Separating the Languages in a Bilingual Preschool: To Do or Not to Do?

  • Danijela Prošić-Santovac
  • Danijela Radović
Part of the Multilingual Education book series (MULT, volume 25)


The study focuses on a paired bilingual model used in a Serbian-English kindergarten in Serbia, where Serbian is the official language and, for the most part, the language of the immediate environment, while English has the status of a foreign language, albeit a socially prestigious one. The bilingual pedagogy of the model is based on complete language separation, i.e. ‘one person – one language’ approach, with L2/L1 ratio ranging from 1:8 to 1:10, depending on daily organization. The aim of the research was to investigate the teachers’ concerns in connection with the applied model, as well as the challenges they come across in their daily work. Also, their language teaching strategies and their correlation across languages were examined, alongside the role of the teachers and parents in encouraging child motivation and attitude toward second language acquisition. Finally, the attitudes of children themselves towards ‘one person – one language approach’ were recorded. With this aim in mind, a linguistic ethnographic approach was adopted, and the data were obtained through class observations and child observation sheets, semi-structured interviews with L1 and L2 teachers, a questionnaire for parents and a structured interview with children. The interview with children was conducted using the Berkeley Puppet Interview method in order to reduce acquiescence bias by employing the use of two puppets which take over the role of the interviewer and produce two opposite statements for each interview item, prompting the child to agree to one. Observation focused on children’s spoken interaction with the teacher, with the aim of revealing the ratio of FL/L1 use, alongside focusing on the teachers’ language teaching and motivational strategies, in order to uncover the most frequently used ones. The results show that the target bilingual model had mostly positive effects on children’s passive knowledge and attitude towards the English language, but also that more stakeholders favoured a balanced approach to the language learning process, regarding the applied ‘one person – one language’ model inappropriate. Both the children and the parents expressed a wish for introducing L1 into their L2 teacher’s repertoire, alongside the teacher herself. The practical value of such changes in the applied approach would be providing young learners with a positive model of a bilingual person. The children would benefit from exposure to comfortable and successful communication with one person in two languages, leading to fewer blockages and restrictions concerning their own use of both languages, as they would become more acceptant towards bilingualism in themselves.


  1. Ablow, J. C., & Measelle, J. R. (1993). Berkeley puppet interview: Administration and scoring system manuals. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  3. Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parent-one-language approach. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  4. Bayley, R., Hansen-Thomas, H., & Langman, J. (2005). Language brokering in a middle school science class. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International symposium on bilingualism (pp. 223–232). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beninghof, A. M. (2012). Co-teaching that works: Structures and strategies for maximizing student learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Bernhard, J. K., Cummins, J., Campoy, F. I., Ada, A. F., Winsler, A., & Bleiker, C. (2006). Identity texts and literacy development among preschool English Language Learners: Enhancing learning opportunities for children at risk of learning disabilities. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2380–2405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blum-Kulka, S., & Snow, C. (2004). Introduction: The potential of peer talk. Discourse Studies, 6(3), 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bratož, S., & Kocbek, A. (2013). Resurrecting translation in SLT: A focus on young learners. In D. Tsagari & G. Floros (Eds.), Translation in language teaching and assessment (pp. 135–153). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Brinton, L. J., & Brinton, D. (2010). The linguistic structure of modern English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruce, B., & Yu, A. (1980). Cognitive consequences of raising children bilingually: One parent, one language. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 34(4), 304–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butzkamm, W. (2000). Monolingual principle. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 415–418). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: Death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal, 28, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London/New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  14. Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Creese, A. (2008). Linguistic ethnography. In K. A. King, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 10: Research methods in language and education, pp. 229–241). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cummins, J. (1991). Language learning and bilingualism (Sophia Linguistika XXIX). Tokyo: Sophia University.Google Scholar
  18. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cummins, J. (2001). The entry and exit fallacy in bilingual education. In C. Baker & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), An introductory reader to the writings of Jim Cummins (pp. 110–138). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  20. Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–240.Google Scholar
  21. Cummins, J., & Early, M. (Eds.). (2011). Identity texts: The collaborative creation of power in multilingual schools. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  22. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  23. Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (2008). Cognates, true and false. In J. M. González (Ed.), Encyclopedia of bilingual education (pp. 147–149). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. García, O. (2011). Theorizing translanguaging for educators. In C. Celic & K. Seltzer (Eds.), Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators (pp. 1–6). New York: CUNY-NYSIEB, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York.Google Scholar
  25. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging. Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan Pivot.Google Scholar
  26. Gardner, R. C. (1968). Attitudes and motivation their role in second-language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 2(3), 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  28. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2004). Gesture’s role in the learning process. Theory into practice. Developmental Psychology: Implications for Teaching, 43(4), 314–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grammont, M. (1902). Observations sur le langage des enfants. Paris: C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  30. Greig, A., Taylorand, J., & MacKay, T. (2007). Doing research with children. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2013). Own-language use in ELT: Exploring global practices and attitudes. London: British Council.Google Scholar
  32. Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. SELT Journal, 46(4), 350–355.Google Scholar
  33. Heller, M. (2006). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  34. Hollingshead, A. B. (2011). Four factor index of social status. Yale Journal of Sociology, 8, 21–52.Google Scholar
  35. Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an understanding of voice. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  36. Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third language learning. Language Awareness, 8(3–4), 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kenner, C., Gregory, E., Ruby, M., & Al-Azami, S. (2008). Bilingual learning for second and third generation children. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 21(2), 120–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), 399–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Laviosa, S. (2014). Translation and language education: Pedagogic approaches explored. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Leopold, W. F. (1939–49). Speech development of a bilingual child (Vols. 1–4). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lin, A. M. Y. (2008). Code-switching in the classroom: Research paradigms and approaches. In K. A. King, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 10: Research methods in language and education, pp. 273–286). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  44. Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswithcing in the second language classroom: Exploring ‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  45. Manyak, P. C. (2004). “What did she say?” Translation in a primary-grade English immersion class. Multicultural Perspective, 6(1), 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marić, J. (1998). Kakvi smo mi Srbi? [What are Serbs like?]. Belgrade: Barex.Google Scholar
  47. Martin, A. (2003). How to motivate your child for school and beyond. Sydney: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  48. McCafferty, S. G. (2002). Gesture and creating zones of proximal development for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 86(2), 192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Melka, F. (1997). Receptive versus productive aspects of vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 84–102). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (1998). Ethnic stereotypes and English as a foreign language learning. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia, 18, 51–60.Google Scholar
  51. Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2012). Attitudes and motivation in Early foreign language learning. CEPS Journal, 2(3), 55–74.Google Scholar
  52. Mikeš, M. (2005). Mali jezikoslovci se igraju i pevaju: razvijanje komunikativnih veština na maternjem jeziku. Novi Sad: Pedagoški zavod Vojvodine.Google Scholar
  53. Ministry of Education, Science and Professional Development [Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja]. (2015). Pravilnik o bližim uslovima za ostvarivanje dvojezične nastave [Rule book on bilingual education]. Retrieved from
  54. Naqvi, R., Thorne, K., Pfitscher, C., Nordstokke, D., & McKeough, A. (2012). Reading dual language books: Improving early literacy skills in linguistically diverse classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 11(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nicoladis, E. (2002). Some gestures develop in conjunction with spoken language development and others don’t: Evidence from bilingual preschoolers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26(4), 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nikolov, M. (2009). Early modern foreign language programmes and outcomes: Factors contributing to Hungarian learners’ proficiency. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), Early learning of modern foreign languages: Processes and outcomes (pp. 90–107). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nikolov, M., & Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2011). All shades of every colour: An overview of early teaching and learning foreign languages. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 95–119. Scholar
  58. Park, C. (2008). One person-one language (OPOL). In J. M. González (Ed.), Encyclopedia of bilingual education (pp. 635–637). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Pavlovich, M. (1920). Le langage enfantin: Acquisition du Serbe et du Français par un enfant Serbe. Paris: Librairie Ancienne H. Champion.Google Scholar
  60. Popov, S., & Radović, D. (2015). Unapređivanje obrazovanja na više jezika u multijezičkoj Vojvodini. Stavovi roditelja o višejezičnosti u osnovnim školama. Novi Sad: Pedagoški zavod Vojvodine.Google Scholar
  61. Prošić-Santovac, D. (2015). Use of target and first language in a primary EFL classroom in Serbia: The learners’ views. In M. Lehmann, R. Lugossy, & J. Horváth (Eds.), UPRT 2015: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics (pp. 1–16). Pécs: Lingua Franca.Google Scholar
  62. Prošić-Santovac, D. (2017). Popular video cartoons and associated branded toys in teaching English to very young learners: A case study. Language Teaching Research, 21(5), 568–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Prošić-Santovac, D., & Radović, D. (2015). Bilingual education in state-funded preschool institutions: The case of Serbia. Paper presented at the conference Issues of multilingualism in early childhood education – Research into early years language learning 2015. Rome: Roma Tre University.Google Scholar
  64. Rampton, B., Tusting, K., Maybin, J., Barwell, R., Creese, A., & Lytra, V. (2004). UK Linguistic ethnography: A discussion paper. Retrieved from
  65. Rampton, B., Maybin, J., & Roberts, C. (2014). Methodological foundations in linguistic ethnography (Vol. 102: Tilburg papers in culture studies). Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  66. Rishel, C., Sales, E., & Koeske, G. F. (2005). Relationships with non-parental adults and child behavior. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 22(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roessingh, H. (2011). Family treasures: A dual language book project for negotiating language, literacy, culture and identity. Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(1), 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ronjat, J. (1913). Le développement du langage observé chez un enfant bilingue. Paris: Librairie Ancienne H. Champion.Google Scholar
  69. Roth, W. M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Saunders, G. (1982). Infant bilingualism: A look at some doubts and objections. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3(4), 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 1–28). New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Schwartz, M., & Asli, A. (2014). Bilingual teachers’ language strategies: The case of an Arabic-Hebrew Kindergarten in Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schwartz, M., & Gorbatt, N. (2016). ‘Why do we know Hebrew and they do not know Arabic?’ Children’s meta-linguistic talk in bilingual preschool. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schwartz, M., & Gorbatt, N. (2017). ‘There is no need for translation: She understands’: Teachers’ mediation strategies in preschool bilingual classroom. Modern Language Journal, 101, 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  76. Stanojević, D. (2009). Acquiring English as a second language in kindergarten. In P. Vlahović, R. Bugarski, & V. Vasić (Eds.), Višejezični svet Melanije Mikeš (pp. 169–180). Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu, Društvo za primenjenu lingvistiku Srbije.Google Scholar
  77. Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2014). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Swain, M., Kirkpatrick, A., & Cummins, J. (2011). How to have a guilt-free life using Cantonese in the English class: A handbook for the English language teacher in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Research Centre into Language Acquisition and Education in Multilingual Societies, Hong Kong Institute of Education. Retrieved from
  79. Taeschner, T. (1983). The Sun is feminine: A study on language acquisition in childhood. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. UCLES [University of Cambridge. Local Examinations Syndicate]. (2001). Quick placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(1), 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Williams, K. T. (1997). Expressive vocabulary test. Bloomington: Pearson.Google Scholar
  83. Zhong, H. (2011). Learning a word: From receptive to productive vocabulary use. In The Asian conference on language learning: Official conference proceedings (pp. 116–126). Osaka: The International Academic Forum.Google Scholar
  84. Zhong, H., & Hirsh, D. (2009). Vocabulary growth in an English as a foreign language context. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 4, 85–113.Google Scholar
  85. Ziener, E. (1977). Experiences in the bilingual education of a child of pre-school age. IRAL, 15, 143–148.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danijela Prošić-Santovac
    • 1
  • Danijela Radović
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Philosophy, Department of English StudiesUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia
  2. 2.Research DepartmentPedagogical Institute of VojvodinaNovi SadSerbia

Personalised recommendations