INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE WITH YOUNG BILINGUAL LEARNERS:A CANADIAN PROFILE
Roma Chumak-Horbatsch
School of Early Childhood Studies
Ryerson University
rchumak@ryerson.ca(416) 979-5000, ext. 6334

Abstract
The focus of this chapter is instructional practice with the growing number of young bilingual learners whoarrive in Canadian childcare centres and kindergartens with little or no proficiency in the language of program
delivery. The chapter begins by setting the context, briefly describing the Canadian linguistic landscape andoutlining the linguistic profile of Canadian early care and learning programs. This is followed by a review ofpractices currently adopted by EC professionals in their work with bilingual learners. A new multilingual,strength-based direction in classroom practice is briefly described and recent initiatives are summarized. The
highlights of one of these initiatives, Linguistically Appropriate Practice, are presented and the main findings of
its implementation in two early learning contexts are discussed. These findings include the varied interest inpractice retooling and the identification of categories of factors that affect early childhood professionals’
practice decision-making. Instructional practice with young bilingual learners in the United States of America
and in select regions of Europe is also briefly outlined. The chapter concludes with recommendations fordesigning a course of action to fuel EC professionals’ interest in and commitment to linguistically responsive
practice.

1. Introduction“One of today’s most misunderstood issues in education … is how to educate students who
speak languages other than English.”(García, Kleifgen and Falchi 2008)
This chapter reports on instructional practice with the growing number of children1 who arrive in Canadianchildcare centres and kindergartens with little or no proficiency in the language of program delivery. These

1

These children are between the ages of 15 months and 6 years.

1children are a diverse group. Referred to here as bilingual2 learners (hereafter BLs), they are mostly born in
Canada to newly arrived immigrant parents. Some are acquiring one home language, while others grow up
in multiple language households. Some arrive with little or no exposure to the majority language, whileothers have been exposed to the new language through siblings and older family members, community
experiences and/or the media. Young BLs’ connections with their parents’ countries of origin also vary—from annual trips to regular electronic communication and extended visits from family members. In all cases,
young BLs enrolled in majority language programs find themselves in a unique language-learning
situation—the continued acquisition of their first or home language or languages and the learning of a new
language.
This growing demographic presents a double challenge to Canadian early childhood professionals3(hereafter EC professionals). They find themselves ill prepared to work with children who do not understandthe language of the classroom. Moreover, they describe available resources as falling short of providing
concrete support and guidance. While most Canadian EC professionals acknowledge the fact that BLs are
speakers of “other” languages, they view them first and foremost as learners of the classroom language. As aresult, they opt for instructional practice that hurries them into the new language. Only in a small number ofcases are young BLs’ prior linguistic skills valued and extended and their bilingual potential facilitated andencouraged.
The chapter begins by setting the context and describing the current linguistic landscape of Canadian earlycare and learning programs. In Section 3, instructional practices currently adopted by EC professionals arepresented. Section 4 describes a new direction in instructional practice and provides examples of recent
initiatives. In Section 5, the main findings of the implementation of a new instructional practice called
Linguistically Appropriate Practice or LAP (Chumak-Horbatsch 2012) in two early learning contexts arepresented and discussed. Section 6 looks briefly at instructional practice with BLs in other countries. And

For reasons of convention and brevity, the term “bilingualism” is used in this chapter as a cover term to include both bilingualism and multilingualism.
Early childhood professionals include childcare staff and kindergarten teachers who work directly with young children and are responsible for all aspects of program
planning and delivery.
2

3

2

lastly, Section 7 opens the door to the next level of instructional practice investigation by providing
recommendations for early learning stakeholders.

2. The Canadian Linguistic Landscape
Immigration is central to Canadian history. Often viewed as the “land of immigration”4 and “a choicedestination”5, thousands of immigrants arrive in Canada yearly. Generally supportive and welcoming of foreign
residents, Canada views immigration as an economic and cultural benefit and accepts high numbers of people
from many different parts of the world for work, study or for humanitarian and compassionate reasons (Nanos
2008). Currently, there are more foreign-born residents (6.8 million or 20.6 %) in Canada than ever before.
Often called a “nation of many languages”,6 the more than two hundred languages spoken by one in five people
in Canada have been described as economic and cultural assets7.
Children who do not understand or speak the majority languages (French and English) make up a significant
proportion of Canadian early learning settings. In the large, high-immigrant Canadian “gateway cities” ofOntario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta, 18% to 26% speak a language other than English or French at
home8. A recent language profile revealed that nearly half (43%) of the children enrolled in Toronto childcare
centres (Chumak-Horbatsch 2010) speak one or more (of a total of 129 different) heritage languages in thehome, while the Toronto District School Board reports a slightly higher number9, where over half ofkindergarteners come from homes where English is not spoken. In Vancouver schools, 126 different heritage
languages are spoken by 60% of the school population10 and in Montreal’s public French-language schools,
46% of students do not speak French as their home language. In over one-third of Montreal schools, students ofimmigrant origin account for the majority of the population, and just under one in ten schools has an immigrant
population of over 75% (McAndrew, Audet and Bakhshaei 2014).

4

http://www.immigrationdirect.ca/immigration-articles/statistics-facts/?gclid=CJGT6reYp8ACFQcLaQodBzkABQ
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2008001/article/10517-eng.htm
6
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bilingualism-growing-but-not-in-french-and-english-1.1176469
7
http://www.environicsanalytics.ca/blog/doug-norris/doug-norris-blog/2012/11/02/canadians-speak-in-many-tongues
8
http://www.statcan.gc.ca
9
http://www.tdsb.on.ca/HighSchool/YourSchoolDay/Curriculum/ESL.aspx
10
http://www.vsb.bc.ca/english-second-language-information
5

3

Over the past ten years, EC professionals working in urban areas in other Canadian provinces are reportingan ever-increasing number of children who do not understand the majority language. Two reasons help
explain this. Firstly, newcomers are settling in urban areas of the “other” Canadian provinces that offer
affordable housing, promise economic opportunities and provide settlement support. For example, between
2006 and 2011, immigration significantly increased in the urban areas of Saskatchewan, Newfoundland,
Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Manitoba. The Saskatchewan Ministry of Education reported thefollowing between 2007 and 2012: the number of young immigrant children (between the ages of 1 and 5
years of age)11 tripled, the number of children who did not speak an official language (English or French)
more than doubled and the number of immigrant children attending kindergarten in the five-year span morethan doubled.12
Another example comes from the province of Manitoba’s “readiness for school” report13, which shows anincrease of young EAL (English as an additional language) children between 2005 and 2010.
A second reason for the increase of BLs in Canadian early learning programs is the growing change in
traditional and cultural childcare arrangements or norms, where fewer immigrant women are staying at home
to care for their young children and are instead joining the workforce. For example, the rate of increase(17%) for immigrant women in the labour force between 2001 and 2006 was more than double that for
Canadian-born women (7%) (Saraswati 2000).

3. Current instructional practice with young bilingual learners
A recent investigation of instructional practice (Chumak-Horbatsch 2012) identified three different kinds ofpractices adopted by EC professionals in their work with BLs: assimilative, supportive and inclusive (seeTable 1). These practices differ from one another on two aspects: the attention paid to the majority language
and the support provided to BLs’ home languages and cultures. The monolingual focus of assimilative
practice is driven by a deficit agenda, where BLs are labelled and identified by what they lack, namely
11This number would be higher if infants (ages birth to 12 months) were included.
Immigration Services Division, Government of Saskatchewan: Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Microdata, 2013.
13
http://www.gov.mb.ca/healthychild/edi/edireport_MB_201011.pdf
12

4

proficiency in the majority language. This practice ignores their linguistic background, discounts what they
have encoded in their home language or languages, fails to recognize their bilingual potential and hurries
them into the majority language and culture. Supportive practices have a similar monolingual focus, with anaddendum: while the focus of instruction remains the majority language, home languages are acknowledged
and cultural differences are celebrated. These two monolingual practices rest on erroneous and out-dated
assumptions, such as the idea that young children can manage only one language at a time, require increased
input to master the new language and experience competition and negative transfer between their two
languages. Ostensibly adopted in the best interests of BLs, these two practices fall short of meeting theirlanguage and literacy needs.
Unlike the two monolingual practices, inclusive or linguistically responsive practice rests on a positive,
strength-based approach to home languages, recognizing the personal, social, cognitive, linguistic andeconomic advantages of bilingualism. Inclusive practice reflects and concretely responds to the linguistic
diversity found in centres and classrooms. In line with current research findings, this practice views young
BLs as bilinguals in the making or “emergent bilinguals” (García 2009), portraying them as capable, active
dual language learners and acknowledging the fact that they, like all bilinguals, use their entire linguistic
repertoire to navigate the many communicative contexts they encounter. Inclusive practice extends theknowledge that children have encoded in their home language(s) and views their prior experiences asimportant contributors to their identity formulation. Finally, inclusive practice bridges BLs’ two language
worlds, integrating their home language(s) daily and directly into the classroom.

5

Table 1: Instructional practices with young BLs (From Chumak-Horbatsch, 2012)
INSTRUCTIONAL
PRACTICEASSIMILATIVESUPPORTIVE

INCLUSIVE• Teaching and learning the
majority language.

• Teaching and learning the majority
language.

• Teaching and learning the
majority language.

• Absorbing BLs into themajority language andculture as quickly as
possible.

• Acknowledging home languages.

• Validating and supportingchildren’s home languages.

• Celebrating cultural differences.

Main features• Integrating home languages
into the curriculum.
• Using children’s language
skills as a resource.

Focus

Sample strategies• Monolingual, monoliterate, mono-cultural• Monolingual, mono-literate, intercultural• Limit the number of BLs ineach classroom.

• Use key words and phrases in thehome languages to easecommunication: Come here;bathroom; Do you want some help?
It’s OK; sleep; stop; eat.

• Discourage interaction
between children who
speak the same homelanguage.

• Working closely withfamilies to promotebilingualism and biliteracy.
• Multilingual, multi-literate,and inter-cultural• Greet children in theirhome languages.
• Invite family members toshare and author dual
language books.

• Organize multicultural celebrations.

Although the three practices can be characterized separately and may appear to be mutually exclusive, they
are not. The shaded areas of Figure 1 show that there is overlap between them. Indeed, numerous reports,
classroom observations and accounts found in early learning resources reveal that in their work with BLs,
Canadian EC professionals adopt strategies across all three practices. For example, general assimilative
practice may include some supportive strategies such as acknowledgement and recognition of BLs’ homelanguages, and inclusive strategies such as including home languages in the curriculum often accompany
supportive practice. However, overlap is not found between the two kinds of instructional practices that arestarkly different, assimilative and inclusive.

6

Figure 1: Overlap in instructional practices

The majority of Canadian EC professionals find themselves ill prepared to work with children and families who
have little or no proficiency in the language of program delivery (Meyers 2003; Webster and Valeo 2011;
Pacini-Ketchabaw 2007). With little or no training in linguistic diversity, childhood bilingualism andlinguistically responsive pedagogy, most remain unfamiliar with the importance of the language backgrounds
and experiences of BLs and often feel that these children tax their busy and demanding agendas. As a result,they prefer supportive practice, a middle-of-the-road, accommodating approach that hurries BLs into themajority language, peripherally recognizes their home languages and celebrates their cultures.
Three factors help explain this choice of practice. Firstly, Canada is a country characterized by linguistic andcultural diversity, where for the most part, its inhabitants have an open, respectful and positive attitude
towards multiculturalism, diversity and immigration. As such, most EC professionals feel that a focus on the
majority language, with a nod to children’s linguistic and cultural differences, is the thing to do. The second
reason is that many EC professionals, themselves speakers of heritage languages, view bilingualism
positively and consider it appropriate to acknowledge home languages. Finally, as we will see in the next
section, the majority of Canadian early learning resources promote and endorse supportive instructional
practice.
Most Canadian early learning resources (curriculum guidelines and policy documents) include some
information about BLs. This information varies in length, breadth, philosophy, developmental overview,
theoretical framework and practicality. For example, some resources simply inform the reader about thepresence of BLs, while others provide an overview of dual language learning in young children or offer
7

strategies and suggestions for integrating BLs into their new language environment. Taken together, theresources characterize BLs in the following way:•BLs are learners of the majority language. They are labelled as English Language Learners (ELLs),
English as an Additional Language Learners (EAL), English as a Second Language (ESL) Learners or
French as a Second Language (FSL) Learners.

•

BLs will encounter some difficulties in learning the classroom language.

•

In learning the classroom language, BLs will go through a silent stage.

•

BLs’ home languages and cultures are important.

With its focus on the majority language, this characterization of BLs is problematic and inequitable for four
reasons. Firstly, majority language identification and labelling of BLs — as ELLs, EALs, ESLs, or FSLs —establishes the classroom language as the only language worth knowing, learning and speaking, solidifies
majority language teaching as the goal of working with BLs, devalues their home languages and literacy
experiences, skills and strengths and ignores their bilingual potential. Secondly, the deficit focus of thecharacterization—absence of the majority language and potential difficulties—stand in contrast to
established principles of childhood bilingualism that portray young children as capable, active language
learners. Thirdly, the silent stage, although widely accepted and expected by EC professionals, lacks
research evidence (Roberts 2014), is artificially created and is damaging to BLs (Chumak-Horbatsch 2012).
In reality, BLs are not silent, but are silenced by the monolingual classroom agenda. Finally, colourfulcelebrations and displays capture only one dimension of the many cultural experiences of BLs.
A close look at Canadian early learning resources often reveals a disconnect between the images and themessage conveyed in the text. While the many photos of children and families from various ethnic groups,
like the one in Figure 2, reflect the diversity found in the childcare and kindergarten population, the message
in the accompanying text promotes practice that focuses on the majority language, as seen in thecharacterization of BLs.

8

Figure 2: Typical photo found in early learning resources14

A particularly noteworthy example of image-text mismatch can be found in an Ontario ministry document
entitled Supporting English Language Learners in Kindergarten: A practical guide for Ontario educators.15
While the text promotes inclusive practice, reminding EC professionals that young children “develop theirknowledge by building on their past experiences and the learning they have already acquired” andencouraging the creation of “an inclusive learning environment that supports the success of every student” (p.
4), the title of the document and the tree images communicate a strong monolingual message. The purple
tree foliage, trunk, ground and roots on the cover are filled with multi-coloured translations of the word
ENGLISH (Figure 3), while the purple borders (Figure 4) with white translations of ENGLISH are foundthroughout the pages. Together, these images communicate not the many voices and roots of BLs but rather,
the centrality and importance of one voice and one root—English.
Figure 3: CoverYork University is committed to reducing its ecological footprint.
This handbook has been printed on FSC certified paper at an Ecologo-certified supplier.

Figure 4: Page 8

Supporting
English Language Learners
in Kindergarten
A practical guide for Ontario educators

11/23/07 8:39:24 AM

14

Healthy Child Manitoba: http://www.gov.mb.ca/healthychild/ecd/index.html
15
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/kindergarten/kindergartenell.pdf

9In addition to the monolingual characterization of BLs, Canadian early learning resources remind EC
professionals to be sensitive to cultures and languages, to “value, honour, and promote culture and language
as integral components of programs, supports and services”16, and to attend to home languages: “Wheneducators are aware of and able to understand and respond to the many “languages” children use tocommunicate, they give every child a “voice.”17. While such reminders appear to promote children’s homelanguages, their wording is broad, leaving EC professionals wondering, “How do I do this?”
The same is true of the widespread, inclusive-like home language word-phrase strategy, found in numerous
early learning resources. Adopting this strategy, EC professionals learn and use key words in children’s
home languages (e.g., It’s OK; Stop; Are you tired? Are you hungry?), to ease communication and help
newly arrived BLs transition into their new language environment. In reality, this strategy is far from
inclusive. Rather, it is simply used as a stepping-stone to the learning of the classroom language. Oncechildren gain a basic proficiency in the new language, this home language strategy is no longer needed andis abandoned.
Overall, then, the majority of Canadian EC professionals adopt for instructional practice that reflects the
supportive directive endorsed and promoted in early learning resources. They view and label BLs as learnersof the majority language, focus on the teaching of the majority language, peripherally acknowledge homelanguages and celebrate cultures.

4. A new direction
Yet, the profile sketched in the previous section is not the full picture. Information gathered through theauthor’s on-going work (research, teaching, classroom observation and school involvement) (ChumakHorbatsch 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012) reveals a new direction in instructional practice with young BLs.
Since 2000, a growing number of Canadian EC professionals, many of whom speak multiple languages andare aware of the benefits of bilingualism, are rethinking the supportive approach, engaging in professional

16
17

Starting Early, Starting Strong: Manitoba’s Early Childhood Development Framework, 2013
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/childcare/HowLearningHappens.pdf

10change behaviours and adopting various inclusive instructional strategies. According to Cummins (2014),
this shift to linguistically responsive pedagogy (also referred to as “multi-literacies pedagogy” (Cummins2006) or “teaching with a multilingual lens” (Cummins and Early 2014)) is still in its infancy. In line with anumber of major learning and teaching frameworks, orientations and principles, it is fuelled by the growing
number of collaborations between Canadian educators and university researchers, whose projects andinitiatives are redefining multilingual education.
Linguistically responsive practice is grounded in the strength-based orientation of learning (Ruiz 1984;
González and Moll 1995; Moll, Amanti, Neff and González 1992; Moll, and Greenberg 1990) that views
children’s family and community experiences as important building blocks for acquiring new knowledge.
Consistent with empirical research findings from cognitive psychology on how learning happens (Bransford,
Brown and Cocking 2000; Donovan and Bransford 2005; Cummins 2001, 2006; Reyes 2001), linguistically
responsive pedagogy positions teachers as supportive guides who activate learners’ prior language and literacy
understandings, help learners formulate their identity, provide opportunities for age-appropriate levels of
understanding and allow learners to take control of and self-regulate their language and literacy learning. In linewith the social constructivist orientation on learning and teaching put forward by Piaget (1929) and Vygotsky(1978) and elaborated by numerous scholars (Cummins 2001, 2004, 2006; Skourtou, Kourtis Kazoullis andCummins 2006; Cummins and Early 2011, 2014; Norton 2000; Siraj-Blatchford 2000; Toohey 2000, 2006;
Wardle and Cruz-Janzen 2003), linguistically responsive pedagogy emphasizes the joint construction ofknowledge and the importance of the social context in supporting and enabling learning, literacy engagement
and the affirmation of learners’ identities. Finally, inclusive pedagogy is founded on three psycholinguistic andsociolinguistic principles that underlie educational success: strong and effective promotion of fluency andliteracy in both the home and the classroom languages; sustained multi-literacy engagement where literacy isunderstood in a wide-ranging way and the collaborative creation of power within the classroom (Cummins
2001, 2009).
In the sections that follow, recent examples of multilingual initiatives with BLs undertaken by Canadian
researchers and educators are briefly described. The highlights of one of these initiatives, Linguistically11

Appropriate Practice or LAP, are presented and the main findings of the implementation of this instructional
approach in two early learning contexts are discussed.
4.1. Dual Language Reading ProjectIn the Dual Language Reading Project18, a partnership between the University of Calgary and the Calgary
Board of Education, teachers, family and community members shared dual language books with young BLs
in mainstream classrooms and in a Spanish-English bilingual program. This collaboration bridged the school
and the home, extended BLs’ linguistic skills, improved early literacy skills, positively affected their identity
development and helped all children develop awareness and understanding of linguistic diversity.
4.2. ELODILThe ELODIL19 project, developed at the Université de Montreal and also undertaken in Vancouver,concretely supports teachers who work with BLs. The goals of the project are to “legitimize the language oforigin of students from immigrant families” and help, in age-appropriate ways, “to promote language
awareness and openness to linguistic diversity in the classroom.” The ELODIL resources (publications, booklists and videos) link to similar European initiatives, and the many classroom activities are intended tostimulate children’s interest in and extend their knowledge about different language groups. Response to the
ELODIL activities shows that giving home languages a place in the classroom motivates and excites BLs
and helps them to understand linguistic diversity.
4.3 ScribJab
ScribJab20 is a website and iPad application developed at Simon Fraser University. Built on the premise thatchildren learn second languages faster and better if they have a strong foundation in their first language,
ScribJab invites children to read, create and share digital stories (text, illustrations and audio recordings) inany language: English and/or French or home languages. Space is provided for young readers and authors to

18
19
20

www.rahatnaqvi.ca
Éveil au langage et ouverture à la diversité linguistique (Awakening to Language and Opening up to Linguistic Diversity), http://elodil.com
http://www.scribjab.com/en/about/about.html

12discuss their stories with one another. Teachers can monitor and organize children’s contributions and create
reading groups.
4.4 Home Oral Language Activities (HOLA)
The Home Oral Language Activities (HOLA)21 program supports young BLs’ development in their homelanguages and builds family-teacher partnerships. Developed by speech and language pathologists, Early
Years and English as a Second Language staff of the Toronto District School Board, the program invites
families to share a collection of thematic books (available in 12 languages) and related objects with theirchildren, to develop vocabulary, content and background knowledge. Like the three initiatives described
previously, the HOLA program concretely supports children’s home languages and scaffolds new learningon prior strengths and skills.

5. Linguistically Appropriate Practice (LAP)
In this section, Linguistically Appropriate Practice or LAP is briefly described. This is followed by asummary of the main findings of the implementation of this new instructional practice in two early learning
contexts.
5.1 What is LAP?
LAP is an inclusive instructional approach that views young, non-majority-language-speaking children as
BLs rather than simply as learners of the classroom language. LAP links BLs’ home and classroom language
and literacy experiences, encourages home language use in the classroom and promotes multilingualism. It
brings linguistic diversity to life and prepares young children for the complex communication and literacy
demands of the 21st century (García 2009, 2009a, 2009b). Developed in response to the numerous requests
for concrete guidance, LAP helps EC professionals to retool the way they work with BLs and to move fromsupportive to inclusive instructional practice.

21

http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/JIRCD/article/view/15999

13

LAP is grounded in dynamic bilingualism (García, 2009a, 2009c), a theory that reflects the current global
and technological communication reality and focuses on languages that speakers use rather than on separate
languages they have. García defines dynamic bilingualism as “language practices that are multiple and everadjusting to the multilingual multimodal terrain of the communicative act” (García, 2009a:144). Dynamic
bilingualism, García explains, is not about adding additional languages. It is about using one’s entire
linguistic repertoire to deal with communication circumstances or “developing complex language practices
that encompass several social contexts” (García, 2010: 96).
The implementation of LAP is a four-step sequential process. In the first step, EC professionals are
introduced to dynamic bilingualism, (García 2009, 2009a, 2009b). This is followed by a review of theprinciples of childhood bilingualism. Finally, EC professionals are encouraged to reflect on their current
practice with BLs in relation to three different kinds of approaches and consider strategies for moving
towards inclusive practice.
Building on their new understanding of childhood bilingualism, EC professionals are then ready for the next
LAP step, familiarity with a language portrait of BLs. This pedagogical tool provides an accurate, researchbased picture of BLs’ linguistic reality and bilingual potential. Adapted from qualitative researchmethodology (Lawrence-Lightfoot and Hoffman Davis 1997; Lawrence-Lightfoot 2005; Hackman 2002)
and guided by the question “What is good here?” the language portrait describes the language and literacy
strengths, abilities and needs of BLs. It also includes troubling and challenging aspects of their language
lives, including the inequities and hardships they face when they join a new language environment andencounter “unfamiliar practices and discourses” (Bligh 2014).
The third step in the LAP implementation process is to consider appropriate strategies for managing fiveimportant issues that EC professionals encounter in their work with BLs: transitioning them from home tothe classroom; introducing them to their classmates; partnering with families; using home languages in theclassroom; and documenting language and literacy behaviours.
In the last LAP step, knowledgeable and committed EC professionals are finally ready to implement
inclusive practice. To get them started, LAP provides over 50 activities. Designed to be conducted in the14classroom language, these activities include a home language component and cover a wide range of topics
and subject areas. As they transform their classrooms into multilingual environments, EC professionals
select, modify and extend the LAP activities to match the ages and needs of their children and put strategies
in place that actively engage both children and families.
5.2 LAP Studies
Unlike previous instructional practice studies with select, like-minded participants (Toohey 2000; Naqvi,
Thorne, Pfitscher, Nordstokke and McKeough 2012), the two studies presented here were context-wide, withthe participation of all members of the teaching staff. The goal of the studies was to help two groups of EC
professionals, who met the same general condition of working directly with BLs, to retool their instructional
practice. In the two studies, practice retooling (hereafter PR-ing) was defined as the process of reflecting on
and reviewing one’s current instructional practice with BLs, aligning it with evidence-based principles ofchildhood bilingualism and using the four-step LAP guide (Chumak-Horbatch 2012) to move towards
inclusive practice. The research question guiding the two studies was “How can LAP help EC professionals
to retool their current instructional practice with BLs and move towards inclusive practice?” Study
documentation included field notes, documentation logs, home language questionnaires (children andteaching staff), LAP-related artefacts created by the children and final evaluations.
5.2.1 Study A
Study A was small-scale and was implemented over a ten-month period in an urban fee-based licensed
childcare centre, (hereafter UCC). The UCC serves upper middle-class families and accepts children from
18 months to 5 years of age. At the time of the study, there were eight EC professionals, fifty placement
students22, a manager and fifty-eight children, divided into three age groups23. Approximately half (48%) of
the children spoke one or more of fifteen different heritage languages at home, half of the EC professionals
were speakers of four heritage languages and fourteen heritage languages were reported by the placement
students.
22
23

Placement students were enrolled in a university Early Childhood Studies undergraduate program.
Toddlers: 18 to 30 months; preschoolers: 2½ to 4 years; kindergarteners: 4-5 years.

15

The UCC staff enthusiastically accepted the invitation to explore a new instructional practice and expressed
an interest in improving their practice with BLs and making their practice more inclusive. Study A started
with three workshops24 that introduced the four parts of LAP, provided the EC professionals with theopportunity to collectively reflect on and review their current practice with BLs and outlined the direction
and scope of the study. EC professionals were invited to review, select, adapt and implement LAP activities
according to their suitability, age-appropriateness and the interests of the children in their groups. They werealso encouraged to keep a written record of the implementation process and progress. LAP was also
introduced to the UCC families and to the placement students. The highlights of this new instructional
practice were presented, the importance of family engagement was discussed and the plan of the study was
explained. Throughout the study, the author conducted both group and individual validation meetings with
the EC professionals to foster reflection on and discussion of all aspects of the implementation of LAP. To
keep record keeping to a minimum and make the documentation task lighter and less demanding, the author
took on the role of on-site observer and recorder, working directly with the children, meeting with families
and collecting and photographing LAP-related artefacts created by the children.
5.2.2 Study B
Study B was conducted over a ten-month period in a large publicly funded school (hereafter PFS) situated in
an immigrant, high-density, low-income, high-unemployment area of Toronto. At the time of the study,
enrolment stood at 567, with 313 (55%) five-year-olds and 254 (45%) four-year-olds. PFS staff included aprincipal, a vice-principal, 50 EC professionals (25 teachers and 25 early childhood educators), specializedteachers (music, drama, gym, language intervention, literacy support and special needs) and an
administrative team. Each of the 25 classrooms included a two-member teaching team (a certified teacher
and an early childhood educator25) and up to 30 children. The majority of the families (97%) spoke one of
31 different heritage languages at home and only 3% reported English as the home language. In addition to

24

The workshops were conducted by the author.
Each kindergarten teaching team included an early childhood educator and a certified teacher who work collaboratively on the management of the kindergarten
classroom.
25

16

English, the majority (84%) of the teaching staff were speakers of two or more heritage languages (24different languages in total), while the remainder were monolingual speakers of English.
Unlike Study A, only one LAP workshop26, attended by the principal and approximately half of the teaching
staff, was conducted in Study B. In the early weeks, the author prepared the groundwork for the
implementation of LAP by familiarizing herself with the school community, visiting classrooms, directlyinteracting with the children, informally chatting with teaching teams and families and organizing an afterschool event that focused on the importance of children’s home languages. Following this, classrooms wereassigned to one of four LAP coaches who visited the school on a weekly basis. The role of the LAP coaches
was to facilitate the teaching teams and document the implementation of LAP. Teaching teams were also
encouraged to record the implementation process and progress in LAP logs. As well, four professionally
relevant after-school events were organized.
5.3 Findings and discussion
The LAP studies revealed three things about instructional practice with young BLs: interest in PR-ing varied
across EC professionals; instructional practice decision-making was affected by three categories of factors;
and LAP served as a valuable PR-ing resource.
5.3.1 Interest in retooling practiceAs Table 2 illustrates, response to the invitation to retool current practice and move towards inclusive
pedagogy varied across EC professionals, ranging from high interest to a total lack of interest. Column Cshows that less than one-fifth (19%) of participants from the two studies chose to retool their practice,
showed high interest and moved towards inclusive practice. These participants were proactive and exhibitedhigh professional curiosity or “initiative, interest and active wondering” (Nersessian 1995) as they adopted
and implemented LAP. Minimal interest in PR-ing was noted in just over one-third (35%) of all participants.
In Study A, these participants implemented LAP activities sporadically and infrequently while those in
Study B exhibited little or no self-initiated effort and followed the suggestions and guidance of the LAP

26

School logistics did not allow for additional workshops.

17coaches. Finally, nearly half (46%) of the Study A and Study B participants chose not to follow up on theinvitation to retool their instructional practice with BLs.
Table 2: Studies A and B: Level of interest in retooling instructional practice
Level ofinterest in
PR-ingA
Study A
N=8

B
Study B
N=46

C
Studies
A&B
N=54

D
Study B
Teachers
N=23

E
Study B
ECEs
N=23

High

1 (12%)

9 (19%)

10 (19%)3 (13%)

6 (26%)

Minimal

3 (38%)

16 (35%)

19 (35%)7 (30%)

9 (39%)None

4 (50%)

21 (46%)25 (46%)

13 (57%)8 (35%)

A closer look at the Study B levels of PR-ing (columns D and E) shows a marked difference in the level ofinterest in PR-ing among the teachers and early childhood educators. Twice as many early childhood
educators as teachers retooled their practice (26% vs 13%). The number of early childhood educators who
engaged in minimal PR-ing with the support and guidance of LAP coaches was also higher (39% vs 30%),
while the lack of interest in PR-ing was lower (35% vs 57%). Also, more early childhood educators thanteachers attended the after-school professional events.
5.3.2 Factors that affected instructional practice decision-making
From the available models of instructional choice and change, the Model of Teacher Change (Ni andGuzdial 2008) was selected and adapted to the BLs context. An analysis of Study A and B documentation
generated three different yet related categories of factors that affected EC professionals’ instructional
practice decision-making with BLs: personal, professional and curricular knowledge, attitudes and beliefs.
Table 3 sets out the broad characteristics that define each category.

18

Table 3: Three categories of factors that affected EC professionals’
instructional practice decision-making
Category 1: PERSONAL
Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs about self as language user••••

Personal language history: monolingual or bilingual, languages spoken, attempted, lost
Personal interest and investment in bilingualism
Attitudes towards immigration, societal language use and multilingualism
Level of self-confidence, risk-taking

Category 2: PROFESSIONAL
Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs about BLs
•
•
•
•
•

The language reality of BLs
The principles of childhood bilingualism
Professional curiosity: motivation to enhance knowledge of bilingualism
View of teaching: collaborative or personal enterprise
Professional curiosity, commitment and engagement

Category 3: CURRICULAR
Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs about working with BLs curricular directive••

Curricular requirements re teaching BLs
Early learning resources: working with BLs

It is noteworthy that identifying general categories of factors as listed in Table 3 proved to be morestraightforward than attempting to identify the factors that affected the decision-making of individual EC
professionals.
With participants who enthusiastically talked about their work with BLs and exhibited a high interest in PRing, it was clear that both personal and professional factors guided their choice to move towards inclusive
practice and adopt LAP. These EC professionals were mostly speakers of two or more languages, had
multilingual experiences in their homes and families and viewed childhood bilingualism favourably. Theirhigh level of professional curiosity led them to look beyond the mandated supportive approach and tointegrate home languages into the classroom agenda. Included in this group were many of the Study B earlychildhood educators who, as a group, displayed a greater interest in PR-ing than did the teachers.
Attempts to identify factors that affected the practice choices of the EC professionals who displayed aminimal interest in PR-ing (just over one-third) were particularly challenging. Even though they agreed tocollaborate with LAP coaches, their accommodating yet disengaged attitude, together with their19unwillingness to complete the final evaluation questionnaire, made it difficult to profile their practicedecisions.
It was clear, however, that all three factors, personal, professional and curricular, were at play when thedecision was made to dismiss PR-ing. Some (but not all) of the English-speaking monolingual EC
professionals rejected the idea of PR-ing due to personal factors, reporting that as single language speakers,
they were ill equipped to concretely support children’s home languages and foster multilingualism.
Participants who (for various reasons) lost their family languages in their early years were not interested in
PR-ing because they felt that young BLs would also eventually lose their home languages. In a small
number of cases, a negative view of school multilingualism (“English is the language of Canada and homelanguages, although important, belong in the home.”) was translated into the dismissal of PR-ing and theadherence to supportive practice. In addition, curricular factors affected the decision-making of some of the
non-PR-ing group. Some of these participants reported directly, while others inferred, that inclusive practicegenerally and LAP specifically are not included in the early learning curricular guidelines and hence do not
fit in with the play- and inquiry-based agendas that they are required to follow in their work with BLs.
5.4 LAP: an important practice retooling resource
The EC professionals who retooled their instructional practice described LAP as an “invaluable resource”
and a “helpful guide” in transforming their classrooms into multilingual environments and making linguistic
diversity come to life. As LAP activities were implemented, children’s initial reluctance to use their homelanguages in the classroom changed to confidence, enthusiasm and spontaneous multilingual play. Theyreached a language “comfort zone” (Brown 2008) and freely “translanguaged” (García 2011) or used words
and phrases in their home languages with each other and in group activities. All of the children—and not
only the BLs—were fascinated by the discovery that their friends were speakers of different languages. Theydeveloped an awareness of languages and exhibited an interest in their own home languages and those ofothers: for example, a child holding up a toy cow reported: “I speak Arabic and my cow speaks Hebrew”.
They played and experimented with language rhythms and patterns and imitated and attempted words in20

each other’s languages. They talked about languages with each other and used them as identity markers forthemselves and their friends: “I speak Arabic and so does Waqas and Rayan”. As BLs discovered that theadults in the classroom did not share their home languages, they took on a teaching role and offered to help
their “students”: “I’ll help you and teach you, yes. Say it like this.”
In addition to children’s positive response to LAP, families and placement students’ reaction to linguistic
inclusion is noteworthy. As families witnessed their children’s interest, excitement and pride in languages,
their initial uncertainty changed to approval, gratitude (“Thank you for encouraging our language.”) andengagement in LAP. In a similar way, placement students were motivated and encouraged when they saw
children’s willingness and excitement to showcase and share home languages. These students journeyedfrom uncertainty to personal and professional confidence (“I didn’t like to talk about my being Chinese …
but once we did LAP with the children, I was happy to share what I know in Chinese, so I taught them asong in Chinese.”) and took on the role of home language advocates, creating and extending LAP activities
and preparing home language resources for children and families.
5. 5 Summary of LAP studies
The findings of the two studies are, to some extent, generalizable and reflect current instructional practice with
BLs in Canadian early learning settings. They reveal that various combinations of personal, professional andcurricular factors affected EC professionals’ instructional practice decision-making and that only a small
number of EC professionals who retooled their instructional practice journeyed from supportive to inclusive
practice. LAP proved to be a useful tool in guiding this practice change. It also helped BLs adjust to their new
language environment, enriched the language and literacy experiences of all children, supported families in theirlanguage maintenance attempts and helped placement students understand the importance of home languages.
Alongside this practice change, a significant number of EC professionals held on to supportive practice “astightly as possible” (Katz and Dack 2013) and were not interested in retooling their practice with BLs. Taken
together, these findings raise a question that continues to be investigated in contexts beyond education, namely
how to generate interest in and commitment to change in practice among professionals.
21

6. Young bilingual learners beyond Canada“In every corner of the world, young children are learning languages at home that differ
from the dominant language used in their broader social world.” (Ball 2011)
The above quote reminds us that young BLs are everywhere and that the challenge of appropriate practicewith this particular demographic is not unique to the Canadian early learning context. The situation in the
United States is in many ways quite similar to that found in Canada. For example, provision for children’s
home languages or a home language mandate is included in numerous policy and educational documents(Espinosa 2008, 2013), and linguistically responsive teaching is gaining increased attention (Lucas andVillegas 2010). Yet, general suggestions to be “culturally and linguistically responsive”27 most oftentranslate into the adoption of supportive practice.
Unlike the widespread adoption of supportive practice in Canada and the United States, response to
linguistic diversity in many European regions is quite different. Tradition and exclusivity of the official
language (or languages), a wariness of “other” languages and the view of multilingualism as a problem or
obstacle, together with official language or languages policy, often stand behind the widespread adoption of
assimilative practice. Yet like their Canadian colleagues, a growing number of education researchers and EC
professionals in many European regions are responding to their increasing “super-diversity” (Vertovec
2007) by reviewing and re-interpreting language policies, exploring and documenting language attitudes andquestioning the equity and educational value of assimilative practice with BLs. For example, theMultilingual Early Learning Transmission (MELT)28 project, a partnership between four language
communities (the Frisian language in Fryslân [the Netherlands], the Swedish language in Finland, the Welsh
language in Wales [UK], and the Breton language in Brittany [France]) advocates for the promotion ofcultural and linguistic diversity, the recognition and support of home languages and helping families
understand the benefits of bilingualism.

27
28

TK California: A project of early edge California: http://www.tkcalifornia.org/tk-experience
http://www.poliglotti4.eu/docs/MELT_research_paper.pdf

22

7. Conclusion and next steps
The early learning practice profile provided in this chapter, speaks to the pressing need for broad based
instructional practice retooling with BLs. This need raises two questions. Firstly, how can the current
widespread adoption of monolingually focused practices, which fall short of meeting the language andliteracy needs of young BLs be “intentionally interrupted” (Katz and Dack 2013)? Secondly, what course ofaction will serve to fuel EC professionals’ interest in and commitment to linguistically responsive practice?
In response to these questions, change is recommended for four different levels of early learning
stakeholders.
The very first level of instructional practice change must occur at the curriculum and policy levels. Since EC
practitioners rely on early learning resources for direction and guidance, these documents must accuratelyreflect the linguistic reality of Canadian classrooms, be aligned with evidence-based principles of childhood
bilingualism and portray young BLs as capable, active language learners who require concrete support andvalidation to grow bilingually. The images and the accompanying messages in these resources must be
synchronized in their promotion and endorsement of linguistically responsive practice.
A review of local, regional, and national leadership practices must follow the curricular and policy update
and review proposed in the previous paragraph. Principals, directors and managers of early learning contexts
must engage in high-leverage leadership by taking a “visible and public” interest (Katz and Dack 2013) in
BLs. Together with their staff, they must move beyond one-time professional development events, actively
participate in professional learning and understanding about childhood bilingualism and take on the role of“gatekeepers or facilitators of change” (Fullan 2007).
To work effectively and equitably with young BLs, EC professionals must understand the principles ofchildhood bilingualism and the linguistic reality of BLs. To do so, they would do well to create their own
context-specific communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 2007; Katz and Dack 2013),
where they engage in on-going, collaborative learning, sharing and professional understanding. When EC
professionals update their understanding, assumptions and beliefs about children who grow in two (or more)23

languages, they will be ready to retool their practice, position home languages as instructional assets andessential parts of BLs learning equation and teach through a multilingual lens (Cummins and Early 2014).
Finally, education researchers are encouraged to turn their attention to the large number of EC professionals
who focus on the majority language and either remain hesitant to venture beyond a token acknowledgementof BLs’ home languages or are committed to monolingual instructional practice. Understanding the language
realities and subsequent practice behaviours of these professionals will serve to rework and update thefactors that affect instructional choices identified in this chapter and will help to inform the development ofpractice reform strategies.
On an encouraging and promising note, the growing and steady interest in retooling instructional practicewith young BLs serves as evidence that this new direction is far more than a passing in-vogue event. It is apedagogical evolution that is supporting, validating and extending BLs’ language and literacy skills andabilities, strengthening the understanding and respect for diversity of all young children and transforming
early education in Canada and beyond.

References
Ball, Jessica. 2011. Enhancing learning of children from diverse language backgrounds: Mother tonguebased bilingual or multilingual education in early childhood and early primary school years. UNESCO,
Paris: Analytical review commissioned by the UNESCO Education Sector.
Bligh, Caroline. 2014. The Silent Experiences of Young Bilingual Learners: A Sociocultural Study into the
Silent Period. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Bransford, John. D., Brown, Anne. L., and Cocking, Rodney. R. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind,

experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, Mike. 2008. Comfort Zone: Model or metaphor? Australian Journal of Outdoor Education 12(1): 312.
Chumak-Horbatsch, Roma. 2004. Linguistic diversity in early childhood education: Working withlinguistically and culturally diverse children. Canadian Children 29(2):20-24.
24Chumak-Horbatsch, Roma. 2006. Mmmm … I like English! Linguistic behaviours of Ukrainian-English
bilingual children. Psychology of Language and Communication 10(2):3-25.
Chumak-Horbatsch, Roma. 2008. Early bilingualism: Children of immigrants in an English-language
childcare centre. Psychology of Language and Communication 12(1):3–27.
Chumak-Horbatsch, Roma. 2010. Toronto childcare centres: A language profile. In Studies in thepsychology of language and communication. ed. B. Bokus. 289–307. Warsaw: Matrix.
Chumak-Horbatsch, Roma. 2012. Linguistically Appropriate Practice: A Guide for Working with Young
Immigrant Children. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Coelho, Elizabeth. 2012. Language and Learning in Multilingual Classrooms: A Practical Approach.
Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, Jim. 2001. Negotiating identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society (2 edition). Los
ndAngeles: California: Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, Jim. 2004. Language, power and pedagogy - bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, Jim. 2006. Identity Texts: The Imaginative Construction of Self through Multi-literacies Pedagogy.
In Imagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Globalization. ed. Ofelia García, Tove
Skutnab-Kangas, Maria E. Torres-Gutzman. Clevedon Hall, Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, Jim. 2006a. Pedagogy. In Literacy, Technology, and Diversity: Teaching for Success in Changing

Times. ed. Jim Cummins, Kristen Brown and Dennis Sayers. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon, Pearson.
Cummins, Jim. 2009. Fundamental Psycholinguistic and Sociological Principles Underlying Educational
Success for Linguistic Minority Students. In Social Justice through Multilingual Education. ed. Tove SkutnabbKangas, Robert Phillipson, Ajit K. Mohanty and Minati Panda. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, Jim. 2014. Mainstreaming Plurilingualism: Restructuring Heritage Language Provision in
Schools. In Rethinking Heritage Language Education. ed. Peter Trifonas and Themistoklis Aravossitas.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, Jim and Early, Margaret. 2011. Identity Texts: The Collaborative Creation of Power in Multilingual

Schools. Stoke-on-Trent, England: Trentham Books.
25

Cummins, Jim and Early, Margaret. 2014. Big Ideas for Expanding Minds: Teaching English Language
Learners across the Curriculum. Toronto: Rubicon Publishing.
Donovan, M. Suzanne and Bransford, John D. 2005. How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Sciencein the Classroom. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.
Espinosa, Linda M. 2008. Challenging Common Myths about Young English Language Learners. Policy to
Action Briefs. New York: Foundation for Child Development.
Espinosa, Linda M. 2013. PreK-3rd: Challenging Common Myths about Dual Language Learners – An
Update to the Seminal 2008 Report. PreK-3rd Policy to Action Briefs. New York: Foundation for Child
Development.
Fullan, Michael. 2007. The New Meaning of Educational Change. 4th edition. New York: Teachers College
Columbia University.
García, Ofelia. 2009. Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a name? TESOL Quarterly 43(2): 322–326.
Special issue edited by Shelley Taylor.
García, Ofelia. 2009a. Education, multilingualism, and translanguaging in the 21st century. In Multicultural
Education for social justice: Globalizing the local. ed. Ajit Mohanty, Minati Panda, Robert Phillipson, Tove
Skutnabb-Kangas. 128-145. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan (former Orient Longman).
García, Ofelia. 2009b. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA andOxford: Basil/Blackwell.
García, Ofelia. 2010. Latino language practices and literacy education in the U.S. In Ethnolinguistic diversity
and education: Language, literacy, and culture. ed. Marcia. Farr, Seloni, Lisya and Juyoung, Song. 193–211.
New York: Routledge.
García, Ofelia, Makar, C., Starcevic, M. and Terry, A, 2011. The translanguaging of Latino kindergarteners.
In Bilingual youth: Spanish in English-speaking societies. ed. Kim Potowski and Jason Rothman. 33–55.
Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Co.

26

García, Ofelia, Kleifgen, Jo Ann and Falchi, Lorraine. 2008. From English Language Learners to Emergent
Bilinguals. In Equity Matters: Research Review No. 1. New York: A Research Initiative of the Campaign for
Educational Equity.
González, Norma E., Moll, Luis C., et al. 1995. Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino Households. Urban
Education. 29(4): 443-470.
Gonzalez, Norma E., Moll, Luis. C. and Amanti, Cathy. 2005. Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing practices inHouseholds, Communities and Classrooms. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hackman, Donald G. 2002. Using portraiture in educational leadership research. International Journal of
Leadership in Education. 5(1): 51-60.
Katz, Steven and Dack, Lisa A. 2013. Intentional Interruption: Breaking Down Learning Barriers toTransform Professional Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, Sage.
Lave, Jean and Wenger, Etienne. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, Sara. 2005. Reflections on portraiture: A dialogue between art and science. Qualitative
Inquiry. 11(1): 3–14.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, Sara and Hoffman Davis, Jessica. 1997. The art and science of portraiture. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lucas, Tamara and Villegas, Ana Maria. 2010. The Missing Piece in Teacher Education: The Preparation of
Linguistically Responsive Teachers. National Society for the Study of Education. 109(2): 297-318.
McAndrew, Marie, Audet, Geneviève and Bakhshaei, Mahsa. 2014. Immigration and Diversity in Quebec’s
Schools: An Assessment. In Quebec Questions: Quebec Studies for the 21st Century. ed. Stephan Gervais,
Christopher Kirkey and Rudy Jarett. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Meyers, Mary. 2003. Myths and Delusions: The state of ESL in large Canadian school boards. Toronto: Main
Streams Publications.

27

Moll, Luis, Amanti, Cathy, Neff, Deborah and González, Norma. 1992. Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice. XXXI, 2:132-141.
Moll, Luis and Greenberg, James (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for
instruction. In Vygotsky and education. ed. Luis C. Moll. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nanos, Nik. 2008. Nation building through immigration: Workforce Skills Come Out on Top. Policy
Options. 29(6):30-32.
Naqvi, Rahat, Thorne, Keoma J., Pfitscher, Christina M., Nordstokke, David W. and McKeough, Anne.
2012. Reading dual language books: Improving early literacy skills in linguistically diverse classrooms.
Journal of Early Childhood Research. 11(1): 3-15.
Nersessian, Edward. 1995. Some Reflections on Curiosity and Psychoanalytic Technique. The
Psychoanalytic Quarterly. 64:113-135.
Ni, Lijun and Guzdial, Mark. 2008. What Makes Teachers Change? Factors that Influence Post-secondary
Teachers’ Adoption of New Computing Curricula. Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on
Computer Science Education. 544-548. Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Pacini-Ketchabaw, Veronica. 2007. Child care and multiculturalism: A site of governance marked byflexibility and openness. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 8(3):222–232.
Piaget, Jean. 1929. The child’s conception of the world. New York: Harcourt, Brace
Reyes, Maria de la Luz. 2001. Unleashing possibilities: Bi-literacy in the primary grades. In The best for ourchildren: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students. ed. M. L. Reyes, and John J. Halcón. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Roberts, Theresa A. 2014. Not so silent after all: Examination and analysis of the silent stage in childhood
second language acquisition. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 29:22–40.
Ruíz, Richard. 1984. Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal. 8:15-34.
Saraswati, Jeea. 2000. Poverty and visible minority women in Canada. Canadian Woman Studies. 20(3):4953.

28

Siraj-Blatchford, Iram. and Clarke, Priscilla. (2000). Supporting Identity, Diversity & Language in the Early

Years. Philadelphia, Open University Press.
Skourtou, Eleni. Kourtis Kazoullis, Vasilia. and Cummins, Jim. (2006): Designing Virtual Learning
Environments for Academic Language Development. In International Handbook of Virtual Learning

Environments (2 volumes). ed. Joel Weiss, Jason Nolan and Peter Trifonas. Norwell, MA: Springer.
Toohey, Kelleen. 2000. Learning English at School: Identity, Social Relations and Classroom Practice.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Vertovec, Steven. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 30(6): 1024-1054.
Special issue on New Directions in the Anthropology of Migration and Multiculturalism.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01419870701599465#.VJ8bcP8uRA. Accessed 29 August 2014.
Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in Society The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. ed. MichaelCole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner and Ellen Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wardle, Francis and Cruz-Janzen Marta I. 2003. Meeting the Needs of Multiethnic and Multiracial Children in

Schools. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Webster, Nina Lee and Valeo, Angela. 2011. Teacher preparedness for a changing demographic of language
learners. TESL Canada Journal. 28(2): 105-128.
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: University
Press.
Wenger, Etienne. 2007. Communities of practice. A brief introduction.
http://www.wenger-trayner.com/theory/. Accessed December 12, 2014.

29