See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286930818

The Case of Chichewa and English in Malawi: The Impact of First Language
Reading and Writing on Learning English as a Second Language

Article in Bilingual Research Journal · September 2015

DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2015.1091050

CITATIONS READS

22 14,348

6 authors, including:

Jaran Shin Misty Sailors

Kyung Hee University WestEd
20 PUBLICATIONS 250 CITATIONS 92 PUBLICATIONS 794 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

P. David Pearson Nicola A. Mcclung

University of California, Berkeley University of San Francisco
291 PUBLICATIONS 16,848 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 147 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jaran Shin on 11 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bilingual Research Journal
The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education

ISSN: 1523-5882 (Print) 1523-5890 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ubrj20

The Case of Chichewa and English in Malawi: The

Impact of First Language Reading and Writing on
Learning English as a Second Language

Jaran Shin, Misty Sailors, Nicola McClung, P. David Pearson, James V.

Hoffman & Margaret Chilimanjira

To cite this article: Jaran Shin, Misty Sailors, Nicola McClung, P. David Pearson, James V.
Hoffman & Margaret Chilimanjira (2015) The Case of Chichewa and English in Malawi: The
Impact of First Language Reading and Writing on Learning English as a Second Language,
Bilingual Research Journal, 38:3, 255-274

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2015.1091050

Published online: 15 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ubrj20

Download by: [University of California, Berkeley] Date: 15 December 2015, At: 13:25
 Bilingual Research Journal, 38: 255–274, 2015
Copyright © the National Association for Bilingual Education
ISSN: 1523-5882 print / 1523-5890 online
DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2015.1091050

RESEARCH ARTICLES
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

The Case of Chichewa and English in Malawi: The Impact

of First Language Reading and Writing on Learning English
as a Second Language
Jaran Shin
University of California at Berkeley

Misty Sailors
The University of Texas at San Antonio

Nicola McClung
The University of San Francisco

Jaran Shin is a doctoral candidate in Language, Literacy, and Culture at the Graduate School of Education at the
University of California at Berkeley. Her current research focuses on second/foreign language education in relationship
to culture, discourse, and identity in the context of globalization.
Misty Sailors is a professor in Literacy Education in the Department of Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching at
the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her current research focuses on literacy teacher education and comprehension
instruction in local and international settings.
Nicola McClung is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at the University of San Francisco. She is
also co-founder of Xóchitl Justice Press, which focuses on teaching, community partnerships, research, and publishes
non-fiction books to support the intellectual, affective, aesthetic, and social development of the whole child.
P. David Pearson is a professor in Language, Literacy, and Culture at the Graduate School of Education at the
University of California at Berkeley. His current research focuses on issues of literacy instruction and assessment policies
and practices at all levels-local, state, and national.
James Hoffman is a professor in Language and Literacy Studies in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at
the University of Texas at Austin. His current research focuses on reading teacher preparation and promotion of literacy
in developing countries.
Margaret Chilimanjira is a Language and Literacy Curriculum Specialist at the Malawi Institute of Education. She is
currently working on three projects, i.e., Materials Development for Strengthening Early Grade Reading In Malawi, Girls
Empowerment through Education and Health Activity, and Effective Early Grade Reading Instruction Approaches.
Address correspondence to Jaran Shin, University of California at Berkeley, 5519 Tolman Hall #1670, Berkeley, CA
94720. E-mail: jaranshin@berkeley.edu
 256 SHIN ET AL.

P. David Pearson
University of California at Berkeley

James V. Hoffman
The University of Texas at Austin

Margaret Chilimanjira
The Malawi Institute of Education
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

We investigated the relationship between Chichewa (L1) and English (L2) literacies in Malawi.
Through our use of hierarchical linear modeling, we found that cross-language literacy transfer
between Chichewa and English did occur, but that the pattern and the strength of the relationships
varied depending on the literacy domain (i.e., reading or writing) and grade level. Our work has
implications for students, teachers, and policy makers in countries like Malawi, where the language
of the former colonial power is the official language (L2) of the country and students must be prepared
to participate within a globalized society.

INTRODUCTION

Bilingualism offers numerous educational and cognitive benefits to people who use more than two
languages. For instance, they have been found to enjoy metacognitive, metalinguistic, sociolin-
guistic, and economic advantages; these advantages include greater cognitive flexibility, better
developed reasoning and classification skills, and better understanding of language and its fea-
tures (e.g., Bialystok, 1991; Díaz, 1985). When researchers have examined the challenges and
rewards of learning to listen, speak, read, and write in two languages, the findings have consis-
tently indicated that bilingual students’ first language (L1) proficiency provides the foundation
for second language (L2) development (e.g., Hornberger, 1989; Moll & Díaz, 1985).
Although it would seem that the role of L1 in supporting L2 has been well established, the
educational importance of this relationship is often at odds with the forces of globalization and
the spread of dominant languages. A few hegemonic lingua franca such as English and French
have gained enormous symbolic power across the world, and it is common for L2 instruction to
replace L1 instruction, endangering many heritage languages (Austin & Sallabank, 2011). This
is particularly true in Africa, where colonialism has influenced language policies, and subsequent
ideologies serve to reinforce the economic and social divides between speakers of the language
of power (e.g., English) and speakers of the indigenous and minority languages (Ouane & Glanz,
2010).
Subsequently and in this study, we investigate the relationship between Chichewa (L1) and
English (L2) in Malawi. Specifically, we apply hierarchical linear modeling tools to grade 2 and
3 student data (drawn from a larger set of data) to examine the relationships between L1 read-
ing and writing and L2 reading and writing; we hypothesize that the relationships are strong,
even though they are seldom exploited in L1 and/or L2 language pedagogy—in Malawi or else-
where, for that matter. This is especially important for students in countries like Malawi, where
the language of the former colonial power is one of the official languages (L2) of the country, and
 CHICHEWA AND ENGLISH READING AND WRITING IN MALAWI 257

students must be prepared to participate within a globalized society. Furthermore, we were partic-
ularly interested in writing as both a predictor (L1 Chichewa) and an outcome (L2 English). This
is because there seems to be a lack of empirical research demonstrating the role of L1 writing on
L2 reading and/or writing, and because reading and writing are inextricably bound together as
two major components of literacy.

THEORETICAL MODEL
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

We draw from work in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) to inform our investi-
gation of L1 and L2 literacy, following the tradition of other reading and writing researchers
(e.g., García-Vázquez, Vázquez, López, & Ward, 1997; Oketani, 1997). This decision was care-
fully made for we believe that language and literacy are inseparable and that they are socially
constructed (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998). In addition, because the major theorists in SLA (e.g.,
Cummins) base their arguments on bilinguals’ linguistic competence in academic settings, we
argue that these theories can be easily extended to bilingual reading and writing in educational
contexts.
Cummins’s (1981, 1991) Threshold Hypothesis proposes that L1 competence must have
already reached a certain threshold level in order to adequately support proficiency in two lan-
guages. He further specified that bilingual children are likely to be more efficient and effective in
developing L2 if they are equipped with many L1 competencies such as concept knowledge. This
does not mean, however, that bilingual learners do not need any L2 instruction in order to develop
their L2 proficiency simply because they have a strong L1 foundation. Instead, by suggesting
the Interdependence Hypothesis, Cummins (1981, 1991) drew attention to the shared underly-
ing capacities that language users need regardless of the language(s) they speak; he argued that
well-developed L1 allows bilinguals to have access to another language’s linguistic knowledge.
Accordingly, research has demonstrated that L1 becomes the basis of L2 development (August
& Shanahan, 2008). Researchers such as Torrance, Gowan, Wu, and Aliotti (1970) also point
out that, compared to their monolingual peers, the limited academic and linguistic proficiency of
bilingual students in either L1 or L2 most likely is due to lack of L1 school support. Bialystok
and Hakuta (1994) concluded that “the first language provides the linguistic context, and it shapes
not only the general principles of language acquisition but also the specific route one takes when
attempting to master a particular language” (p. 11).
Drawing on these research findings in SLA (e.g., Cummins, 1981, 1991; Selinker, 1992), a
number of researchers have explored the parallel interdependent relationship between L1 and
L2 literacy learning. For example, García-Vázquez and colleagues (1997) found a significant
connection across Spanish-English bilinguals’ L1/L2 oral language, reading and writing, and
academic achievement. In a similar vein, Oketani (1997) suggested that L1 (Japanese) reading
proficiency positively predicted both L2 (English) reading proficiency and educational outcomes
as a whole.
The research on literacy acquisition then surely provides additional evidence for the sup-
portive relationship between L1 and L2 (Bossers, 1992; Groebel, 1980; Montelongo, Durán, &
Hernández, 2013). At a macro level, Carrell (1991) and Bernhardt and Kamil (1995) revealed
that both L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency significantly influenced adult bilin-
guals’ L2 reading competence. Through their intervention that aimed to improve home-language
 258 SHIN ET AL.

literacy instruction in South African schools, Sailors, Hoffman, Pearson, Beretvas, and Matthee
(2010) showed the impact of L1 in developing L2. They demonstrated that grades 1 and 2 from
the intervention schools outperformed those from the control schools on L1 (in the nine indige-
nous and official languages of South Africa) and L2 (English) reading assessments. Other studies
corroborate this research (e.g., Proctor, August, Snow, & Barr, 2010).
Additionally, researchers have attempted to identify which specific literacy-related L1 skills
are helping L2 reading, including phonological awareness, oral language, vocabulary knowl-
edge, emergent literacy, and reading comprehension. For example, Reese, Garnier, Gallimore,
and Goldenberg (2000) found that early L1 literacy experiences (e.g., experiences with print,
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

knowledge of letter/sound and sound/spelling relations) support bilinguals’ later L2 liter-

acy development. Cisero and Royer (1995) illustrated that kindergarten and grade 1 students’
L1 phonological awareness was a significant predictor of their ability to identify sounds in L2.
López and Greenfield (2004) also found that strengthening L1 phonological skills of Spanish-
English bilingual students facilitated the later development of L2 literacy skills. In general,
researchers have consistently confirmed the association between phonological awareness in
L1 and L2 (e.g., Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, & Lacroix, 1999).
A number of studies investigated the L1 and L2 relationship at lexical and textual levels.
Hancin-Bhatt and Nagy (1994) examined the correlation between L1/L2 cognates and morpho-
logical knowledge. They found that students from grades 4 through 8 were able to systematically
and rapidly recognize Spanish/English cognates. They were also able to infer the relationship
between L1 and L2 suffixes (e.g., English suffixes including -ity and -ing and Spanish suf-
fixes such as -idad, -a/iendo). Their findings indicated that bilingual students’ morphological
knowledge in L1 promoted their L2 word learning. Similarly, Jiménez and Pearson (1996) and
Jiménez (1997) found that while successful bilingual Latina/o readers strategically accessed cog-
nate vocabulary to understand text especially when reading in English, less-successful bilingual
readers were less effective in using this strategy. They challenge the widespread belief that all
bilingual learners can easily recognize cognate pairs and instead, bilingual learners may bene-
fit from explicit instruction on morphological analysis and cognate recognition. In fact, Atwill,
Blanchard, Christie, Gorin, and García (2010) affirmed that foundational Spanish vocabulary
skills were necessary for Spanish-English bilingual kindergarteners to develop English phonemic
awareness. Proctor, August, Carlo, and Snow (2006) also reported that L1 vocabulary knowledge
predicted L2 reading comprehension and concluded that L1 word knowledge seemed to free cog-
nitive energy that might be allocated to construct meaning in print (e.g., they exerted less effort to
infer the meaning of unknown L2 words when it already existed in their L1 lexicon). Moreover,
recruiting 77 grade 2 and 3 Spanish-English bilingual students, Laija-Rodríguez, Ochoa, and
Parker (2006) hypothesized the interrelationship of L1 and L2 cognitive academic language pro-
ficiency (CALP). Using the Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey, the research team demonstrated
that combining L1 and L2 CALP scores better predicted students’ L1 and L2 reading growth than
individual L1 and L2 CALP measures.
Further studies have elucidated the supportive relationship between L1 and L2 reading com-
prehension (Goldman, Reyes, & Varnhagen, 1984; Proctor et al., 2006). For example, Goldman
and colleagues (1984) examined Spanish-English bilinguals’, English-Spanish bilinguals’, and
monolingual English speakers’ reading comprehension by asking them to retell, respond to com-
prehension questions about, and extract the lesson from a given set of fables. The research team
found that prior knowledge learned in L1 (English, Spanish) contributed to building background
 CHICHEWA AND ENGLISH READING AND WRITING IN MALAWI 259

knowledge in L2 (Spanish, English) and that students’ performance in the L1 and in the L2 were
comparable. In fact, bilingual students’ comprehension showed no difference compared to their
monolingual peers. Although some studies did not find stronger power of L1 word reading
or vocabulary in predicting children’s L2 reading comprehension (e.g., Mancilla-Martínez &
Lesaux, 2010; Nakamoto, Lindsey, & Manis, 2008), the results are not surprising when consid-
ering study participants’ general tendency to use English at home and not to receive formal L1
instruction.
Irrespective of their L2 proficiency, bilingual students utilize reading strategies acquired in
L1 in reading L2 (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2008). In particular, Jiménez and Pearson (1996) showed
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

that students who were less proficient in L1 (Spanish) adopted fewer reading strategies and were
less effective in resolving comprehension difficulties in L2 (English).
Overall, the L1 and L2 relationship is relatively well understood in the context of reading, and
the link has been established in multiple languages: from Spanish and English (e.g., Durgunoğlu
et al., 1993; López & Greenfield, 2004; Proctor et al., 2006), to French and English (e.g., Comeau
et al., 1999), Turkish and Dutch (e.g., Bossers, 1992), Hebrew and English (e.g., Groebel, 1980),
Chinese and English (e.g., Carson, Carrell, Silberstein, Kroll, & Kuehn, 1990), and Japanese and
English (e.g., Carson et al., 1990; Uzawa, 1996).
By contrast, studies that have examined the relationship between L1 and L2 in writing are
both scarce and mixed in terms of outcomes. While some studies found the relationship between
L1 and L2 writing proficiency to be limited (e.g., Berman, 1994; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996), others
have shown that L1 writing ability is positively related to L2 writing skills (e.g., Jiang & Kuehn,
2001; Uzawa, 1996). Specifically, Berman (1994) found that L1 writing ability was mediated by
L2 grammar development: L1 writing ability supported L2 only when L2 writers were proficient
in L2 grammar. When Uzawa (1996) examined whether Japanese (L1) and English (L2) writ-
ing products share comparable features, she found that bilinguals exhibited similar processes and
qualities of writing in both languages. Jiang and Kuehn (2001) argued that L2 writing was mod-
erated by L1 instruction; from their data, they observed that bilinguals who arrive in the United
States with sufficient formal instruction in their L1 (at least 10 years) make better progress in their
L2 writing proficiency when compared to students who arrive with less-than-adequate L1 literacy
instruction. Overall, there is a need for more research examining the relationship between writing
in L1 and L2.
Similarly, few studies have examined the relationship of reading and writing within and across
L1 and L2. Carson and colleagues (1990) investigated the links between the two by adopting
quantitative methods. By recruiting 105 Chinese/Japanese-English bilingual adults in academic
settings in the United States and by asking them to write essays and complete cloze passages
in L1 and L2, the researchers produced scores for each case with the help of native-speaker
raters. They then highlighted several key findings: (a) bilinguals apply their reading skills in one
language to another more easily, (b) L1 reading was the strongest predictor of L2 reading, and
(c) L1 writing tended not to significantly predict L2 writing. Their findings also showed that
different bilingual groups (i.e., Chinese-English and Japanese-English bilinguals) had different
patterns of using their L1 and L2 reading and writing, leading the team to call for more research
that is language specific in order to explore the complex nature of literacy development.
In summary, although the findings related to writing are less clear and the degree to which
L1 and L2 reading are related may vary depending on students’ level of L1 competence, the
studies reviewed so far consistently report that L1 reading proficiency is closely associated with
 260 SHIN ET AL.

L2 reading. However, as Hornberger (1989) cautions, the relationship between L1 and L2 lit-
eracy skills is complex; thus it is difficult to establish whether all aspects of L1 can facilitate
L2 literacy development. In fact, it could be argued that one’s strong L1 would not make com-
pensation for his/her lack of L2 knowledge and guarantee efficient L2 development (Edelsky,
1982; Hornberger, 1989). Further, L1 literacy ability might not be an essential requirement for
L2 literacy development, and well-developed L2 proficiency can promote L1 literacy acquisition
(e.g., Bell, 1995; Harley & Lapkin, 1984). This implies that if bilinguals have stronger literacy
proficiency in either L1 or L2, these language skills can facilitate learning the other language.
However, to our knowledge, few empirical and particularly longitudinal studies investigated
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

the holistic—as opposed to point-by-point—relationship between L1 and L2 literacies and the

cross-influence of L1 reading and writing on L2 reading and writing. Although some researchers
began to examine the relationship between L1 and L2 literacy more holistically in order to
promote biliteracy instruction and assessment practices (e.g., Soltero-González, Escamilla, &
Hopewell, 2012; Sparrow, Butvilofsky, Escamilla, Hopewell, & Tolento, 2014), the need for more
studies is not undermined. In fact, as Escamilla et al.’s studies focus on Spanish-English bilin-
gual learners in the United States, the relationship between Chichewa and English has not been
explored in L1 and L2 research. The purposes of this study, thus, were to explore the influence
of Malawian students’ L1 (Chichewa) reading or writing on their L2 (English) reading or writing
proficiency by examining longitudinal data from grade 2 and 3 students in Malawi.

MALAWI AND THE CURRENT STUDY

A narrow, land-locked country, Malawi is home to more than 16 million people (World Bank,
2013). While the people of Malawi are resilient, life is difficult for many of them. Malawi is one
of the most densely populated countries on the planet; of the more than 16 million people who live
in Malawi, a striking number (80%) live in the rural areas. The vast majority of Malawians (73%)
live below the poverty line (defined as less than US$1.25 per day) and are subsistence farmers.
The gross national income of the country is $330 (per capita) with an annual inflation rate of 26%.
Families in Malawi are large, with a fertility rate of 5.35 children per Malawian woman. The cur-
rent life expectancy at birth is 52 years of age (Central Intelligence Agency, 2012; Klugman,
2011). Furthermore, 20% of the people in Malawi live without access to an improved water
source, and 16% of children under the age of 5 are underweight (Central Intelligence Agency,
2012). Only 61% of the adult population (ages 15 and older) is literate (Macro International,
2008). The overall Human Development Index (combined healthy lifestyle, education, and a
decent standard of living) ranks the country 171 of 181 countries with data (Klugman, 2011).
Malawians orient themselves around 11 indigenous tribes (Malawi National Statistics Office,
2008); there exists a close link between language and ethnic identity in the country (Matiki, 2006).
In 1968, English was named the official and Chichewa the national languages of the country
(Kamwendo, 2005). In 1994, the dominant political party of Malawi issued an order declaring
that pupils in grades 1–4 should be taught in their mother tongue. This policy required teachers to
teach “in vernacular languages prevalent in the area except in the two subjects of Chichewa and
English” (Kayambazinthu, 1998, p. 389). At the time of this study, the language of instruction
for the first 4 years of primary education (grades 1–4) was Chichewa, with English as a subject
 CHICHEWA AND ENGLISH READING AND WRITING IN MALAWI 261

(30 minutes per day in the early grades). After grade 4, English serves as the language of learning
and teaching in Malawi, with Chichewa relegated to a subject each day.
A number of studies have been conducted on literacy achievement in Malawi in recent years.
One set of studies compared early-grade reading in Malawi to that in Zambia, where English is
taught as a subject and used as the language of instruction from grade 1. An English language-
reading test and a local language-reading test (Chichewa in Malawi, and the almost identical
Nyanja in Zambia) were administered to the same grade 5 students from six schools in each
country (Williams, 1996). The results indicated that there were no significant differences in
English-language reading ability between students in each country, but large differences in favor
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

of local language reading ability in Malawi (Williams, 1996). Williams (2006) also studied first-
and second language reading proficiency in grades 3, 4, and 6 in Malawi and Zambia. His ongoing
work showed that Malawian students continued to read better in their local language, Chichewa,
but their achievement in English was weak. Because of the complexity of the language situation
in Malawi, it is difficult to conclude that the ability of Malawian students to read successfully in
Chichewa is attributable to their competence in the language (Williams, 2006).
Other studies showed similar results. Milner, Chimombo, Banda, and Mchikoma (2001), for
example, examined the level of reading achievement for grade 6 and found that 99.4% of students
did not reach the desirable reading level in English. Other studies echoed that learners’ achieve-
ment in literacy was very low, particularly in English (Chimombo, Mwale, & Ndalama, 2006).
Similarly, in their case study of 12 districts in Malawi, Kishindo, Susuwele, Ndalama, and Mwale
(2005) found that student achievement in the four core subjects including English was critically
low.
While these studies compared reading achievement in official and national languages, a few
studies have examined reading achievement in other mother-tongue languages in Malawi. For
example, in the Language Across the Curriculum (LAC) study conducted in Malawi from 2004 to
2006, learners’ performance in other mother-tongue languages (Chitumbuka and Chiyawo) were
examined alongside L2 (Chichewa) and L3 (English) (Chilora, 2007). However, this study, just as
other studies, seemed to focus only on the reading achievement in English by Malawian students
rather than the role of L1 on L2 proficiency. Therefore, although scholars have written about the
aspects of L1 that can interfere with the learning of L2 in Malawi (see Mmela, 2006), it would be
dangerous to make conclusive statements about the role of L1 in influencing L2 learning. To that
end, our research question was, “Do L1 (Chichewa) reading and writing support L2 (English)
reading and writing, when controlling for prior L1 ability?” In order to ask that question, we
examined (a) the relationship of L1 reading to L2 reading, (b) the relationship of L1 writing to
L2 reading, (c) the relationship of L1 reading to L2 writing, and (d) the relationship of L1 writing
to L2 writing.

METHOD

The data for this study come from a larger data set that examined the effectiveness of an innovative
USAID-funded intervention study in improving teachers’ practices and beliefs; our findings indi-
cated that teachers did improve their beliefs about their learners and the communities (Sailors,
Hoffman, Pearson, McClung, Shin, Liveness, & Saka, 2014a). In another study, we looked at
the teachers’ program implementation levels; our findings indicated the vast majority of the
 262 SHIN ET AL.

teachers were implementing at “expected” or “exceeding expectation” levels. (Sailors & Flores,
2014b).That said, the current study is a secondary analysis of the data collected in the pilot
phase of the project from October 2010 (pretest data collection) through June 2011 (posttest
data collection) from the Zomba region of Malawi.
This study took place in two education districts in the southern Zomba region: District 1 and
District 2. Government reports (Centre for Language Studies, 2009) revealed that there are three
home languages in Zomba districts: Chichewa, Chiyawo, and Chilomwe. Among these three,
Chichewa is the dominant language of the district (Centre for Language Studies, 2009). District
1 is an urban district with two zones; District 2 is a rural district with 12 zones. We selected three
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

of the schools from each zone (approximately 25% of all schools) to participate. Consultation
with colleagues from the Malawi Institute of Education (MIE) confirmed that the sample typified
schools in the zone.
Schools were randomly assigned to participate in Read Malawi if they met three criteria: they
(a) were among the three schools in closest proximity to the Teacher Development Center (TDC);
(b) had a minimum of two streams at grades 2 and 3; and (c) were gender mixed (both boys and
girls in attendance, as some schools are populated by single gender). TDCs served as the “hub”
of professional development activity in each zone, housing physical space for staff development
as well as the location of the Primary Education Advisor (PEA) for each zone. PEAs worked with
teachers both in staff development and in schools. The PEAs served as external coaches in our
larger study (reported in Sailors et al., 2014a). Often, travel in rural Malawi is difficult due to the
countrywide shortage of gasoline (at the time of the study) and the nature of roads (especially
during the rainy season). Therefore, it was necessary for us to keep the intervention “close” to the
TDCs as to not cause extra travel burden (time, effort, and money for gasoline) at a minimum.
Students completed the grades 2 and 3 assessments in both Chichewa and English. The
research team was composed of researchers at the MIE; we selected only experienced data collec-
tors who had at least a bachelor’s degree and were Chichewa speakers; all were former classroom
teachers. The team administered grade 2 assessments on a one-to-one basis. The team adminis-
tered grade 3 assessments in groups of 10. The assessment always began in Chichewa followed
by English. The team used Chichewa as the language of assessment (e.g., directions), with the
exception of the English component of the assessment.
Fifteen Malawian researchers from the MIE collected the assessment data. We trained the
team over a 3-day period, which also involved the field testing of the instruments. In order
to secure adequate interrater reliability, the team graded a sample assessment together. Three
team members scored each answer sheet to reduce any possibility of score discrepancy. Point-by-
point agreement using Cohen’s Kappa statistic revealed that members of the data collection team
reached at least an 80% interrater reliability. This coefficient was acceptable, with an estimate of
r ≥ .80 (Fleiss, 1981).

Sample

Grades 2 and 3 students who had complete data on the Chichewa and English literacy pre- (i.e.,
Time 1) and posttest (i.e., Time 2) measures and reported that their first language was Chichewa
were included in this study. Like other students in Malawi, all students in this study were in the
classrooms where Chichewa was used as the language of instruction. They also learned English
 CHICHEWA AND ENGLISH READING AND WRITING IN MALAWI 263

as a subject from grade 1. In the pretest data, there were initially 1,679 students from 42 schools,
and similarly, the original posttest sample included 1,678 students from 42 schools. Of these
students, 995 students (about 60% of students) from the two grades had completed pre- and
posttest data and reported Chichewa as their home language, leaving a total of 452 students in
grade 2 and 543 students in grade 3 with both pre- and posttest scores. We dropped approximately
270 students because they did not report Chichewa as their home language. The reading and
writing data from the students who had both time points were 95% complete. To avoid dropping
any more students from the study, values for the 5% of missing reading and writing variables were
imputed by taking the row mean of the available items from each subtest (see the following), a
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

process similar to imputing the missing data.

Learner Literacy Assessment

The Learner Literacy Assessment was designed to measure literacy constructs in grades 2 and 3
through individual assessments, measuring knowledge of vowels, letter combinations, and word
identification, as well as sentence and passage reading. In addition, the instrument also mea-
sured dictation and story writing in grade 3 through a group assessment. The total number of
12 subtests (i.e., seven Chichewa subtests and six English subtests) was given to grade 2 students,
whereas eight subtests (i.e., four Chichewa subtests and six English subtests) were given to grade
3 students.
Designed by curriculum specialists at the MIE, the instrument was written to be reflec-
tive of the National Primary Curriculum in Malawi, an outcome-based curriculum. During its
development for use in previous research studies, the instrument underwent several rounds of
development, redevelopment, and field testing. We used it in its entirety for this study.
Approximately 70% of the grade 2 Chichewa subtest items overlapped with the grade
3 Chichewa items (e.g., 18 Chichewa words overlapped between grade 2 and grade 3 assess-
ments; 16 English words overlapped between the two grades). The pre- and posttests for each
grade were on the same scale (i.e., 0 for incorrect and 1 for correct answers except writing tasks),
and all study participants were given the same testing materials at both time points. The scores
for each measure were standardized (Mean = 0, Standard Deviation = 1); however, due to the
high percentage of zero scores on many of the subtests, the distributions of many of the reading
and writing variables were skewed.

Grade 2 Chichewa Reading

The variable for Time 1 (t1 ) and Time 2 (t2 ) grade 2 Chichewa reading was created by com-
puting the standardized row mean of the scores for each student on the following tasks: syllable
identification, word recognition, word reading, sentence reading, and reading accuracy.

• In the syllable identification task, we asked students to read aloud five syllables, and
responses were coded as correct/incorrect with a total possible score of 5.
• Word recognition involved pointing to pictures after listening to the target words, and
responses were coded as correct/incorrect with a total possible score of 5.
 264 SHIN ET AL.

• Word reading and sentence reading examined whether students could read a list of words or
sentences. Students’ responses were coded as correct/incorrect with a total possible score
of 24 and 7 respectively.
• In the reading accuracy task, we asked students to read the words that they wrote in the
writing accuracy task (explained in the following).

Grade 2 Chichewa Writing

Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

We created the t1 and t2 Chichewa writing variable by taking the standardized sum of the
scores on the dictation task and writing accuracy. The Chichewa writing system is based on the
Roman alphabet and is phonologically transparent, i.e., words are written in the same way as
they are spoken. For example, in Chichewa the word for boy is written as mnyamata, and it is
pronounced as [mnyamata]. The word ophunzira refers to student and sounds like [ophunzira].
In sum, the grapheme a can only be read as /a/, and the phoneme /a/ can only be spelled as a.
This is applicable to other graphemes in the Chichewa writing system.

• Dictation required the students to write the word mtsikana (“girl”) in the box provided.
A total possible score was 3.
• Writing accuracy involved students writing down as many words as they could in Chichewa
in 3 minutes.

Grade 2 English Reading

The t1 and t2 English reading variable was generated by taking the standardized row mean
of scores on the following tasks: word recognition, word reading, sentence reading, and reading
accuracy from each time point. Respectively, students were asked to (a) find pictures that describe
the words, (b) read the words on the list one by one, (c) read the sentence after looking at the
pictures, and (d) read the words that they wrote in the writing accuracy task.

Grade 2 English Writing

We created both t1 and t2 English writing variables by taking the standardized sum of the
scores on the dictation task and writing accuracy. Dictation asked students to write the word
girl in the box provided. Moreover, we asked students to demonstrate their writing accuracy by
writing down as many words as they could in English in 3 minutes.

Grade 3 Chichewa Reading

The variable for t1 and t2 grade 3 Chichewa reading was created by computing the standardized
row mean of scores for word reading and sentence reading. We administered these measures in
the same way as the grade 2 sentence and word reading measures.
 CHICHEWA AND ENGLISH READING AND WRITING IN MALAWI 265

Grade 3 Chichewa Writing

We created the t1 and t2 Chichewa writing variable by taking the standardized sum of the
scores on the composing and mechanics subtests. We asked students to look at the picture of a
monkey and a crocodile and to talk about what was going on in the picture. We then gave them
10 minutes to write the story explaining the picture in the space provided in Chichewa. A total
possible score was 4 for each subtest.
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

Grade 3 English Reading

Both t1 and t2 English reading variables were created by computing the standardized row
mean of the scores on the following tasks: word recognition, sentence reading, word reading, and
reading accuracy from each time point. We administered these measures in the same way as the
grade 2 reading measures.

Grade 3 English Writing

We created the t1 and t2 English writing variable by taking the standardized sum of the scores
on the dictation task and writing accuracy. We administered these measures in the same way as
the grade 2 English writing measures.

Statistical Techniques

We conducted correlational analyses as a preliminary exploration of the relationships among

reading and writing in both L1 (Chichewa) and L2 (English). These first-order correlations are
depicted by grade level in Tables 1 and 2.
We then used stepwise hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to examine the relationship
between L1 and L2 skills. We decided to use this analytic strategy because it enables us to more
accurately understand the L1 and L2 relationship by incorporating students’ repeated measures
(t1 and t2 ) and by reflecting students’ existence in a hierarchical social structure, i.e., school in

TABLE 1
Correlations Between Grade 2 Variables

English English English English Chichewa Chichewa

Reading Reading Writing Writing Reading Writing
Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Pretest Pretest

English Reading Pretest 0.4743∗

English Writing Posttest 0.5224∗ 0.1274∗
English Writing Pretest −0.0336 0.0788 −0.0395
Chichewa Reading Pretest 0.3834∗ 0.5019∗ 0.2783∗ 0.1326∗
Chichewa Writing Pretest 0.1413∗ 0.2606∗ 0.1356∗ 0.1850∗ 0.5141∗
∗p < .01.
 266 SHIN ET AL.

TABLE 2
Correlations Between Grade 3 Variables

English English English English Chichewa Chichewa

Reading Reading Writing Writing Reading Writing
Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Pretest Pretest

English Reading Pretest 0.6615∗

English Writing Posttest 0.8658∗ 0.5795∗
English Writing Pretest 0.7227∗ 0.7675∗ 0.6592∗
Chichewa Reading Pretest 0.7046∗ 0.8041∗ 0.5940∗ 0.8081∗
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

Chichewa Writing Pretest 0.6561∗ 0.7273∗ 0.5705∗ 0.7581∗ 0.7853∗

∗p < .01.

this study. At each grade level, t2 English scores were regressed on t1 Chichewa scores control-
ling for t1 English scores. Specifically, in the first model, t2 English reading was regressed on t1
Chichewa reading, controlling for t1 English reading. In the second set of analyses, we added t1
English writing to the model, followed by a third model that added t1 Chichewa writing. Using
the same stepwise approach, we examined the predictors of t2 English writing at each grade
level.
There were a large number of zero scores on many of subtests (especially those reflecting
higher-level skills—e.g., sentence reading versus syllable identification), a phenomenon that has
been noted as an issue in previous research utilizing data from other African contexts (e.g., RTI
International, 2010; World Bank, 2012). To address this challenge to assumptions of normality
in conventional statistical analyses, we compared HLM to multilevel logistic regression models
(which are better suited to these violations of the assumption of normality) at the subtest level
(variables for all of the subtests were coded 0 = 0 and >0 = 1). The results for the logistic
regression analyses were similar to (i.e., supported the same conclusions) the conventional HLM
analyses. Thus, we relied on the HLM analyses for reporting purposes.
Across models, controlling for t1 English effects increased the likelihood that we would rule
out any linguistic ability not related to Chichewa proficiency that would predict t2 English liter-
acy; controlling for t1 English was also designed to reduce the chance that predictive associations
between L1 and L2 reflected the influence of any third variable(s) (Bowey, 2005).
Because we collected the testing data from students within specific schools, the data presum-
ably have a multilevel structure, reflecting the influence that classrooms and schools have on the
performance of individual students. Thus, we conducted likelihood-ratio tests, comparing ordi-
nary regression to HLM, to investigate whether a random intercept was needed for schools in each
model. Because all of the tests were significant, random intercepts for schools were included in
all models. As a result, two-level models, with students nested within schools, emerged as the
best fitting to the data in all analyses.
We used list-wise deletion as a method for handling missing data. We conducted independent
sample t-tests to address the possibility that there might be patterns of bias in this approach. The
results indicated that, although there was a considerable amount of missing data (40% of students
only had one time point), the patterns could be considered random; there were no significant
differences on any of the Chichewa or English reading or writing variables between students with
 CHICHEWA AND ENGLISH READING AND WRITING IN MALAWI 267

TABLE 3
Fixed Effects Estimates and Variance-Covariance Estimates for Models of the Predictors of Grade 2
Time 2 (t2 ) English Reading and Writing Scores

t2 English t2 English t2 English t2 English t2 English t2 English t2 English t2 English

Reading Reading Reading Reading Writing Writing Writing Writing

t1 English 0.29∗∗∗ 0.30∗∗∗ 0.30∗∗∗ 0.34∗∗∗ 0.06 −0.06 0.01

Reading (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.03) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)
t1 Chichewa 0.15∗∗ 0.15∗∗ 0.17∗∗ 0.31∗∗∗
Reading (0.05) (0.05) (0.06) (0.06)
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

t1 English −0.05 −0.04 −0.05 −0.04 −0.04 −0.04 −0.05

Writing (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.05) (0.05) (0.04) (0.04)
t1 Chichewa −0.04 0.14∗∗ 0.12∗ 0.02
Writing (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)
Intercept −0.04 −0.04 −0.04 −0.05 −0.01 −0.01 −0.01 −0.01
(0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)
ψ −1.63∗∗∗ −1.65∗∗∗ −1.66∗∗∗ −1.65∗∗∗ −0.90∗∗∗ −0.91∗∗∗ −0.94∗∗∗ −0.93∗∗∗
(0.28) (0.29) (0.29) (0.29) (0.16) (0.17) (0.17) (0.16)
 −0.16∗∗∗ −0.16∗∗∗ −0.16∗∗∗ −0.15∗∗∗ −0.07 −0.07∗ −0.10∗∗ −0.09∗
(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03)

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. ψ = between school variance and  = within school variance. ∗ p < .05;
∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.

missing and complete data. Through communication with the MIE, we determined that it was
highly likely that many students did participate in both the pre- and posttest assessments but that
there were random inconsistencies in the student identification numbers that prevented us from
matching their data from both time points.

RESULTS

The first set of analyses addressed the relationship between L1 and L2 reading. Results indicated
that grade 2 t1 Chichewa reading (p < .01; β = .15) has a significant effect on t2 English reading,
controlling for t1 English reading ability. When we added t1 English writing and then later t1
Chichewa writing to the model, t1 Chichewa reading remained statistically significant (p < .01;
β = .15 and p < .01; β = .17 respectively). However, Chichewa writing did not significantly
predict English reading. These results indicated that at the grade 2 level, L1 reading appeared
to be independently supportive of L2 reading, even when controlling for the influence of other
linguistic abilities (including English reading and writing skills). Table 3 provides the results
from the grade 2 analyses. It appears that the impact of L1 reading on L2 reading is a robust
finding.
The next set of grade 2 models examined the relationship between L1 and L2 writing.
Chichewa writing was significantly related to English writing, when we controlled for t1 English
writing (p < .01; β = .14) and when t1 English reading (p < .05; β = .12) was added to the
model. However, t1 Chichewa writing dropped out of significance when t1 Chichewa reading was
 268 SHIN ET AL.

added, suggesting that t1 Chichewa reading was even more positively associated with English
writing skills than was t1 Chichewa writing (p < .001; β = .31). This indicated that the strongest
predictor of L2 writing at the grade 2 level appeared to be L1 reading.
The grade 3 analyses generally corroborated the findings from grade 2, confirming that L1 abil-
ity supports L2 ability although the pattern of results was somewhat different. Chichewa reading
remained a strong predictor of English reading, regardless of which variables we added to the
model. Interestingly, Chichewa writing exerted an independent effect on t2 English reading
(p < .05; β = .11) when controlling for Chichewa reading and t1 English reading and writing.
Table 4 provides the results from the grade 3 analyses.
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

Grade 3 Chichewa writing predicted English writing, controlling for t1 English writing
(p < .001; β = .31), yet dropped out of significance once we added Chichewa reading to the
model. Chichewa reading, however, was not significant.
Overall, these results consistently suggest that L1 reading is supportive of L2 reading. They
also highlight the possibility that as students get older, L1 writing is independently supportive
of L2 reading (above and beyond the support provided by L1 reading). While the findings did
demonstrate that generally L1 ability was related to L2 writing, the mechanism by which this
relationship occurred was less clear than with reading. When Chichewa writing was entered in
the model with only t1 English writing, it was a significant predictor of t2 English writing at both
grade levels; however, in more complex models, English writing appeared to be best explained
by Chichewa reading at the grade 2 level. In sum, although the particular relations among reading
and writing vary across grade levels, the findings from this study clearly suggest that L1 ability (as
measured by reading and writing) is a reliable predictor of L2 reading and writing performance
in Malawi.

TABLE 4
Fixed Effects Estimates and Variance-Covariance Estimates for Models of the Predictors of Grade 3
Time 2 (t2 ) English Reading and Writing Scores

t2 English t2 English t2 English t2 English t2 English t2 English t2 English t2 English

Reading Reading Reading Reading Writing Writing Writing Writing

t1 English 0.25∗∗∗ 0.13∗∗ 0.11∗ 0.13∗∗ 0.14∗∗ 0.11 0.10

Reading (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.06) (0.05)
t1 Chichewa 0.43∗∗∗ 0.27∗∗∗ 0.23∗∗∗ 0.09
Reading (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.06)
t1 English 0.32∗∗∗ 0.30∗∗∗ 0.26∗∗∗ 0.48∗∗∗ 0.41∗∗∗ 0.38∗∗∗ 0.34∗∗∗
Writing (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.04) (0.05) (0.06) (0.06)
t1 Chichewa 0.11∗ 0.14∗∗ 0.09 0.07
Writing (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)
Intercept −0.05 −0.05 −0.05 −0.05 −0.04 −0.04 −0.04 −0.05
(0.05) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)
ψ −1.44∗∗∗ −1.66∗∗∗ −1.71∗∗∗ −1.68∗∗∗ −1.48∗∗∗ −1.44∗∗∗ −1.42∗∗∗ −1.41∗∗∗
(0.17) (0.20) (0.21) (0.20) (0.19) (0.19) (0.18) (0.18)
 −0.43∗∗∗ −0.46∗∗∗ −0.46∗∗∗ −0.48∗∗∗ −0.34∗∗∗ −0.35∗∗∗ −0.35∗∗∗ −0.36∗∗∗
(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03)

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. ψ = between school variance and  = within school variance. ∗ p < .05;
∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
 CHICHEWA AND ENGLISH READING AND WRITING IN MALAWI 269

DISCUSSION

An analysis of the longitudinal development of reading and writing in L1 and L2 over the course
of a year (during the pilot phase of this national study in Malawi) offered the rare opportu-
nity to investigate whether L1 (Chichewa) reading and writing skills provided the foundation
for L2 (English) reading and writing. Our findings indicate that Chichewa reading and writing
and English reading and writing were closely related to each other but that the pattern and the
strength of the relationships varied depending on grade level and the literacy domain (i.e., reading
or writing) under consideration. While for reading Chichewa consistently predicted English read-
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

ing and writing, the findings for writing were less clear: At grade 3, Chichewa writing appeared
to exert a unique effect on English reading, yet across grade levels, Chichewa reading emerged
as the most powerful predictor of English writing.
The results of this study were in line with previous research suggesting that L1 plays a crucial
role in developing L2. Numerous researchers including Cummins (1981, 1991) and Bialystok
and Hakuta (1994) argue that it is difficult to expect students to learn an L2 effectively and
satisfactorily if they do not reach an adequate level of proficiency in their L1. Our findings offer
empirical evidence that L1 reading is a reliable predictor of L2 reading and writing in Malawi
and that L1 writing may be independently supportive of L2 reading as students become more
proficient in both languages. This means that bilinguals’ L2 literacy proficiency—or even the
extent to which they could be successful in their L2—depends on their L1 literacy competence.
Overall, we have added more evidence to the existing studies and enhanced our understanding of
second language and literacy acquisition: L1 ability functions as a stepping-stone for L2 literacy
development (e.g., Sailors et al., 2010; Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Proctor et al., 2010).
Additionally, our findings capture the developmental course of L1 and L2 reading and writ-
ing and the mutual relationship between reading and writing across languages. We found that
L1 reading had a stronger power to predict L2 literacy proficiency. The finding seems to high-
light that it takes longer for bilinguals to reach the adequate level of L1 writing competence,
considering Cummins’s (1981, 1991) major assumption that L1 needs to reach a certain thresh-
old level to make an impact on L2. Furthermore, observing the explanatory power of L1 writing
on L2 reading and writing faded away when the L1 reading ability was included in the analyti-
cal models, leading us to believe there is a reciprocal relationship between reading and writing.
In other words, the two are supported by shared knowledge and cognitive processes (Pearson &
Tierney, 1984; Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). Based on data from our study and many before
us, it seems fair to conclude that bilinguals would learn second languages in more effective and
constructive ways if scaffoldings that reflect reading and writing’s common underlying capacities
were provided.
All these points converge on the importance of valuing students’ L1 in educational settings.
From some previous studies and reports (e.g., Kioko et al., 2008; Ouane & Glanz, 2010), we have
learned that the lack of L1 school support is likely to prevent bilingual students from becom-
ing high achievers and balanced bilinguals who can later become contributive global citizens.
So in Malawi, where Chichewa as the language of learning and teaching does not continue
after grade 4, efforts to promote linguistic diversity in schools from the hegemonic trappings
of lingua franca like English—usually languages of the former colonial power—are urgent and
necessary. Otherwise, the economic and social divides that Malawi and many countries in Africa
 270 SHIN ET AL.

have experienced would be constantly reproduced. This does not mean that we advocate for
linguistic purism or nationalism or suggest that L2 should be set aside. Rather, by acknowledging
the important role L1 plays in learning L2, we hope to support students’ language and literacy
development across languages.

LIMITATIONS

This study is not without limitations. First, we did not balance the measures for reading and writ-
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

ing and clearly only captured part of the complexities involved in the overall literacy process.
Students demonstrated their reading skills on several measures (i.e., syllable identification, word
recognition, word reading, sentence reading, reading accuracy), but only a couple of measures
examined writing. In particular, some writing tasks, representatively our dictation task (i.e., ask-
ing students to write the word girl in English and Chichewa—mtsikana), might not be comparable
across languages. This might be related to the finding about the weaker power of L1 writing to
predict L2 reading and writing proficiency. Furthermore, we did not have any information about
students’ reading comprehension or more specific literacy-related subskills (e.g., phonological
awareness). This limitation is balanced by the fact that the measures were theoretically moti-
vated and had been established through extensive field testing and previous research in Malawian
studies by our colleagues at the MIE.
Second, a large portion of the sample had zero scores on many of the subtests. These consistent
floor effects imply that the measures were not adequately capturing the variability at the bottom
end of the performance continuum. This limitation was at least partially addressed by employing
the logistic regression models, which yielded results similar to the HLM. Surely, further research
exploring the measurement issues in the context of Malawian schools is needed.
Third, there was a large amount of missing data, and less than half of the sample from the
Read Malawi pilot project could not be included in this study. However, even with the missing
data, the sample was large. This limitation was also mitigated by the fact that the missing data
were probably the result of mismatched student identification numbers and not a systematic bias
in the inclusion/exclusion of students with particular characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Despite these limitations, the results from this study contribute to the field of language and literacy
acquisition by providing additional evidence that bilingual students’ L1 provides the foundation
for L2 learning and by extending this body of literature into the language-specific context of
Malawi. Several conclusions are warranted from the evidence: (a) L1 Chichewa reading skills
are closely related to L2 English reading; (b) L2 English writing is enhanced by L1 Chichewa
literacy; and (c) in addition to learning English, students in Malawi would benefit from ongoing
school support in Chichewa, which would presumably provide the opportunity to achieve educa-
tional success in both languages. Findings reveal insights into the complexities involved in the
relationship between L1 and L2 reading and writing abilities. In addition, these results suggest
the need for a language in education policy that supports the complementary roles of Chichewa
and English in schools as well as bolsters teachers, schools, and communities in supporting
implementation.
 CHICHEWA AND ENGLISH READING AND WRITING IN MALAWI 271

However, very recent changes in the language in education policy in Malawi would seem to
indicate that this is not the direction being taken. Like students in many African countries, such
as Rwanda and South Africa (see Samuelson & Freedman, 2010), Malawian students may be
pushed to minimize the value of L1, and language and literacy instruction may emphasize the
few hegemonic lingua franca of the 21st century. More specifically, under the Education Act just
passed by the Malawi Parliament in November 2013, English shall be the medium of instruc-
tion for grades 1–8, with Chichewa as a subject. Section 78 of the act addresses the issue of
language of instruction, stating, “The medium of instruction in schools and colleges shall be
English” (Government of Malawi, 2012, p. 42). The motivations for this policy change are rooted
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

in economic, social, and political agendas that are beyond the scope of our work in this study.
But our concerns are the impact of this policy shift on language learning and language teaching
in schools and the endangerment of many heritage languages in Malawi due to the hegemony
associated with English. This policy change appears to be in direct opposition to the findings
of the current study. Our findings suggest that promoting L1 reading and writing is ultimately
the policy for promoting expertise in L2. Moreover, more systemic and ongoing L1 language
and literacy support will also allow students in Malawi to more fully enjoy the benefits of being
bilingual and to imagine new possibilities that globalization provides. We can only hope that
our findings might lead to a reconsideration of these recent policy changes. We believe that
by promoting ongoing instruction in Chichewa (and English) beyond grade 4, Malawian edu-
cators and policy makers can maximize the academic success of learners in both Chichewa and
English.

REFERENCES

Atwill, K., Blanchard, J., Christie, J., Gorin, J. S., & García, H. S. (2010). English-language learners: Implications of lim-
ited vocabulary for cross-language transfer of phonemic awareness with kindergartners. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 9(2), 104–129.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2008). Developing reading and writing in second-language learners: Lessons from
the report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. New York, NY: Routledge.
Austin, P. K., & Sallabank, J. (2011). Introduction. In P. K. Austin & J. Sallabank (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of
endangered languages. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, J. S. (1995). The relationship between L1 and L2 literacy: Some complicating factors. TESOL Quarterly, 29(4),
687–704.
Berman, R. (1994). Learner’s transfer of writing skills between languages. TESL Canada Journal, 12(1), 29–46.
Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the
linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 15–34.
Bialystok, E. (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1994). In other words: The science and psychology of second-language acquisition. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Bossers, B. (1992). Reading in two languages: A study of reading comprehension in Dutch as a second language and in
Turkish as a first language. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Drukkerij Van Driel.
Bowey, J. (2005). Predicting individual differences in learning to read. In C. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science
of reading: A handbook (pp. 155–172). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12(2),
159–179. doi:10.1093/applin/12.2.159
Carson, J. E., Carrell, L., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., & Kuehn, P. A. (1990). Reading-writing relationships in first and
second language. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 245–266. doi:10.2307/3586901
 272 SHIN ET AL.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2012). World fact book. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.cia.
gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mi.html
Centre for Language Studies. (2009). Language mapping survey for the southern and central regions of Malawi:
Languages and their dialects. Zomba, Malawi: Author.
Chilora, H. G. (2007). Use of a learner’s language of play as a medium of instruction and as the language for initial
literacy development in lower primary school classes in Malawi: A report on the Literacy Across the Curriculum
longitudinal study, 2004–2006. Domasi, Malawi: Malawi Institute of Education.
Chimombo, J., Mwale, L., & Ndalama, L. (2006). An assessment of schooling conditions and standard one achieve-
ment levels in pre-literacy, pre-numeracy, basic literacy and numeracy in Malawi primary schools PCAR standard
1 baseline study. Lilongwe, Malawi: Ministry of Education.
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

Cisero, C. A., & Royer, J. (1995). The development and cross-language transfer of phonological awareness.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 275–303.
Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, E., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills
in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 29–43.
Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children. Toronto, ON, Canada: OISE Press.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok
(Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Díaz, R. M. (1985). The intellectual power of bilingualism. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative
Human Cognition, 7, 16–22.
Durgunoğlu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465.
Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation of LI and L2 texts. TESOL Quarterly, 1(6), 211–228.
Faltis, C., & Hudelson, S. (1998). Bilingual education in elementary and secondary school communities: Toward
understanding and caring. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist,
35(1), 39–50.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Balanced incomplete block designs for inter-rater reliability studies. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 5(1), 105–112.
García-Vázquez, E., Vázquez, L. A., López, I. C., & Ward, W. (1997). Language proficiency and academic success:
Relationships between proficiency in two languages and achievement among Mexican American students. Bilingual
Research Journal, 21(4), 395–408.
Goldman, S. R., Reyes, M., & Varnhagen, C. K. (1984). Understanding fables in first and second languages. NABE
Journal, 8(2), 35–66.
Government of Malawi. (2012). Gazette extraordinary: Education bill, 2012. Lilongwe, Malawi: Author.
Groebel, L. (1980). A comparison of students’ reading comprehension in their native language with their reading
comprehension in the target language. English Language Teaching Journal, 35, 54–59.
Hancin-Bhatt, B., & Nagy, W. E. (1994). Lexical transfer and second language morphological development. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 15(3), 289–310.
Harley, B., & Lapkin, S. (1984). The effects of early bilingual schooling on first language development. Toronto, ON,
Canada: OISE Press.
Hornberger, N. H. (1989). Continua of biliteracy. Review of Educational Research, 59, 271–296. doi:10.3102/
00346543059003271
Jiang, B., & Kuehn, P. (2001). Transfer in the academic language development of post-secondary ESL students. Bilingual
Research Journal, 25(4), 653–672. doi:10.1080/15235882.2001.11074471
Jiménez, R. T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacy Latina/o readers in middle school.
Reading Research Quarterly, 32(3), 224–243. doi:10.1598/RRQ.32.3.1
Jiménez, R. T., Garcia, G.E., & Pearson, P.D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are
successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90–112.
Kamwendo, G. H. (2005). Language planning from below. Language Policy, 4, 143–165.
Kayambazinthu, E. (1998). The language planning situation in Malawi. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 19, 369–439.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. (2008). The role of derivational morphology in the reading comprehension of Spanish-
speaking English language learners. Reading and Writing, 8, 783–804.
 CHICHEWA AND ENGLISH READING AND WRITING IN MALAWI 273

Kioko, A. N., Mutiga, J., Muthwii, M. J., Schroeder, L., Inyega, H., & Trudell, B. (2008). Language and education in
Africa: Answering the questions. Nairobi, Kenya: UNESCO.
Kishindo, E., Susuwele, W., Ndalama, L., & Mwale, L. (2005). Assessing learner achievement in English, Chichewa,
mathematics, and science in standard 3, 5 and 7 in Malawian primary schools. Domasi, Malawi: Malawi Institute of
Education.
Klugman, J. (2011). Human development report. New York, NY: United Nations Development Program.
Laija-Rodríguez, W., Ochoa, S. H., & Parker, R. (2006). The cross linguistic role of cognitive academic language
proficiency on reading growth in Spanish and English. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1), 87–106. doi:10.1080/
15235882.2006.10162867
López, L. M., & Greenfield, D. B. (2004). The cross-language transfer of phonological skills of Hispanic head start
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

children. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(1), 1–18.

Macro International. (2008). Malawi education assessment report. Calverton, MD: Author.
Malawi National Statistics Office. (2008). Population characteristics. In 2008 Population and housing census results.
Retrieved from http://www.nsomalawi.mw/images/stories/data_on_line/demography/census_2008/Main%20Report/
Census%20Main%20Report.pdf
Mancilla-Martínez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case
of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 701–711. doi:10.1037/
a0019135
Matiki, A. J. (2006). Literacy, ethnolinguistic diversity and transitional bilingual education in Malawi. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 239–254.
Milner, G., Chimombo, J., Banda, T. & Mchikoma, C. (2001). The quality of education in Malawi. Interim report for
the Southern African Consortium for Measuring Educational Quality. Paris: International Institute for Educational
Planning, UNESCO.
Mmela, E. (2006). Implementing integrated literacy approaches in an English classroom in Malawi (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Moll, L., & Díaz, S. (1985). Ethnographic pedagogy: Promoting effective bilingual instruction. In E. E. García & R. V.
Padilla (Eds.), Advances in bilingual education research (pp. 127–149). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Montelongo, J. A., Durán, R., & Hernández, A. C. (2013). English-Spanish cognates in picture books: Toward a vocabu-
lary curriculum for Latino ELLs. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(2), 244–259. doi:10.1080/15235882.2013.818074
Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., & Manis, F. R. (2008). A cross-linguistic investigation of English language learners’ reading
comprehension in English and Spanish. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 351–371. doi:10.1080/10888430802378526
Oketani, H. (1997). Additive bilinguals: The case of post-war second generation Japanese Canadian youths. Bilingual
Research Journal, 21(4), 359–379. doi:10.1080/15235882.1997.10162710
Ouane, A., & Glanz, C. (2010). Why and how Africa should invest in African languages. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO
Institute for Lifelong Learning.
Pearson. P. D., & Tierney, R. J. (1984). On becoming a thoughtful reader: Learning to read like a writer. In A. C. Purves
& O. Niles (Eds.). Becoming readers in a complex society. Eighty-third Yearbook of the National Society of the Study
of Education (pp. 144–173). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. E. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary
knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 159–169.
Proctor, C. P., August, D., Snow, C. E., & Barr, C. B. (2010). The interdependence continuum: A perspective on the
nature of Spanish-English bilingual reading comprehension. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(1), 5–20.
Reese, L., Garnier, H., Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2000). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of emergent
Spanish literacy and middle-school English reading achievement of Spanish-speaking students. American Educational
Research Journal, 37, 633–662. doi:10.3102/00028312037003633
RTI International. (2010). Ethiopia early grade reading assessment: Regional findings annex. Triangle Park, NC: Author.
Sailors, M., Hoffman, J. V., Pearson, P. D., Beretvas, S. N., & Matthee, B. (2010). The effects of first and second language
instruction in South African rural schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(1), 1–21.
Sailors, M., Hoffman, J., P. Pearson, D., McClung, N., Shin, J., Liviness M., & Saka., T. (2014a). Supporting change in
teaching practices through directive coaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(2), 209–231.
Sailors, M., & Flores, M. (2014b). Cost effectiveness of a complementary reading program. Journal of Education and
Human Development, 3(4), 1–20.
 274 SHIN ET AL.

Samuelson, B. L., & Freedman, S. W. (2010). Language policy, multilingual education, and power in Rwanda. Language
Policy, 9(3), 191–215. doi:10.1007/s10993-010-9170-7
Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language Learning, 46(1),
137–174.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London, England: Longman.
Soltero-González, L., Escamilla, K., & Hopewell, S. (2012). Changing teachers’ perceptions about the writing abilities
of emerging bilingual students: Towards a holistic bilingual perspective on writing assessment. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(1), 71–94. doi:10.1080/13670050.2011.604712
Sparrow, W., Butvilofsky, S., Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., & Tolento, T. (2014). Examining the longitudinal biliterate
trajectory of emerging bilingual learners in a paired literacy instructional model. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(1),
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 13:25 15 December 2015

24–42.
Torrance, E. P., Gowan, J. C., Wu, J. M., & Aliotti, N. C. (1970). Creative functioning of monolingual and bilingual
children in Singapore. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 72–75.
Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners’ processes of L1 writing, L2 writing and translation from L1 into L2. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 271–294.
Williams, E. (1996). Reading in two languages at year 5 in African primary schools. Applied Linguistics, 17, 182–209.
Williams, E. (2006). Bridges and barriers: Language in African education and development. Manchester, England: St
Jerome Publishing.
World Bank. (2012). Vanuatu early grade reading assessment (VanEGRA) baseline survey. Francophone stream. Results
report. Washington, DC: Author.
World Bank. (2013). World databank. [Malawi data]. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/country/malawi

View publication stats