Diversidade 2

Reading Psychology
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20
“Biggest Thing Is Saying in English and Punjabi,

Too”: Working with Immigrant and Refugee
Families and Communities in a Bilingual Family
Literacy Program
Jim Anderson & Ann Anderson
To cite this article: Jim Anderson & Ann Anderson (2021) “Biggest Thing Is Saying in
English and Punjabi, Too”: Working with Immigrant and Refugee Families and Communities
in a Bilingual Family Literacy Program, Reading Psychology, 42:8, 899-927, DOI:
10.1080/02702711.2021.1968088
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1968088
Published online: 03 Sep 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 171
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urpy20
Reading Psychology
2021, VOL. 42, NO. 8, 899–927
https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1968088
“Biggest Thing Is Saying in English and

Punjabi, Too”: Working with Immigrant and
Refugee Families and Communities in a
Bilingual Family Literacy Program
Jim Andersona and Ann Andersonb
a
Department of Language and Literacy Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada; bDepartment of Curriculum and Pedagogy, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study, which employed mixed Received 25 March 2021
methods, was to document the implementation of a Accepted 29 July 2021
bilingual family literacy program with immigrant and
refugee families from four different language groups
in five different communities in a metropolitan area
of Canada. Results indicated: 1) the program had a
significant impact on children’s early learning,
although there was some variation across sites; 2)
families appreciated the bilingual format of sessions
and the provision of bilingual materials; 3) parents
tended to support first language (L1) maintenance,
although some expressed anxiety about their chil-
dren’s English acquisition; and 4) parents expressed
concerns, including the need for more explicit
instruction, provision of more sessions and a greater
focus on school readiness. Although the study indi-
cates the potential of contextually responsive family
literacy programs, it also points to the need for
nuance and reflexivity on the part of those who work
with migrant children and their families.
In their classic studies conducted about half a century ago, Dolores

Durkin (1966) in the United States and Margaret Clark (1976) in Scotland
demonstrated that some young children learned to read at home prior
to formal instruction in school or preschool. Taylor (1983), in her
CONTACT Jim Anderson jim.anderson@ubc.ca Department of Language and Literacy

Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
900 J. ANDERSON AND A. ANDERSON
foundational research, demonstrated that the young children she followed

in six, middle class families in the United States, acquired knowledge
and skills in reading and writing before schooling, as they observed and
participated in various literacy activities and events that were part of
daily family life. Subsequent research showed that across social, cultural
and linguistic groups, children can acquire or learn considerable literacy
knowledge and skills in their homes and communities prior to formal
instruction (e.g., Anderson, 1994; Gregory, 2005; Li, 2006; Purcell-Gates,
1996; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988).
Encouraged and prompted by evidence that the foundational knowledge
developed at home is facilitative of children’s literacy learning at school
(e.g., Heath, 1983; Purcell-Gates, 2017), educators and community groups
developed family literacy programs “to teach literacy knowledge and make
use of learner’s family relationships and engagement in family literacy
practices” (Hannon, 2003, p. 100). Despite their rapid proliferation, many
family literacy programs initially lacked assessment and evaluation com-
ponents (Hannon, 2010). As Thomas and Skage (1998) commented, “the
level of program evaluation in family literacy often amounts to little
more than testimonials” (p. 20). This situation has improved and there
is now converging evidence that family literacy programs can have a
significant impact on young children’s early literacy learning, and that
families accrue other benefits (e.g., Brooks, Pahl, Pollard, & Rees, 2008;
Marulis & Neuman, 2010; Senechal & Young, 2008; van Steensel,
McElvany, Kurvers, & Herppich, 2011). Nevertheless, over the years, there
has been considerable criticism of family literacy programs. Critics assert
that these programs tend to ignore the social and linguistic capital that
families bring to these programs (e.g., Auerbach, 1989; Hendrix, 2000;
Reyes & Torres, 2007).
However, we believe that this need not be the case. Family literacy
programs can reflect the social, contextual realities of families, incorporate
families’ home languages and introduce them to the practices and the
culture of schools and support them in acquiring the dominant language
of the community (e.g., English), which they indicate they want, and
need, to learn (Anderson et al., 2017; Laureau, 1987). For example,
researchers (e.g., Hirst, Hannon, & Nutbrown, 2010; Quadros & Sarroub,
2016; Zhang, Pelletier, & Doyle, 2010) have reported on bilingual family
literacy programs, offered in families’ home languages and the dominant
language of the community and which attempted to include the families’
home literacy practices.
The quotation in the title of this article came from a parent participant
in a bilingual family literacy program. In the pages that follow, we report
on the development and implementation of the bilingual program in five
communities in a metropolitan area in western Canada. Previous studies
Reading Psychology 901
(Hirst et al., 2010; Quadros & Sarroub, 2016; Zhang et al., 2010) of bilin-
gual family literacy programs have involved a single language group whereas
families in the present study represented four home languages-Farsi, Karen,
Mandarin, and Punjabi. We first provide the theoretical framework wherein
we locate our work and the related literature that informs it. Then we
briefly trace the development and evolution of the Parents As Literacy
Supporters in Immigrant Communities (PALS) program, its implementation
and the methods we used to document its implementation and to evaluate
it. After presenting the results, we discuss the implications of the findings
for theory and practice. We conclude by acknowledging the limitations of
this study and possible directions for future research.
Theoretical Framework
Socio-historical theory (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1998) and the
notion that learning is social, as well as individual informs this study.
Children learn to use the “tools” of their community and culture,
inter-psychologically, guided and supported by parents and significant
other people such as grandparents or siblings. As they practice using
the “tools,” support or “scaffolding” (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) is
gradually withdrawn and children learn to use them intra-psychologically
or independently. However, Rogoff (2003) points out, “human develop-
ment is a cultural process” (p.4) and there are differences in how devel-
opment and learning are supported across cultures. That is, children
learn through various forms of guided participation. For example, in
some contexts, children learn by observing from the periphery, more
proficient others execute skills and engage in activities important in their
home and community (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
We also draw on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of human devel-
opment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 2005), which posits that four spheres or
systems influence children’s development and learning. The proximal
system, the microsystem, consists of family members, teachers/child care
workers, and neighbors. Children participate in more than one microsys-
tem (e.g., home-school) and the mesosystem refers to the interactions
among and across these microsystems. Children are also influenced by
more distal or indirect contexts, the exosystem. For example, working in
a stressful workplace or in a physically demanding job requiring long
hours, which causes anxiety and fatigue in parents, could affect their
interactions with their children at home (Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield, &
Karnik, 2009). Overarching the other three systems is the macrosystem,
which includes the “belief systems, resources, hazards, lifestyles, oppor-
tunity structures, life course options and patterns of social change that
are embedded in these systems” (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 149). For
example, children living in societies where early childhood education is

highly valued and appropriately resourced are advantaged in their devel-
opment and learning, compared to their peers living in countries where
early education is not valued nor adequately supported.
An important consideration in our work is intercultural communica-
tions and understanding. As Holiday (2018) point outs, “The way we
were educated, our national institutions, the manner of our government,
our media, our economy, and so on are different from nation to nation
and will undoubtedly impact in the way we are as people” (p. 3). The
immigrant and refugee families with whom we worked were new to
Canada and some of them were unfamiliar with the education system
and schools, and in some cases held perspectives of learning, teaching
and child-rearing different from the child centered, learning through
play, philosophy undergirding the program. Swain and Cara (2019) con-
cluded that, while family literacy programs help demystify school literacy
for newcomer families, the learning is sometimes seen as one way trans-
mission from teachers to families with relatively little attention paid to
learning from families. Mindful of this phenomenon, we worked hard
to ensure that families’ voices were valued and heeded.
A tenet of many family literacy programs and in PALS is that children
can acquire or learn literacy from their parents or significant other family
members, which of course reflects socio-cultural theory. By design then,
the program reflected socio-cultural theory, in that its aim was to work
with parents/significant others in supporting their children’s literacy
development. The quantitative measure we used – the Test of Early
Reading Ability-2- allowed us to gauge the impact of the program on
young children’s early literacy knowledge in English. On the other hand,
Barbara Rogoff ’s (2003) work identifying differences in learning and
teaching across cultures necessitated that we ascertain if and how cul-
turally and linguistically diverse families interpreted and “took up” the
strategies enacted, and modeled in the program, designed to support
their children’s literacy development in English alongside the program’s
overt promotion of first or home language (L1) maintenance. The latter
we attempted to document through the focus group sessions and
field notes.
Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model guided our work in several
ways. First, we recognized that the microsystems of the home and school
likely would differ for children from diverse families and the program
thus aimed to share knowledge about literacy learning in English in the
Canadian context with families while at the same time recognizing and
valuing their home language and literacy practices. For example, in the
session on oral language, we encouraged families to share rhymes, riddles,
poems and stories from their home countries in their home languages.
As well, Bronfenbrenner’s concept of the “macro system” is helpful in

understanding that powerful ideologies about the importance of English
circulate in Canada and elsewhere (Ricento, 2013), and consequentially,
first languages are often ignored and consequently lost as an additional
language is acquired (Higby & Obler, 2015). We saw it important through
the focus groups and field notes to ascertain the families’ perceptions
of learning English, of maintaining their home languages, and how they
reported supporting their children’s (and their own) second language
learning and maintaining L1 within the program and at home.
Related Literature
Family Literacy Programs
First or home language maintenance
As Auerbach (1989) and others point out, family literacy programs
have tended to privilege the dominant language (e.g., English) and
not to promote maintenance of the L1 or the culture of the partici-
pants, despite sound reasons for doing so. For example, there are
ethical and moral issues involved when English and the literacy prac-
tices associated with white, middle class families are privileged and
the home languages and literacy practices are ignored or seen as
deficient (Reyes & Torres, 2007). As well, there is evidence that chil-
dren need to have developed a strong foundation in their first lan-
guage before learning to read and write in a second language (Snow,
Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Furthermore, there are cognitive benefits to
learning a second language (e.g., Bialystok, 2017; Cummins, 2015)
and, obviously, more pragmatic and instrumental ones, especially in
an increasingly diverse, global and mobile world (Anderson et al.,
2016). And finally, there can be grave consequences when immigrant
children lose their first language. For example, as they proceed through
school, they may be unable to communicate with their parents and
other family members who, for various reasons, do not acquire English
(or the dominant language of the community) at the same rate as
the children (Wong-Fillmore, 2000). Furthermore, first language loss
can affect one’s sense of identity with deleterious psychological and
social consequences (Dastgoshadeh & Jalilzadeh, 2018).
In summary, then, there are compelling cognitive, ethical/moral, lin-
guistic, psychological, and social reasons to support young children’s
maintenance of their home language and for bilingual family literacy
programs that promote first language development, while also respecting
the desire of families and their children to learn the official or dominant
language(s) of their new country.
First or home language maintenance in family literacy programs

Hirst et al. (2010) reported on a one-year initiative in the UK involving
families of Pakistani origin. The project involved 16 preschool children
and their families; a cultural worker and an early childhood educator
made home visits regularly, demonstrating to parents how they could
support their children’s language and literacy learning, and providing
materials and resources. Comparison of pre and post-test scores on
the Sheffield Early Literacy Development Profile (SELDP) (Nutbrown,
1997) indicated that the children made significant gains compared to
a control group. Furthermore, the families indicated in interviews that
they valued the program and believed that it should be extended to
all families.
Zhang et al. (2010) examined the impact of a bilingual family literacy
program on children’s home language and second language. Forty two
Chinese-Canadian children and their families participated in the program
located at three community centers in Toronto. Over the course of 8,
two hour sessions, the facilitators shared big books and the families
engaged in developmentally appropriate language and literacy activites.
Each week, the families were provided access to two, web based rhyming
books which the facilitators encouraged them to share. The families also
received literacy materials such as magnetic letters and pictcure books.
Zhang et al. compared pre and post test scores on Chinese and Englissh
versions of the Expressive Vocabulary Test (Williams, 1997) and the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Third Edition-PPVT-III (Dunn & Dunn,
1997). They found that children’s average scores in the PPVT-III increased
significantly. However, there were no significant differences in children’s
pre and post test scores on the Expressive Vocabulary Test. Zhang et al.
reported that children of parents with less education and lower incomes
made fewer gains than children from families with higher levels of edu-
cation and income.
Boyce, Innocenti, Roggman, Norman, and Ortiz (2010) reported on
a study of the Storytelling for the Home Enrichment of Language and
Literacy Skills (SHELLS) program in the United States. Families shared
stories about their everyday experiences in their home language.
Facilitators then supported them in making books based on these stories
and in sharing the books with their children. Boyce et al. randomly
assigned 32 of 75 children attending Migrant Head Start and their
families to the SHELLS program. These children also continued to
participate in the Head Start program along with 43 children who were
a control group. Measures included the number of words children used,
the number of different words they used, and mothers’ elicitation strat-
egies during a shared narrative session prior to, and after, the program.
The researchers found that mothers who participated in the SHELLS
program significantly increased elicitation strategies compared with the

mothers in the control group. Compared to the children in the control
group, children in the SHELLS program significantly increased in the
total number of words they used and in the number of different words
that they used.
The results of these studies suggest that bilingual family literacy pro-
grams can have a positive impact on young children’s language and
literacy development. The present study builds on and extends studies
of bilingual family literacy programs in several ways. First, it included
families from four different cultural/linguistic groups whereas the other
studies involved a single language group. Furthermore, the current project
involved 200 families over two years whereas the other studies involved
fewer participants. Moreover, we employed a mixed methods design that
provided quantitative and qualitative data, allowing us to track the chil-
dren’s literacy development, track changes in parents’ perceptions and
understanding of literacy learning, and gain insights into how families
appropriated the literacy activities from the program and engaged in
them with their children at home.
As noted, the purpose of the study was to document the implemen-
tation of a bilingual family literacy program involving four linguistic
groups in five urban communities. Three research questions guided
the study:
1. Did the program have a significant impact on young children’s

early literacy knowledge as measured by a widely used
instrument?
2. How did parents and other caregivers perceive the bilingual feature
of the program and in particular, the emphasis on first language
maintenance?
3. What concerns about, or issues with, the program did families
identify?
Method
The first author, Jim Anderson, and a colleague, Fiona Morrison (1999)
developed the PALS program in response to the invitation from the
mayor of a small city to participate in a multi-agency initiative, called
Strengthening Families in two inner-city neighborhoods. We first con-
ducted focus group sessions with families, early childhood educators,
and school administrators from the communities. Using the information
garnered there and informed by the relevant literature, we developed
prototypes of sessions that we piloted and then modified as necessary.
Typical of most family literacy programs, each session of about two hours
duration begins with sharing food. Then the children aged three to five
go to the classroom with an early childhood educator while the parents
or other family member(s) accompanying the children remain with the
facilitator. The facilitator introduces the topic of that day’s session (e.g.,
learning to write) and the parents are encouraged to reflect back on
their own experiences of learning to write and to share observations of
their children’s attempts at writing, drawing and scribbling, and so forth.
After a brief explanation of the activities that are found at each of the
five or six learning centers they will find in the classroom, the facilitator
accompany the families to the classroom to join their children where
they spend the next hour or so circulating among the various centers
and working with their child in various activities. These activities, based
on research in emergent literacy, are designed to promote children’s early
literacy development and include children representing meaning through
drawing and scribbling, “reading” picture books and wordless books with
parents/caregivers, making “STOP” and other traffic signs after an envi-
ronmental print walk around the neighborhood, engaging with e-books
on a computer, printing their names on their art work, sorting materials
at the math center, and so forth. The children then go for snacks while
the parents and other family members rejoin the facilitator to reflect on
that day’s session: what they observed, what their children were doing,
what the children were learning, what activities the children enjoyed and
any that they might have had some difficulty with, and so forth. Each
family receives a high quality children’s book and other educational
materials to take home.
The initial response to the program was very positive and the
program began to expand, as other communities and schools heard
about it and requested that it be implemented (Anderson et al.,
2003). As the program spread, it retained the underlying structure
and principles, while also changing to meet the needs of the par-
ticular community. For example, one school worked with a group
of Vietnamese immigrant parents, who were concerned with their
children losing their heritage language and their own difficulties in
learning English, to offer a bilingual version of the program that
also included English as an additional language component for the
adults. The results of that project were positive and it became clear
that although the families were very committed to having their
children retain their heritage language, they also wanted their chil-
dren to enter Kindergarten with the necessary skills and knowledge
in English language and literacy to do well and be successful (Perkins,
2010). Building on the knowledge gained from our experiences work-
ing with the Vietnamese community, we embarked on the present
project.
We consulted with various school districts in the area and with their
guidance, identified five sites with a significant number of refugee or
immigrant families who had arrived in Canada within the last three
years, as per the guidelines by the Government of Canada agency that
provided funding for the program. To provide guidance and oversight,
we formed an advisory committee, comprising of one member from each
of the cultural-linguistic communities involved and a university professor
with expertise in language and literacy education. We also formed a
working group, made up of the Teaching English as a Second (or addi-
tional) Language coordinators from the five school districts, the early
childhood educators who were co-facilitators at each site, and the cultural
workers who were also co-facilitators. Prior to the commencement of
the program, the working group participated in a two day institute, in
which they discussed professional readings that they had read in advance
on topics such as first language maintenance, family literacy, inter-cultural
communications and so forth. As well, experienced speakers led sessions
focusing on working with immigrant and refugee families, culturally
responsive pedagogy, early literacy development and so forth. Then, in
autumn and mid-winter of each year, the working group met to reflect
on their work to date, to continue discussing professional literature
provided in advance, to address challenges and issues and make necessary
adjustments to the program, and to share ideas and plan.
Because families appreciated and valued the program in its various
instantiations, we retained the components and structure described earlier.
However, in working with the immigrant and refugee families, we 1)
promoted the importance of first language maintenance explicitly through
ongoing discussion with the families and implicitly by translating from
English to L1 in the sessions; 2) provided dual language books in L1/
English; 3) translated materials such as notices, letters and so forth in
L1; 3) provided recordings of traditional rhymes and so forth in L1; 4)
promoted an acceptance of different cultural models of learning and
teaching, such as adults providing hand-over-hand guidance when chil-
dren attempted to print or draw; and 5) attempted to create a welcoming
and safe space for families to share aspects of their cultures and languages.
Program Sites
The school districts with whom we worked identified schools in neigh-
borhoods with high concentrations of immigrant and refugee commu-
nities. To recruit participants, we worked with the cultural workers from
each community and developed recruitment posters in the first languages
of each of the linguistic communities and the schools where the program
were to be located distributed these. The cultural workers also used their
extensive networks to distribute the information and an invitation to

participate in the program. They indicated that much of the recruitment
was by word of mouth.
The Government of Canada agency responsible for resettling immigrant
and refugee families within three years of arrival in Canada provided
most of the funding for the project. The vast majority of participating
families fit that criterion, but we also accommodated a small number of
families who heard about the program in the community and indicated
a strong desire to participate.
Site A was located in a densely populated, middle class residential
neighborhood of newly constructed single-family homes. About one quarter
of the population were South Asian, Punjabi speakers and there was an
even mix of adults, children, and seniors. A Kindergarten– grade 5 school
with a student population of 400 served the neighborhood. Site B was
also located in a middle class neighborhood but of older homes, most of
which were rental units. Most of the residents are immigrants from East
and South East Asia and China with a majority of the adults having a
university education from their home country. Site B was in an annex
next to a K–7 school with just over 400 students; Mandarin was the first
language of the participants here. Site C was in a working class residential
area comprised mostly of rental units. It was the least culturally and lin-
guistically diverse of the 5 sites. This inner city, K–5 community school
had approximately 200 students. Participants at this site spoke Karen at
home. Because of various logistical issues, the location of Site D changed
from Year 1 to Year 2. However, both schools in which the program took
place were in middle class residential areas many of whose residents had
completed post-secondary education and both were K–7 schools with about
400 students. Farsi was the first language of the families who participated.
Site E was located in a working class, highly populated residential area of
single-family homes. Most of the families were South Asian, Punjabi speak-
ers with children forming the largest demographic group. The K–7 neigh-
borhood school had approximately 500 students.
To reiterate, a requirement of the funders was that families have arrived
in Canada within the last three years and virtually all of the participants
met this criterion. However, we took the ethical stance that we would
accommodate families who had been in the country longer, but who
indicated a strong desire to be included, and several fell into this category.
Data Sources
Test of Early Reading Ability-2 (TERA-2)
The TERA-2 (Reid, Hresko, & Hammill, 1989) is a standardized measure
of young children’s knowledge of print and print concepts, that is widely
used in studies of early/emergent literacy. The test, designed for ages

3-8, taps three important constructs of emergent literacy that were iden-
tified from a review of the extant literature: meaning, alphabet, and
conventions of print. The first items ask the child to identify product
labels (e.g., tinned beans) from the local community that the adminis-
trator collects and affixes to the test book. The items progress and the
child is asked where one would begin reading a block of text, to identify
specific words, and then letters. The TERA- 2, which has two forms, is
administered individually to students. The test is not timed and in the
current study, took on average about 10 minutes to complete. In the
current study, trained research assistants administered TERA-2 Form A
at the beginning of the program and Form B at the end. To ensure that
all of the children understood the test items, we trained speakers in the
children’s home languages to translate and assist with administering
the test.
Focus groups. The number of participants at the focus group sessions

ranged from 8 to 13. The facilitators of the focus group sessions asked
the questions in English, which the cultural workers translated into the
home languages of the families (See Appendix A). The cultural workers
then translated the participants’ responses into English and where
necessary, the focus group facilitator asked follow-up questions to clarify
points or to request elaboration. We digitally recorded the focus group
sessions, and transcribed the English translations of the questions and
the responses in their entirety. Importantly, the cultural workers were
trusted members of the same community as the participants, and took
care to ensure that they all had an opportunity to respond to each
question, to make comments and offer opinions. It should be noted that
the participants’ comments and responses are pithy in some cases, perhaps
because of the back and forth translating involved.
For the analysis of the focus group sessions, we read the transcripts
of the focus group sessions and the field notes several times. Next, we
divided the data into idea units (Kontos, 1981).To answer research ques-
tion two, we identified all units that directly or indirectly referenced
bilingualism. For example, at Site A, one of the respondents stated, “If
the first language is strong, then the second language will be strong” in
responding to the initial question. At Site D, a participant commented,
“When I read the book to my son, if I had a problem with the trans-
lation it was improved.” Then, we sorted the data into categories (e.g.,
bilingual program, first language maintenance). That is, we categorized
the response from the participant at Site A under “first language main-
tenance” and the response from the participant at Site D as “bilingual
resources.” We followed the same procedure in answering research
question three that focused on parents’ concerns or issues with the

program. For example, we categorized the concern, “There is too big of
a gap (between each session)….every week we need one session” from
Site E as “Need for more sessions”. At Site B, the issue of teaching chil-
dren symbol-sound relationships or phonics arose or as one of the par-
ticipants articulated, “Do more with how to help children with letter
sounds”; we categorized this as “Need for explicitness.” In the results,
we report the dominant categories or themes and unless otherwise indi-
cated, particular categories were present across all of the sites. We also
indicate exceptions in some cases, in order to represent the nuanced
nature of the findings.
Field notes. Jim Anderson, who was one of the project directors, or a trained
research assistant (doctoral student in early literacy) attended each session
and took field notes where they recorded the number of families present,
documented how the session unfolded and recorded children’s and parents
comments or questions. They described participant structures in the adult-
child-together time in the classrooms, insightful comments that the children
or adults made, and children’s display of knowledge or skills and noted
challenges or issues that arose or that the facilitators or the families raised.
Essentially then, the researchers took field notes continuously throughout
each two-hour session. The researcher and the RAs also wrote a brief
reflection immediately after each session concluded, noting trends they
were observing, raising issues that arose, and indicating items that needed
attention in the ongoing professional development sessions. To analyze the
field notes, we used the same procedures as we did with focus groups.
Results
In this section, we report the findings for each research question. The
first research question was: 1) Did the program have a significant impact
on young children’s early literacy knowledge as measured by a widely
used instrument, the Test of Early Reading Ability II?
Children’s Literacy Learning

One hundred and twenty-seven, four-year old children completed both
forms of the TERA-2. To determine if children’s early literacy knowledge
increased over the course of the program, we aggregated the Normal
Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores from the TERA-2 for both years at all
of the sites and then compared the differences in the mean (average)
scores over time (September and May). The Normal Curve Equivalent
(NCE) is a way of comparing children’s scores at the commencement

and at the end of the program with the scores of the children involved
in the norming group (Grant & Leavenworth, 1988). Essentially, this
measure means that “…if all students were to make exactly one year of
progress after one year of instruction, then their NCE scores would
remain exactly the same, and their NCE gain would be zero, even though
their raw scores …increased” (Huston Independent School District, 2015,
p. 7). However, “Some students will make more than a year’s progress
in that time and will have a net gain in the NCE score, which means
that those students have learned more” than children in the norm-
ing group
A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance comparing the NCE
scores on the Test of Early Reading Ability 2 (TERA-2) at Time 1 (Session
1) and Time 2 (Session 9) indicated a statistically significant increase in
TERA-2 scores at the p < .05 level from Time 1 (M = 35.91, SD = 20.12)
to Time 2 (M = 52.71, SD = 22.92), F(1, 91) = 42.56, p < .001. The effect
size, partial eta squared = .318, was large (Cohen, 1988).
Because of concerns raised about gender issues in family literacy
programs (e.g., Macleod, 2008) and research indicating that girls tend
to outperform boys on measures of literacy (e, g., Logan & Johnston,
2010; O’Grady, Deussing, Scerbina, Fung, & Muhe, 2016), we then dis-
aggregated the data, comparing boys’ and girls’ NCE mean scores over
time. A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance comparing the
scores on the TERA-2 by gender at Time 1 (Session 1) and Time 2
(Session 9) revealed no statistically significant increase in TERA-2 scores
between the two at the p < .05 level from Time 1 (M = 35.91, SD = 20.12)
to Time 2 (M = 52.71, SD = 22.92), F(1, 90) = .410, p = .523. As shown
in Table 1, the gap between the boys and girls actually declined slightly.
We also disaggregated the data to test for the effect of site and found
no statistically significant differences. As can be seen in Table 2, the
increases in the NCE are consistent with the exception of Site A. We
Table 1. Test of early reading ability-2 NCE mean scores from time 1 to time 2
separated by gender.
Boys Girls
TERA-2A 31.7 39.8
TERA-2B 50.2 55
Table 2. Test of early reading ability-2 NCE mean scores from time 1 to time 2
separated by site.
Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E
TERA-2A 36.4 46.4 15.2 36.1 40.3
TERA-2B 41.7 64.2 38.8 57.7 53.7
are unable to explain why the average growth in children’s scores is less
there than at the other sites. As well, although the mean NCE score for
Site C increased proportionally more over time than for any other site,
it is below the 40th percentile after the children have participated in the
program.
In summary then, the children in the program made statistically
significantly greater gains on the TERA-2 compared with the norming
group, and the effect size was large. There were no statistically significant
differences in terms of gender and the gap between the boys’ and girls’
scores decreased, although the change was not statistically significant.
There were no significant differences across the sites, although scores
increased proportionally less over one site than at the other four, and
despite exhibiting, the greatest gains overall, the children at one site
scored below the 40th percentile at post-test.
Bilingualism and First Language Maintenance

The second research question focused on parents’ (and caregivers’) per-
ceptions of and responses to the bilingual program and its emphasis on
first language maintenance.
Bilingual program-translation
As explained earlier, a cultural worker acted as a co-facilitator for the
sessions at each site and provided translation from English to the families’
L1. Across all sites, participants valued this feature of the program. For
example, some of the parents spoke limited English and so having
“Mandarin translation…can get the meaning and purpose of the activity”
(Focus Group, Site B). At the same session, another participant com-
mented, “it’s a must with your translation.” A parent at Site D commented
on the importance of the translation to L1 even for those with greater
command of English: “We can check ourselves. Maybe we understand,
but maybe we are not sure. So, when S [cultural worker] translates [to
L1], we are sure we understand well, or we didn’t understand so she
translates.”
Focus group members also indicated that the bilingual format of the
program conveyed an important message that their home language was
important and valued: “I think it is a great thing what you guys are
doing for our language, right. And we feel like, wow, especially if we
can do it in Punjabi. I think the kids feel really good about it too”
(Focus Group, Site A). Similarly, a parent at Site E indicated that the
bilingual format signaled to the children, “that this is their own language
too” (Focus Group).
Another benefit that focus group participants identified was support

for their own and their children’s acquiring/learning English, which they
saw as essential for their children’s academic success and as a gateway
for their own social and economic inclusion in their new country. For
example, a parent from Site C, who earlier had reaffirmed her commit-
ment to helping her child retain Karen, the home language, explained,
“It’s helpful and important to learn English …it’s helpful a lot.” The
following reflective excerpt from the researcher’s field notes written after
a session at Site C exemplifies this concern
In our desire to promote first language maintenance, I think we sometimes
underestimate parents’ strong desire for their children and themselves to
learn English. It was really heartening to hear them say today that they
believe that the program is helping them achieve this, as well as to learn
about the formal and informal support the community is providing.
As well, parents believed that the program supported their children’s

bilingual development as in the following example from Site A: “They’re
learning new things and they’re listening to the examples in both lan-
guages” (Focus Group).
Bilingual program-material resources

Families at all sites expressed appreciation for the bilingual materials
provided by the program, and for example, at Site B, one of the parents
felt that the dual language books were, “very, very helpful” (Focus Group).
Families indicated that there was a dearth of appropriate children’s books
in their home languages or in dual language format available locally.
Translating and summarizing parents’ comments in the Focus Group at
Site A, the cultural worker explained, “They [parents/significant others]
talk in Punjabi at home but they don’t particularly read stories other
than the books provided and so the bilingual books they’ve brought
home, they read them.” Some of them indicated that they borrowed
books in English from the public library and translated them into L1 as
they shared them with their children. However, this sometimes presented
challenges to those parents who were themselves only learning English
as the cultural worker at Site C explained, “If only in English, he doesn’t
want to read because it’s hard and he [the parent] has to open the dic-
tionary all the time” (Focus Group).
Families indicated that they utilized the dual language format of
the books in different ways. Some indicated that they initially shared
the books with the children in L1 and subsequently in English while
others did the reverse. For example, at Site D, one parent reported,
“my son doesn’t know any English, so I read in Farsi, then I read
the phrase in English too.” Another explained, “I read the book in
Farsi and then, after 2 or 3 times of reading in Farsi, I started to

read it in English and then it worked really good (sic).” In some
families, the children wanted the books read only in their home lan-
guage. On the other hand, several parents at Site E indicated, “They
[children] don’t want to hear in Punjabi” (Focus Group). Some parents
took a pragmatic approach, saying that they shared “easy books in
English but hard books in Karen” (Site C, Focus Group), indicating
that reading the “easy books” gave them an opportunity to learn and
practice English and for the children to hear it being read. Speaking
to the adults learning English as a Second Language, the ESL con-
sultant from one of the school districts indicated that she believed
the program embodied authentic and “scaffolded” language and literacy
learning for the adults (K. Humphries, personal communication,
Field Notes).
It was reassuring today to hear from K. that she believes that the parents
and other adult participants are benefitting in terms of their English
learning. K has a very strong background in ESL, including working with
adult learners. Of course, some of the adults in the various communities
avail of ESL adult classes but it is important that the program is a sup-
portive context for their learning, as well as that of their children
First language maintenance

In general, parents across language groups expressed support for having
their children maintaining their home language, and they identified
various reasons why they considered it important. A common theme
was that one’s first language was an important aspect of one’s identity
and that it helped ensure the continuation of one’s culture. As a focus
group participant at Site D explained, “It’s just not Farsi. It’s the Persian
culture, you can’t translate that culture.” Another at Site E commented,
“They want to, like, talk to the kids [in Punjabi] like they came from
India and that this is their own language too.”
Participants also identified practical reasons for maintaining L1. For
example, some of the Punjabi speaking families wanted their children
to be able to communicate with friends and relatives in India. As well,
some parents and grandparents did not understand English and believed
it important for children to retain L1 so that they could act as language
brokers (e.g., Perry, 2014): “Because they [grandparents] can’t understand
English, right, the kids, they can talk for them then they can understand
in Punjabi” (Focus group, Site E). Others, cognizant of globalization,
believed that maintaining L1 would give children an advantage when
they became adults. Commenting on the emerging prominence of
Mandarin globally, a focus group member at Site B remarked, “And those
are adults, like in China, right now, a lot of foreigners, they come to
China and learn Chinese. They hope to get a good job and make fortune
there. So if yourself a Chinese, no reason for you to don’t speak,
don’t learn.”
Because researchers (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Harste, Woodward,
& Burke, 1984) have shown that preschool children begin to develop
awareness and knowledge of the writing system of their home language,
we inquired about children’s early attempts at writing. Interestingly, most
of the parents indicated that their children’s early writing attempts were
in English: “She writes in English and says in Farsi. And sometimes she
asks me ‘what’s the translate for (inaudible)? What is this?’ I say (in
Farsi) ‘and the translate? Mommy, what is it in Farsi?’” (Site D, Focus
group). They provided several reasons for this. One of the participants
indicated a general dearth of environmental print in the children’s L1
in the community: “That’s a hard one, because we see a lot of English
(inaudible) on the signs” (Site A, Focus group). Some of the Farsi speak-
ing parents explained that children are not taught the Farsi alphabet
until they reached age seven and thus did not expect or encourage
children to be engage in any writing as preschoolers. As well,
parents indicated that they rarely use pen and paper to write in their L1
and thus children did not see many models. They indicated that they use
their mobile phones to text or to chat, and use email to communicate with
friends and relatives back in their home countries. Moreover, in the com-
munities we are working in, there is a general dearth of environmental print
in L1 of the families, as English is ubiquitous (Researcher’s field notes).
Despite the overall support for L1 maintenance, at times families won-

dered whether their children would benefit from it or whether they should
focus on having their children learn and use English. For example, during
a session at Site D: “During the debriefing portion of the session this
evening, several of the parents expressed concerns that the focus on main-
taining L1 was detracting from learning English and would hinder their
children in school and knowing that I [the researcher] was from the
university, asked if there was any research to support what we were aiming
to do in the program" (Researcher’s field notes). Similarly, during the focus
group session at Site B, the cultural worker conveyed a question on behalf
of the parents: “Now they have a question for you [the researcher]. What’s
your opinion? Do you ask children to keep the mother tongue?” These
questions suggest that despite the program’s implicit and explicit support
of L1 maintenance, families had lingering concerns about it.
Some of the parents believed that it was inevitable that their children
would lose their first language and use only English. For example, one
of the participants in the Focus Group at Site B commented, “When
they grow up and they have education here, then after that, they won’t
speak Mandarin at all” while another similarly remarked, “They will lose
it so they will encourage them to speak English whenever they can.”
Interestingly, some of the preschool children had already begun to reject
their first language in preference for English. For example, at Site B, one
of the parents explained how the family spoke Mandarin at home.
However, once her daughter began attending English preschool, the child
“preferred English” (Focus Group Session). Likewise, another parent
indicated, “Because they want to hear, so they want to know in English.
They don’t want to hear in Punjabi” (Focus group session, Site E).
Concerns and Issues

Because of issues such as those discussed earlier that Auerbach (1989)
Crooks (2019), Hendrix (2000), Reyes and Torres (2007) and others
described, and our own ethical concerns, we felt it important to provide
an opportunity for parents to express concerns that they had and to
identify issues which confronted them. Thus the third research question
was, “What concerns or issues about the program did participants identify.”
The Need for Explicitness

As described earlier, each session opened with the facilitators providing
an overview of that day’s activities for the parents following which the
parents joined the children in a classroom and circulated through a
number of centers, each having activities reflecting that day’s focus (e.g.,
early learning and technology). A debriefing in which parents were
encouraged to discuss what they had observed and experienced concluded
each day. The program embodied what Gregory, Williams, Baker, and
Street (2004) referred to as an implicit pedagogy in that an unstated
assumption was that families would “learn by doing,” alongside discussion
with the co-facilitators.
However, across all of the sites, families requested that the facilitators
be more explicit in providing the rationale behind activities, as well as
explanations of them. For example, at Site D, one of the participants
complained, “Didn’t know how to work with kids about sounds. This
program doesn’t speak about the sounds” (Focus Group Session). The
sessions that focused on oral language was titled “Riddles, Raps and
Rhymes” in which the facilitators encouraged families to share rhymes and
songs in their home language, while they shared traditional ones in English.
After the session, the cultural worker “talked about how the parents don’t
see the point of these activities and don’t see what this has to do with
reading and writing” (Researcher’s field notes). Likewise, at Site C, the
cultural worker, summarizing points parents were making, indicated, “They

would like to have a handout …. They would like to have how to do the
activity and what the purposes of it in written style, so they can review.”
As Friedrich, Anderson and Morrison (2014) reported, adjustments were
made based on the feedback and for example, the facilitators provided
more explicit explanations and suggestions and provided written summaries
of the activities, including their purposes and suggestions for carrying
them out at home in L1. Still, there were lingering doubts that we needed
to be more explicit as exemplified in the following entry: “I sometimes
wonder if we pay enough attention to the fact that families come with
very different cultural models of learning and would be more comfortable
if we were able to be more direct and formal at times” (Researcher’s
field notes).
Parenting
Although parenting is often seen as inherently a part of family literacy
programs, the developers of PALS chose not to make it an explicit focus
for several reasons. For example, an array of programs and initiatives
were already in place in the communities, and messages about parenting
abounded on government websites and those of other agencies, and in
the popular media. Instead, facilitators would address parenting issues
as they arose in sessions. Furthermore, parenting differs considerably
across cultures (e.g., Rogoff, 2003) and the developers felt it important
to acknowledge and recognize these differences and not convey western-
ized constructions of good parenting (Smythe & Isserlis, 2004).
However, participants at three of the five sites believed that more
focus on parenting was needed. At Site A for example, one parent asked
to, “add parenting.” Another indicated that parents wanted to “learn more
about how to get the children to listen better” (Focus group session). A
participant in the focus group session at Site B expressed a similar sen-
timent, captured in this summary by the cultural worker:
Our directions towards literacy, she is wondering if we could provide some
information about parenting skills. She give a story about her daughter.
I’ll just make it short. Her daughter would insist on doing something and
couldn’t change her mind, like (inaudible) more than two hours and she
doesn’t know how to do that.
Interestingly, some of the families preferred not to have a focus on par-

enting. For example, one of the parents at Site A indicated that she had
already completed the “Best for Babies” program. At Site B, a parent explained,
“There are a lot of books out about parenting, but actually, for literacy, this
is the only one." As indicated previously, we attempted to address concerns
and issues as they arose, and so in response to these requests, we embedded

discussion of parenting into some subsequent sessions with these families.
The Need for More Sessions

As we developed the program and implemented it in different communities,
we experimented both with the content, length, and number of sessions and
based on feedback from parents found that about 10-12 sessions each of
about two hours duration as described earlier, worked best for families. In
the focus group sessions at two of the sites, parents expressed a desire for
more sessions. At Site A, one parent indicated, “We should add more time,
like every week” while another continued, “If we can’t go weekly, then we
should go bi-weekly.” At Site E, parents made similar suggestions, and indi-
cated that their children would like to attend more frequently as in the
following example: “Yes, because they want to come, like maybe, every day.
They just want to come every day. Or maybe every Friday, and they said,
‘oh yah, I want to go to school. I don’t want to stay home.”
On one level, these comments suggest that the parents enjoyed the
sessions and felt that they were beneficial. However, they also indicate
unmet needs on the part of families. Although the federal and provincial
governments provided financial support in the form of grants, and the
literacy organization provided logistical support, unfortunately, it was
not possible with the financial and human resources available, to increase
the number of sessions
School Readiness
A critique of family literacy programs is that they promote school literacy
while not recognizing and promoting vernacular literacies (e.g., Auerbach,
1989; Reyes & Torres, 2007). However, some studies show that families
who have participated in family literacy programs identify their children’s
school readiness as one of the primary benefits of their participation (e.g.,
Anderson, Anderson, & Teichert, 2013; Swain, Brooks, & Bosley, 2014).
Some parents in this study expressed concerns about their children’s
readiness for school, and for example, at Site A, a parent commented:
“So more kindergarten class learning. Letter recognition. We should do
some more teaching of children getting to know the letters and numbers”
(Focus Group). At Site C, another parent expressed this concern: “She
worry for her son. He’s not ready for the kindergarten. He still have one
more year. So, she said, do you think he will be able to learn like that
or it will be a problem when he goes to kindergarten?” (Focus Group).
The issue of school readiness is related to the need for explicitness
as was noted in the excerpt that follows from the Researcher’s field notes:
In chatting with several of the parents after the session this afternoon, the
issue of school readiness came up. As I see it, an aim of this program is
to work with children and parents in developing knowledge and skills that
are foundational for children’s learning in school. I discussed this with the
parent and cultural workers, and explained that parents who had participated
in the program in previous years, reported that their children’s transition
to school had gone very smoothly, and they attributed this to their partic-
ipation. Making explicit to parents how the program helps children and
families prepare for school is a necessary and worthwhile goal.
Availability of Dual Language Books

Although they were more expensive to purchase and the choices were
more limited, dual language books were available in all of the languages,
with the exception of Karen. For the families there, the cultural worker
translated the English version of the books, and made overlays that she
affixed appropriately in the individual books for families. However, a
participant at Site C identified the paucity of dual language books as
the cultural worker at the focus group session summarized: “He said
like the book from Karen and English to make it more and to have
more. Not only for the younger ones, older ones also. They like to read
it in both languages. They keep their own language.” As the following
excerpt from the researcher’s field notes illustrates, the general unavail-
ability of dual language books in school and public libraries, was striking,
especially given the number of English Language Learners in the com-
munities in which the project took place: “Tonight, we visited the public
library. I was struck by the lack of dual language books, but have noticed
this to be the case in other community libraries, and in school libraries,
even when there is a concentration of students from a single lan-
guage group.”
The availability of books in digital format (eBooks) such as those pro-
vided through Storybooks Canada (2020) may alleviate this problem some-
what. Although that site provides books in many languages, Karen, is one
of the languages missing. Furthermore, families would need access to
digital tools (e.g., computers, smart phones, tablets) and connectivity to
avail of these resources.
Discussion
The metropolitan area in which the study took place exemplifies what
Vertovec (2007) refers to as superdiversity. He coined the term to
describe,
the tremendous increase in the categories of migrants, not only in terms
of nationality, ethnicity, language, and religion, but also in terms of motives,
patterns and itineraries of migration, processes of insertion into the labour

and housing markets of the host societies, and so on (Blommaert &
Rampton, 2015, p. 22).
Underlying the concept is the need “for practical ways to adapt insti-
tutions and services” (Blackledge et al., 2018, p. xxvi) to meet the needs
of people who have migrated. The results of the study reported here
suggest that the PALS in Immigrant Communities program is a modest
example of how educators can work with immigrant and refugee families
in contextually responsive ways, and not reflect colonialist or deficit
perspectives (Auerbach, 1989; Crooks, 2019). That is, the program
reflected families’ strong desire to support their children’s early literacy
development in English and to familiarize them with schooling and
pedagogical practices in the country of settlement, while simultaneously
encouraging maintenance of their first/home languages and culture.
Using mixed methods was in keeping with the pragmatic undertone
of Vertovec’s conceptualization of superdiversity as the need for institu-
tions to look for solutions to complex problems brought about by the
migration of people from many cultural, ethnic and linguistic back-
grounds. Utilizing a widely used measure of young children’s literacy
development (TERA-2) we were able to demonstrate that the program
had a positive effect on children’s early literacy development. On the
other hand, the qualitative data from the focus group sessions, which
provided a venue for families to voice their perspectives and the field
notes, provided nuanced insights. For example, from the focus group
sessions, we learned that at times, we did not provide enough information
for families, and the facilitators needed to be more explicit. Likewise,
the qualitative data helped us better understand the families and their
cultural practices.
An important finding from this study is that the results of the TERA-2
indicated a large effect size (or impact) on children’s early literacy knowl-
edge in English, which would be the language of instruction for the
children when they entered kindergarten in a year. Consistent with
socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), the growth in children’s literacy
knowledge demonstrates the important role parents/significant others
played. However, it is important to recognize that there were differential
program effects across the sites. For example, there was a much smaller
increase in the children’s scores over the year at Site A, compared with
the other sites. Likewise, the different program effects across the com-
munities remind us of Rogoff ’s (2003) work on the situated and con-
textual nature of learning and development. Unfortunately, a post-hoc
examination of the data does not provide any explanation as to why this
was the case. In future, a more thorough documentation and analysis of
the pedagogy, perhaps by video-recording sessions as unobtrusively as
possible, may yield insights, if there are skewed results as was the case
in this study. As well, even though the average score at Site C increased
as much as any other site, the children still scored below the 40th per-
centile at the end of the program, and would likely need additional
support in English language and literacy when they entered school.
The finding that parents generally supported first language mainte-
nance and indicated how they were attempting to do so at home is also
a promising finding in that L1 maintenance has positive cognitive, cul-
tural, psychological and social consequences, as discussed earlier. The
bilingual format of the program, including the provision of dual language
books, appeared to encourage this support. However, our results also
suggest a need for a more nuanced interpretation in that some of the
parents indicated that they believed it more important that their children
learn English and others worried that retaining L1 would impede their
children’s English. Furthermore, some of the preschool children were
already starting to reject their first language in preference to English.
Indeed, on occasion, some families needed reassurance that they were
doing the “right thing.” Considering the centrality and importance
afforded English and the parallel diminution of families’ home languages
(Ricento, 2013) within the macro system (Bronfenbrenner, 2005), the
concerns expressed were perhaps to be anticipated.
Overall, the families indicated that they saw the program as beneficial
for their children and themselves, but they also identified a number of
concerns. We believe it is important for program providers and research-
ers to provide an opportunity for participants in family literacy programs
to identify aspects of programs that are “not working” or need adjust-
ment, as well as what is working well. For example, the need for the
facilitators to be more explicit in explaining the purposes of literacy
activities, and resources was a concern that was addressed, once it was
identified, and likely provided experiences that were more fulfilling and
meaningful for participants. In addition to concerns and issues that could
be immediately addressed, participants also identified concerns that are
systemic and need to be addressed at the policy level. For example, the
dearth of dual language texts in school and community libraries spoke
to the need for school districts and civic library boards to increase sig-
nificantly, funding for these resources. Downes (2014) addressed similar
“blockages” within and across structures and systems that are not fully
addressed within Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model.
Although we were able to document an increase in children’s early
literacy knowledge in English in this study, we did not have the capacity
or the resources to document their early literacy knowledge in L1. Studies
that measure children’s literacy knowledge in their home language and
English would enhance knowledge in this area. Studies that also tracked
children’s oral language development including vocabulary in English and

in L1 would similarly make an important contribution. As well, longi-
tudinal studies examining the effect of family literacy programs on chil-
dren’s learning throughout their schooling are needed.
The results from the focus group sessions indicated the importance
of providing opportunities for participants in family literacy programs
to provide feedback and for providers and facilitators to maintain a
reflexive stance and to make adjustments to meet families’ needs effica-
ciously. For example, based on what participants said, families were
provided more explicit directions and explanations, including written
notes and reminders when they indicated that these would be helpful.
As indicated, this study was a collaborative effort involving government
agencies, schools and school districts, a non-governmental organization,
and communities and families. It speaks to the possibilities such initia-
tives offer, especially as multi-sectoral approaches to social needs are
increasingly seen as efficacious and valuable.
Limitations
Several factors need to be considered in interpreting this study. First,
the study did not employ a randomized, control, trial design, which
some researchers see as the “gold standard,” although we did use the
data from the norming group as a control, which is deemed acceptable
in educational research. Indeed, using an experimental, or quasi-exper-
imental design, would present quite significant ethical, logistical, and
pragmatic challenges. Second, social desirability is an issue when using
interviews and focus groups, although the data from these sources were
triangulated with the field notes, ameliorating this concern somewhat.
Third, as noted earlier, the focus group sessions entailed asking questions
in English, translating them into the first language of the participants,
and back translating into English and this process may have led to con-
straining the responses of some participants. Conducting the focus group
sessions in the participants’ first language with subsequent translation to
English may have led to more elaborated responses. Fourth, the first
author co-developed the program and helped implement it, although a
plethora of others were involved, in the data collection, analysis and
interpretations, which contributed to trustworthiness.
Acknowledgements
Sincere appreciation is extended to colleague, Fiona Morrison, who co-developed
the Parents As Literacy Supporters in Immigrant Communities program, the
participating families, the cultural workers, the program facilitators in schools,
the Governments of Canada and British Columbia, 2010 Legacies Now, the
school districts and schools, administrators and program coordinators, research
assistants and all others who assisted with, participated in and supported the
program.
ORCID
Jim Anderson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7267-9433
References
Anderson, A., Anderson, J., & Teichert, L. (2013). Through a rear-view mirror:
Families retrospectively evaluate a family literacy program twenty years later.
The School Community Journal. 23(2). 33–53.
Anderson, J., & Morrison, F. (2000). The PALS Handbook: Creating and sus-
taining a Culturally Responsive Family Literacy Program. Langley, British
Columbia Langley School District.
Anderson, J., Shapiro, J., Smythe, S., Johnson, W., LeClair, B., Morrison, F., Cody,
S., Jensen, A., & Overgaard, V. (2003). Parents as Literacy Supporters (PALS):
A school-family-university partnership to enhance early literacy development.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Reading
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Anderson, J., Friedrich, N., Morrison, F., & Teichert, L. (2016). “Now he knows
that there are two kinds of writing, two kinds of reading”: Insights and issues
in working with immigrant and refugee families and communities in a bilin-
gual family literacy program. In A. Anderson, J. Anderson, J. Hare, & M.
McTavish (Eds.), Language, learning anculture in early childhood: Home, school
and community contexts (pp. 82–102). New York: Routledge.
Anderson, J., Anderson, A., Friedrich, N., & Teichert, L. (2017). “You guys
should offer the program more often!”: Some perspectives from working
alongside immigrant and refugee families in a bilingual family literacy pro-
gram. In C. McLachlan and A. Arrow (Eds.), Literacy in the early years -
Reflections on international research and practice (pp. 63–78). New York:
Springer.
Anderson, J. (1994). “Daddy, what’s a picket?” One child’s emerging knowledge
of workplace literacy. Early Child Development and Care, 98, 7–20.
Auerbach, E. (1989). Toward a social-contextual approach to family Literacy.
Harvard Educational Review, 59(2), 165–181. doi:10.17763/haer.59.2.
h23731364l283156
Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate expe-
rience. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 233–262. doi:10.1037/bul0000099
Blackledge, A., Creese, A., Baynham, M., Cooke, M., Goodson, L., Hua, Z., …
Wei, L. (2018). Language and superdiversity: An interdisciplinary perspective.
In A. Cresse & A. Blackledge (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of language and
superdiversity (pp. xxi–xlv). London: Routledge.
Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2015). Language and superdiversity. In K. Arnaut,
J. Blommaert, B. Rampton, & M. Spotti (Eds.), Language and superdiversity
(pp. 21–48). London: Routledge.
Boyce, L. K., Innocenti, M. S., Roggman, L. A., Norman, V. K. J., & Ortiz, E.
(2010). Telling stories and making books: Evidence for an intervention to help
parents in migrant head start families support their children’s language and
literac y. Early Education & D evelopment, 21(3), 343–371.
doi:10.1080/10409281003631142
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives
on human development. London: Sage Publications.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiment by
nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Brooks, G., Pahl, K., Pollard, A., & Rees, F. (2008). Effective and inclusive prac-
tices in family literacy, language and numeracy: A review of programmes and
practice in the UK and internationally. Reading: CfBT Education Trust.
Clark, M. (1976). Young fluent readers: What can they teach us? London:
Heinemann.
Crooks, S. (2019). Robust respect: Decentering deficit thinking in family liter-
acy work. Language and Literacy, 21(3), 64–78. doi:10.20360/langandlit29402
Cummins, J. (2015). Intercultural education and academic achievement: A frame-
work for school-based policies in multilingual schools. Intercultural Education,
26 (6), 455–468. doi:10.1080/14675986.2015.1103539
Dastgoshadeh, A., & Jalilzadeh, K. (2018). Language loss, identity, and English
as an international language. European Journal of Social Sciences, 21(4), 659–
665.
Downes, P. (2014). Access to education in Europe: A framework and agenda for
system change. London: Springer.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third
Edition: Manual. Circle Pines. MN: American Guidance Services.
Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teachers College Columbia.
Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann Educational Books.
Friedrich, N., Anderson, J. & Morrison, F. (2014). Culturally appropriate peda-
gogy in a bilingual family literacy program. Literacy. 48(2), 72–79.
Grant, E. S., & Leavenworth, R. S. (1988). Statistical quality control (6th ed.).
New York: McGraw Hill.
Gregory, E. (2005). Guiding lights: Siblings as literacy teachers in a multicul-
tural society. In J. Anderson, M. Kendrick, T. Rogers, & S. Smythe (Eds.),
Portraits of literacy across families, communities and schools: Intersections and
tensions (pp. 21–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gregory, E., Williams, A., Baker, D., & Street, B. (2004). Introducing literacy to
four-year-olds: Creating classroom cultures in three schools. Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy, 4 (1), 85–107. doi:10.1177/1468798404041457
Hannon, P. (2003). Family literacy programmes. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh
(Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 99–111). London: Sage.
Hannon, P. (2010, July). Cultivating the research-practice connection. Keynote
address presented at the Cultivating Connections: Global Perspectives and
Practices Family Literacy Conference, Edmonton, AB.
Harste, J., Woodward, V., & Burke, C. (1984). Language stories and literacy
lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and
classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hendrix, S. (2000). Family literacy education: Panacea or false promise. Journal
of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(4), 338–346.
Higby, E., & Obler, L. (2015). Losing a first language to a second language. In
J. Schwieter (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of bilingual processing (Cambridge
handbooks in language and linguistics) (pp. 645–664). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hirst, K., Hannon, P., & Nutbrown, C. (2010). Effects of a pre-school bilingual
family literacy program. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(2), 183–208.
doi:10.1177/1468798410363838
Holiday, A. (2018). Understanding intercultural communications: A grammar of
culture. London: Routledge.
Huston Independent School District. (2015). EVAAS®/Value‐Added Frequently
Asked Questions Retrieved from http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/
HISD/1-Value-Added-faqs.pdf
Kontos, S. (1981). The metacognitive environment: Characteristics and relationships
for preschool children. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child
Development, Boston.
Laureau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The
importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60 (2), 73–85.
Laureau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participa-
tion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Li, G. (2006). Culturally contested pedagogy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Li, G. (2018). Divergent paths, same destiny: A Bourdieusian perspective on
refugee families’ transitional experiences with urban schooling. European
Journal of Education, 53(4), 469–480. doi:10.1111/ejed.12300
Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2010). Investigating gender differences in reading.
Educational Review, 62 (2), 175–187. doi:10.1080/00131911003637006
Macleod, F. (2008). Why fathers are not attracted to family learning groups. Early
Child Development and Care, 178 (7-8), 773–783. doi:10.1080/03004430802352160
Marulis, L., & Neuman, S. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on
young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 80(3), 300–335. doi:10.3102/0034654310377087
Nutbrown, C. (1997). Recognising early literacy development: Assessing children’s
achievements. London: Paul Chapman.
O’Grady, K., Deussing, M., Scerbina, T., Fung, K., & Muhe, N. (2016). Measuring
up: Canadian results of the OECD PISA study. Council of Ministers of
Education, Canada. Retrieved from http://cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/
Publications/Attachments/365/Book_PISA2015_EN_Dec5.pdf
Perry, K. (2014). “Mama, sign this note”: Young refugee children’s brokering of
literacy practices. Language Arts, 91 (5), 313–325.
Perkins, S. (2010). PALS in Vietnamese: Implementing a bilingual family liter-
acy program. In S. Szabo, M. Sampson, M. Foote & F. Falk (Eds.). Mentoring
literacy professionals: Continuing the spirit of CRA/ALER after 50 yearsn (pp.
81–93). Commerce, TX: Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons and the TV Guide: Relationships be-
tween home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading
Research Quarterly, 31 (4), 406–428. doi:10.1598/RRQ.31.4.4
Purcell-Gates, V. (2017). Breaking the barrier of blame: Parents as literacy bro-
kers. In N. Kucirkova, C. Snow, V. Grover & C. McBride-Chang (Eds.). The
Routledge international handbook of early literacy education (pp. 362–372).
New York: Routledge.
Quadros, S. D. M., & Sarroub, L. K. (2016). The case of three Karen refugee
women and their children: Literacy practices in a family literacy context.
Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 10(1), 28–41. doi:10.1080/159
5692.2015.1084919
Reid, K., Hresko, W., & Hammill, D. (1989). Test of early reading ability -2
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Reyes, L., & Torres, M. (2007). Decolonizing family literacy in a culture circle:
Reinventing the family literacy educator’s role. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 7 (1), 73–94. doi:10.1177/1468798407074837
Ricento, T. (2013). Language policy, ideology, and attitudes in English-dominant
countries. In R. Bayley, R. Cameron, & C. Lucas (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of sociolinguistics (pp. 1–21). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Senechal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effects of family interventions on children’s
acquisition of reading from Kindergarten to grade 3. Review of Educational
Research, 78(4), 880–907. doi:10.3102/0034654308320319
Smythe, S., & Isserlis, J. (2004). The good mother: Exploring mothering dis-
courses in family literacy texts. Literacy & Numeracy Studies, 13(2), 23–38.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P., (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading dif-
ficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Storybooks Canada. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.storybookscanada.ca/
stories/en/
Swain, J., Brooks, G., & Bosley, S. (2014). The benefits of family literacy provi-
sion for parents in England. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 12(1), 77–91.
doi:10.1177/1476718X13498335
Swain, J., & Cara, O. (2019). The role of family literacy classes in demystifying
school literacies and developing closer parent–school relations. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 49(1), 111–131. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2018.1461809
Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read and write.
Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from in-
ner-city families. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Thomas, A., & Skage, S. (1998). Overview of perspectives on family literacy:
Research and practice. In A. Thomas (Ed.), Family literacy in Canada: Profiles
of effective practice (pp. 5–24). Welland, ON: Soleil Publishing Inc.
Tudge, J., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B., & Karnik, R. (2009). Uses and misuses of
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family
Theory & Review, 1 (4), 198–210. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x
van Steensel, R., McElvany, N., Kurvers, J., & Herppich, S. (2011). How effective
are family literacy programs? Results of a meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 81(1), 69–96. doi:10.3102/0034654310388819
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
30 (6), 1024–1054. doi:10.1080/01419870701599465
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, K. T. (1997). Expressive vocabulary test. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be con-
cerned?Theory into Practice, 39 (4), 203–210. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3904_3
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solv-
ing. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 17(2),
89–100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Zhang, J., Pelletier, J., & Doyle, A. (2010). Promising effects of an intervention:
Young children’s literacy gains and changes in their home literacy activities
from a bilingual family literacy program in Canada. Frontiers of Education in
China, 5(3), 409–429. doi:10.1007/s11516-010-0108-9
Appendix A
FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
1. In the program, we conduct sessions in your first/home language and we

provide bilingual books. How important is it for you that we work with
you and your child in your first language? Why do you think it is
important?
2. Do you read to your child in home/first language at home? When? What?
How often? Do you speak with your child in home/first language at home?
When? How often? Does your child write/pretend to write in home/first
language at home? What? How often?
3. Do you read to your child in home/first language when you come to ses-
sions here at school? Do you speak with your child in home/first language
when you come to sessions here at school? Does your child write/pretend
to write in home/first language when you come to sessions here at school?
4. This is a bilingual program where we use English and your first/home
language? Do you think the program has helped you in learning to speak
English? Write English? Read English? Listen in English? How?
5. Have you found the books/materials we provided helpful or useful? How/
why are they useful?
6. What are your/your child’s favorite take home materials? Why are these
favorites? Your child’s favorites?
7. Were there some materials that you did not find as useful? Which ones?
Why?
8. How often do you use the books and take home materials at home?
9. Do you see your child using the books and take home materials at home?
If so, how often? How?
10. What are some of the most important things or ideas you have learned in
this program?
11. What are some of the most important things your child has learned in this
program?
12. Did the program turn out to be like you thought it would be when you
first registered for the program? How has it been the same as what you
expected? How has it been different?
13. What do you think we need to do more of in the program? What do you
think we need to do less of?
14. What is missing from the program? How can we improve it?

Diversidade 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Diversidade 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diversidade 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

“Biggest Thing Is Saying in English and Punjabi,

Jim Anderson & Ann Anderson

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1968088

Published online: 03 Sep 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 171

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

“Biggest Thing Is Saying in English and

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In their classic studies conducted about half a century ago, Dolores

CONTACT Jim Anderson jim.anderson@ubc.ca Department of Language and Literacy

foundational research, demonstrated that the young children she followed

example, children living in societies where early childhood education is

As well, Bronfenbrenner’s concept of the “macro system” is helpful in

First or home language maintenance in family literacy programs

program significantly increased elicitation strategies compared with the

1. Did the program have a significant impact on young children’s

extensive networks to distribute the information and an invitation to

used in studies of early/emergent literacy. The test, designed for ages

Focus groups. The number of participants at the focus group sessions

question three that focused on parents’ concerns or issues with the

Children’s Literacy Learning

(NCE) is a way of comparing children’s scores at the commencement

Bilingualism and First Language Maintenance

Another benefit that focus group participants identified was support

As well, parents believed that the program supported their children’s

Bilingual program-material resources

Farsi and then, after 2 or 3 times of reading in Farsi, I started to

First language maintenance

Despite the overall support for L1 maintenance, at times families won-

Concerns and Issues

The Need for Explicitness

cultural worker, summarizing points parents were making, indicated, “They

Interestingly, some of the families preferred not to have a focus on par-

and issues as they arose, and so in response to these requests, we embedded

The Need for More Sessions

Availability of Dual Language Books

patterns and itineraries of migration, processes of insertion into the labour

children’s oral language development including vocabulary in English and

1. In the program, we conduct sessions in your first/home language and we

You might also like