Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jul 22.
Published before final editing as: Early Educ Dev. 2025 Jul 22:10.1080/10409289.2025.2521246. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2025.2521246

Language Dominance and the School Readiness of Preschool-Age Spanish-English Dual Language Learners

Dana Bitetti 1, Christine Vail 2, Lisa M López 3, Carol Scheffner Hammer 2
PMCID: PMC12370006  NIHMSID: NIHMS2092777  PMID: 40857440

Abstract

Research Findings:

This study examined the early literacy, narrative production, and early math skills of preschool-age Spanish-English dual language learners (DLLs) classified into three groups based on their language dominance at preschool entry (i.e., Spanish-dominant, balanced, and English-dominant) to identify school readiness strengths and areas in need of support when attending preschools where English was the language of instruction. DLLs’ (n = 315) early literacy, measured by phonological awareness and letter-word identification, narrative production, and early math skills were assessed in English and Spanish in the fall and spring of preschool. Within-group comparisons by language dominance were made between DLLs’ school readiness in English and Spanish. Between-group comparisons were also made among the three dominance groups at both time points.

Practice or Policy:

Results showed that children’s balance between English and Spanish school readiness varied based on their language dominance in the fall. Significant group differences were found at the beginning and end of preschool for all measures except Spanish phonological awareness and letter-word identification. All groups made gains in a majority of measures in both languages. These results underscore the heterogeneity of this population and have implications for assessment and instruction.

The past decades have seen steady growth in the number of Latino Spanish-English dual language learners (DLLs) entering early childhood education programs in the U.S., prompting the need for research to better understand their school readiness development (Park et al., 2017). School readiness is a multifaceted term that reflects the skills, knowledge, and attitudes children need for school, the school’s preparedness for children, and the ability of the family and community at large to support early development (Snow, 2006; Williams et al., 2019). School readiness in the child encompasses several academic domains, including literacy, language, and math (Child Trends Databank, 2015). Within these domains are four important abilities: phonological awareness, letter-word identification, narrative production, and early math (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015). These skills provide the foundation for reading and math achievement in later grades (e.g., August & Shanahan, 2006; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Krajewski & Schneider, 2009; Sarama & Clements, 2009; Sen & Blatchford, 2001). Thus, continued understanding of school readiness development in DLLs is critical to support their long-term academic achievement.

To gain insight into DLLs’ school readiness, studies are needed that take into account the diversity in their abilities in English and Spanish. There is significant heterogeneity in the early language skills that DLLs possess (e.g., Gonzalez et al., 2016; Hammer et al., 2014; López & Foster, 2021; Solari et al., 2023). By the time they begin preschool, DLLs can have stronger abilities in Spanish than in English (i.e., Spanish-dominant), stronger abilities in English than in Spanish (i.e., English-dominant), or relatively balanced abilities between their two languages. An emerging body of research suggests that these variations in English and Spanish skills impact key areas of school readiness in DLL children (Gonzalez et al., 2016; Halpin et al., 2023; López & Foster, 2021; Solari et al., 2023; Su et al., 2022).

However, researchers have often treated DLLs as a uniform group, masking important variations in their language abilities that may have implications for how children are assessed and instructed during preschool. Research is greatly needed that examines school readiness in DLLs with differing language dominance to highlight academic strengths and areas in need of support during preschool. In addition, it is critical that studies consider school readiness in both English and Spanish. It cannot be assumed that these skills will progress in both languages, particularly for DLLs who receive instruction in English, as is the norm in most U.S. preschools.

The present study addressed these needs by examining how DLLs’ language dominance affected their phonological awareness, letter-word identification, narrative production, and early math skills in English and Spanish during preschool. These skills were assessed at the beginning of preschool and the end of preschool in order to investigate changes in school readiness domains after receiving one year of instruction in English. The knowledge gained from this research contributes to a growing body of evidence on the heterogeneity of DLLs and the importance of considering how the skills they possess in their two languages affect key aspects of development during preschool.

School Readiness and Later Academic Achievement

A critical component of school readiness is the preparedness of an individual child (Snow, 2006). Readiness can be measured in numerous ways, including the child’s physical and social-emotional development and, importantly, their early academic development (Williams et al., 2019). The focus of the present study is on four school readiness areas that are all strongly linked to the school-age literacy and math skills of monolingual and DLL children (Cooper & Lanza, 2014; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010; Tabors et al., 2001 Whitehurst and Lonigan, 2001). Each of these skills and their importance for later academic outcomes are discussed below.

Early literacy skills include phonological awareness and letter-word identification. Phonological awareness is the awareness of the sound structure of language, and letter-word identification is the ability to identify letters and read simple words (Birgisdottir et al., 2020). Phonological awareness and letter-word knowledge are two essential early literacy skills that provide a foundation for formal reading instruction (Whitehurst and Lonigan, 2001). Specifically, these skills are important precursors to monolinguals’ and DLLs’ later literacy, including decoding, word recognition, and reading comprehension (e.g., Gottardo et al., 2008; Lindsey et al., 2003; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010; Nakamoto et al., 2007).

Narrative production is the ability to tell stories. To be successful at comprehending written texts, children need knowledge of story structure that allows them to understand stories as a connected whole (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002; Rapp, et al., 2007). Children demonstrate this text-level knowledge when organizing their own narratives into a coherent sequence of events (Duchan, 2004; Stein & Glenn, 1979). Narrative organization is linked to reading comprehension and overall academic achievement in both monolingual and DLL children (e.g., Gutiérrez-Clellen, 1998; Miller et al., 2006; Speece et al., 1999; Tabors et al., 2001; Uchikoshi et al., 2016).

Early math includes skills such as number identification, counting, and the ability to understand changes in quantity (Jordan & Levine, 2009; Purpura et al., 2011). Early math skills provide the foundation for learning more advanced mathematical concepts such as solving word problems (Aunola et al., 2004; Jordan et al., 2007; Krajewski & Schneider, 2009; National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008; Stern, 1997). Most of the research linking early math skills to later math outcomes has focused on monolingual children, but a small body of work suggests that early math skills are also related to DLLs’ later math achievement (Cooper & Lanza, 2014; Foster et al., 2019; Manfra et al., 2013).

Language Dominance and DLLs

To advance the field’s understanding of DLLs’ school readiness, it is important to consider variations in the English and Spanish language abilities that DLLs have when they begin preschool. Recent research has sought to uncover differing patterns of early language performance (e.g., Choi et al., 2018; Lambert et al., 2017; Lopez & Foster, 2021; Solari et al., 2023; Su et al., 2022). One source of heterogeneity is DLLs’ language dominance. Language dominance is the relationship between DLLs’ abilities in their two languages (Birdsong, 2014). Some DLLs have a stronger or more dominant language, whereas others have relatively balanced language abilities (Silva-Corvalán & Treffers-Daller, 2016). Dominance is influenced by multiple factors, such as the age at which a child is first exposed to each language (i.e., sequential or simultaneous learners), opportunities to use each language, and the social and educational contexts in which each language is used.

Research has uncovered varying patterns of performance in literacy and other academic skills based on language dominance in school-age DLLs (Ferreira et al., 2016; Kempert et al., 2011; Rolla San Francisco et al., 2006; Tahan et al., 2011; Uchikoshi & Marinova-Todd, 2012). Less is known about the relationship between language dominance and school readiness in preschool-age DLLs. Differences in language dominance are likely to result in variations in school readiness, as vocabulary and oral comprehension—the measures used to determine language dominance in this study—are essential to the development of abilities like literacy and math (Dickinson et al., 2003; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Scarborough, 2001). For example, children’s vocabulary knowledge contributes to the ability to discriminate initial phonemes, read simple words, and improve narrative quality (Gardner-Neblett & Iruka, 2015; Kendeou et al., 2009; Metsala & Walley, 1998; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). Language skills also help children learn math by supporting simple numerical processing, the comprehension and expression of mathematical concepts (e.g., “more” and “less,”), and the acquisition of new math-related meanings, such as “difference” and “sum” (Krajewski & Schneider, 2009; Méndez et al., 2019; Purpura et al., 2011).

Comparisons of School Readiness

When examining DLLs’ school readiness in English and Spanish, language dominance may exert two potential influences. First, within-group differences may be evident when comparing a dominance group’s performance in Spanish to their performance in English (e.g., Spanish-dominant DLLs may have greater narrative skills in Spanish than in English). Second, between-group differences may be evident when comparing English and Spanish school readiness skills by dominance group (e.g., Spanish-dominant DLLs may have greater Spanish narrative skills than English-dominant DLLs).

