Canadian Children Child Study

SPrinG / PrinteMPS 2013 29 Vol. 38 No. 1

Intended for educators and researchers 
in the field of early childhood 
education working with children 
from immigrant families, this article 
first briefly addresses the relationship 
between home literacy environment 
and English language learners’ literacy 
development in both their heritage 
language and English. Second, 
through surveying the literature, 
I identify three different areas in 
which a home literacy environment 
influences English language learners’ 
literacy development: (a) through 
language attitudes and parental 
beliefs; (b) through identity formation; 
and (c) through literacy behaviour 
of immigrant parents. Some helpful 
strategies learned from the literature 
are provided for educators to use 
with newcomer families in support of 
children’s literacy development. 

Literacy development is essential to a 
child’s school performance and future 
success. Yet, literacy is not a single, 
monolithic, and autonomous construct 
(Street, 2000). Here, literacy is defined 
as a social practice that is socially 
constructed in educational and cultural 
contexts, including skills in dealing with 
printed and nonprint-based texts and 
in critical thinking (Kahn & Kellner, 
2005). This definition is in contrast to a 
singular, autonomous notion of literacy in 
which literacy development emphasizes 
decoding a text and studies involve the 
analysis of literacy rates, comprehension 
levels, ages, and reading and writing 
skills (Kahn & Kellner, 2005). Multiple 

literacies consider literacy to be a social 
practice (Street, 2000), where context 
and meaning in groups of different 
cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic 
backgrounds need consideration. Just 
as cultural and linguistic backgrounds 
in families vary, literacy practices vary 
between and within cultures. 

In addition, rapid development in 
technology has changed how we look at 
literacy; the idea of multiliteracies shifts 
our thinking about literacy from privileging 
the printed text to acknowledging various 
ways that literacy is practiced in a society 
(Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). With the 
increasing use of technology, literacy is 
no longer restricted to an ability to deal 
with printed texts, but has expanded to 
include electronic and multimedia modes. 
Nonetheless, as Cope and Kalantzis 
(2009) argue, “whichever way we look, 
written language is not going away. It is 
just becoming more closely intertwined 
with the other modes” (p. 182).

In this paper, an English language learner 
(ELL) will refer to preschool and early 
elementary grade children whose first 
language is not English and who are 
learning English as a second language 
in a North American setting (Shi, 2011). 
Learners of English as a second language 
may include children from Africa, 
Bangladesh, Hispanic regions, China, 
Laos, and many others (Shi, 2012). 
Although different terms appear in the 
literature to describe such learners, English 
language learner is increasingly utilized 
because it highlights the learning process 

instead of a deficiency in nonnative 
English-speaking students (Gere, 2008).

Because literacy is a socially constructed 
practice, children who are learning 
English and whose parents speak another 
language and come from a culture 
different from that of the mainstream 
culture will inevitably be influenced by 
literacy practices at home. Therefore, 
I have prepared a representative (not 
comprehensive) review of published 
research in the past decade that is focused 
on preschool to early elementary grade 
children and addresses the relationship 
between a home literacy environment 
(HLE) and ELL literacy development. I 
will: 

1. define the concepts of HLE and 
home literacy practices and briefly 
review relevant research regarding 
the relationship between home 
literacy practices, heritage language 
maintenance, and the acquisition of 
English as a second language.

2. identify three areas in which a HLE 
influences ELL literacy development: 
(a) language attitudes and parental 
beliefs; (b) identity formation; and 
(c) literacy behaviour of immigrant 
parents.

3. identify strategies that educators can 
use to work with newcomer families 
in support of their children’s literacy 
development.

Zihan Shi is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Education, University of Victoria. Zihan’s research interests are second language 
acquisition, English language learners, literacy development, heritage language maintenance, and home literacy environment.

Home Literacy Environment and English Language 
Learners’ Literacy Development: What Can We Learn 

from the Literature?
By: Zihan Shi



Canadian Children Child Study

SPrinG / PrinteMPS 2013 30 Vol. 38 No. 1

Current Research with Home Literacy 
Environments and English Language 
Learners’ Literacy Acquisition

A child’s literacy development involves 
home, school, and community support. 
In this paper, I focus the discussion 
on the literacy environment at home 
(Burgess, Hecht, & Lonigan, 2002; 
Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002; Teale, 1986). 
A HLE consists of a variety of attitudes, 
resources, and practices in the home that 
influence children’s literacy practices and 
development (Burgess, Hecht, & Lonigan, 
2002). In the literature, researchers define 
the HLE in a variety of ways. Teale 
(1986), for example, categorize the HLE 
as a physical and social environment, 
defining it as (a) the physical environment 
where print exists; and (b) the social 
environment where children, siblings, and 
parents interact with print. However, this 
construct emphasizes the role of print in 
literacy development. Cope and Kalantzis 
(2009) suggest that it is important to 
consider multiliteracies, with “linguistic, 
visual, audio, gestural and spatial modes 
of meaning becoming increasingly 
integrated in everyday media and 
cultural practices” (p. 166). Alternatively, 
Burgess, Hecht, and Lonigan (2002) 
define the HLE as either passive or 
active. In a passive environment, parents 
indirectly model behaviours such as 
parental leisure reading, parental literacy 
beliefs, the number of books at home, 
and public library visits. In an active 
environment, parents engage children in 
literacy activities, such as shared reading 
activities. Similarly, Sénéchal and LeFevre 
(2002) define home literacy activities as 
informal or formal. Informal experiences 
focus on information in a storybook, such 
as the meaning of a story, while formal 
literacy experiences centre on print, such 
as talking about the letters or providing 
the names and sounds of specific letters. 
However, the definitions proposed by 
Burgess, Hecht, and Lonigan (2002) 
and by Sénéchal and LeFevre (2002) are 
from studies with English native speakers 
rather than English language learners. 
In addition, these definitions ignore the 
concept of multiliteracies. 

Of these different definitions, I have 
adopted that of Teale (1986); however, 
I extend the idea of a physical literacy 
environment to include multiliteracy 
elements, such as the multimodal texts in 
Pokemon and Yugio characters presented 
in television, film, and game cards (Pahl, 
2003). Here, I focus on linguistic, visual, 
and audio elements of literacy behaviour 
without considering gestural and spatial 
modes of meaning in literacy activities. I 
maintain that a HLE consists of a number 
of activities that children observe at home 
and activities in which parents participate 
actively. A HLE also includes parental 
beliefs regarding literacy, the parental 
education level, the family socioeconomic 
status, the number of books at home, and 
daily life activities in the social domains 
(Auerbach, 1989; Teale, 1986; van 
Steensel, 2006). 

With the understanding that literacy 
practices are socially constructed, 
children’s literacy experiences in daily 
life will inevitably influence their 
literacy development. Many different 
terms are used interchangeably in the 
literature (Street, 2000) to refer to literacy 
experiences, such as literacy events, 
literacy activities, literacy patterns, 
literacy strategies, and literacy situations. 
I use the term literacy practices to denote 
children’s multiple literacy experiences in 
home settings. The idea of literacy practice 
refers to a broad “cultural conception of 
particular ways of thinking about and 
doing reading and writing in cultural 
contexts” (Street, 2000, p. 22) and offers 
the potential to understand observable 
behaviour within different cultural 
contexts. That is, the concept of a literacy 
practice is broader than that of literacy 
events as the latter is used primarily in 
a descriptive way without offering any 
possibility of understanding how meaning 
in literacy is constructed (Street, 2000). 

To attain an understanding of how a HLE 
influences ELL literacy development, 
current research has taken two approaches. 
One line of research examines the 
effect of the HLE on heritage language 
maintenance. A heritage language is 

a language other than English that is 
associated with an individual’s ethnic or 
cultural background (Chinen & Tucker, 
2005). In terms of order of acquisition, 
this is the first language for an individual; 
however, an individual may not completely 
acquire this language because of a transfer 
to the dominant language, such as English, 
in a host country (Valdés, 2000). The 
role of heritage language maintenance in 
promoting second language development 
is well documented in the literature; 
heritage language maintenance is directly 
associated with English proficiency 
and academic achievement (Suarez, 
2007; Yeung, Marsh, & Suliman, 2000). 
Bilingualism is not a disadvantage for 
children who are acquiring literacy in a 
second language (Dickinson, McCabe, 
Clark-Chiarelli, & Wolf, 2004). Cummins 
(1981, 1983) proposes a common 
underlying proficiency model to explain 
this effect, where literacy-related skills are 
transferable across languages. Cummins 
(1981) argues that, given adequate 
exposure to a second language, concepts 
developed in the first language can be 
transferred. However, it may be noted 
that ELLs have diverse backgrounds in 
terms of heritage language proficiency. 
Some learners might develop their first 
language literacy in formal educational 
settings while others start and develop the 
language at home.

Researchers have identified a number of 
practices of a HLE that positively influence 
heritage language maintenance (Archer, 
Francis, & Mau, 2010; Farruggio, 2010; 
Francis, Archer, & Mau, 2010; Lao, 2004; 
Wu, 2005). These practices may include, 
but are not limited to, sending a child to 
a heritage language school, speaking a 
heritage language at home (Liao & Larke, 
2008), emphasizing the value of learning 
the language (Chinen & Tucker, 2005; 
Lynch, 2003), and parental involvement 
in heritage language education. This 
involvement may include parents making 
their voices heard at public and heritage 
schools, participating in heritage language 
programs, visiting relatives in their 
country of origin, providing resources at 
home, talking to children in a heritage 



Canadian Children Child Study

SPrinG / PrinteMPS 2013 31 Vol. 38 No. 1

language, and having friends who speak 
the heritage language (Pacini-Ketchabaw, 
Bernhard, & Freire, 2001; Shin, 2005). On 
the other hand, Chumak-Horbatsch (2008) 
argues that too-early second language 
exposure might reduce the effectiveness 
of first and second language learning for 
young ELLs.

A second line of research uses a variety 
of methods and designs (e.g., ethnography 
and case study) to examine how home 
literacy practices influence ELL literacy 
development in second language 
acquisition (Garcia, 2008; Li, 2006a; 
2006b; Menard-Warwick, 2005; Perry, 
Kay, & Brown, 2008; Reese & Gallimore, 
2000; Zhang, 2007). Given the complex 
and heterogeneous population of ELLs, 
qualitative researchers in the last decade 
have employed interviews, observations, 
focus groups, and documents in the study 
of the HLE (Shi, 2012). These studies 
include analyses of how the HLE affects 
the literacy behaviour of Chinese children 
(Liu & Vadeboncoeur, 2010), how 
immigrant parental beliefs affect literacy 
acquisition (Garcia, 2008), and how 
Chinese immigrant family human and 
social capital affect literacy (Li, 2006a). 
These studies examine the HLE of learners 
from many different ethnic backgrounds 
and demonstrate that a HLE shapes the 
development of English language literacy 
(Shi, 2012). 

In summary, current research helps us to 
understand the scope and complexity of the 
HLE of immigrant families from diverse 
socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. 
However, there is a lack of consideration 
in the literature of how HLE influences 
ELL children’s literacy development in 
specific areas. It is important to connect 
both heritage language maintenance and 
learning English as a second language to 
ELL literacy development because these 
two areas may embody distinct HLEs 
in literacy development. Therefore, a 
review of the literature in both areas is of 
paramount importance. 

The Influence of the Home Literacy 
Environment on Literacy Development

Here, I review the literature in the past 
decade and propose that three areas of a 
HLE influence ELL children’s literacy 
development: (a) language attitudes and 
parental beliefs; (b) identity formation; (c) 
literacy behaviour of immigrant parents. I 
will examine the relevant research in each 
area. 

Language Attitudes and Parental Beliefs
The literature regarding the HLE states 
that language attitudes and parental beliefs 
influence children’s literacy development. 
For instance, Li (2006c) argues that 
parents’ attitudes toward their status as a 
minority group and toward their heritage 
language predict the language choices of 
their children. The attitude that parents 
take toward a language is described as 
positive or negative feeling (Richards, 
Platt, & Platt, 1992). In addition to 
positive or negative feelings, parents may 
have instrumental or integrative attitudes 
toward learning a language (Gardner & 
Lambert, 1972). Those with instrumental 
language attitudes have utilitarian goals 
and focus on achieving personal success 
and status in society, while those with 
an integrative language attitude are 
characterized by a desire to be identified 
with a language-speaking group. The 
positive or negative, instrumental or 
integrative language attitudes that parents 
have toward a heritage language directly 
affect their home language behaviour, 
which, in turn, inevitably affects the 
extent to which the home language is 
maintained. As Fishman (1996) argues, 
culture is expressed through language, 
and a language loss indicates that a way of 
valuing is lost. He argues the importance 
of involving family life to maintain a 

heritage language instead of relying solely 
on the school system. 

A wealth of research now links parental 
language attitudes to heritage language 
maintenance (Archer, Francis, & Mau, 
2010; Douglas, 2005; Farruggio, 2010; 
Finch, 2009; Francis, Archer, & Mau, 
2010; Isurin & Ivanova-Sullivan, 2008; 
Lao, 2004). Immigrants with integrative 
attitudes from different ethnic, cultural, 
and linguistic groups often encourage 
their children to maintain a heritage 
language by emphasizing the value of 
learning the language and encouraging 
pride in the language and culture (Chinen 
& Tucker, 2005; Lynch, 2003). In this 
way, parents demonstrate an integrative 
language attitude by strongly supporting 
the preservation of a heritage language and 
cultural roots for their children (Farruggio, 
2010). For example, Farruggio (2010) 
conducted a study of 58 first-generation 
immigrant parents (51 women and 7 
men) of elementary school children from 
Mexico and Central and South American 
countries. He used the following factors 
to examine parental language attitudes 
toward a heritage language: (a) residence 
in Latino communities; (b) children in 
schools with common use of Spanish; 
and (c) previous experience of learning 
Spanish in a United States school. Parental 
language attitudes toward heritage 
language maintenance were strongly 
demonstrated through the fact that none of 
the 58 immigrants would agree to abandon 
Spanish learning for their children 
(Farruggio, 2010). Most parents held 
integrative language attitudes and referred 
to Spanish as “our language” (Farruggio, 
2010, p. 15). Although this study focuses 
on parental attitudes toward heritage 
language learning and maintenance in the 
context of bilingual programs, it provides 
a clear understanding of how one group 
of parents values heritage language 
learning, which will positively influence 
children’s heritage language maintenance. 
However, he did not specify the age of the 
participating children.

Positive language attitudes are also shown 
in studies of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, 

“With the understanding that 
literacy practices are socially 

constructed, children’s literacy 
experiences in daily life will 

inevitably influence their literacy 
development.”



Canadian Children Child Study

SPrinG / PrinteMPS 2013 32 Vol. 38 No. 1

and Ukrainian families (Archer, Francis, & 
Mau, 2010; Chumak-Horbatsch & Garg, 
2006; Douglas, 2005; Isurin & Ivanova-
Sullivan, 2008; Liao & Larke, 2008; 
Takei, 2004). Over 50% of participating 
Ukrainian parents in a Toronto study 
sent their children to a Ukrainian school 
and 92% maintained the importance 
of transmission of Ukrainian culture 
(Chumak-Horbatsch & Garg, 2006). 
Likewise, focusing on seven Turkish 
students from prekindergarten, the first, 
third, and fifth grades, Otcu (2010) 
showed that first-generation immigrant 
parents in the United States believe in 
the continuity of Turkish and encourage 
children to use Turkish as much as 
possible. These parents demonstrated both 
instrumental and integrative language 
attitudes. Pacini-Ketchabaw, Bernhard, 
and Freire (2001) argue that parents 
believe knowing Spanish is important in 
maintaining contact with relatives and 
links with their native culture. In addition, 
many parents think that children will 
have more professional opportunities if 
they maintain their heritage language; for 
example, one parent stated: “We believe 
that if you are bilingual, you have many 
job opportunities with private American 
and European businesses” (Pacini-
Ketchabaw, Bernhard, & Freire, 2001, p. 
15).

Although the literature consistently 
reports that parents hold positive language 
attitudes toward heritage language 
maintenance, many immigrant parents 
face the dilemma of supporting their 
children in acquiring English while 
maintaining their heritage language (Wu, 
2005). In describing her experiences 
in supporting her children’s heritage 
language maintenance, Wu (2005) said 
she felt like an alien from another planet 
when she spoke Chinese to her son in 
the playground with English-speaking 
American children around. She felt that 
trying to preserve her son’s Chinese was 
selfish because she thought it inevitably 
delayed his exposure to English and 
resulted in an inability to communicate 
with the outside world. In addition, more 
mothers than fathers felt that exposure 

to two languages was confusing to their 
children (Chumak-Horbatsch, 2008). 
For example, one mother said: “I am 
concerned that this can be pressure for 
her. I think it would be too difficult for her 
if I restrict her to use only one language” 
(Chumak-Horbatsch, 2008,p. 14).The 
participating mothers (and one father) 
in the Chumak-Horbatsch (2008) study 
reported anxiety and uncertainty about 
the continued use of the home language 
and wondered about its possible negative 
affects on the learning of English and 
future difficulties in school. One parent 
reported, “I am also wondering will her 
English be good enough when she starts 
school if we continue to speak Serbian 
at home. This is confusing for him (sic)” 
(Chumak-Horbatsch, 2008, p. 14)

Even if parents hold positive language 
attitudes toward heritage language 
learning, they may behave passively and 
have low expectations of their children 
(Liao & Larke, 2008). Over time, parents 
make diminishing effort and investment 
in their children’s language maintenance 
(Lee, 2002; Shin, 2005). As well, negative 
parental language attitudes will inevitably 
negatively influence children’s heritage 
language maintenance. Some parents 
think it is difficult for their children to 
acquire reading and writing skills in a 
heritage language due to lack of input and 
resources in the mainstream society (Liao 
& Larke, 2008). Some parents often want 
their children totally immersed in English 
and, as a result, the children’s heritage 
language proficiency often suffers 
(Chumak-Horbatsch & Garg, 2006). 

In addition to parental language attitudes 
toward heritage language maintenance, 
studies have shown that parents in 
different sociocultural groups vary 
substantially in their beliefs concerning 
their role in promoting children’s literacy 
skills, including their attitudes toward 
reading, toward children’s participation 
during reading, and toward the influence 
of the environment on children’s learning 
(Bennett, Weigel, & Martin, 2002; 
Hammer, Miccio, & Wagstaff, 2003). De 
Houwer (1999) identifies two types of 
language beliefs: the strong impact and 
the weak impact belief. Parents who hold 
strong impact beliefs consider that they 
play an important role in their children’s 
literacy development and they employ 
strategies to influence their children’s 
literacy practices. On the other hand, those 
with weak impact beliefs consider that 
the wider environment, such as society, 
is responsible for children’s development 
and, therefore, that parents have little or 
no role in the process, which inevitably 
diminishes their efforts or activities at 
home. 

To understand immigrant parent 
beliefs regarding literacy development, 
Rodriguez, Hammer, and Lawrence 
(2009) conducted a study with Mexican 
immigrant parents with children in early 
childhood education programs, aged 4–5 
years, using the Parent Reading Belief 
Inventory (PRBI). The PRBI assesses (a) 
the positive affect associated with reading; 
(b) the valuation of a child’s verbal 
participation; (c) parental resources; (d) 
parental teaching efficacy; (e) parental 
knowledge base; (f) the environmental 
input; and (g) the appropriateness of direct 
reading instruction (DeBaryshe & Binder, 
1994). With a study base of 274 Mexican 
mothers, the internal consistency of five 
of the scales—teaching efficacy, positive 
affect, verbal participation, knowledge 
base, and resources—was established; 
internal consistency of the other two 
other scales—environmental input and 
reading instruction—was not established. 
This study indicates that parents’ beliefs 
depended on their cultural backgrounds. 
Therefore, Rodriguez, Hammer, and 

“Although the literature consistently 
reports that parents hold positive 

language attitudes toward 
heritage language maintenance, 

many immigrant parents face 
the dilemma of  supporting their 

children in acquiring English 
while maintaining their heritage 

language.”



Canadian Children Child Study

SPrinG / PrinteMPS 2013 33 Vol. 38 No. 1

Lawrence (2009) suggest the need to 
design an instrument specific to immigrant 
parents that would include questions 
regarding how immigrant parents view 
the influence of a first language on second 
language acquisition. 

Similarly, in an earlier study, Li (2001) 
concluded that parents’ language beliefs 
were related to their cultural background. 
Immigrant parents come to Canada with 
their own understanding and cultural 
beliefs about literacy. For example, 
Chinese parents are more likely to 
hold a strong impact parental belief 
toward children’s literacy development. 
As one participant in the Li (2001) 
study mentioned, “Chinese culture and 
education is good for children, and we 
are used to it, so we should parent our 
child in a Chinese way” (p. 485). She 
was particularly dissatisfied with weaker 
intellectual challenges in Canadian 
schools: “For me, I think that elementary 
and secondary school education in China 
is better than that of Canada. You know, 
children go to school to learn something” 
(p. 485). To fix their perception of 
shortcomings, they intervene directly 
through teaching or tutoring at home (Li, 
2001). In addition, Chinese immigrant 
parents are influenced by a Confucian 
ideology that emphasizes the authority 
of text, classics, and schools. Li (2000, 
2006) maintains that literacy practices in 
immigrant families coming from a more 
traditional Chinese school model, which 
emphasizes rote learning, homework, 
standardized material, and a transmission 
approach to learning, provide the basis of 
a home literacy support environment for 
their children (Li, 2000, 2006b). 

In summary, language attitudes and 
parental beliefs inevitably influence how 
parents view a heritage language and their 
role in children’s literacy development, 
which will inevitably influence their 
literacy behaviour. However, it should 
be noted that even when parents hold 
a positive language attitude toward 
heritage language, they have concerns 
in supporting their children’s heritage 
language maintenance. 

Identity Formation
It is important to recognize that identities 
and literacy practices are linked and 
interrelated (Compton-Lilly, 2006). 
Identities are formed within relationships 
with others and are constantly subject to the 
influences of other people and institutions 
(Kendrick, 2005). As McCarthey and 
Moje explain (2002), “identities are 
always situated in relationships” (p. 231). 
I utilize Norton’s (1997) notion of identity, 
which presents the relationship between 
self and the world around self. Identity 
is defined as “how people understand 
their relationship to the world, how that 
relationship is constructed across space 
and time, and how people understand 
their possibilities for the future” (p. 410). 
Norton’s notion of identity includes both 
the relationship between oneself and 
the world and the relationship between 
oneself and the future. She maintains that 
identity is a process of continual emerging 
and becoming, a process that identifies 
what a person becomes and achieves. 

Maintaining a heritage language is a way 
of constructing a learner’s cultural identity 
and, hence, his or her relationship to the 
world . Archer, Francis, and Mau (2010) 
draw on a qualitative study conducted in 
six Chinese heritage schools to investigate 
the relationship between heritage language 
maintenance and identity formation. 
This study found that parents valued 
heritage language schools as a means of 
encouraging and helping children to feel 
(or be) “more Chinese” (p. 411). The loss 
of Chinese language was equated with 
loss of identity or identity crisis. Similarly, 
with Spanish heritage language learners, 
Farruggio (2010) maintains that parents 
want their children to remember that they 
are “Hispanos” or “Mexicanos.” Spanish 
loss was viewed as a loss of Latino identity 
(Farruggio, 2010). In analyzing Korean 
heritage learners, Lee and Kim (2008) 
found that the motivation to learn Korean 
was tied to identity, family, and ethnic 
community. Students who identified with 
their ethnic background generally assessed 
their language proficiency as higher than 
students who identified less (Finch, 2009). 

To learn a heritage language means not 
merely to inherit one’s language and 
maintain one’s cultural identity, but also 
to transform the heritage language and 
recreate one’s identity (He, 2006). A 
learner’s previous linguistic experience 
inevitably influences and recreates his 
or her identity (He, 2006). However, 
this does not mean that educators should 
accept learners’ pregiven identities as fixed 
(Menard-Warwick, 2005). As learners 
construct and reconstruct identities, they 
take on new practices (Menard-Warwick, 
2005). As McCarthey and Moje (2002) 
maintain, “it seems that we are trying to 
work through how identities are coherent, 
yet hybrid and stabilizing, yet dynamic” 
(p. 232).

English language learners bring with them 
an identity that affects their language and 
literacy development. A learner may carry 
multiple identities and multiple discourses 
(McCarthey & Moje, 2002). Menard-
Warwick (2005) theorizes about identity in 
second language acquisition and literacy 
studies through a review of the studies in 
the field. She concludes that “learning a 
language or taking on new literacies in a 
particular social context has consequences 
for the identities of its users” (p. 254). 
When language and literacy development 
activities are matched with how a learner 
sees him- or herself and his or her 
relationship with the world, learning is 
enhanced (Menard-Warwick, 2005). 

Literacy and literacy practices are means 
for performing particular identities. 
Monzo (2010) has raised interesting 
questions about language learning and 
identity through home literacy practices. 
Through an ethnographic study, eight 
Latino families were examined with 
over 200 home visits, with two hours of 
home observation and one classroom 
observation per week. In addition, 
interviews were conducted with grade five 
elementary children, their older siblings, 
their parents, their classroom teachers, 
community members, and other teachers. 
Monzo (2010) found that parents engaged 
in cultural practices that supported the 
development of children’s academic 



Canadian Children Child Study

SPrinG / PrinteMPS 2013 34 Vol. 38 No. 1

identities. In addition, through active 
participation as translators and decision 
makers at home through two languages, 
children developed confidence, which 
is closely associated with academic 
performance. Smith (1988) referred to the 
need for children to identify themselves as 
a member of literacy club. He explained 
that 

members of the literacy club are 
people who read and write, even the 
beginners, and the fact that one is not 
very competent yet is no reason for 
exclusion or ridicule. A newcomer 
is the same kind of person as the 
proficient club member, except that 
he or she hasn’t yet had as much 
experience. It is the same in all normal 
sports and recreation clubs. (p. 11) 

When children identify themselves as 
a member of a literacy club, they see 
themselves as the same kind of people as 
the more proficient club members, who 
are already able to read and write and 
participate in literacy activities. This will 
result in children viewing their literacy 
development as a positive relationship 
with the world. 

In summary, English language learners 
may carry multiple identities. Therefore, 
their learning and literacy practices 
will be inevitably influenced by a 
learner’s identities. If literacy practices 
are congruent with a learner’s sense of 
gender roles, societal positions, cultural 
backgrounds, ethnic histories, and class 
backgrounds, the learning process can 
be enhanced (Menard-Warwick, 2005). 
Otherwise, resistance to learning may 
occur (Menard-Warwick, 2005). 

Literacy Behaviour of Immigrant Parents 
Literacy behaviour is a very broad 
concept, and it occurs in both passive and 
active HLEs (Burgess, Hecht, & Lonigan, 
2002). Literacy behaviour includes 
(a) literacy events such as decoding, 
phonics behaviour, comprehension, 
inference, and critical reading skills; 
(b) aesthetic appreciation behaviour; 
(c) reading flexibility skills; and (d) 

study skills (Bormuth, 1973–1974). 
Literacy behaviour may include parental 
reading for pleasure, shared reading with 
children, exposing children to print, and 
other activities. Literacy behaviour can 
be recreational or functional and may 
include both parents and children together 
or parents and children individually. In 
this paper, I expand the idea of literacy 
behaviour beyond reading and writing to 
include all interactions happening in the 
home where either parent models literacy 
behaviours, or parents interact with 
children, or children independently carry 
out activities that will contribute to their 
literacy development. In this instance, 
literacy behaviour could include cultural 
activities such as parents and children 
watching a Chinese movie together 
(Zhang, 2009). 

By engaging children in literacy 
behaviour, parents promote literacy 
engagement. Literacy engagement 
incorporates notions of time on task 
(reading and writing extensively), affect 
(enthusiasm and enjoyment of literacy), 
depth of cognitive processing (strategies 
to deepen comprehension), and active 
pursuit of literacy activities (amount 
and diversity of literacy practices in 
and out of school; Guthrie, 2004). 
Children’s active participation in literacy 
practices, expression of positive attitudes 
toward literacy practices, employment 
of strategies for comprehension, and 
active pursuit of literacy activities are 
demonstrations of literacy engagement 
(Guthrie, 2004). Cummins (2011) 
argues that to engage children in literacy 
activities, it is essential that home and 
schools provide engaging books and 
other printed materials in children’s home 
language or English. 

Literacy behaviour in immigrant families 
may occur in both a heritage language 
and English. Parental support in heritage 
language learning is very important. The 
more a child is exposed to a heritage 
language, the greater the chances that 
the child will become proficient in it 
(Arriagada, 2005). Parents are committed 
to providing a variety of literacy activities 

at home if they support their children to 
maintain a home language. For example, 
parents may speak the language at home 
and insist that children respond similarly 
(Liao & Larke, 2008); they may help with 
literacy activities and promote positive 
attitudes toward language study (Pacini-
Ketchabaw, Bernhard, & Freire, 2001); 
and they may provide opportunities to 
use the heritage language in a variety of 
social and cultural contexts (Shin, 2005). 
Using data from the National Education 
Longitudinal Study, Arriagada (2005) 
conducted research with 2,736 first-, 
second-, and third-generation Latino 
children to examine why some Latino 
children maintain knowledge of their 
native language. The results demonstrate 
that language and family context strongly 
influence Spanish usage and proficiency 
for Latino children, regardless of 
generational status. 

Parents develop many strategies to 
compensate for the growing presence of 
English in the home. Lao (2004) conducted 
research with 45 Latino families with 
school-aged children. Parental strategies 
emphasized the use of only Spanish at 
home, visits to relatives in their country 
of origin, and interacting with friends who 
spoke Spanish. Through observations of 
literacy activities at home, Kenner et al. 
(2004) examined six-year-olds learning 
to write in Chinese, Arabic, or Spanish. 
Parents taught children how to use a 
bilingual dictionary, read them children’s 
books or stories in a heritage language, 
and read and listened to the Qur’an in 
Arabic. 

Similar results were found with Chinese 
learners. Zhang and Koda (2011) 
conducted a survey to examine the 
relationship between the HLE and word 
knowledge with 36 grade three Chinese-
English bilingual children. The HLE was 
examined through (a) parents reading to 
the children in Chinese or helping with 
Chinese school homework, and (b) the 
child’s independent reading in Chinese. 
Overall, parents seemed to use primarily 
Chinese to talk to their children, while 
children often used English or both 



Canadian Children Child Study

SPrinG / PrinteMPS 2013 35 Vol. 38 No. 1

Chinese and English to talk to their 
parents. There was a significant positive 
correlation between parental language 
use, school-work related practices, and 
learners’ Chinese vocabulary breadth. 
Xiao (2008) compared the HLE of 
Chinese heritage language learners at three 
proficiency levels. Participants recalled 
the availability of Chinese resources, 
shared literacy activities with parents, 
and independent literacy activities when 
they were a child. Xiao (2008) suggested 
differences in the HLE between the 
three groups of learners with different 
proficiency levels. However, it should be 
noted that the way Xiao defined Chinese 
proficiency is based on instructional 
years. It does not necessarily reflect the 
heritage language proficiency. In addition, 
this study relies on adult retrospection 
of childhood experience. A direct look 
at children who are learning a heritage 
language would better suit a study of 
how home literacy experience influences 
literacy acquisition.

In a phenomenological study of three 
immigrant children’s individual networks 
of linguistic contact, Zhang (2009) 
concludes that it is important for parents 
to provide literacy opportunities for 
children to develop heritage language. 
One participant in the study was in an early 
elementary grade; his parents took the role 
of language teacher and spent 30 minutes to 
one hour per day tutoring him. In addition, 
they introduced TV programs as part of 
the heritage language learning and catered 
to the child’s interests in certain popular 
TV programs, such as classic Chinese 
cartoon videos. For example, while the 
child watched TV, his parents explained 
or discussed the program. Moreover, the 
mother read simple rhythms and poems 
to the child every day until he committed 
them to memory (Zhang, 2009). Each 
day, the children copied one poem several 

times to remember the characters. His 
mother explained the meaning of each 
new character and paraphrased each 
poem for him. These examples indicate 
how parents transfer their beliefs to their 
daily home literacy activities and create a 
learning environment for children through 
interacting with them. 

Chumak-Horbatsch (2008) examined 
language views and home language 
practices of sixteen immigrant parents with 
children in a Toronto English-language 
childcare centre. She administered 
questionnaires separately to mothers 
and fathers in eight immigrant families. 
The questionnaire included questions 
concerning (a) demographics; (b) language 
attitudes, beliefs, and proficiency; (c) 
home language practices; (d) child’s 
language proficiency; (e) bilingualism; 
and (f) language-related concerns. The 
results indicated that immigrant mothers 
were more committed to their children’s 
first language development than were 
fathers. In addition, negative effects 
of early second language exposure on 
children’s first language competence were 
reported. These parents used a number of 
strategies at home to support children’s 
heritage language maintenance: using 
only the first language at home; reading 
first language books to their children; and 
direct first language teaching. However, 
even though the parents promoted home 
language use, they worried that even if 
their children developed and retained an 
understanding of the home language, they 
would probably never acquire literacy 
skills in the home language, which 
resulted in anxiety and uncertainty about 
the continued use of the home language. 
In summary, immigrant parents promote 
children’s literacy engagement by 
providing a variety of literacy activities 
at home in both heritage language and 
English. 

Recognizing Home Literacy 
Environment Strategies to Support 
Literacy

I briefly review the literature in both 
heritage language and English acquisition 

and identify how a HLE influences 
ELL literacy development. Chumak-
Horbatsch (2004) argues that the starting 
point to support learners should be an 
understanding of the “centrality and 
importance of their home contexts” (p. 
21). Language acquisition depends on 
a number of factors, including a child’s 
literacy in his or her native language, 
previous schooling experience, and 
family support, etc. A number of strategies 
can support literacy development; 
those suggested here for educators and 
researchers who work with immigrant 
families are derived from the literature 
reviewed.

(1) Even if parents hold positive language 
attitudes toward heritage language 
learning, they may behave passively 
and have low expectations (Liao 
& Larke, 2008) and, over time, 
may make diminishing efforts and 
investment in their children’s language 
maintenance (Lee, 2002). Therefore, 
educators may consider reassuring 
immigrant parents regarding the 
possibilities of children’s heritage 
language maintenance. This will 
provide parents with confidence and 
they may become more willing to 
make contributions and investments. 

(2) Parents still receive “subtle messages” 
(Pacini-Ketchabaw, Bernhard, & 
Freire, 2001, p. 16) from school 
personnel indicating that children 
having problems at school could 
be linked to the use of a heritage 
language at home. Therefore, rather 
than give subtle messages regarding 
the detriment of heritage language, it 
is important for educators to reassure 
parents with clear messages about 
the importance of their support of 
heritage language learning at home. 

(3) Although it is consistently reported 
in the literature that parents hold 
positive language attitudes toward 
heritage language maintenance, many 
immigrant parents face dilemmas 
in supporting their children in 
acquiring English while maintaining 

“Maintaining a heritage language 
is a way of constructing a learner’s 

cultural identity and, hence, his 
or her relationship to the world.”



Canadian Children Child Study

SPrinG / PrinteMPS 2013 36 Vol. 38 No. 1

their heritage language (Wu, 2005). 
Therefore, educators could assure 
immigrant parents that young children 
can handle two languages (Chumak-
Horbatsch, 2004). In addition, it 
is important to inform parents that 
the human brain has the capacity to 
learn multiple languages and that 
the highest receptivity for language 
is in early infancy and childhood 
(Chumak-Horbatsch, 2004). 

(4) Some parents tend to perceive 
shortcomings of school, such as a 
lack of intellectual challenges (Li, 
2001). This could be due to a lack 
of knowledge about what occurs in 
school and the purpose of certain 
activities at school. Therefore, it is 
important to establish communication 
between school and home. For 
example, a weekly diary could be 
transferred between parents and 
teachers so that both will have an in-
depth understanding of learning at 
school and at home. 

(5) Students who identify with their ethnic 
background generally assess their 
language proficiency as higher than 
students who identify less (Finch, 
2009). As one participant mentioned, 
his favourite social studies teacher 
often praised him for his bilingual 
skills and had him write Mandarin 
characters on the blackboard to show 
to his classmates (Zhang, 2009). 
Educators could seek opportunities to 
connect students’ ways of being with 
literacy learning into school literacy 
activities. In addition, it is important 
to support each child to recognize 
the ways literacy can contribute to 
his or her personal way of being in 
the world. Literacy and identity are 
connected, and these connections are 
critical to literacy engagement and 
learning. Respecting the language 
and the culture that children bring 
to school enables each child to feel 
accepted (Chumak-Horbatsch, 2004).

(6) As Lee (2004) argues, “the challenge 
in many classrooms has been how to 

apprentice students into disciplinary 
identities that do not diminish 
existing identities that students bring 
both individually and as members 
of different cultural communities” 
(p. 130). A number of studies show 
that when this challenge is not met, 
resistance, rather than learning, is 
likely to result (Menard-Warwick, 
2005). Therefore, educators could 
encourage children to develop 
identity through, for example, 
supporting children’s active 
participation in literacy practices 
and literacy engagement. By taking 
on new practices, children establish 
confidence and construct and 
reconstruct identities.

 
(7) Cummins (2011) argues that to 

engage children in literacy activities, 
one priority is to provide engaging 
books and other printed materials in 
either the children’s home language 
or English at home and in school. 
Therefore, Cummins (2011) suggests 
that schools could send such materials 
to students’ homes. These materials 
could include multiliteracy resources, 
such as recorded stories. By providing 
resources for immigrant parents 
in both the heritage and second 
languages, one of the challenges 
that immigrant parents face—lack of 
resources—could be mediated.

(8) Chumak-Horbatsch’s (2008) study 
suggests that parents welcome specific 
heritage language maintenance 
strategies from childcare teachers. 
Therefore, early childhood educators 
could support immigrant families by 
communicating with parents how 
to support their children’s heritage 
language maintenance in specific 
ways. 

Conclusion

Research to date on the relationship 
between the HLE and ELL literacy 
development has shown relevancy 
between different areas of the HLE and 
literacy development. In summary, a HLE 

influences ELL literacy development 
through parents’ positive or negative 
language attitudes toward heritage 
language maintenance and their beliefs 
regarding children’s literacy development. 
In addition, the understanding that learning 
is enhanced when a learner’s identity 
matches literacy practices provides an 
opportunity for educators to use available 
resources to nurture learners’ positive 
identity. Finally, immigrant parents’ 
literacy behaviour will influence children’s 
literacy engagement. I have provided some 
strategies for educators and researchers to 
work with newcomer families in support 
of their children’s literacy development. 
My goal in this paper has been to examine 
the relationship between home literacy 
practices and ELL literacy acquisition on 
both heritage language maintenance and 
second language acquisition, and provide 
educators and researchers with strategies 
so that they could work together with 
immigrant families to support English 
language learners’ literacy development. 

References

Archer, L., Francis, B., & Mau, A. (2010). The culture 
project: Diasporic negotiations of ethnicity, 
identity and culture among teachers, pupils and 
parents in Chinese language schools. Oxford 
Review of Education, 36(4), 407–426. doi: 
10.1080/03054981003775293.

Arriagada, P. A. (2005). Family context and Spanish-
language use: A study of Latino children in the United 
States. Social Science Quarterly, 86(3), 599–619.

Auerbach, E. R. (1989). Toward a social-contextual 
approach to family literacy. Harvard Educational 
Review, 59(2), 165–181.

Bennett, K. K., Weigel, D. J., & Martin, S. S. (2002). 
Children’s acquisition of early literacy skills: 
Examining family contributions. Early Childhood 
Research Quarterly, 17(3), 295–317.

Bormuth, J. (1973–1974). Reading literacy: Its definition 
and assessment. Reading Research Quarterly, 9(1), 
7–66.

Burgess, S. R., Hecht, S. A., & Lonigan, C. J. (2002). 
Relations of the home literacy environment (HLE) to 
the development of reading-related abilities: A one-
year longitudinal study. Reading Research Quarterly, 
37(4), 408–426.

Chinen, K., & Tucker, G. R. (2005). Heritage language 
development: Understanding the roles of ethnic 
identity and Saturday school participation. Heritage 
Language Journal, 3(1), 27–32.



Canadian Children Child Study

SPrinG / PrinteMPS 2013 37 Vol. 38 No. 1

Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (2004). Linguistic diversity in early 
childhood education: Working with linguistically and 
culturally diverse children. Canadian Children, 29(2), 
20–24.

Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (2008). Early bilingualism: children 
of immigrants in an English-language childcare centre. 
Psychology of Language and Communication, 12(1), 
3–27.

Chumak-Horbatsch, R., & Garg, S. (2006). “ Mmmmmm 
… I LIKE ENGLISH!” Linguistic behaviors of 
Ukrainian-English bilingual children. Psychology of 
Language and Communication, 10(2), 3–26.

Compton-Lilly, C. (2006). Identity, childhood culture, 
and literacy learning: A case study. Journal of Early 
Childhood Literacy, 6(1), 57–76.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New 
literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International 
Journal, 4, 164–195.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language 
development in promoting success for language 
minority students. In California State Department of 
Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority 
students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–50). Los 
Angeles, CA: California State University, Evaluation, 
Dissemination, and Assessment Center.

Cummins, J. (1983). Heritage language education: A 
literature review. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of 
Education.

Cummins, J. (2011), Literacy engagement. The Reading 
Teacher, 65, 142–146. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01022

DeBaryshe, B. D., & Binder, J. C. (1994). Evaluation of an 
instrument for measuring parents’ beliefs about reading 
aloud to young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 
78, 1303–1311.

De Houwer, A. (1999). Environmental factors in early 
bilingual development: The role of parental beliefs 
and attitudes. In E. Guus & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), 
Bilingualism and migration (pp. 75–95). New York, 
NY: Mouton de Gruyer.

Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Clark-Chiarelli, N., 
& Wolf, A. (2004). Cross-language transfer of 
phonological awareness in low-income Spanish 
and English bilingual preschool children. Applied 
Psycholinguistics, 25(3), 323–347.

Douglas, M. O. (2005). Pedagogical theories and 
approaches to teach young learners of Japanese as a 
heritage language. Heritage Language Journal, 3(1), 
60–82.

Farruggio, P. (2010). Latino immigrant parents’ views 
of bilingual education as a vehicle for heritage 
preservation. Journal of Latinos & Education, 9(1), 
3–21. doi:10.1080/15348430903252011

Finch, A. (2009). Korean community schools in the UK : 
Key issues and recommendations. Journal of Korean 
Language Education, 20(3), 205–234.

Fishman, J. (1996). What do you lose when you lose your 
language? ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 
ED395732.

Francis, B., Archer, L., & Mau, A. (2010). Parents’ and 
teachers’ constructions of the purposes of Chinese 
complementary schooling: “Culture,” identity and 

power. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(1), 101–117. 
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10142/106780

Garcia, C. B. (2008). Parenting circles program: The key 
elements for the meaningful engagement of Spanish-
Speaking parents to support their children’s school 
success. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.
ryerson.ca/

Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and 
motivation in second-language learning. Rowley, 
MA.: Newbury House.

Gere, A. R. (2008). English language learners: A policy 
research brief produced by the National Council of 
Teachers of English Language Learners. Council 
Chronicle, 17(3), 15–22. Retrieved from http://www.
ncte.org/

Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. 
Journal of Literacy Research, 36(1), 1–30.

Hammer, C. S., Miccio, A. W., & Wagstaff, D. A. (2003). 
Home literacy experiences and their relationship to 
bilingual preschoolers’ developing English language 
abilities: An initial investigation. Language, Speech, 
and Hearing Services in Schools, 34(1), 20–30.

He, A. W. (2006). Toward an identity theory of the 
development of Chinese as a heritage language. 
Heritage Language Journal, 4(1), 1–28.

Isurin, L., & Ivanova-Sullivan, T. (2008). Lost in between: 
The case of Russian heritage speakers. Heritage 
Language Journal, 6(1), 72–104.

Kendrick, M. (2005). Playing house: A sideways glance 
at literacy and identity in early childhood. Journal of 
Early Childhood Literacy, 5(1), 5–28.

Kenner, C., Kress, G., Al-Khatib, H., Kam, R., & Tsai, 
K.-C. (2004). Finding the keys to biliteracy: How 
young children interpret different writing systems. 
Language and Education, 18(2), 124–144. doi: 
10.1080/09500780408666871.

Kahn, R., & Kellner, D. (2005). Reconstructing 
technoliteracy: A multiple literacies approach. 
E-learning, 2, 238–251. Retrieved from: http://pages.
gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/technoliteracy.pdf

Lao, C. (2004). Parents’ attitudes toward Chinese-English 
bilingual education and Chinese-language use. 
Bilingual Research Journal, 28(1), 99.

Lee, C. D. (2004). Double voiced discourse: African 
American Vernacular English as a resource in cultural 
modeling classrooms. In A. Ball & S. W. Freedman 
(Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, 
and learning (pp.129–147). Cambridge, MA: 
Cambridge University Press.

Lee, J. S. (2002). The Korean language in America: The 
role of cultural identity in heritage language learning. 
Language Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 117–133. 
doi: 10.1080/07908310208666638.

Lee, J. S., & Kim, H. Y. (2008). Heritage language learners’ 
attitudes, motivations, and instructional needs: The 
case of postsecondary Korean language learners. In 
K. Kondo-Brown & J. D. Brown (Eds.), Teaching 
Chinese, Japanese, and Korean heritage language 
students: Curriculum needs, materials, and assessment 
(pp. 159–185). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Li, G. (2000). Literacy outside school: Home practices of 
Chinese immigrant families in Canada. Unpublished 
doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, 
Saskatoon, Canada.

Li, G. (2006a). What do parents think? Middle-class 
Chinese immigrant parents’ perspectives on literacy 
learning, homework, and school-home communication. 
The School Community Journal, 16(2), 25–44.

Li, G. (2006b). Culturally contested pedagogy: Battles of 
literacy and schooling between mainstream teachers 
and Asian immigrant parents. Albany, NY: SUNY 
Press. 

Li, G. (2006c). Biliteracy and trilingual practices in the 
home context: Case studies of Chinese-Canadian 
children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6(3), 
359–385. 

Li, J. (2001). Expectations of Chinese immigrant parents 
for their children’s education: The interplay of Chinese 
tradition and the Canadian context. Canadian Journal 
of Education, 26(4), 477–495. 

Liao, L., & Larke, P. J. (2008). The voices of thirteen 
Chinese and Taiwanese parents sharing views about 
their children attending Chinese heritage schools. US-
China Education Review, 5(12), 1–8.

Liu, Y., & Vadeboncoeur, J. (2010). Bilingual 
intertextuality: The joint construction of bi-
literacy practices between parent and child. 
Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(4), 367–381. doi: 
10.1080/10749030903336842.

Lynch, A. (2003). The relationship between second and 
heritage language acquisition: Notes on research and 
theory building. Heritage Language Journal, 1, 1–18.

McCarthey, S. J., & Moje, E. B. (2002). Conversations: 
Identity matters. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(2), 
228–238.

Menard-Warwick, J. (2005). Both a fiction and an 
existential fact: Theorizing identity in second 
language acquisition and literacy studies. Linguistics 
and Education, 16, 253–274. doi:10.1016/j.
linged.2006.02.001

Monzo, L. D. (2010). Fostering academic identities among 
Latino immigrant students- contextualizing parents’ 
roles. In M. L. Dantas & P. C. Manyak (Eds.), Home-
school connections in a multicultural society: Learning 
from and with culturally and linguistically diverse 
families (pp. 112–130). New York, NY: Routledge.

Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership 
of English. [Introduction, Special Issue] TESOL 
Quarterly, 31(3), 409–429.

Otcu, B. (2010). Heritage language maintenance and 
cultural identity formation: The case of a Turkish 
Saturday school in New York City. Heritage Language 
Journal, 7(2), 112–137.

Pacini-Ketchabaw, V., Bernhard, J. K., & Freire, M. 
(2001). Struggling to preserve home language: The 
experiences of Latino students and families in the 
Canadian school system. Early Childhood Education 
Publications and Research. Paper 16. Retrieved from 
http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/ece/16



Canadian Children Child Study

SPrinG / PrinteMPS 2013 38 Vol. 38 No. 1

Pahl, K. (2003). Children’s text making at home: 
Transforming meaning across modes. In C. Jewitt & G. 
Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 139–154). New 
York, NY: Peter Lang.

Perry, N., Kay, S. M., & Brown, A. (2008). Continuity 
and change in home literacy practices of Hispanic 
families with preschool children. Early Child 
Development and Care, 178(1), 99–113. doi: 
10.1080/03004430701482191.

Reese, L. J., & Gallimore, R. (2000). Immigrant Latinos’ 
cultural model of literacy development: An evolving 
perspective on home-school discontinuities. American 
Journal of Education, 108(2), 103–134.

Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary 
of language teaching and applied linguistics. UK: 
Longman.

Rodríguez, B. L., Hammer, C. S., & Lawrence, F. R. 
(2009). Parent reading belief inventory: Reliability and 
validity with a sample of Mexican American mothers. 
Early Education & Development, 20(5), 826–844.

Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement 
in the development of children’s reading skills: A 
five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 
445–460.

Shi, Z. (2011). Dilemmas in using phenomenology to 
investigate English language learners’ learning 
experiences in elementary schools. In Education, 
17(1). Retrieved from: http://ineducation.ca/article/
dilemmas-using-phenomenology-investigate-
elementary-school-children-learning-english-second-

Shi, Z. (2012). Opportunities and constraints with 
ethnography in examining the home literacy 
experiences of English Language Learners. Alberta 
Journal of Education Research, 58(2), 232–245. 

Shin, S. J. (2005). Developing in two languages: Korean 
children in America. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual 
Matters.

Smith, F, (1988). Joining the literacy club and further 
essays into education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Street, B. V. (2000). Literacy “events” and literacy 
“practices”: Theory and practice in the “New 
Literacy Studies.” In K. Jones & M. Martin-Jones 
(Eds.), Multilingual literacies: Reading and writing 
different worlds. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John 
Benjamins. 

Suarez, D. (2007). Second and third generation heritage 
language speakers: Heritage language scholarship’s 
relevance to the research needs and future directions of 
TESOL. Heritage Language Journal, 5(1), 27–49.

Takei, N. (2004). The place and value of a heritage 
language in the lives of Japanese Canadians. 
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of British 
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Teale, W. (1986). Home background and young children’s 
literacy development. In W. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), 
Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 173–206). 
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Valdés, G. (2000). The ACTFL-Hunter College FIPSE 
Project and its contributions to the profession. In 
J. B. Webb & B. I. Miller (Eds), Teaching heritage 
language learners: Voices from the classroom (pp. 
235–241). Yonkers, NY: American Council on the 
Teaching of Foreign Languages.

Van Steensel, R. (2006). Relations between socio-cultural 
factors, the home literacy environment and children’s 
literacy development in the first years of primary 
education. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 
367–382.

Wu, C.-H. (2005). Attitude and behavior toward 
bilingualism for Chinese parents and children. 
Retrieved from: http://www.lingref.com/
isb/4/186ISB4.PDF

Xiao, Y. (2008). Home literacy environment in Chinese 
as a heritage language. In A. W. He and Y. Xiao 
(Eds.), Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering 
rooted world citizenry, (pp. 151–166). Honolulu, HI: 
University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language 
Resource Center.

Yeung, A. S., Marsh, H. W., & Suliman, R. (2000). Can 
two tongues live in harmony? Analysis of the National 
Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS88) 
longitudinal data on the maintenance of home 
language. American Educational Research Journal, 
37, 1001–1026.

Zhang, D., & Koda, K. (2011). Home literacy environment 
and word knowledge: A study of young learners of 
Chinese as a heritage language. Bilingual Research 
Journal, 34(1), 4–18.

Zhang, G. (2007). Multiple border crossings: A case study 
of literacy practices of Chinese/American bilingual 
families. In V. Purcell-Gates (Ed.), Cultural practices 
of literacy: Case studies of language, literacy, social 
practice, and power (pp. 85–97). Mahwah, NJ: 
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zhang, J. (2009). Mandarin maintenance among immigrant 
children from the People’s Republic of China: An 
examination of individual networks of linguistic 
contact. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22(3), 
195–213. doi: 10.1080/07908310903308279.

Become a 
Montessori Teacher

... without missing work

Toll-free: 1.877.531.6665
info@montessoritraining.net
www.montessoritraining.net

INFANT/TODDLER EARLY CHILDHOOD ELEMENTARY

ACCESSIBLE
The convenience of distance education

FLEXIBLE 
Start any time on your own schedule 

AFFORDABLE
Montessori Diploma Programs and Curriculum

VALUABLE 
Enrich or transform your center with Montessori