This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licensegeneral social justice is often limited. (As you might suspect, Kelvin was not fully satisfied after he finished reading
this article!)
Example #3: The impact of bilingualism on reading
In 1995, three education professors—Robert Jiménez, Georgia García, and David Pearson—published a
study about the impact of bilingualism on children's ability to read English (1995). The three specialized in
curriculum studies, literacy acquisition, and bilingual language development, and were therefore motivated
by a concern for the academic success of bilingual children and especially by concern for identifying why
bilingual children sometimes have difficulty learning to read English. Too much research on bilingualism,
they argued, was based on what they called a "deficit" framework: it focused on what bilingual children
lacked compared to monolinguals. They sought an alternative framework, one focused on bilingual students'
competence, and especially on their competence to read a second language.
To search for this alternative, the researchers mounted a large research program, and the article published in
1995 was one of the studies resulting from this research. It caught Kelvin’s interest not only because of its topic, but
because of its approach. Instead of surveying dozens of students with a questionnaire, as researchers sometimes do,
these investigators relied on just three students studied intensively. Each student became a case study and included
detailed, lengthy observations and interviews of that particular student. Each student was chosen deliberately for a
particular purpose. One was a highly proficient reader who was also bilingual (Spanish and English); a second was a
marginally proficient reader who was bilingual (Spanish and English); and a third was a highly proficient reader
who was monolingual in English. To qualify for the study, furthermore, each student had to be comfortable
reflecting on and talking about their own reading processes, so that the authors could interview them at length on
this topic. The researchers asked each student to read six one-page passages in English and (where relevant) in
Spanish. They invited all three to think aloud about their reading as they went along, commenting on how they
figured out particular words or passages. The oral readings and think-aloud commentaries were taped and
transcribed, and became the information on which the authors based their conclusions and recommendations.
Using these procedures, Jiménez, García, and Pearson discovered important differences among the three girls.
The proficient bilingual, Pamela, used her growing knowledge of each language to help in learning vocabulary from
the other language. When she encountered the English word “species” , for example, she guessed correctly that it
meant the same as the similar Spanish word “especies”; and when she encountered the Spanish “liquído”, she
guessed correctly that it meant the English “liquid”. Her focus on learning vocabulary was stronger than for the
proficient monolingual, Michelle, who commented less on specific words than how the overall reading passages
related to her prior general knowledge. The difference presumably stemmed from Michelle's greater familiarity with
English vocabulary—so much greater, in fact, that Michelle did not need to think about individual words
deliberately. Both Michelle and Pamela differed, however, from the less-proficient bilingual reader, Christine. Like
Pamela, Christine focused on vocabulary, but she did not think of her native Spanish as a resource for this task.
When reading a Spanish word, she was sometimes reminded of English equivalents ("cognates," as language
teachers call them), but she did not use her much greater knowledge of Spanish to assist with her more limited
English. She did not search for equivalent words deliberately, as Pamela did.
Educational Psychology 365 A Global Text