Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Preschool Bilingual Education

Part of the book series: Multilingual Education ((MULT,volume 25))

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As these scales were developed for the Croatian people in 1998, only 7 years after Serbia and Croatia stopped belonging to the same country, the scales were taken verbatim, because not enough time had passed for the Croatian and Serbian people to develop a different mentality during that time period.

  2. 2.

    Where the percentage score does not add up to 100, it is due to missing or indiscernible answers.

  3. 3.

    A greater level of positivity towards the language itself than towards either of the most dominant native speaker groups can be explained by the concept of English as an international or global language (Crystal 2003), while the attitude towards the Americans could be related to the controversial role of the USA in Serbian more recent history.

References

  • Ablow, J. C., & Measelle, J. R. (1993). Berkeley puppet interview: Administration and scoring system manuals. Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parent-one-language approach. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Beninghof, A. M. (2012). Co-teaching that works: Structures and strategies for maximizing student learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum-Kulka, S., & Snow, C. (2004). Introduction: The potential of peer talk. Discourse Studies, 6(3), 291–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Brinton, L. J., & Brinton, D. (2010). The linguistic structure of modern English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London/New York: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (1991). Language learning and bilingualism (Sophia Linguistika XXIX). Tokyo: Sophia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J., & Early, M. (Eds.). (2011). Identity texts: The collaborative creation of power in multilingual schools. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging. Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan Pivot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R. C. (1968). Attitudes and motivation their role in second-language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 2(3), 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, S. (2004). Gesture’s role in the learning process. Theory into practice. Developmental Psychology: Implications for Teaching, 43(4), 314–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grammont, M. (1902). Observations sur le langage des enfants. Paris: C. Klincksieck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greig, A., Taylorand, J., & MacKay, T. (2007). Doing research with children. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2013). Own-language use in ELT: Exploring global practices and attitudes. London: British Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. SELT Journal, 46(4), 350–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M. (2006). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead, A. B. (2011). Four factor index of social status. Yale Journal of Sociology, 8, 21–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an understanding of voice. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third language learning. Language Awareness, 8(3–4), 201–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 255–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), 399–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laviosa, S. (2014). Translation and language education: Pedagogic approaches explored. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, W. F. (1939–49). Speech development of a bilingual child (Vols. 1–4). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Manyak, P. C. (2004). “What did she say?” Translation in a primary-grade English immersion class. Multicultural Perspective, 6(1), 12–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marić, J. (1998). Kakvi smo mi Srbi? [What are Serbs like?]. Belgrade: Barex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. (2003). How to motivate your child for school and beyond. Sydney: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCafferty, S. G. (2002). Gesture and creating zones of proximal development for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 86(2), 192–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (1998). Ethnic stereotypes and English as a foreign language learning. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia, 18, 51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2012). Attitudes and motivation in Early foreign language learning. CEPS Journal, 2(3), 55–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikeš, M. (2005). Mali jezikoslovci se igraju i pevaju: razvijanje komunikativnih veština na maternjem jeziku. Novi Sad: Pedagoški zavod Vojvodine.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://www.mpn.gov.rs/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Pravilnik-o-bli%C5%BEim-uslovima-za-ostvarivanje-dvojezi%C4%8Dne-nastave.pdf

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190511000183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pavlovich, M. (1920). Le langage enfantin: Acquisition du Serbe et du Français par un enfant Serbe. Paris: Librairie Ancienne H. Champion.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rampton, B., Tusting, K., Maybin, J., Barwell, R., Creese, A., & Lytra, V. (2004). UK Linguistic ethnography: A discussion paper. Retrieved from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/lingethn/documents/discussion_paper_jan_05.pdf

  • Rampton, B., Maybin, J., & Roberts, C. (2014). Methodological foundations in linguistic ethnography (Vol. 102: Tilburg papers in culture studies). Tilburg: Tilburg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronjat, J. (1913). Le développement du langage observé chez un enfant bilingue. Paris: Librairie Ancienne H. Champion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, G. (1982). Infant bilingualism: A look at some doubts and objections. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3(4), 277–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 http://www.ied.edu.hk/rcleams/handbook/handbook.pdf

  • Taeschner, T. (1983). The Sun is feminine: A study on language acquisition in childhood. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • UCLES [University of Cambridge. Local Examinations Syndicate]. (2001). Quick placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(1), 79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. T. (1997). Expressive vocabulary test. Bloomington: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Ziener, E. (1977). Experiences in the bilingual education of a child of pre-school age. IRAL, 15, 143–148.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Philosophy, Department of English Studies, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Danijela Prošić-Santovac

  2. Research Department, Pedagogical Institute of Vojvodina, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Danijela Radović

Authors
  1. Danijela Prošić-Santovac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danijela Radović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Language Program Faculty of Advance Studies, Oranim Academic College of Education, Tivon, Israel

    Mila Schwartz

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Children’s Interview Statements

  1. 1.

    I like speaking L2 in the kindergarten./I don’t like speaking L2 in the kindergarten.

  2. 2.

    I am ashamed of speaking L2 in the kindergarten./I am not ashamed of speaking L2 in the kindergarten.

  3. 3.

    I am afraid I will make a mistake while speaking L2 in the kindergarten. / I am not afraid.

  4. 4.

    I speak L2 with my L2 teacher./I speak L1 with my L2 teacher.

  5. 5.

    When my L2 teacher asks me something in L2, I answer in L1./I answer in L2.

  6. 6.

    Sometimes, I speak L2 with my peers in the kindergarten even when our L2 teacher is not present./I never speak L2 with my peers in the kindergarten when our L2 teacher is not present.

  7. 7.

    I speak L1 with my L2 teacher, because I can’t speak L2./I can speak L2, but I don’t want to speak it in front of my peers.

  8. 8.

    I speak L1 with my L2 teacher, because all my peers do so./I speak L1 with my L2 teacher because I myself want to do so.

  9. 9.

    I would like our L2 teacher to sing L2 songs in L1, too./I like the fact that our L2 teacher sings only in L2.

  10. 10.

    I would like our L2 teacher to retell L2 stories in L1./It is better for me to hear stories in L2 only.

  11. 11.

    I would like our L2 teacher to translate what s/he says./I don’t like it when translating into L1 is done in class.

  12. 12.

    I like it when our L1 teacher translates our L2 teacher’s words./I don’t like that.

  13. 13.

    I like it when one of my peers translates our L2 teacher’s words./I don’t like that.

  14. 14.

    I understand everything that my L2 teacher is saying./I don’t understand everything.

  15. 15.

    I prefer when my L2 teacher uses gestures or pictures when s/he explains something in L2./I prefer to have it translated into L1.

  16. 16.

    When I don’t understand what my L2 teacher is saying, I ask for repetition in L2./And I ask for translation.

  17. 17.

    When I don’t understand what my L2 teacher is saying, I stay silent./I look around at what my peers are doing and I do the same.

  18. 18.

    If our L2 teacher used both L1 and L2, it would help me understand better./For me, it would be confusing. (Alternative: When my L2 teacher uses both L1 and L2, it helps me understand better./For me, it is confusing.)

  19. 19.

    I prefer it when our L2 teacher speaks both L1 and L2./I prefer our L2 teacher to speak L2 only.

  20. 20.

    Sometimes, I speak L2 with my L2 teacher./I speak L1 only.

  21. 21.

    If our L2 teacher used L1 sometimes, I would use L2 more./If s/he did that, I would only use L1 then.

  22. 22.

    If our L2 teacher used L1 sometimes, I would ask questions more often when I don’t understand something./I ask her/him anyway if I don’t understand something.

  23. 23.

    I would like our L2 teacher to use both L2 and L1./I prefer her to use L2 only.

  24. 24.

    I would like all the children to speak L2 only with our L2 teacher, just as s/he does with us./I would not like us to be required to speak L2 only with our L2 teacher.

  25. 25.

    I like it when our L1 teacher says something in L2./I don’t like it.

  26. 26.

    If our L1 teacher spoke L2 only, I would always speak L2 with her/him./I would always speak L1 with her/him, too.

  27. 27.

    I think that our L2 teacher can speak our L1./I think that our L2 teacher cannot speak our L1. (Not applicable if both teachers are declared bilinguals.)

  28. 28.

    I would like our L2 teacher to discipline us in L1./For me, it is better in L2.

  29. 29.

    It would be easier for me to do a task if our L2 teacher gave us additional explanations in L1./An explanation in L2 is enough for me.

  30. 30.

    I wish we watched cartoons in L2 in the kindergarten./I do not.

  31. 31.

    I would like us to read books in L2 in the kindergarten./I prefer reading books in L1.

  32. 32.

    Sometimes, at home, I play with my toys speaking L2./I speak only L1 when I play at home.

  33. 33.

    I sometimes speak L2 at home./I don’t speak L2 at home.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Prošić-Santovac, D., Radović, D. (2018). Separating the Languages in a Bilingual Preschool: To Do or Not to Do?. In: Schwartz, M. (eds) Preschool Bilingual Education. Multilingual Education, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77228-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77228-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77227-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77228-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation