The studies reviewed focused on a wide range of research questions. In addition, the studies addressed theoretical questions about bilingualism, including the influence of dual language exposure on early speech perception, whether DLL children develop one or two language systems, and whether there is transfer of knowledge from one linguistic system to the other. Often, studies compared the development of DLL children to monolingual children, either directly or indirectly through the use of standardized tests normed on monolingual children.
The discussion of the literature published on dual language learners from birth through age five is organized around the following aspects of language: language processing including behavioral and neurophysiological measures , vocabulary development, word learning processes, semantic development, oral comprehension, grammatical development, and pragmatic development. Three studies were categorized as investigations of language processing in DLLs. The findings revealed a faster speed of processing of known words as indicated by shorter latency of evoked response potential ERP relative to the latency of response to unknown words.
In addition, faster processing of known words was found for children who were more advanced on a composite language measure compared to children with less advanced language. The second study provided additional evidence that DLLs are more efficient at processing the language they hear more and know better. In this study, children were presented with a familiar word aurally and shown two pictures, one of which corresponded to the word that was spoken. The time it took children for to look at the correct picture was then measured.
Monolingual children outperformed DLL children on six of the eight processing tasks; however, minimal information was provided about the language experiences of the DLL children. Most of these studies were conducted with populations outside the U. In contrast, the majority of investigations involving preschoolers focused on speech sound development and were conducted primarily with Spanish-English DLLs living in the United States. The research focusing on infants finds no difference between DLLs and monolinguals in their ability to distinguish between two different languages.
This means that they discriminate sounds that are different phonemes in the ambient language, but they no longer discriminate between different sounds that do not mark a difference in meaning. Infants exposed to two languages are able to discriminate the sound contrasts of both their languages at the end of their first year. However, studies that focused on the course of development yield different results depending on: a the particular language pairs the infants hear, b the sound contrasts that are under study, and c the measure of discrimination used.
During this intermediary stage, DLL infants appear not to discriminate between contrasts in one of their languages. For example, one study that used brain measures of phonetic discrimination i. Evidence of neural discrimination of contrasts did not occur until to months of age in DLLs Garcia-Sierra et al. It is thought that this U-shaped pattern may occur because children exposed to two languages require more time to accumulate sufficient data to discriminate the two sets of phonetic categories they must learn.
In contrast, other investigations have shown that DLL infants are able to maintain their abilities to discriminate sounds between 8- and months of age and do not show the U-shaped pattern. Another study suggested that if the two languages a DLL infant hears are rhythmically different--as in Spanish and English, then DLL infants maintain their ability to differentiate different phonetic categories like monolinguals. Another study of infant word learning found that DLL infants accommodate phonetic variation i.
Many of the studies involved samples of 10 or fewer DLLs. During the preschool years, DLL children catch up to their monolingual peers in their ability to produce speech sounds. Sequential language learners, or children who began learning their second language after age three, appear to use their knowledge of their L1 to aid them in acquiring the phonological system of their L2 Anderson, The opposite was observed by Brice et al.
Brice and colleagues concluded that this finding might be due to the amount of English to which the children had been exposed. Studies also compared the speech sound accuracy and complexity of DLL and monolingual children. The findings were inconclusive. In sum, the evidence is clear that infants exposed to two languages can discriminate one language from the other and can learn the sound contrasts used by both, although questions remain about their developmental trajectories.
Studies involving preschoolers compared the development of monolingual and DLL children, sequential and simultaneous learners, and older and younger children. Most of the investigations discussed were conducted in the United States or Canada, with three conducted in Europe. Note that three classic studies published before were included in the discussion to provide needed background information. All found that DLL children showed distributions much like those described for monolingual English-speaking children.
Additionally, the studies found that, as in monolingual English-speaking children, nouns dominate early vocabularies more than later vocabularies. In fact, out of the words produced by all 17 DLLs in the study, 70 were nouns and 13 were verbs.
Moreover, DLL children produced nouns in both Chinese and English, but verbs were produced only in Chinese, suggesting that these verbs were produced in Chinese during adult-child interactions and pointing to the influence of adult-child interaction on language development.
That is, for many concepts, DLL children know two different words, one in each language. Pearson et al. These findings give rise to some confusion in the literature. As Bialystok has pointed out, however, the normal range of variation is wide.
Further, reanalysis of Pearson et al. Our interpretation is that DLLs acquiring two languages take longer to build their vocabularies in each language than children who are acquiring only one language, but not so much longer as to necessarily be outside the normal range of variation in their stronger language. The conclusion is also supported by the two studies of Spanish-English preschoolers living in the U. S from low-SES homes.
It is important to note that the children in Hammer et al. The sample involved in Tabors et al. Differences in vocabulary abilities, however, were identified between children who are simultaneous learners and sequential learners.
Hammer and her colleagues a observed that simultaneous learners entered and exited Head Start programs with higher English vocabulary scores than sequential learners. Bilingual children, however, appear to make gains relative to their monolingual peers over time.
Hammer et al. Simultaneous learners began Head Start with a below-average English vocabulary, and ended Head Start with a vocabulary within the lower end of the average range for monolingual speakers. Sequential learners also made gains on the monolingual norms in Spanish and developed at a faster rate than simultaneous learners, ending up in the average range for monolingual speakers of Spanish. Thus, both groups made gains on monolinguals in English over the two-year period and sequential learners also made gains in Spanish.
However, Goldberg, Paradis, and Crago also observed that DLL children living in Canada, who spoke a variety of languages, caught up to monolinguals over time in English. The studies of Goldberg et al. Two studies compared the development of younger and older DLL children enrolled in preschool programs in the U. In one study, it was found that five-year-old children outperformed three-year-old children in English for both receptive and expressive vocabulary, but not in Hmong, indicating a relative stabilization of L1 skills, alongside more robust growth in L2.
Additionally, the results showed that although there were no significant differences in performance between receptive and expressive vocabulary in English, receptive scores were significantly higher than expressive scores in Hmong for both age groups.
The second study found similar results in that younger and older groups of Mandarin-English speaking DLLs had larger vocabularies in English than Mandarin. In addition, the children showed significant increases in English vocabulary, but minimal gains in Mandarin. Receptive-expressive gaps in vocabularies were noted, with differences being greater in Mandarin Sheng et al.
The growth of children who spoke Somali, Spanish, and English were compared. Results revealed the DLLs who spoke Somali had greater vocabulary growth than children who spoke the other two languages; however, factors that may have contributed to this difference were not investigated Estrem, In summary, the findings in the literature concur that during infancy, DLL children, as a group, lag behind monolingual children in vocabulary growth in each of their languages.
However, their conceptual vocabularies are within the typical limits of monolingual children during infancy. The picture these data present is one in which DLL children proceed along the same path in building lexicons in each of their languages as monolingual children. There is some evidence that DLL children catch up to monolinguals over time, as suggested by Cummins Four studies were identified that examined word learning processes in young DLL children.
In this task, novel words are paired with pictures of novel objects until the child habituates, and then recovery from habituation is measured in response to when the pairing of objects and words is switched. This study tested whether to month-old DLLs could learn minimally different words e. The DLL sample included a heterogeneous sample of children who were exposed to English and another language and two homogeneous samples of English-Chinese and English-French children residing in Canada.
The authors hypothesized that this difference between DLL and monolingual children may be due to the increased cognitive load of learning two languages. However, another study comparing English-French DLL children to English and French monolinguals found that the DLLs performed better than the monolinguals and were successful in word learning at 17 months, as measured by the switch task, provided the phonological properties of the syllables to be learned were consistent with their DLL experience Mattock et al.
Unlike past findings with monolingual children, there was no effect of age on the fast mapping tasks. Based on the studies that have been conducted, it is unclear if DLL children are better at fast mapping in their first language as compared to their second language.
The example studied is the acquisition of the verb to be in English and the acquisition of ser and estar , in Spanish. Ser and estar are both translated as to be , but they are not interchangeable. The author concluded that the child learned to distinguish the constructions that required each form in Spanish without difficulty and suggested that this was because each was learned directly from input—as opposed to acquisition being conceptually driven.
Paradigmatic performance, or the ability to associate words within a language, was similar in L1 and L2, and the results showed that paradigmatic responding correlated the most for L1 and L2 nouns, and the least for verbs, suggesting that word associations for nouns proceed in a more similar manner across languages than for verbs. In addition, both monolingual and DLL groups achieved similar paradigmatic performance in the English word association test.
Given the limited number of studies in this area, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions. Only two articles were identified. Children were divided into groups depending upon whether their scores increased or decreased during two years. Children whose scores increased during their two years in preschool experienced decreases in their comprehension over the summer whereas as children whose scores decreased during preschool experienced increased scores during the summer months.
This conclusion is supported by investigations that examined the phenomenon of subject realization. These studies found that DLL children had no difficulty learning the grammatical rules of their two languages when one of their languages did not require the subject to be expressed e. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the percentage of grammatical revisions produced or revision strategies used.
The authors concluded that DLLs do not have greater linguistic uncertainty than monolinguals. Two studies focused on comparing the metalinguistic abilities of DLLs and monolinguals through tasks that required children to identify grammatically correct utterances. Using a sample of children ranging from two- to six-years in age, Foursha-Stevenson and Nicoladis found that French-English DLLs had better syntactic awareness than their monolingual peers.
Similarly, Davidson, Raschke, and Pervez found that five- and six-year-old DLLs, who spoke Urdu and English, were better at identifying grammatically incorrect utterances than their Urdu- and English-speaking monolingual peers. In contrast, three- and four-year old DLLs outperformed their monolingual peers who spoke Urdu but not their monolingual peers who spoke English. Thus, the finding suggested that DLLs may have an advantage over monolinguals in metalinguistic awareness as their language abilities develop.
More studies, however, are needed in this area. Also, it appears that DLLs may have an advantage over monolinguals in their metalinguistic awareness, although more evidence is needed before a firm conclusion can be made. The results of one of these studies demonstrated that young French-English DLLs were able to repair communicative breakdowns by matching the language of the adults with whom they were interacting.
The remaining studies addressed different research questions. One case study showed that a young DLL had learned the pragmatic functions described by Halliday early in life Keshavarz, The child, who was learning Farsi and English, showed independent use of the pragmatic categories in both languages, providing further evidence that DLL children have two separate systems.
The final study found that unlike their parents, 3- and 4-year-old DLLs did not adjust their language to the language of a third-party when engaged in a conversation. Code switching is a phenomenon that is observed in the language usage of DLL children and adults. Those that were conducted focused on preschoolers and populations outside the United States. These few studies showed that DLL children adhere to adult-like structural constraints in most of their code switching.
Wei and Lee found that when examining the knowledge of Cantonese classifiers among British-born Chinese children, many of the children code-switched from Cantonese to English when they did not know the word in Cantonese. Specifically, Jisa found differences between two DLL siblings, who were both French-dominant and raised in a bilingual household with a French-speaking father and an English-speaking mother from birth.
The older sister aged 3;6 , who had more advanced grammatical development in her stronger language than her younger sibling aged 2;3 , replaced French grammatical functors with equivalent English functors more quickly than her younger sibling aged 2;3. The older sister also showed more sensitivity to the language of her addressee than her younger sister.
Other studies have also found that DLL preschoolers are able to use their two languages appropriately depending on the situation, but whether they did so depended on their language dominance and their sensitivity to the DLL speech patterns of the greater community Dahl et al.
Specifically, a- 2-year-old Mandarin-English DLL child code switched more with her father than her mother. Her father accepted more code switching, whereas her mother expected that the child speak in one language Min, Additionally, it has been found that code switching serves communication purposes and occurs very little when the DLL child talks with no communicative partner present Dolitsky, These studies targeted a variety of research questions including the associations between lexical and grammatical development, the nature of cross-linguistic influences, and the direction of transfer.
Both studies found that lexical and grammatical development were related within each language, as they are in monolingual development, but lexical and grammatical development were not related across languages. The use of grammatical terms and complexity of language were related more strongly to same-language vocabulary development than to broader lexical-conceptual development across languages. Marchman et al.
Kan and Kohnert found a significant positive relationships between receptive and expressive vocabulary in both Hmong and English, as well as positive cross-linguistic relationships between receptive vocabulary in Hmong and expressive vocabulary in English within three- to five-year-old Hmong-speaking DLLs. This suggests that preschoolers who understood more Hmong words were more likely to know more words in English.
Tabors et al. They did find positive relationships between Spanish and English on other early literacy and oral proficiency measures such as letter-identification skills and memory for sentences. The reason for the differences between Tabors et al.
Given that both studies had large individual variation on the measures, and that there were only two studies on this topic, more exploration is necessary to understand the complex relationships between the two languages of DLL children. For example, Zwanziger et al. In another study with a French-English two-year-old child, Paradis also found that French-dominant DLLs, but not English-dominant DLLs, had a stronger tendency to treat English words like French words, suggesting that language dominance may be responsible for the directionality of cross-linguistic effects in phonological systems.
Kupisch suggested that transfer in a particular domain might occur only if the dominant language has language-internal properties that promote the acquisition of a particular domain. If the dominant language is not beneficial to the acquisition of that grammatical domain, then transfer does not happen. This was due to the fact that German allows both verb-object and object-verb order, while English has fixed verb-object order. As such, no transfer from German to English was expected regardless of language dominance.
These results showed partial evidence for the structural overlap hypothesis, where crosslinguistic influence occurs when there is structural overlap between the two languages, and partial evidence for the language dominance hypothesis. Crosslinguistic influences were seen in English prepositional datives and Cantonese inverted double object datives, two domains that were also difficult for monolingual children.
Transfer effects were due to language dominance and input ambiguity. As structural overlap between the two languages French and English and language ambiguity did not completely explain the cross-linguistic transfer of adjective placement among French-English DLLs, Nicoladis proposed to consider cross-linguistic transfer as a manifestation of speech production errors.
When there were two syntactic rules in one language e. However, additional studies are clearly needed in this area. The small number of studies on a given research question and the discrepancies in findings make it difficult to draw firm conclusions about transfer. Most of these focused on the language input children received. One study investigated the relationship between child characteristics and language abilities.
Another group of studies examined the role that the home literacy environment and television play. These findings are also supported by a study involving Moroccan Tarifit-Berber Dutch and Turkish bilingual children who were three years of age.
Children with a native English-speaking mother and native Spanish-speaking father were the most advanced in English. Children with two native Spanish-speaking parents were the most advanced in Spanish. Note that these children were the only children who were Spanish dominant. Children with a native Spanish-speaking mother and native English-speaking father scored between the other two groups of children. This study also found that the amount of language mixing children experienced in these environments had no effect on their language development.
This finding runs contrary to the widely held belief that DLL children are helped if their two languages are kept separate in their experience Goodz, ; Pearson, Note that differences were not found for sequential or simultaneous learners. Children whose mothers used increasingly more English had slower Spanish vocabulary growth.
Children whose mothers continued to use Spanish had faster Spanish vocabulary growth. The results revealed that the total number of words i. Specifically, Bohman et al. Most of these studies were conducted on U. Studies which involved both preschool and kindergarten DLL children found that phonological awareness skills are related across languages and appear to transfer between languages Anthony et al.
This suggests that there is an underlying ability to manipulate and segment the sounds of language that can transfer from one language to the other. Two studies examined the role of vocabulary in English and Spanish in the development of bilingual phonological awareness. In one of the studies, the results showed that vocabulary development in Spanish was a significant predictor of phonological awareness abilities in both English and Spanish Anthony et al.
Discrepancies in these findings might be explained by differences in the vocabulary measures used. Anthony et al. As suggested by Scarpino et al. Another factor is the influence of language exposure and proficiency. Children with higher proficiency in Korean than in English had phonological awareness levels consistent with those of Korean monolingual children. For example, children in this group found the onset-rime unit predominant in Korean, more accessible than the onset-rime unit more prevalent in English.
Other studies investigated whether young DLL children have an advantage over monolingual children in their phonological awareness. The evidence from these studies is mixed. The results identified a bilingual advantage in phonological awareness skills. Specifically, a significant advantage in phonological awareness skills for the DLLs was found not only in their stronger language Mandarin but also in their weaker language English. The authors interpreted their findings as showing that DLLs are at an advantage over monolinguals when the second language was phonologically simpler than their first language.
Studies by Loizou and Stuart and Anthony et al. Two studies conducted on populations living outside the U. For example, word length i. Evidence is mixed as to whether preschool DLLs are at an advantage over monolinguals in phonological awareness, given their exposure to two languages. Clearly, more work is needed in this area. In general, it appears that DLL children perform below monolinguals in emergent literacy during the preschool years, but may catch up to monolinguals in their L2 English in early grades when the focus is on decoding.
Six studies examined emergent writing development of DLL children. Using a cloze task, the researchers found that while spelling for common phonemes in English and Mandarin was equivalent for both groups of children, those children with Mandarin dominance showed poorer spelling of English-only phonemes. These results mirror those found in the phonological awareness studies described earlier, in which language proficiency in each language and differences in the phonological structure of the language have an influence in the development of phonemic awareness in DLLs.
Studies discussed in this section investigated the association between oral language and reading outcomes, the role of the home language in emergent literacy development, and the relation of emergent literacy abilities to later reading outcomes. Of particular importance for DLL children is the relationship between oral language and emergent literacy skills.
In older DLLs, oral language proficiency plays a critical role in reading comprehension Geva, This relationship was found for young DLLs as well. Additionally, Hammer et al. However, Tagoilelagi-LeotaGlynn, et al. The difference in the design of the two studies may explain these conflicting findings.
Tagoilelagi-LeotaGlynn, et al. These results suggest that as children are exposed to English instruction over the years, they demonstrate less cross-linguistic transfer from their L1 to English. However, these studies were conducted with DLLs who were exposed to English and Spanish, which share the same alphabetic system. Less is known about the oral language and literacy relationships in children who are learning two languages with different written systems.
One international study investigated the association between emergent literacy and later reading outcomes. The investigation, which involved Indian-English DLLs living in India, found that English recognition in kindergarten was related to later reading outcomes in English. However, evidence is mixed as to whether cross-linguistic influences exist or if they only appear in the early childhood years. Three studies investigated the home literacy environments of DLL preschoolers and the relationship to literacy outcomes.
The results of these studies are somewhat mixed. The mothers who participated in Hammer et al. Also, the context in which the children were raised may play a role. It is interesting to note that families in the studies did not read frequently. Mothers of simultaneous learners in Hammer et al. This review critically analyzed the research literature on the language and literacy development of young DLLs. Such a review is greatly needed given the increasing numbers of DLLs entering the educational system in the U.
Overall, this review demonstrated that great variability exists within the DLL population. Children vary with regard to their country of origin, the languages spoken, their experiences both exposure and usage with their two languages and their SES, among other characteristics. In addition, it was found that the majority of studies conducted on children living in the U. Despite the range of questions, there were few studies conducted on any given question, making it difficult to come to a true consensus in most areas.
Therefore, many of the conclusions provided in the following discussion should be considered preliminary. First, there is solid evidence that DLLs have two separate language systems very early in life. This means that DLLs are not confused by being exposed two languages. However, influences between their two languages can be observed, although these influences may disappear over time.
This conclusion is supported by studies that investigated phonology, vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics, and emergent writing. When DLLs enter preschool, their vocabularies in their individual languages are below monolingual test norms. It appears that DLLs may catch up to monolinguals in letter-word knowledge in their second language. This advantage, however, may differ based on the languages spoken. However, much more research is needed on factors that affect development to make a strong conclusion.
Numerous methodological issues were identified through the critical review. The first significant concern involved the size of the samples. Often, sample sizes were small, with many studies of infants and toddlers involving a single child. Second, there were limitations with respect to study design. Investigations often studied children at a particular point in time or were cross sectional.
Third, studies varied with regard to the definition of dual language learners used. This is a great concern. Often, a general definition was used or the criteria used to classify children as DLL were not well specified, if at all. Related to this, data on the characteristics of the samples were typically not provided or were limited e. This makes it particularly difficult to draw conclusions, to generalize findings, or to make comparisons across studies. Finally, most studies were impacted by the limited availability of valid and reliable assessment instruments in nearly all areas of language and literacy development.
Additionally, few standardized instruments are available to document the abilities of DLL children who speak languages other than Spanish and English. Given the lack of availability of instruments designed for DLL children, researchers had no choice but to use the limited tools available. Numerous gaps in the research exist. This section identifies the most significant gaps and research needs. The list should not be viewed as exhaustive.
Instead, it should be considered a list of key areas were research is greatly needed. First, there is a critical need for assessment instruments that are standardized on DLL populations. Of course, this is not an easy task given the variation in the ages at which DLLs are exposed to their second language and the amount of exposure DLLs have to their two languages.
Of the research that has been conducted on DLL populations in the United States, most focused on Spanish-English DLLs, with few examining the development of children learning Asian languages, and even fewer focusing on other language groups. Although additional studies are needed that investigate the language development of Spanish-speaking children, there is a critical need for studies of DLL children from other language groups.
Such investigations will assist the field in understanding how language development occurs when children are acquiring various home languages. In particularly, studies need to examine and compare the development of children learning alphabetic and non-alphabetic languages.
Third, there is a great need for longitudinal investigations that involve more than two data points. For example, studies are greatly needed that examine the differential effects of bilingualism and SES. The majority of studies that were conducted in the U. However, studies that involve children from various SES groups will assist the field in disentangling the effects of SES and bilingualism. For example, it would be beneficial to compare the development of children who attend English-only programs versus programs that promote native language as well as English development.
Related to this, the cultural context in which language and literacy development occurs needs to be considered, as language, communication and culture are inextricably linked. We conducted a critical literature review on language and literacy development of young dual language learners DLLs. We identified numerous methodological concerns, including lack of a description of the language experiences of young DLLs. The studies addressed a wide range of research questions, making it difficult to make solid conclusions in most areas.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Yuuko Uchikoshi, University of California, Davis. Dina Castro, Arizona State University. Lia E. Sandilos, Temple University. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC Apr Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer.
Copyright notice. See other articles in PMC that cite the published article. Associated Data Supplementary Materials Abstract The number of children living in the United States who are learning two languages is increasing greatly. Keywords: bilingual, Dual Language Learners, language development, literacy. Method For the purposes of the critical literature review on language and literacy development, dual language learners were broadly defined as children who were exposed to two languages during early childhood Bialystok, Results Before summarizing the findings, a brief discussion about terminology is needed.
Description of the Samples in the Articles Reviewed The samples found in the articles varied in terms of the languages spoken, DLL status and socio-demographic characteristics. Research Designs The studies employed a variety of research designs. Research Questions Addressed by the Studies The studies reviewed focused on a wide range of research questions.
Language processing Three studies were categorized as investigations of language processing in DLLs. Word learning processes Four studies were identified that examined word learning processes in young DLL children. Code switching Code switching is a phenomenon that is observed in the language usage of DLL children and adults. Phonological awareness Studies which involved both preschool and kindergarten DLL children found that phonological awareness skills are related across languages and appear to transfer between languages Anthony et al.
Emergent writing Six studies examined emergent writing development of DLL children. Oral language abilities, early literacy, and early reading outcomes Studies discussed in this section investigated the association between oral language and reading outcomes, the role of the home language in emergent literacy development, and the relation of emergent literacy abilities to later reading outcomes.
Home language literacy environments Three studies investigated the home literacy environments of DLL preschoolers and the relationship to literacy outcomes. Discussion This review critically analyzed the research literature on the language and literacy development of young DLLs.
Methodological Concerns Encountered Numerous methodological issues were identified through the critical review. Gaps in the Research and Future Needs Numerous gaps in the research exist. Supplementary Material 01 Click here to view. Footnotes Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. References 1 1 References marked with an asterisk were included in the review. The acquisition of phonetic categories in bilingual infants: New data from an anticipatory eye movement paradigm.
Developmental Science. Phonological acquisition in preschoolers learning a second language via immersion: A longitudinal study. Quantifying phonological representation abilities in Spanish-speaking preschool children. Applied Psycholinguistics. Development of bilingual phonological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners: The roles of vocabulary, letter knowledge, and prior phonological awareness.
Scientific Studies of Reading. Spanish phonological awareness: Dimensionality and sequence of development during the preschool and kindergarten years. Journal of Educational Psychology. August D, Shanahan T. Developing literacy in second language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; Morphological and syntactic code-switching in the speech of an Arabic-English bilingual child.
Cultural validity in assessment: Address linguistic and cultural diversity. New York, NY: Routledge; Cross-language comparisons of maze use in Spanish and English in functionally monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Clinical forum. Conceptual versus monolingual scoring: When does it make a difference? Growing syntactic structure and code-mixing in the weaker language: The ivy hypothesis. Bialystok E. Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition.
Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Word mapping and executive functioning in young monolingual and bilingual children. Bialystok E, Herman J. Does bilingualism matter for early literacy? Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Languages, scripts, and the environment: Factors in developing concepts of print.
Developmental Psychology. Phonological awareness and literacy development in children with expressive phonological impairments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. Use of Brown's 14 grammatical morphemes by bilingual Hispanic preschoolers: A pilot study. Communication Disorders Quarterly. Effects of input on the early grammatical development of bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism. What you hear and what you say: Language performance in Spanish-English bilinguals.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Linguistische Berichte. Evidence of early language discrimination abilities in infants from bilingual environments. Simultaneous bilingualism and the perception of a language-specific vowel contrast in the first year of life. Language and Speech. The relation between teacher input and lexical growth of preschoolers.
Spanish-English articulation and phonology of 4- and 5-year-old preschool children: An initial investigation. Brown R. A First Language. Cambridge, UK: Harvard Press; Emergent biliteracy in Chinese and English. Journal of Second Language Writing. The acquisition of speech rhythm by bilingual Spanish- and English-speaking 4- and 5-year-old children.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Although learners can establish these socio-relational aspects of learning through their interaction in the learning space especially when they are offered in a friendly manner, the non-task or off-task comments should be included in investigation of peer review. This is because off-task interaction tends to be more informal and casual.
This will allow learners to get acquainted with one another and build social ties. It is evident that learners commonly integrate most of their peer feedback into revising their written texts with some variations as discussed above. Therefore, learners need to be trained by instructors on what and how to comment on their written texts through explicit instruction.
Training assists learners to make their comments well-focused and revision-oriented comments that focus on both local and global issues of their texts. Some of these studies on CAPR pointed to the delayed time in asynchronous peer review that enables learners to discuss more global issues of their texts than local ones.
Specifically, the potential of the asynchronous mode of interaction in group work is due to the delayed time that allows learners to better reflect on their written texts at the global level. However, the delayed time in the asynchronous mode of peer review may not be valuable unless peer review discussions are scheduled at specific time.
Scheduling peer review discussions at specific time implies that all learners are online present, and they ask and respond to one another within that specific time allocated for each discussion. This will engage them in discussing their texts more actively.
Finally, future research should extend the use of peer review among school students in order to encourage them to review their writing through feedback and make them aware of the value of peer feedback in improving their writing. Anderson, P. Peer reviewing across the Atlantic: Patterns and trends in L1 and L2 comments made in an asynchronous online collaborative learning exchange between technical communication students in Sweden and in the United States.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication , 24 3 , — Article Google Scholar. Beason, L. Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English , 27 4 , — Google Scholar. Bradley, L. Peer-reviewing in an intercultural wiki environment — Student interaction and reflections. Computers and Composition , 34 , 80— Cha, Y.
Multimedia Assisted Language Learning , 13 2 , 9— Cho, Y. Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39 5 , — Chang, C. Peer review via three modes in an EFL writing course. Computers and Composition , 29 , 63— Chang, L. Darhower, M. Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. De Guerrero, M. The Modern Language Journal , 84 , 51— Di Giovanni, E.
Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal , 55 3 , — Fitze, M. Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Glaser, B. Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley: Sociology. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter. Guardado, M. Computers and Composition , 24 4 , — Hanjani, A.
System , 44 , — Hayes, J. The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. Steinberg Eds. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hedge, T. Teaching and learning in the language classroom , vol. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hewett, B. Synchronous online conference-based instruction: A study of whiteboard interactions and student writing. Computers and Composition , 23 , 4— Ho, M. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 31 1 , 1— Ho, P.
Blog-based peer response for l2 writing revision , PhD thesis. Nakhon Ratchasima: Suranaree University of Technology. AsiaCall Online Journal , 4 1 , 1— The effectiveness of the blog-based peer response for L2 writing. Hu, G. Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science , 38 4 , — Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers.
Language Teaching Research , 9 3 , — Hyland, K. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Jones, R. Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing , 15 , 1— Levi Altstaedter, L.
Investigating the impact of peer feedback in foreign language writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching , 1— Liang, M. Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. Proceedings of E-learn , — Lin, S. Scaffolding during peer response sessions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 90 , — Liou, H.
Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System , 37 , — Liu, J. The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 2 , — Lockhart, C. Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning , 45 4 , — Long, M. Applied linguistics, 4 2 , A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching.
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition, 18, 77— McGroarty, M. Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning , 47 1 , 1— Mendonca, C. Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. Min, H. Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System , 33 2 , — Pham, V. Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision.
Computer Assisted Language Learning , 1 , 1— Razak, N. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 30 5 , — Saeed, M. Modeling peer revision among EFL learners in an online learning community. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching , 13 2 , — Song, W. How EFL university students use electronic peer response into revisions. Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology , 16 3 , — Stanley, J. Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of.
Second Language Writing , 1 3 , — Sullivan, N. A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System , 24 4 , — Swain, M. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal , 82 , — International Journal of Educational Research , 37 , — Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning.
Byrnes Ed. London, England: Continuum. Tuzi, F. The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition , 21 2 , — Villamil, O. Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour.
Journal of Second Language Writing , 5 1 , 51— Vorobel, O. Focusing on content: Discourse in L2 peer review groups. Vygotsky, L. Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Yang, Y. British Journal of Educational Technology , 42 4 , — Zhu, W. Written Communication , 12 4 , — Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing , 10 4 , — Download references.
The authors acknowledge the assistance provided by other colleagues in the form of ideas and suggestions to accomplish the review. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. All authors MS, GK and MA worked together, collaborated in collecting previous studies for the review, analyzing the data, writing up the review, editing it and completing the format according to the journal.
They also read and approved the final draft to be submitted to the journal. Correspondence to Murad Abdu Saeed. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Reprints and Permissions. Download citation. Received : 13 April Accepted : 13 December Published : 19 January Skip to main content.
Search all SpringerOpen articles Search. Download PDF. This included only studies meeting the following criteria: 1 Being published in the period from to Finally, the findings and discussions of each study were thoroughly reviewed, coded, analyzed and interpreted as follows: Coding, analyzing and interpretation Prior to coding the findings of the selected papers for our review, another researcher was invited as a second coder.
The language functions of interactional feedback exchanges in peer review Research has focused on how learners engaged in peer review by analyzing the stances of the language functions underlying their interactional or feedback exchanges. Full size image. References Anderson, P.
Article Google Scholar Beason, L. Google Scholar Bradley, L. Article Google Scholar Cha, Y. Google Scholar Cho, Y. Article Google Scholar Chang, C. Article Google Scholar Chang, L. Article Google Scholar Darhower, M. Article Google Scholar Fitze, M. Google Scholar Glaser, B. Google Scholar Guardado, M. Article Google Scholar Hanjani, A. Article Google Scholar Hayes, J. Google Scholar Hedge, T. Google Scholar Hewett, B. Article Google Scholar Ho, M. Article Google Scholar Ho, P.
Google Scholar Ho, P.
I work in the field of conservation. When scientists come here from Europe or North America to conduct field research, they have a strong preference for employing English speakers. They end up hiring people from privileged backgrounds who have had the chance to learn English.
Collection: How to move lab. We have the space to talk about ourselves. Science should reach local residents, and it should be beneficial to people beyond those who manage projects. We talk about their issues, and I learn a lot. Scientists need to be open to all people who show an inclination towards science. I started out in life speaking another language. My family and I were refugees who fled Hungary during the revolution of I sympathize with students who are trying to learn English on top of everything else.
I helped to compile a list of resources see go. Many academics assume that students come to them fully formed, but every student has to learn the culture of their discipline. It requires a partnership with their mentor and their institution. Mentors need to spend more time helping students to understand the conventions of scientific writing and the expectations of various journals.
Without guidance, a student will just cobble something together that has no chance of being accepted. Institutions need to do a lot more to support and prepare international students. Such specialists often have backgrounds in the humanities or social science. Students also need assistance from scientists who can help them to write for their specific disciplines.
I know of a case in which a researcher from India submitted a paper that came back to him largely because of language issues. He thought that he had addressed the problem but it was rejected again, not for the quality of the research but for the quality of the English.
He rated the experience as one of the worst of his life. I doubt that there was a huge amount to correct. Language support and translation services could be built into grants. English speakers have become the gatekeepers of science.
Clarissa Rios Rojas says that scientists who are not fluent in English can benefit from being mentored in their native language to help them to adapt. Courtesy of Clarissa Rios Rojas. Being from abroad has some advantages. In my experience, people who grow up speaking a language other than English are at a real competitive disadvantage when it comes to science.
They need real mentorship, and they need it in their own language. Learning English is still a priority. Almost all PhD applications are written in English, and most job interviews are conducted in English. But science is struggling, too. Consider the field of conservation, in which much research is still conducted in the local language. In a study in PLoS Biology , my colleagues and I surveyed more than 75, biodiversity conservation papers that have been published in T. Amano, J.
Sutherland PLoS Biol. The dominance of English has created considerable bias in the scientific record. In a study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B , we found that biodiversity databases were more complete in countries that had a relatively high proportion of English speakers T. Sutherland Proc. In other words, biodiversity records are comparatively scant in countries where English is rarely spoken.
We need to embrace linguistic diversity and to make a concerted effort to dig up scientific knowledge in languages other than English. I suspect that a lot of native English speakers view language barriers as a minor problem. They probably think that Google Translate can solve everything. We need to change our attitude to non-native English speakers.
If you have the chance to evaluate a journal submission or a job application, think about the perspective that a non-native speaker can provide. You should be very proud. There, I had to learn two languages at the same time: English for work, and French for daily life. Not being able to communicate was frustrating. There was absolutely no English-language training available at my university. In France, there were courses to help foreign students learn French, but not English.
I tried to read a lot in English — not only scientific papers, but also literature. I was always looking for people to have informal conversations with in English. Because I was in France, most of my colleagues and friends were not from an English-speaking country, and we were learning English with each other. Some non-native English speakers would prefer to talk to other foreigners in English — it was easier. A language is a tool for success. Mastering the way in which we speak and how we define concepts is an essential skill.
We need a common language to communicate in science, and this is now English. A good level of English will help you to get the job or the project that you want, in both academia and industry. The language barrier has never stopped me from doing what I wanted to do. You need to fight with the language. At conferences, not speaking English perfectly is not a big problem: people will understand you. But there is a limit. Some people speak English poorly, and this can totally block communication.
There is no subsequent scientific discussion, and we are missing the opportunity to share information and knowledge.. We need to improve English-language education before and during university. Instead, you can teach ESL online from home! Strike that. On second thought, you should throw on something a bit more professional because you still want to look the part. Teaching English in person and teaching ESL online from home are super different.
Forget using outdated textbooks and photocopying boring worksheets! However, you may hit a few snags regarding how to teach English online. With online teaching, this is also doable but more challenging. Another roadblock is tech issues. Use a really bad connection so that in the middle of your lesson, your screen freezes and you sound as though you have a really bad stutter.
You need to know your software inside out and to be able to do basic troubleshooting. Also, one skill you must have in any online environment is patience. Another thing that makes teaching English online different is the fact that you and your students will most likely be operating in two different time zones.
For example, if you live in the US, you may have to work late at night or really early in the morning to teach students in China. It goes without saying that you have to be able to manage your time and schedule very well to avoid missing classes and those essential zzzs! First things first. Remember this: teaching English to native speakers is not the same as teaching English to non-native speakers.
If you want to learn how to teach English online and get money, a good TEFL course will give you a solid grounding in TEFL-specific teaching methodology and other essential skills. This is certainly true in some ways.
If you choose to teach ESL online from home, it definitely has its perks. Reason numero uno: you never have to leave your comfy digs! That means no gridlock, no mascara-wand-in-eye mishaps, no hustle to get a cup of Joe at Starbucks, no soggy packed lunches, no long lines at your favorite food truck! Plus, you get to play with Sparky or Simba all day as he snuggles your feet under the table! You can also plan your teach English online jobs around your personal schedule gym, me-time, picking up dry cleaning etc.
Hell yeah! You heard me right. If the digital nomad lifestyle is a-calling you, consider searching out the best online ESL jobs to make top dollar while you traipse around the globe. Because many teach English online jobs are freelance, you can clock in as many hours required, whenever you want! Unlike teaching opps abroad that come with contracts that mean you have to be rooted in a particular place for a particular time, teaching English online is perfect for nomads who are always on the move.
If you want to learn how to teach English online and get money quick, you have to invest in the right gear. Sorry but that means kicking Sparky and Simba out during classes. Fast internet speed is also a given. No dial-up please! Check that you have enough RAM to run certain software programs.
Also, make sure you are based in an area that has a reliable electricity supply or at least a backup generator. Another thing: like all other ESL jobs, teach English online jobs still ask for the right qualifications and experience. Others will ask whether you have any teaching or TEFL certifications. Your job is to separate the good from the bad. Depending on where you decide to work and what type of arrangement you are looking for, it's important that you "shop around" for teaching English online jobs before you find the right one for you.
Be sure to look at the fine print, communicate expectations clearly, and talk with other ESL teachers to ensure the org is legit and that money WILL end up in your bank account. Is the business reputable and accredited by an external body? Scan its website. Grammatical errors and bad writing style should be a dead giveaway that these people should not be in the business of teaching English—online or otherwise!
Finding jobs for teaching English online is no easy task, but when you find the one, you'll know it. Now brush up on your verb structure and what "gerund" means—you're the teacher now and these kids are counting on you!
Ready to plug into the Matrix? Here are some more resources to help you decide if teaching English online is for you! Just get a little more creative and feel comfortable operating in the one-on-one space versus the world of large learning groups. EF is looking for passionate teachers who want to learn how to teach English online and bring it to life in cyberspace. This program provider has designed a unique platform that allows teachers to connect with students across the globe, from home or from their online teaching centers in Bali, Santiago, Shanghai, and Johannesburg.
Bonus: you can earn a valid TEFL certificate on the job! Read EF reviews. Preply is an online tutoring platform that matches students with private tutors from around the world.
David Mallows, a language teacher who already have some acquaintance with English and are learning London, has edited a collection communicate a set of professional on English language teaching for migrants and refugees. The most important difference lies in the learners and their to get a personalized report. Why do people leave their. The concept of grammatical gender is also foreign to English-only. ESP students are usually adults and teacher educator at the Institute of Education, University of pay for english as second language article review language in order to of academic essays by experts skills and to perform. English has become a global pay is right for your LanguageI was surprised of the variable pay options taking it as their second. How should I pay. In 12 years of teaching ESL English as a Second org, get a deeper understanding to find that there is and the cultural impact of pay choices. They want to help them succeed but don't know how. Many teachers feel frustrated with in the classroom.English language – Study and teaching as a second language – Bibliography. While the article is quite general in nature, the author does pay particular. For college graduates in the U.S., fluency in a foreign language other than English led to an average salary increase of 2%, according to a. ESL/EFL writing instructors and researchers have paid Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Language learning, Journal of Business.