Within-Group Comparisons of English and Spanish School Readiness

Children acquiring two languages have likely developed school readiness skills in both languages, though not to the same extent. DLLs who are dominant in one language might demonstrate greater performance on school readiness measures in their dominant language at the start of preschool. In contrast, children who have relatively balanced abilities in their two languages may demonstrate relatively balanced school readiness skills. However, when comparing school readiness performance, it cannot be assumed that dominance will be reflected in all skills. Studies suggest that phonological awareness and narrative performance are similar across languages regardless of dominance (Dickinson et al., 2004; Pearson, 2002). Less information exists regarding comparisons of letter-word identification and early math skills in two languages. Two studies suggest that letter-word identification skills may be influenced by English instruction even at the beginning of the school year, with DLLs scoring higher in the instructional language of English than in their home language (Páez et al., 2007; Tahan et al., 2011).

Regardless of how school readiness skills are distributed at the beginning of preschool, changes in the relative performance between English and Spanish may occur by the end of the academic year. Studies have found that many DLL children, including those who enter preschool with stronger school readiness skills in Spanish, shift towards having higher skills in English by the end of the year when attending classrooms where English is the instructional language (Hamers, 2004; Páez et al., 2007; Tagoilelagi-LeotaGlynn et al., 2005). However, this shift may depend on the specific school readiness skill being assessed. For example, Spanish-dominant DLLs may continue to demonstrate greater Spanish abilities at the end of the year in domains where skills support each other across languages, such as phonological awareness (Anthony et al., 2009; Dickinson et al., 2004; Riches & Genesee, 2006) and early math skills (Méndez et al., 2019). Thus, examining this potential shift in performance can provide information about how different groups of DLLs are faring in English instruction classrooms by the end of preschool.

Between-Group Comparisons of School Readiness by Language Dominance

In addition to examining within-group differences between English and Spanish, dominance groups’ performances can be compared to one another. Thus far, studies that compared DLLs’ school readiness by language dominance have largely focused on early literacy. The evidence is mixed. For example, Tahan et al. (2011) compared kindergarteners’ phonological awareness and letter recognition tasks in English and Arabic. The three groups of DLLs (i.e., English-dominant, balanced, and Arabic-dominant) performed similarly to one another, leading the authors to conclude that language dominance may not significantly affect pre-reading skills. In contrast, Uchikoshi and Marinova-Todd (2012) found differences between English-dominant and Cantonese-dominant kindergarteners on letter/character recognition.

At least three studies have examined language dominance and school readiness skills specifically in Spanish-English DLLs (Gonzalez et al., 2016; Lonigan et al., 2018; Lòpez & Foster, 2021). Both Gonzalez et al. (2016) and Lonigan et al. (2018) performed latent profile analysis of DLL preschoolers’ early literacy. The authors identified between four and nine distinct profiles, suggesting that early literacy skills develop unevenly in children with different language strengths. Lòpez and Foster (2021) examined the early literacy and math abilities of preschool-age Spanish-English DLLs categorized as Spanish-dominant, English-dominant, balanced low, or balanced average dominance. They found that DLLs with higher levels of achievement in both languages outperformed children with dominance in only one language in multiple areas of math and literacy. Letter-word identification was the exception, with Spanish-dominant DLLs demonstrating a similar ability in Spanish as DLLs with balanced average dominance. Collectively, the findings of these studies underscore the continued importance of understanding how DLLs’ heterogeneity can impact a range of academic skills. They also indicate the need to extend such inquiries to narrative production, which has yet to be included in studies of children with different language strengths.

In addition to differences at the start of the preschool year, dominance group differences may also be reflected in the amount of change that children make in school readiness from fall to spring. Research related to change has mostly centered on DLLs’ abilities in English. Studies have found that DLLs make positive gains in English from the beginning to the end of preschool in their early literacy, narrative production, and early math skills (e.g., Hammer, et al., 2007; Hammer, et al., 2009; Mathematica Policy Research Institute, 2013; Páez et al., 2007). However, the amount of change may vary among children who have differing language proficiencies and experiences (Gutiérrez & Vanderwood, 2013; Kieffer, 2008, 2011; Reardon & Galindo, 2009). For example, Winsler et al. (2014) found that DLLs exposed to their home language exclusively at 24 months made larger gains in English literacy during preschool compared to children exposed to both their home language and English. Notably, the children in Winsler et al. were from a variety of first-language backgrounds and school experiences, warranting further research that focuses solely on Spanish-English DLLs in English-instruction classrooms.

In addition to English skills, potential changes in DLLs’ Spanish skills over the school year should be considered. Language dominance at preschool entry may impact whether DLLs improve or at least maintain their school readiness in Spanish (i.e., producing narratives in Spanish, identifying the Spanish alphabet). Yet, there is limited information about the progression of Spanish school readiness during preschool for different groups of DLLs instructed in English. Previous research suggests that academic skills, such as letter-word identification in the home language, may plateau or even decline when DLLs enter schools where the societal language is spoken (e.g., Bitetti at al., 2020; Páez et al., 2007; Tagoilelagi-LeotaGlynn et al., 2005), though rates of change may be impacted by children’s initial language dominance.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the phonological awareness, letter-word identification, narrative production, and early math skills among three groups of DLLs (i.e., Spanish-dominant, balanced, and English-dominant) in the fall and spring of preschool to identify school readiness strengths and areas in need of support. This study fills several gaps in the school readiness literature. First, previous studies of DLLs’ school readiness have focused primarily on literacy skills like phonological awareness. This study takes an important step by examining a wider array of foundational skills at two time points in the preschool year. Second, several studies of DLLs’ school readiness have focused on kindergarten children. This study will inform the field’s knowledge about critical skill development before formal schooling begins. Third, this study examined school readiness in both English and Spanish. DLLs benefit from strong foundations in both their languages (Geva & Wang, 2001; Riches & Genesee, 2006; Tabors & Snow, 2001), and studies are needed that examine how school readiness skills progress in both languages in English-instruction preschools.

The first research question asked: do DLLs’ English and Spanish school readiness skills reflect their language dominance in the fall and spring of preschool? Due to the link between oral language and the four school readiness skills assessed in this study (Dickinson et al., 2003; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Scarborough, 2001), it was hypothesized that in the fall, children dominant in one language would demonstrate higher school readiness performance in their dominant language, whereas children with balanced language abilities would demonstrate equal English and Spanish school readiness performance. It was further hypothesized that the comparative performance for the balanced and Spanish-dominant groups would shift towards higher abilities in English in the spring due to receiving English instruction.

The second research question was twofold: how do DLLs with different language dominance compare on school readiness skills in the fall and spring of preschool, and how do these dominance groups compare in the amount of change made in each skill? It was hypothesized that language dominance would distinguish the groups from one another in the fall. The English-dominant group was expected to perform higher than the Spanish-dominant and balanced groups in the fall on English measures. A similar relationship was expected in the fall for the Spanish measures, with the Spanish-dominant group expected to outperform the English-dominant and balanced groups. It was further hypothesized that all children would make gains from fall to spring in English school readiness due to receiving instruction in English, but that the amount of change would vary by language dominance. Finally, it was hypothesized that children’s Spanish skills would plateau or possibly decline due to limited support for Spanish in their classrooms.

Method

Participants

Participants were selected from a larger classroom-based study (N = 400) of Spanish-English DLL students enrolled in early childhood programs that served low-income families in New York and Florida. On average, 80% of the children in the schools qualified for free or reduced lunch. To be included in the larger study, children had to be exposed to Spanish at home and have at least one parent of Latino descent per a parent background questionnaire. Children were considered typically developing, meaning their parents and teachers reported no concerns regarding their overall development and they were not receiving special education services.

Participating schools were full-day preschool programs. They were not designated as bilingual programs and did not follow a specialized model of language education. Therefore, instruction primarily occurred in English. The criteria for English as the primary language of instruction was English usage 85% of time or greater as determined by the Language Interaction Snapshot (LISn), which is an observational measure of classroom language interactions (Atkins-Burnett et al., 2011). On average, 51% of the classroom children were considered DLLs (Range: 17–100%). The number of participating DLLs in each classroom ranged from one to 15 (M = 5.5, SD = 2.56).

The selected children for the present study (N = 315) were those who completed the full school readiness test battery in English and Spanish in the fall and spring. There were 137 boys and 178 girls enrolled across 57 early childhood classrooms. In the fall of preschool, the mean age was 53.62 months (SD = 4.37) with a range of 37 to 65 months. Ninety-five percent of the children were born within the mainland United States. Most of the children’s mothers (73%) reported speaking mostly-to-all Spanish to their child within the home environment. Eighteen percent reported speaking equal amounts of Spanish and English to their child, and 9% of the mothers reported speaking mostly-to-all English to their child.

Measures

The Phonological Awareness (PA) subtest of The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool–2 (CELF Preschool–2; Wiig et al., 2004) measures children’s knowledge of English sound structure. This subtest contains 24 items across 6 tasks, including compound word blending, syllable blending, sentence segmentation, syllable segmentation, rhyme detection, and rhyme awareness. Internal consistency for the larger sample was .91 in the fall and .93 in the spring. The PA subtest of the CELF Preschool–2 Spanish (Wiig et al., 2009) measures children’s knowledge of Spanish sound structure. This subtest contains 20 items across 5 tasks, including syllable blending, syllable segmentation, initial phoneme identification, syllable segmentation in sentences, and medial phoneme identification. Internal consistency for the larger sample was .86 in the fall and .88 in the spring.

The Letter-Word Identification (LWI) subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III (WJ-III; Woodcock et al., 2001) and its Spanish adaptation from the Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz (Muñoz-Sandoval et al., 2005) measure the ability to recognize letters and read words of increasing difficulty. The subtests contain 76 items. From the larger sample, internal consistency for the English version was .84 and .78 for the Spanish version in the fall. In the spring, internal consistency for English was .87 and Spanish was .81.

The Applied Problems (AP) subtests of the WJ-III (Woodcock et al., 2001) and its Spanish adaptation from the Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz (Muñoz-Sandoval et al., 2005) present visual and verbal stimuli to measure early math skills such as counting (i.e., one-to-one correspondence), quantity discrimination, identifying shapes, and simple word problems involving addition and subtraction. This subtest contains 62 items. From the larger sample, internal consistency for the English version was .87 and .87 for the Spanish version in the fall. In the spring, internal consistency for English was .86 and Spanish was .89.

Narrative production was assessed using the Narrative Scoring Scheme (NSS). Seven components comprise NSS, including three story grammar components: introduction, conflict resolution, and conclusion; two literate language components: mental states and character development; and two cohesion components: referencing and cohesion (Heilmann et al., 2010). Each component was scored on a scale from 0 (poor) to 5 (proficient), which were summed for a total score ranging from 0 to 35 (Heilmann et al., 2010). To be considered a narrative of sufficient length, the child had to produce at least four complete and intelligible utterances in the target language (see also Bitetti et al., 2020). For the larger sample, internal consistency in the fall was .94 for English and .95 for Spanish. In the spring, internal consistency was .88 for English and .95 for Spanish.

Determination of Dominance Groups

The sample of children recruited for the larger study was classified into three language dominance groups using results from standardized oral language measures. Children’s vocabulary and comprehension were assessed in English and Spanish in the fall using the Expressive Vocabulary and Sentence Structure subtests of CELF Preschool–2 and CELF Preschool–2 Spanish. The Spanish version was designed to parallel the English version without being a direct translation, therefore allowing the researchers to examine the children’s English and Spanish abilities relative to one another. The English and Spanish vocabulary subtests follow the same format by asking children to label people, objects, and actions presented visually. In the fall, internal consistency was calculated from the larger sample in English (α = .85) and Spanish (α = .89). The English and Spanish Sentence Structure subtests also follow the same format and measure the ability to understand spoken sentences that increase in length and complexity by asking the child to point to a picture that corresponds to a spoken sentence. Internal consistency was calculated from the larger sample in English (α = .81) and Spanish (α = .82).

The subtests generate scaled scores with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3 that are derived from the total raw scores. Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the subtests by language group from the larger sample. The Expressive Vocabulary and Sentence Structure scaled scores were summed and averaged for English (M = 5.02, SD = 2.54) and Spanish (M = 7.12, SD = 2.89). The English average was then subtracted from the Spanish average to create a variable for the difference in averages. The mean of the “difference in averages” variable was calculated (M = 2.09, SD = 3.74). Children were classified as Spanish-dominant if they fell one standard deviation or more above the mean (average difference scores from 5.83 to 11.50), as English-dominant if they fell one standard deviation or more below the mean (average difference scores from −1.65 to −8.50), and as balanced if they fell within one standard deviation of the mean (average difference scores from −1.64 to 5.82). Previous research on bilingual children and adults have used similar processes (e.g., Bedore, et al., 2010; Bitetti et al., 2020; Iluz-Cohen & Armon-Lotem, 2013; Kane et al., 2023; Rolla San Francisco et al., 2006). A one-way ANOVA determined that there were no significant differences in the children’s age in months between the three groups, F(2, 312) = 1.44, p = .24.

Table 1.

Mean (Standard Deviation) Scaled Scores on the CELF by Language Dominance Group for the Full Sample

English-dominant
(n = 63)		 Balanced
(n = 239)		 Spanish-dominant
(n = 65)
Age in Months 52.8 (3.92) 53.8 (4.83) 53.9 (3.82)
Expressive Vocabulary
 English 7.92 (2.86) 4.37 (2.83) 1.74 (1.27)
 Spanish 2.03 (1.69) 6.00 (2.92) 9.98 (2.49)
Sentence Structure
 English 7.35 (2.46) 5.53 (2.58) 3.86 (2.26)
 Spanish 5.87 (3.58) 8.25 (3.09) 10.52 (1.73)
Open in a new tab

Procedures

Children were assessed in the fall and spring of the same preschool year. The standardized language and school readiness assessments were administered in English and Spanish by bilingual data collectors. Data collectors were trained in all assessment procedures by a certified bilingual speech-language pathologist. Data collectors were native speakers of English and Spanish and were trained to proficiency on the administration of the assessment instruments. Children were assessed individually in a quiet area of their preschools outside of the classrooms. Testing for each language occurred on separate days, approximately a week apart, and was counterbalanced. Testing took approximately one hour per language. Data collectors were fluent in the language of testing and were assigned to test in either English or Spanish.

Two wordless picture books by Mercer Mayer were used to collect the children’s narratives for NSS scoring. In the fall and spring, the children were asked to narrate A Boy, a Dog, a Frog, and a Friend (Mayer & Mayer, 1971) in English and One Frog Too Many (Mayer, 1975) in Spanish. Different books were chosen for each language to avoid a practice effect between the testing sessions. To elicit the narratives, the data collectors used open ended prompts (e.g., “What happened?” “Oh ok” “I see”) or restated the child’s previous utterance. Each story was video or audio recorded and saved on a secure server to be transcribed. Narratives were transcribed using the conventions of the Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts software (Miller & Iglesias, 2012) by student assistants fluent in the language of assessment. To ensure inter-rater reliability for NSS scoring, 20% of the transcripts in English and Spanish were randomly selected. A second student, experienced with NSS scoring, re-scored each transcript. Adjacent agreement, defined as agreement within one-point, was calculated (Craig, et al., 2009; Gorman et al., 2016). Agreement for Spanish was 98% in the fall and 98% in the spring. Agreement for English was 97% in the fall and 99% in the spring.

Results

Descriptive statistics by group are presented in Table 2. Of note, only eight English-dominant children produced a Spanish narrative of sufficient length in the fall and spring. Therefore, the English-dominant group was excluded from the Spanish narrative analyses. All analyses were completed in SPSS v.29. Figure 1 provides a summary of the results by dominance group and school readiness measure.

Table 2.

Mean School Readiness Scores (Standard Deviation) by Language Dominance Group

English-dominant (n = 59) Balanced (n = 200) Spanish-dominant (n = 56)
Raw Standard Raw Standard Raw Standard
CELF-PA Fall
 English 5.66 (6.12) - 4.20 (5.10) - 3.36 (4.63) -
 Spanish 1.83 (2.91) - 3.20 (3.60) - 2.98 (3.00) -
CELF-PA Spring
 English 8.79 (6.45) - 7.77 (6.33) - 6.59 (6.43) -
 Spanish 4.81 (4.20) - 5.93 (4.58) - 5.95 (4.03) -
Woodcock-LWI Fall
 English 6.53 (3.51) 98.16 (10.98) 5.76 (3.89) 94.06 (12.74) 4.84 (3.81) 90.70 (13.67)
 Spanish 1.86 (1.41) 90.69 (10.86) 2.63 (2.43) 93.55 (11.08) 2.53 (1.56) 94.39 (11.69)
Woodcock-LWI Spring
 English 10.31 (3.56) 103.22 (10.32) 9.27 (4.58) 98.30 (13.02) 7.70 (4.88) 94.14 (13. 82)
 Spanish 2.14 (1.54) 87.07 (10.82) 3.22 (2.36) 90.62 (10.91) 3.61 (2.72) 92.61 (12.17)
NSS Fall
 English 9.98 (3.91) - 8.49 (4.01) - 5.72 (4.70) -
 Spanish - - 7.02 (4.27) - 9.40 (2.96) -
NSS Spring
 English 11.52 (2.89) - 10.62 (3.53) - 9.06 (4.29) -
 Spanish - - 7.67 (5.05) - 10.52 (3.47) -
Woodcock-AP Fall
 English 8.31 (4.52) 95.78 (13.68) 7.07 (4.15) 91.13 (11.85) 5.16 (4.26) 84.75 (13.88)
 Spanish 3.59 (3.99) 75.41 (16.02) 6.54 (4.01) 86.59 (13.17) 7.41 (4.21) 89.37 (13.69)
Woodcock-AP Spring
 English 11.84 (4.17) 100.37 (11.49) 10.70 (4.50) 95.03 (11.73) 10.75 (4.65) 96.21 (11.47)
 Spanish 6.14 (4.95) 79.44 (19.93) 9.19 (4.41) 88.86 (14.42) 10.09 (3.96) 92.59 (11.25)
Open in a new tab

Note. PA = Phonological Awareness, LWI = Letter-Word Identification, NSS = Narrative Scoring Scheme, AP = Applied Problems; The CELF-PA subtest and NSS generate raw scores only

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Results by Dominance Group and School Readiness Measure

Within-Group Comparisons of English and Spanish School Readiness

To address the first question, a series of repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for each dominance group with language as the within-subjects factor. Each English measure was compared with its corresponding Spanish measure in the fall of preschool. The same analyses were then conducted using the spring data. Raw scores were used for these analyses to capture performance differences between languages rather than to compare the children’s performance to the normative sample. The use of raw scores instead of standard scores for within-group comparisons has been performed in previous studies of cross-language comparisons (e.g., Ebert et al., 2014). Because the number of possible raw score points differs between the English and Spanish PA measures, the raw scores for both subtests were transformed into the percentage correct. To minimize the potential for type I error due to multiple comparisons, Bonferonni adjusted alpha levels were set to .002 per test (.05/24). Partial eta squared was calculated as the effect size. Results by group are reported in Table 3.

Table 3.

Results Comparing English and Spanish Scores in the Fall and Spring with p-values in Parenthesis

English-dominant Balanced Spanish-dominant
Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
Phonological Awareness E (<.001) E (<.001) ND (.357) ND (.161) ND (.702) ND (.579)
Letter-Word Identification E (<.001) E (<.001) E (<.001) E (<.001) E (<.001) E (<.001)
Narrative E E E (<.001) E (<.001) S (<.001) ND (.023)
Applied Problems E (<.001) E (<.001) ND (.020) E (<.001) S (<.001) ND (.191)
Open in a new tab

Note. E indicates English was the stronger language, S indicates Spanish was the stronger language, ND indicates no difference between English and Spanish

English-dominant

Approximately 19% of the sample was English-dominant. In the fall, these children demonstrated higher English than Spanish scores on PA, F(1, 58) = 18.58, p < .001, ηp2 = .243, LWI, F(1, 56) = 103.34, p < .001, ηp2 = .649, and AP, F(1, 56) = 67.09, p < .001, ηp2 = .545. In the spring, they also demonstrated higher English scores on PA, F(1, 56) = 14.08, p < .001, ηp2 = .201, LWI, F(1, 57) = 389.92, p < .001, ηp2 = .872, and AP, F(1, 56) = 72.98, p < .001, ηp2 = .566. Overall, this group demonstrated higher English than Spanish scores for all skills in the fall and spring, and their English scores tended to fall within age expectations.

Balanced

The majority of children (63%) were found to have balanced abilities between their two languages. There were no significant differences between these children’s English and Spanish PA scores in the fall, F(1, 197) = 0.85, p = .357, ηp2 = .004 and in the spring, F(1, 198) = 1.98, p = .161, ηp2 = .010. The children’s English LWI scores were significantly higher than Spanish in the fall, F(1, 198) = 185.80, p < .001, ηp2 = .484 and spring, F(1, 198) = 469.22, p < .001, ηp2 = .703. Similarly, the children’s English NSS scores were significantly higher than Spanish in the fall, F(1, 189) = 14.20, p < .001, ηp2 = .070 and spring, F(1, 192) = 51.72, p < .001, ηp2 = .212. In the fall, there was no significant difference between the children’s English and Spanish AP scores, F(1, 197) = 5.34, p = .020, ηp2 = .027. By spring, the children scored significantly higher on English AP, F(1, 197) = 36.73, p < .001, ηp2 = .157. Thus, the children demonstrated higher English school readiness skills except for PA by the end of preschool; however, their performances in both languages still fell within age expectations.

Spanish-dominant

Spanish-dominant DLLs made up the smallest group of children in the sample (18%). These children’s English and Spanish PA scores were not significantly different in the fall, F(1, 55) = 0.15, p = .702, ηp2 = .003 and in the spring, F(1, 55) = 0.31, p = .579, ηp2 = .006. The children’s English LWI scores were significantly higher than Spanish in the fall, F(1, 54) = 21.77, p < .001, ηp2 = .287 and spring, F(1, 55) = 57.96, p < .001, ηp2 = .513. In the fall, the children’s Spanish NSS scores were significantly higher than English, F(1, 52) = 27.54, p < .001, ηp2 = .346. By spring, the difference between English and Spanish NSS scores was non-significant, F(1, 53) = 5.44, p = .023, ηp2 = .093. Similarly, in the fall, children’s Spanish AP scores were significantly higher, F(1, 55) = 24.89, p < .001, ηp2 = .312, and by spring, the difference between languages was non-significant, F(1, 55) = 1.75, p = .191, ηp2 = .031. At the end of preschool, there were no differences between English and Spanish school readiness for a majority of measures. Moreover, their spring scores met age expectations for both languages.

Between-Group Comparisons of School Readiness by Language Dominance

Unconditional intercept-only models were conducted to determine the intraclass correlations (ICCs), indicating the proportion of variance in children’s scores that can be explained by classroom membership. ICCs for Spanish LWI (.135), AP (.131), and PA (.098) were small. Similarly, ICCs for English LWI (.110), AP (.134), PA (.231), and NSS (.107) were small. Linear mixed models were conducted to account for classroom nesting. The results were similar after accounting for classroom nesting; therefore, the most parsimonious models were used, which are reported below.

To address the second question regarding the comparison of language dominance groups’ school readiness skills in the fall and the amount of change made by spring, seven separate 3 (dominance group) by 2 (time) repeated measures ANOVA or analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were completed. The dependent variables were each school readiness measure in English and Spanish (with the exception of Spanish narrative) with dominance group as the between-subject factor and time as the within-subject factor. To examine change in Spanish narrative, a 2 (group) by 2 (time) repeated measures ANCOVA was completed using only the balanced and Spanish-dominant groups. Standard scores for LWI and AP were used in ANOVA models because they are controlled for age. The phonological awareness subtests and the NSS generate only raw scores. Therefore, for these analyses, the children’s age in months was used as a covariate centered on its mean (53.62 months) in ANCOVA models. Partial eta squared was calculated as the effect size. The results are presented below by measure.

Phonological Awareness

Results for English PA revealed a significant main effect of dominance group, F (2, 306) = 4.06, p = .018, ηp2 = .026. In the fall, the English-dominant group performed significantly higher than the balanced, t = −2.78, p = .006 and Spanish-dominant groups, t = −2.54, p = .015. No difference was observed between the balanced and Spanish-dominant groups, t = 1.01, p = .315. There was a significant main effect of time, F (1, 306) = 69.69, p < .001, ηp2 = .185. On average the groups increased their English PA raw scores by 3.29 points from fall to spring. The group x time interaction was non-significant, F (2, 306) = 0.19, p = .822, ηp2 = .001.

Results for Spanish PA revealed a non-significant main effect of dominance group, F (2, 310) = 2.48, p = .086, ηp2 = .016. However, there was a significant main effect of time, F (1, 310) = 137.74, p < .001, ηp2 = .306. On average, each group increased their Spanish PA raw score by 2.96 points. The group x time interaction was not significant, F (2, 306) = 0.35, p = .704, ηp2 = .002.

Letter-word Identification

For English, there was a significant main effect of group, F (2, 308) = 7.79, p = .001, ηp2 = .048. The English-dominant group performed significantly higher than the balanced, t = −2.25, p = .025 and Spanish-dominant groups, t = −3.27, p = .001. No difference was observed between the balanced and the Spanish-dominant groups, t = 1.83, p = .068. The main effect of time was significant, F (1, 308) = 29.47, p < .001, ηp2 = .087. Standard scores increased by an average of 4.13 points from fall to spring. There was a non-significant group x time interaction, F (2, 308) = .178, p = .837, ηp2 = .001. Thus, each group made similar gains in English LWI from fall to spring.

Spanish LWI analysis revealed a non-significant main effect of dominance group, F (2, 289) = 2.47, p = .086, ηp2 = .017. A significant main effect of time, F (2, 289) = 10.25, p = .002, ηp2 = .034 indicated that on average, the children in each group declined in their Spanish LWI standard scores by an average of 2.54 points. There was a non-significant group x time interaction, F (2, 289) = .581, p = .560, ηp2 = .004.

Narrative Scoring Scheme

There was a significant main effect of dominance group for English NSS, F (2, 292) = 17.78, p < .001, ηp2 = .109. In the fall, the English-dominant group scored significantly higher than the balanced, t = −2.78, p = .006 and Spanish-dominant groups, t = −5.78, p < .001. The balanced group performed significantly higher than the Spanish-dominant group, t = 2.37, p = .019. The main effect of time was significant, F (1, 292) = 68.35, p < .001, ηp2 = .190, indicating that, on average, each group increased their NSS scores by 2.30 points. The group x time interaction was not significant, F (2, 292) = 2.78, p = .064, ηp2 = .019.

Results for Spanish NSS revealed a significant main effect of dominance group, F (1, 245) = 22.63, p < .001, ηp2 = .085. The Spanish-dominant group produced significantly more narrative information in Spanish than the balanced group, t = 4.11, p < .001 in the fall. The main effect of time was significant, F (1, 245) = 12.18, p = .001, ηp2 = .047. Spanish NSS scores increased by 2.73 points on average. There was a non-significant group x time interaction, F (1, 245) = 1.28, p < .258, ηp2 = .005.

Applied Problems

English AP analysis revealed a significant main effect of dominance group, F (2, 306) = 7.55, p = .001, ηp2 = .047. In the fall, the English-dominant group performed significantly higher than the balanced, t = −2.45, p = .015 and Spanish-dominant groups, t = −4.63, p < .001. The balanced group performed significantly higher than the Spanish-dominant group, t = 3.32, p = .001. There was a significant main effect of time, F (1, 306) = 77.50, p < .001, ηp2 = .202. All groups made significant gains on their English AP standard scores. In addition, there was a significant group x time interaction, F (2, 306) = 8.63, p < .001, ηp2 = .053. On average, the English-dominant and balanced groups’ scores increased by 4.48 points, whereas the Spanish-dominant group’s scores increased by 11.46 points. In the spring, there was no longer a significant difference between the English-dominant and Spanish-dominant groups, t = −1.92, p = .055. However, the English-dominant group continued to perform significantly higher than the balanced group, t = 2.84, p = .005. There was no difference between the balanced group and the Spanish-dominant group, t = −0.43, p = .665.

Spanish AP analysis revealed a significant main effect of dominance group, F (2, 310) = 17.71, p < .001, ηp2 = .103. In the fall, there was a non-significant difference between the balanced and Spanish-dominant groups, t = −1.31, p = .190. The English-dominant group performed significantly below the balanced, t = 5.43, p < .001 and Spanish-dominant groups, t = 5.38, p < .001. There was a significant main effect of time, F (1, 310) = 19.52, p < .001, ηp2 = .059, meaning that children in each group increased their Spanish AP standard scores by an average of 3.40 points from the fall to the spring. The group x time interaction was not significant, F (2, 310) = .716, p = .489, ηp2 = .005.

Discussion

This study investigated Spanish-English DLLs’ performance in four foundational school readiness skills over one preschool year to determine strengths and areas that need increased support based on their language dominance. The results contribute to a growing body of research that recognizes diversity in children’s dual language abilities and how this diversity impacts early academic development. The results also provide information about the skills DLLs have in both languages at the beginning of preschool and how these skills may be different in the spring for children attending English-instruction classrooms.

Within-Group Comparisons of English and Spanish School Readiness

The first question addressed the within-group performance between English and Spanish school readiness for each language dominance group in the fall and spring. It was hypothesized that children’s school readiness performance would reflect their dominance in the fall. This hypothesis was partially supported. Results revealed that DLLs in the English-dominant group demonstrated greater skills in English across all four domains in the fall, but the balanced and Spanish-dominant groups’ relative performance between English and Spanish varied depending on the area. It was further hypothesized that children’s school readiness performance would shift toward greater skills in English by spring due to receiving instruction in English. This hypothesis was also partially supported. As expected, English-dominant DLLs continued to demonstrate stronger skills in English. The balanced group exhibited a shift to higher English only in their math skills, and the Spanish-dominant group shifted to equal performance only in their early math and narrative skills. Potential reasons for discrepancies among the Spanish-dominant and balanced groups’ performance in the other school readiness areas are discussed below.

The equivalent English and Spanish phonological awareness scores for the balanced and Spanish-dominant groups at the beginning and end of the year may be due to the influence of skills in one language on the other. Research suggests that phonological awareness skills support one another across languages (Anthony et al., 2009; Dickinson et al., 2004; Lòpez, 2012; Riches & Genesee, 2006). However, the English-dominant group did not demonstrate equivalent English and Spanish phonological awareness scores. These children’s lower Spanish abilities, coupled with receiving English instruction, may not have been sufficient to achieve equal abilities on this task.

The higher English than Spanish letter-word identification skills across the school year may be due to the influence that English instruction has even in the early months of the academic year. These results are consistent with previous research on preschool- and kindergarten-age DLLs, which found that children had higher letter-word identification scores in the language of instruction (Hammer et al., 2007; Páez et al., 2007; Tahan et al., 2011). Higher English letter-word identification skills could also have been influenced by the children’s home literacy experiences. Previous research suggests that homes of young DLLs in the U.S. contain more print and educational materials in English and that book reading occurs more frequently in English (Farver et al., 2013). Perhaps parents taught English letter names at home in anticipation of their children attending English-instruction schools, and all children began preschool with stronger English early literacy skills as a result.

The narrative results are most notable for the balanced group, who were predicted to have equivalent narrative performance in English and Spanish but instead demonstrated greater performance in English across the year. The narrative task used in the current study may represent an academic task that the children were accustomed to completing in English at school. Therefore, the balanced group likely had more experience producing narratives in English than in Spanish due to their language environments in preschool. This result is consistent with Schwartz and Shaul’s (2013) finding that instruction in the societal language results in unbalanced narrative skills during preschool. Exposure to stories in English was likely responsible for the Spanish-dominant group’s shift to equivalent narrative skills in the spring, allowing this group to produce English stories that were as complex as their Spanish (Viberg, 2001).

Between-Group Comparisons of School Readiness by Language Dominance

The second question examined the three language dominance groups in relation to one another in the fall and spring and compared the change in performance among groups. It was hypothesized that the groups would be distinguished from one another in the fall for English and Spanish measures. It was also hypothesized that children’s gains in English would vary by dominance group, and that children’s Spanish skills would plateau or decline by the spring. These hypotheses were partially supported. As expected, language dominance distinguished the groups from one another in the fall except for Spanish phonological awareness and letter-word identification. Each dominance group made significant progress from fall to spring on all school readiness measures in both languages except for Spanish letter-word identification. Gains in Spanish phonological awareness, narrative, and early math skills are noteworthy given the lack of instructional support in Spanish within the classrooms and may point to the influence of either cross-language associations and/or support for certain Spanish skills in the home environment. The impact of language dominance for each skill is discussed in greater detail below.

The results of English phonological awareness and letter-word identification were similar. For both early literacy measures, the English-dominant group scored higher than the other groups in the fall and spring. These findings are consistent with López & Foster (2021), who found that English-dominant DLLs outperformed those with Spanish dominance and balanced profiles on English achievement except for letter-word identification. English-dominant DLLs continued to demonstrate greater English literacy skills than the other groups over the year. Perhaps instruction was not sufficient for the balanced groups and Spanish-dominant groups to make large enough gains to catch up to the English-dominant group in English early literacy.

The results of Spanish phonological awareness and letter-word identification were also similar. Despite differences in language dominance, the groups entered and ended the preschool year with equivalent Spanish early literacy scores. The absence of group differences may be due to limited support for Spanish phonological awareness and letter identification in school. Consistent with the hypotheses, there was a decline in Spanish letter-word identification for all dominance groups. A decline in Spanish letter-word identification was not unexpected given that literacy instruction occurred in English, and specific letter names and simple word recognition may not be skills that transfer between languages (Bialystok, 2002). The decline may also be due in part to the limited access to printed materials in Spanish and the teaching of letter names more frequently in English at home (Brisk & Harrington, 2007; Farver et al., 2013). Our findings are in alignment with Páez et al. (2007), who noted that DLLs fell further behind monolingual Spanish norms over the school year.

The results for English and Spanish narratives were consistent with the hypotheses. There were differences in narrative production among the dominance groups in both languages, likely due to the strong relationship between oral language skills and narrative production during the preschool years (Gardner-Neblett & Iruka, 2015; Heilmann et al, 2010). Similar to findings with older DLLs (Uccelli and Páez, 2007), all groups made significant gains in their English narrative skills, and the initial gap between the English dominance and other two groups diminished. This narrowing could be attributed to children having more experience producing English narratives in the classroom than Spanish narratives.

The groups’ English and Spanish early math performance in the fall was consistent with the hypotheses. Gains in early math skills were made for all groups, though the Spanish-dominant group exhibited greater gains in their English early math skills relative to the other groups. This result is similar to those of López and Foster (2021), who found that Spanish-dominant DLLs demonstrated higher early math skills than DLLs with more balanced abilities in the spring of preschool. Why the balanced group did not catch up to the English-dominant group in early math skills similar to the Spanish-dominant group is uncertain. It is feasible that the Spanish-dominant DLLs were able to utilize their more advanced Spanish math knowledge to aid their English growth, which may indicate cross-language relations within aspects of early mathematical development (see also Foster et al., 2019, Méndez et al., 2019).

Implications

Preschool classrooms that serve DLLs likely contain children who vary based on their language dominance. Findings from this study, in conjunction with prior literature (Halpin et al., 2023; López & Foster, 2021; Su et al., 2022), suggest that language dominance can affect critical areas of school readiness at the beginning of preschool as well as after one year of preschool instruction. Important implications on approaches to assessment, progress monitoring, and instruction are discussed below.

The results support the practice of assessing children in their home language and in English when entering early childhood programs (Espinosa, 2013; Peña et al., 2003). This is especially important for children who enter preschool with dominant abilities in Spanish and for those with balanced abilities, as the majority of DLLs in this sample were. Only assessing in one language may greatly underestimate some children’s performances, as school readiness skills appear to be somewhat distributed across both languages for these two groups. Even though the English-dominant group demonstrated higher English performance across the four skill areas, it is important to note that these children were exposed to Spanish at home and did possess school readiness abilities in Spanish, albeit at a much lower level compared to English. Children in each group may possess conceptual skills in Spanish which can support English learning (August & Shanahan, 2006). Furthermore, when interpreting assessments, professionals should be aware that DLLs may demonstrate uneven profiles of school readiness development in both languages. Dominance in one language might not lead to stronger school readiness skills in that language if a child is not receiving direct instruction in that language. It should also be noted that the English-dominant children attained standard scores on the Spanish Expressive Vocabulary and Sentence Structure subtests, but the majority of children were not able to perform the more demanding task of narrating in Spanish.

When monitoring progress over the year, professionals should be aware that DLLs can make positive changes in both their English skills and their Spanish skills, though the amount of change may depend on the skill being assessed and the children’s initial language strengths. In addition, when monitoring DLLs who receive English instruction, professionals should be aware that potential shifts in comparative performance between English and Spanish measures does not necessarily reflect a loss of Spanish skills. Even though the narrative and math performance of the balanced and Spanish dominance groups shifted over the year toward stronger English performance, their Spanish narrative and math scores still improved. Thus, balanced and Spanish-dominance patterns do not deter children from improving their skills in both languages, contradicting the belief of some early childhood educators that the usage of two languages may hinder overall development (Choi et al., 2021).

The results of this study also have implications for preschool instruction. Most significantly, the diverse range of language and school readiness skills possessed by DLLs in the fall underscores a need for instruction that is responsive to individual needs early in the academic year. Previous research with school-age DLLs has provided similar implications (e.g., Ford et al., 2013; Kieffer, 2011). This study contributes to the literature by suggesting that differentiated instruction at the preschool level may help support school readiness before children enter kindergarten. For example, children who enter preschool with Spanish dominance may benefit from increased efforts to promote their English early literacy skills amidst continued support for their Spanish early literacy skills.

A second implication for instruction is the need for teachers to support school readiness skills in Spanish. This study revealed a gap in English early literacy skills between the English-dominant and the balanced and Spanish-dominant groups in the spring. The failure to close the English early literacy gap for non-English-dominant DLLs is concerning. Phonological awareness and print-related skills tend to remain stable from preschool to the school-age years (Torgesen & Burgess, 1998), so it is likely that children who have weak phonological awareness and print skills when they enter kindergarten will continue to have weak literacy skills in later grades. Thus, the Spanish skills that children have when they begin preschool should be recognized as strengths, as a strong foundation of school readiness in the home language can promote school achievement in the second language (Castro et al., 2011; Riches & Genesee, 2006). Even monolingual teachers can support the use of Spanish in several ways, such as involving Spanish-speaking assistants and paraprofessionals in daily lessons, providing parents with specific strategies to promote their children’s Spanish literacy, narrative, and math skills at home, and highlighting cross-linguistic connections between languages. Supporting school readiness skills in both languages children are learning is positively associated with long-term academic success and other cognitive and social domains in school (Lòpez & Foster, 2021).

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations exist that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, research has yet to establish a standard procedure for determining children’s language dominance. In the current study, dominance was operationalized using standardized measures that captured the children’s relative proficiency for a specific set of tasks. Children’s dominance classifications could have varied based on other methods used to determine dominance (see López & Foster, 2021). Second, information on whether and how often parents engaged their children in literacy and math activities in one or both languages was not available for all participants. Therefore, home contexts may have supported school readiness in unknown ways. Specifically, support for Spanish in the home environment may have contributed to the gains in Spanish school readiness skills observed in this sample. Third, caution should be taken in extending these findings to other groups of DLLs in differing language contexts. These results may not apply to preschoolers who receive Spanish or dual-language instruction. Fourth, it must be acknowledged that language dominance is just one way in which DLLs vary. DLLs can be characterized by several criteria that potentially contribute to different patterns of school readiness performance. The final limitation relates to the PA subtests on the CELF Preschool–2. The English and Spanish versions utilize different tasks to assess children’s PA skills (e.g., the Spanish version assesses initial and medial phoneme identification, but the English version does not). Results may have differed if the PA skills assessed were equivalent or if a different PA measure was used. However, at the time of data collection, the CELF Preschool–2 was one of the only standardized measures of PA skills available in both English and Spanish.

This study provides starting points for future research that considers the diversity of language abilities among DLLs and its relationship with academic skills. Definitive conclusions as to future risk status of each group cannot be drawn from the results. Henceforth, studies could examine whether children’s language dominance and school readiness profiles are associated with their later academic outcomes in the school-age years. Additionally, the results of this study suggest that differential instruction may be beneficial during the preschool years, though this study was not designed to evaluate specific instructional methods. Therefore, future work could examine effective teaching strategies based upon language dominance and school readiness profiles.

Conclusion

As the number of DLLs entering U.S. preschools grows, early childhood professionals need information about the diverse range of skills DLLs possess in both languages. Spanish-English DLLs enter preschool with a wide range of dual language abilities in early literacy, math, and narrative production. These school readiness skills have varying trajectories of growth from fall to spring and are influenced by the initial language dominance of the child. The use of language dominance groups was thus advantageous in observing performance similarities and differences and recognizing the range of abilities that exist within early childhood centers.

References

  1. Anthony JL, Solari EJ, Williams JM, Schoger KD, Zhang Z, Branum-Martin L, & Francis DJ (2009). Development of bilingual phonological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners: the roles of vocabulary, letter knowledge, and prior phonological awareness. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(6), 535–564. doi: 10.1080/10888430903034770 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Atkins-Burnett S, Sprachman S, López M, Caspe M, & Fallin K (2011). The Language Interaction Snapshot (LISn): A new observational measure for assessing language interactions in linguistically diverse early childhood programs. In Howes C, Downer JT, & Pianta RC (Eds.), Dual language learners in the early childhood classroom (pp. 117–146). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. [Google Scholar]
  3. August D, & Shanahan T (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language-learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth [Executive Summary]. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. doi: 10.1017/S0272263108080182 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Aunola K, Leskinen E, Lerkkanen MK, & Nurmi JE (2004). Developmental dynamics of math performance from preschool to grade 2. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 699–713. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.699 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bedore LM, Peña ED, Gillam RB, & Ho TH (2010). Language sample measures and language ability in Spanish-English bilingual kindergarteners. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43(6), 498–510. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.05.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bialystok E (2002). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language Learning, 52, 159–199. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00412.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Birdsong D (2014). Dominance and age in bilingualism. Applied Linguistics, 1–20. doi: 10.1093/applin/amu031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Birgisdottir F, Gestsdottir S, & Geldhof GJ (2020). Early predictors of first and fourth grade reading and math: The role of self-regulation and early literacy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 53, 507–519. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.05.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bitetti D, Hammer CS, & López LM (2020). The narrative macrostructure production of Spanish–English bilingual preschoolers: Within- and cross-language relations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41(1), 79–106. 10.1017/S0142716419000419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brisk M, & Harrington M (2007). Literacy and bilingualism: A handbook for all teachers (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  11. Castro DC, Páez MM, Dickinson DK, & Frede E (2011). Promoting language and literacy in young dual language learners: Research, practice, and policy. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 15–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00142.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Child Trends Databank. (2015). Early school readiness. Available at: http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=early-school-readiness
  13. Choi JY, Rouse H, & Ryu D (2018). Academic development of Head Start children: Role of dual language learning status. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 56, 52–66. 10.1016/j.appdev.2018.02.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Choi JY, Ryu D, Van Pay CK, Meacham S, & Beecher CC (2021). Listening to Head Start teachers: Teacher beliefs, practices, and needs for educating dual language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54, 110–124. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.08.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cooper BR, & Lanza ST (2014). Who benefits most from Head Start? Using latent class moderation to examine differential treatment effects. Child Development, 85(6), 2317–2338. doi: 10.1111/cdev.1227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Craig HK, Zhang L, Hensel SL, & Quinn EJ (2009). African American English-speaking students: an examination of the relationship between dialect shifting and reading outcomes. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52(4), 839–55. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0056) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dickinson DK, McCabe A, Anastasopoulos L, Peisner-Feinberg ES, & Poe MD (2003). The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 465. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.465 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dickinson DK, McCabe A, Clark–Chiarelli N, & Wolf A (2004). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness in low-income Spanish and English bilingual preschool children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(03), 323–347. doi: 10.1017/S0142716404001158 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dickinson DK, & Tabors PO (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  20. Duchan JF (2004). The foundational role of schemas in children’s language and literacy learning. In Stone CA, Silliman ER, Ehren BJ, & Apel K (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders (pp. 380–397). New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ebert KD, Kohnert K, Pham G, Disher JR, & Payesteh B (2014). Three treatments for bilingual children with primary language impairment: Examining cross-linguistic and crossdomain effects. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 172–186. 10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0388) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Espinosa LM (2013). PreK-3rd: Challenging common myths about dual language learners: An update to the Seminal 2008 Report (PreK-3rd Policy to Action Brief No. 10). New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development. [Google Scholar]
  23. Farver JAM, Xu Y, Lonigan CJ, & Eppe S (2013). The home literacy environment and Latino head start children’s emergent literacy skills. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 775–91. doi: 10.1037/a0028766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferreira A, Gottardo A, Javier C, Schwieter JW, & Jia F (2016) Reading comprehension: The role of acculturation, language dominance and socioeconomic status, in cross-linguistic relations. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29, 613–632. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ford KL, Cabell SQ, Konold TR, Invernizzi M, & Gartland LB (2013). Diversity among Spanish-speaking English language learners: Profiles of early literacy skills in kindergarten. Reading and Writing, 26(6), 889–912. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9397-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Foster ME, Anthony JL, Zucker TA, & Branum-Martin L (2019). Prediction of English and Spanish kindergarten mathematics from English and Spanish cognitive and linguistic abilities in Hispanic dual language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 213–227. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gardner-Neblett N & Iruka IU (2015). Oral narrative skills: Explaining the language-emergent literacy link by race/ethnicity and SES. Developmental Psychology, 51(7), 889–904. doi: 10.1037/a0039274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Geva E, & Wang M (2001). The development of basic reading skills in children: A cross-language perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 182–204. doi: 10.1017/S0267190501000113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gonzalez J, Pollard-Durodola S, Saenz L, Soares D, Davis H, Resendez N, et al. (2016). Spanish and English early literacy profiles of preschool Latino English language learner children. Early Education and Development, 27, 513–531. [Google Scholar]
  30. Gorman BK, Bingham GE, Fiestas CE, & Terry NP (2016). Assessing the narrative abilities of Spanish-speaking preschool children: A Spanish adaptation of the narrative assessment protocol. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 307–317. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gottardo A, Collins P, & Baciu and Robert Gebotys I (2008). Predictors of grade 2 word reading and vocabulary learning from grade 1 variables in Spanish-speaking children: Similarities and differences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(1), 11–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00259.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Gutiérrez G, & Vanderwood ML (2013). A growth curve analysis of literacy performance among second-grade, Spanish-speaking, English-language learners. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 3–21. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1007214 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gutiérrez-Clellen VF (1998). Syntactic skills of Spanish-speaking children with low school achievement. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 29(4), 207–215. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461.2904.207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Halpin E, Prishker N, & Melzi G (2023). The language diversity and science readiness of skills of Latino preschoolers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 54, 275–298. 10.1044/2022_LSHSS-22-00072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hamers JF (2004). A Sociocognitive Model of Bilingual Development. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(1), 70–98. doi: 10.1177/0261927X03261615 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hammer CS, Davison MD, Lawrence FR, & Miccio AW (2009). The effect of maternal language on bilingual children’s vocabulary and emergent literacy development during Head Start and kindergarten. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(2), 99–121. doi: 10.1080/10888430902769541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hammer CS, Hoff E, Uchikoshi Y, Gillanders C, Castro DC, & Sandilos LE (2014). The language and literacy development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 715–733. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hammer CS, Lawrence FR, & Miccio AW (2007). Bilingual children’s language abilities and early reading outcomes in Head Start and kindergarten. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(3), 237–248. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2007/025) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Heilmann J, Miller JF, Nockerts A, & Dunaway C (2010). Properties of the narrative scoring scheme using narrative retells in young school-age children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(2), 154–66. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0024) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Iluz-Cohen P, & Armon-Lotem S (2013). Language proficiency and executive control in bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 884–899. doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000788 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Jordan NC, Kaplan D, Locuniak MN, & Ramineni C (2007). Predicting first-grade math achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 36–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00229.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Jordan NC, & Levine SC (2009). Socioeconomic variation, number competence, and mathematics learning difficulties in young children. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15(1), 60–68. doi: 10.1002/ddrr.46 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kane C, Sandilos L, Hammer CS, Komaroff E, Bitetti D, & López L (2023). Teacher languagequality in preschool classrooms: Examining associations with DLLs’ oral language skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 63(2), 352–361. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kempert S, Saalbach H, & Hardy I (2011). Cognitive benefits and costs of bilingualism in elementary school students: The case of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 547–561. doi: 10.1037/a0023619 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Kendeou P, van den Broek P, White MJ, & Lynch JS (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 765–778. doi: 10.1037/a0015956 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Kieffer MJ (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Initial English proficiency, concentrated poverty, and the reading growth of language minority learners in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 851–868. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.851 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Kieffer MJ (2011). Converging trajectories reading growth in language minority learners and their classmates, kindergarten to grade 8. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1187–1225. doi: 10.3102/0002831211419490 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Krajewski K, & Schneider W (2009). Early development of quantity to number-word linkage as a precursor of mathematical school achievement and mathematical difficulties: Findings from a four-year longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 513–526. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.10.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lambert RG, Kim D-H, Durham S, & Burts DC (2017). Differentiated rates of growth across preschool dual language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 40(1), 81–101. 10.1080/15235882.2016.1275884. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Lindsey KA, Manis FR, & Bailey CE (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 482–494. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.482 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Lonigan CJ, Goodrich MJ, & Farver JM (2018). Identifying differences in early literacy skills across subgroups of language-minority children: A latent profile analysis. Developmental Psychology, 54, 631–647. 10.1037/dev0000477 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. López LM (2012). Assessing the phonological skills of bilingual children from preschool through kindergarten: Developmental progression and cross language transfer. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26(4), 371–391. 10.1080/02568543.2012.711800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. López LM, & Foster ME (2021). Examining heterogeneity among Latino dual language learners’ school readiness profiles of English and Spanish at the end of Head Start. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 73, 101239. 10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101239 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Mancilla-Martinez J, & Lesaux NK (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701. doi: 10.1037/a0019135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Manfra L, Dinehart LHB, & Sembiante SF (2013). Associations between counting ability in preschool and mathematic performance in first grade among a sample of ethnically diverse, low-income children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28(1), 101–114. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2013.850129 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Mathematica Policy Research Institute. (2013). Report to Congress on Dual Language Learners in Head Start and Early Head Start Programs, Executive Summary. Retrieved September 29, 2013, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/resource/report-to-congress-on-dual-language-learners-in-head-start-and-early-head.
  57. Mayer M (1975). One frog too many. New York, NY: Puffin. [Google Scholar]
  58. Mayer M, & Mayer M (1971). A boy, a dog, a frog and a friend. New York, NY: Dial Books for Young Readers. [Google Scholar]
  59. Méndez LI, Hammer CS, López LM, & Blair C (2019). Examining language and early numeracy skills in young Latino dual language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 252–261. [Google Scholar]
  60. Metsala JL, & Walley AC (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In Metsala JL & Ehri LC (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  61. Miller JF, Heilmann J, Nockerts A, Iglesias A, Fabiano L, & Francis DJ (2006). Oral language and reading in bilingual children. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 21, 30–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00205.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Miller J, & Iglesias A (2012). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Research Version 2012. Middleton, WI: SALT Software LLC. [Google Scholar]
  63. Muñoz-Sandoval AF, Woodcock RW, McGrew KS, & Mather N (2005). Batería III Pruebas de aprovechamiento. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  64. Nakamoto J, Lindsey K, & Manis FR (2007). A longitudinal analysis of English language learners’ word decoding and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 20, 691–719. doi: 10.1007/s11145-006-9045-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education. [Google Scholar]
  66. Páez MM, Tabors PO, & López LM (2007). Dual language and literacy development of Spanish-speaking preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(2), 85–102. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2006.12.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Park M, O’Toole A, & Katsiaficas C (2017). Dual language learners: A national demographic and policy profile. Migration Policy Institute [Google Scholar]
  68. Pearson BZ (2002). Narrative competence among monolingual and bilingual school children in Miami. In Oller DK & Eilers RE (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 135–174). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  69. Peña E, Bedore LM, & Rappazzo C (2003). Comparison of Spanish, English, and bilingual children’s performance across semantic tasks. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34(1), 5–16. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2003/001) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Purpura DJ, Hume LE, Sims DM, & Lonigan CJ (2011). Early literacy and early numeracy: the value of including early literacy skills in the prediction of numeracy development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(4), 647–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D >program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. doi: 10.1222/0833031058 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Rapp DN, van den Broek P, McMaster KL, Kendeou P, & Espin CA (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289–312. doi: 10.1080/10888430701530417 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Reardon SF, & Galindo C (2009). The Hispanic-White Achievement Gap in Math and Reading in the Elementary Grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 853–891. doi: 10.3102/0002831209333184 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Riches C, & Genesee F (2006). Literacy: Crosslinguistic and crossmodal issues. In Genesee F, Lindholm-Leary K, Saunders WM, & Christian D (Eds.), Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 64–108). New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  75. Rolla San Francisco A, Carlo M, August D, & Snow CE (2006). The role of language of instruction and vocabulary in the English phonological awareness of Spanish–English bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(02), 229–246. doi: 10.1017/S0142716406060267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Sarama J, & Clements DH (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  77. Scarborough H (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In Neuman SB & Dickinson DK (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97–110). New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  78. Schwartz M, & Shaul Y (2013). Narrative development among language-minority children: The role of bilingual versus monolingual preschool education. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(1), 36–51. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2012.760568 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Sen R, & Blatchford P (2001). Reading in a second language: Factors associated with progress in young children. Educational Psychology, 21, 189–202. doi: 10.1080/01443410020043887 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Silva-Corvalán C, & Treffers-Daller J (2016). Digging into dominance: A closer look at language dominance in bilinguals. In Silva-Corvalán C & Treffers-Daller J (Eds.), Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization (pp. 1–14). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  81. Snow KL (2006). Measuring school readiness: Conceptual and practical considerations. Early Education and Development, 17(1), 7–41. [Google Scholar]
  82. Solari EJ, Zucker TA, & Grimm RP (2023). An examination of theheterogenous nature of literacy development in Spanish-speaking preschool children. Early Education & Development, 34(1), 111–127. 10.1080/10409289.2021.1981200 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Speece DL, Roth FP, Cooper DH, & De La Paz S (1999). The relevance of oral language skills to early literacy: A multivariate analysis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(02), 167–190. doi: 10.1017/s0142716499002015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Stein NL, & Glenn CG (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In Freedle R (Ed.), Discourse processing: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [Google Scholar]
  85. Stern E (1997). Early training: who, what, when, why, and how? In Beishuizen M, Gravemeijer KPE, & van Lieshout ECDM (Eds.), The role of contexts and models in the development of mathematical strategies and procedures (pp. 239–253). Utrecht: CDS Press. [Google Scholar]
  86. Storch SA, & Whitehurst GJ (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934–947. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Su PL, Rojas R, & Iglesias A (2022). Dual language profiles in Spanish speaking English learners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65, 2608–2628. 10.1044/2022_JSLHR-21-00447 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Tabors PO, & Snow CE (2001). Young bilingual children and early literacy development. In Neuman SB & Dickinson DK (Eds.) Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 159–178). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  89. Tabors PO, Snow CE, & Dickinson DK (2001). Homes and schools together: Supporting language and literacy development. In Dickinson DK & Tabors PO (eds). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school (pp. 313–334). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  90. Tagoilelagi-LeotaGlynn F, McNaughton S, MacDonald S, & Farry S (2005). Bilingual and Biliteracy Development Over the Transition to School. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(5), 455–479. doi: 10.1080/13670050508668624 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Tahan S, Cline T, & Messaoud-Galusi S (2011). The relationship between language dominance and pre-reading skills in young bilingual children in Egypt. Reading and Writing, 24(9), 1061–1087. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9301-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Torgesen JK, & Burgess SR (1998). Consistency of reading-related phonological processes throughout early childhood: Evidence from longitudinal-correlational and instructional studies. In Metsala J & Ehri L (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning reading (pp. 161–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  93. Uccelli P, and Páez M (2007). Narrative and vocabulary development of bilingual children from kindergarten to first grade: Developmental changes and associations among English and Spanish skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Uchikoshi Y, & Marinova-Todd SH (2012). Language proficiency and early literacy skills of Cantonese-speaking English language learners in the US and Canada. Reading and Writing, 25(9), 2107–2129. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9347-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Uchikoshi Y, Yang L, Lohr B, & Leung G (2016). Role of Oral Proficiency on Reading Comprehension. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65(1), 236–252. 10.1177/2381336916661538 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2015). Head Start early learning outcomes framework: ages birth to five. Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov [Google Scholar]
  97. Viberg A (2001). Age-related and L2-related features in bilingual narrative development in Sweden. In Verhoeven L & Strömqvist S (eds.), Narrative development in a multilingual context, (pp. 87–128). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. doi: 10.1075/sibil.23.04vib [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. Whitehurst GJ, & Lonigan CJ (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from prereaders to readers. In Neuman SB & Dickinson DK (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 11–29). New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  99. Wiig EH, Secord WA, & Semel EM (2004). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals - Preschool 2. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt/Psych Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  100. Wiig EH, Secord WA, & Semel EM (2009). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Preschool 2, Spanish edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  101. Williams PG, Lerner MA & Council on Early Childhood and Council on School Health (2019). School readiness. Pediatrics, 144(2), e20191766. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Winsler A, Burchinal MR, Tien HC, Peisner-Feinberg E, Espinosa L, Castro DC, … De Feyter J (2014). Early development among dual language learners: The roles of language use at home, maternal immigration, country of origin, and socio-demographic variables. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, (June). doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.02.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Woodcock RW, McGrew KS, & Mather N (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III NU Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES