Advertisement

Language and Literacy Practices that Influence Bilingual and Bi-Literate Acquisition in L1 Kannada and L2 English in Bangalore, India

  • Sunaina ShenoyEmail author
  • Richard K. Wagner
Chapter
Part of the Literacy Studies book series (LITS, volume 17)

Abstract

This study was conducted in Bangalore, India, to measure the influence of language and literacy practices on students’ bilingual and bi-literate competencies in L1 Kannada and L2 English. Shenoy S (Psychol Stud 61(3):126–136, 2016) modified the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF5) screening tool in English and Kannada to provide teachers with an opportunity to better understand the language profiles of their students. Based on this screening tool, more than 50% of the students from a low-income school were identified as being below criterion on both their L1 and L2, compared to 13% of students from a high-income school. To identify the language and literacy practices that could account for bilingual test scores, informal measures were developed to collect data from parents and teachers. Ninety-three parents completed a questionnaire on language and literacy practices at home, and regression analyses depicted that students’ dominant home language explained their bilingual test scores in both low-SES and high-SES schools. Ten teachers were interviewed, and qualitative analyses depicted that teachers from low-income schools code-switched between English and Kannada approximately 50% of the time compared to teachers from high-income schools, who followed a 100% English-immersion model.

Keywords

Bangalore Bilingualism Bi-literacy English immersion Home language L2 English L1 Kannada Socio-economic status 

References

  1. Aggarwal, S. (1991). Three language formula: An educational problem. New Delhi, India: Gyan Publishing House.Google Scholar
  2. Annual status of education report (rural). (2012). ASER centre, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  3. Chow, B. W. Y., McBride-Chang, C., & Cheung, H. (2010). Parent–child reading in English as a second language: Effects on language and literacy development of Chinese kindergarteners. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(3), 284–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5(1), 26–38.Google Scholar
  5. Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In Language Processing in Bilingual Children (pp. 70–89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cummins, J. (1995). Discursive power in educational policy and practice for culturally diverse students. In Discourse and power in educational organizations (pp. 191–209). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daniels, P. T. (2000). On writing syllables: Three episodes of script transfer. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 30(1), 73–86.Google Scholar
  9. Early Child Care Research Network. (2003). Does amount of time spent in child care predict socioemotional adjustment during the transition to kindergarten. Child Development, 74(4), 976–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gupta, R. (2014). Change in teaching practices: Case of phonics instruction in India. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3911–3915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kalia, V. (2007). Assessing the role of book reading practices in Indian bilingual children’s English language and literacy development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(2), 149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karanth, P. (2006). The Kagunita of Kannada—Learning to read and write an Indian alphasyllabary. In Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 389–404). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Kurrien, J. (2005). Notes for the meeting of the national focus group on teaching of English, and note on tntroduction of English at the primary stage. Ms., NFG-English.Google Scholar
  14. Nag-Arulmani, S. (2000). Types and manifestations of learning difficulties in Indian classrooms. In Paper presented at the first Orientation Programme for Schoolteachers, National Institute for Public Co-operation and Child Development (NIPCCD), Bangalore, India.Google Scholar
  15. Nag-Arulmani, S. (2003). Reading difficulties in Indian languages. In Dyslexia in different languages: Cross-linguistic comparisons (pp. 235–254). London, UK: Whurr Publ.Google Scholar
  16. National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2011). National curriculum framework 2005 (No. id: 1138).Google Scholar
  17. National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
  18. Nishanimut, S. P., Johnston, R. S., Joshi, R. M., Thomas, P. J., & Padakannaya, P. (2013). Effect of synthetic phonics instruction on literacy skills in an ESL setting. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pellegrini, A. D., Brody, G. H., & Sigel, I. E. (1985). Parents’ book-reading habits with their children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ramaa, S., Miles, T. R., & Lalithamma, M. S. (1993). Dyslexia: Symbol processing difficulty in the Kannada language. Reading and Writing, 5(1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramanathan, H., & Bruning, M. D. (2003). Reflection on teaching oral English skills in India: A research report. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 7(1), 48–55.Google Scholar
  22. Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramachandran, V., Pal, M., Jain, S., Shekar, S., & Sharma, J. (2005). Teacher motivation in India (pp. 96–103). Discussion Paper. Bangalore: Azim Premji Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. Reyes, I., & Azuara, P. (2008). Emergent biliteracy in young Mexican immigrant children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 374–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saini, A. (2000). Literacy and empowerment: An Indian scenario. Childhood Education, 76(6), 381–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Senechal, M., & Cornell, E. H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 360–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. A. (2013). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (5th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
  28. Shenoy, S. (2016). Efficacy of a bilingual screening tool in L1 Kannada and L2 English to differentiate between language differences and disorders in English language learners. Psychological Studies, 61(3), 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sreekanth, Y. (2011). Parents involvement in the education of their children: Indicators of level of involvement. International Journal about Parents in Education, 5(1), 36–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Florida Center for Reading ResearchFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Special EducationUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations