe National Task Force on Early Childhood Education forHispanics. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 53–58.

olume 5, Number 1, Pages 1–3