19.2.1 Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory

Children acquire written-language conventions through assistance from others (family members, teachers, and peers) in specific sociocultural contexts. During this process, children’s literacy skills develop further through their use of tools available in the environment such as books, electronic devices, and greeting cards. In this regard, two related notions, Zone of Proximal Development and scaffolding, should be addressed. These notions were proposed by Lev Vygotsky and elaborated by Reference BrunerJerome Bruner (1986). Reference VygotskyVygotsky (1978) viewed the concept of scaffolding as synonymous with adult–child interaction. This interaction occurs within the Zone of Proximal Development, defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving, and the level of potential development as determined by problem solving under adult guidance or in cooperation with the more capable peers” (Reference VygotskyVygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

Scaffolding could be provided to the child by simplifying the task through breaking it down into smaller steps/pieces and by providing behavioral modeling, that is, demonstrating to the child how to complete the task’s stages. For example, Reference Aram and LevinAram and Levin (2001) analyzed the nature of mothers’ scaffolding of their preschool children’s writing. The researchers observed how mothers instructed the child to divide the word into the sounds, created a connection between phoneme and grapheme, and then taught the child to produce the graphic form of the letter. I illustrate how, through home literacy practices, parents and other family members provide scaffolding for children’s literacy acquisition within monolingual and bilingual contexts.

19.2.2 Family Language and Literacy Policy Model

In line with Reference BronfenbrennerBronfenbrenner’s (1992) ecological theory, which looks at the child’s development within his or her close and distant interactions, the parents are most proximal to the child and hence, have the largest effect on his or her development. The family is a critical area for studying intergenerational heritage language transmission because of its essential role in forming the child’s early linguistic environment. Narrowly defined, the heritage language is a language other than the dominant community language and is spoken in the child’s home (Reference MontrulMontrul, 2008; Reference Polinsky and KaganPolinsky & Kagan, 2015). In this chapter, the notion of the heritage language is superficially equivalent to the minority language or L1. The maintenance of heritage language has been explored primarily within the family language policy model (e.g., Reference Kopeliovich, Schwartz and VerschikKopeliovich, 2013; Reference SchwartzSchwartz, 2010). This model derives from Reference FishmanFishman’s (1991) reversing language shift model, in which it is argued that language survival requires explicit efforts to be made to retain ethnic languages at the family and community levels, and from Reference SpolskySpolsky’s (2004) model of language policy.

There is a general agreement that the association with intimacy and privacy makes the family particularly important in providing playful activities associated with language and emergent literacy development. Drawing on this assumption, this chapter proposes to extend the family language policy model by including within it a literacy component. The family language policy model suggests L1 maintenance and development; however, some studies point out that language-minority parents might use L1 at home, but not support literacy acquisition in L1 at home or in a community context (e.g., Reference Schwartz, Leikin and ShareSchwartz, Leikin, & Share, 2005). Hence, I suggest distinguishing between two notions, family language policy and family language and literacy policy (hereafter FLLP) by putting an emphasis on literacy as a distinct and designated component of this policy.

Our focus is on an FLLP with the following components: (1) family language and literacy ideology, or the family’s beliefs and attitudes toward first and second languages and literacy and their use at home and in diverse community and social contexts; (2) family language and literacy management, or the specific efforts made to influence language and literacy practices through planning (e.g., a decision to support emergent literacy in L1), and (3) family language and literacy practices, or the daily home practices, focusing on language and emergent literacy in L1 and L2 (e.g., teaching the child the letters of alphabet, writing a birthday party invitation card together with the child). The aim of family language and literacy practices in the heritage language is to meet social needs such as communication with family members living abroad, and religious observance. In addition, through literacy practices with the child in the heritage language, the family members support intergenerational transmission of “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being” (p. 133, Reference Moll, Amanti, Neff and GonzálezMoll et al., 1992). In the context of the FLLP, “funds of knowledge” refers to family and community literacy and cultural practices, which are linked to the child’s literacy development in monolingual and bilingual contexts.

19.2.3 Role of the Home Literacy Environment

The FLLP includes the concept of the home literacy environment (HLE), which can be defined as the experiences and attitudes regarding literacy and its acquisition that children encounter within the home (e.g., Reference Leseman and de JongLeseman & de Jong, 1998; Reference Serpell, Baker and SonnenscheinSerpell, Baker, & Sonnenschein, 2005). Reference Serpell, Baker and SonnenscheinSerpell et al. (2005) expanded this definition by a notion, the intimate culture of child’s home, defined as a confluence of parental beliefs about literacy, literacy activities, and parent–child interactive processes during these activities. This concept also includes family literacy practices (e.g., joint book reading and teaching letter names) and devices (e.g., storybooks, experiential and paper-pencil games, computer games, and TV programs) used in the family, which promote emergent literacy and literacy development (Reference Aram, Levin, Neuman and DickinsonAram & Levin, 2011). Family literacy practices, such as joint parent–child book reading, are particularly important, since they arouse children’s interest in literacy and provide them with knowledge of the world. More specifically, this joint literacy activity makes children familiar with story structure and the written-language register (Reference Bus, van IJzendoorn and PellegriniBus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995). In addition, the concept of HLE encompasses a socio-emotional aspect of the intimate parent–child interactions and time spent together, which has an inevitable impact on the child’s emotional development as well as on cognitive and linguistic development (Reference de Jong and Lesemande Jong & Leseman, 2001; Reference Serpell, Baker and SonnenscheinSerpell et al., 2005).

19.2.4 Toward an Ecological Approach

Language ecology can be defined as “the study of interactions between any given language and its environment” (Reference Haugen and Dil.Haugen, 1972, p. 325). According to this definition, a language does not exist independently of its environment but in interaction with it. The research on language ecology relates, among others, to environmental factors promoting language and literacy development. We address the interaction between such environmental factors as parental attitudes toward home literacy support, characteristics of the parent–child emotional relationship, and the literacy activities at home and in school, in both monolingual and bilingual contexts (Reference Aram and LevinAram & Levin, 2001; Reference Leseman and de JongLeseman & de Jong, 1998; Reference Kopeliovich, Schwartz and VerschikKopeliovich, 2013; Reference Reyes and AzuaraReyes & Azuara, 2008).

Regarding a monolingual context, most research on parental support of home literacy practices presented here are quantitative longitudinal studies. These studies are aimed at examining the impact of parental beliefs and the HLE on children’s emergent literacy acquisition and development. The picture is different in a bilingual context as most existing studies applied longitudinal ethnographic observation as the main methodological approach. This difference in the methodological approaches could be attributed to a fact that even though bilingual and biliterate children exist in every corner of the world, in each country, they have unique experiences depending on educational policy, country of origin, the status of their language, societal attitudes toward bilingualism, and unique characteristics of their ethno-linguistic community. Furthermore, recent research points out that overarching pan-group labels such as “Latino” or “Asian,” which are frequently used to refer to the immigrant population in the United States, for example, do not refer to homogeneous groups (Reference Winsler, Burchinal and TienWinsler et al., 2014). For example, the stereotype about high-achieving children characterizing primarily the Chinese culture is often attributed to all Asian children, even though they come from different countries and cultures across the Asian region (Reference Lim and LimLim & Lim, 2003; Reference Winsler, Burchinal and TienWinsler et al., 2014). In addition, even Chinese immigrants do not represent a homogeneous community. High-achieving students in the Chinese community usually come from middle-class families with educated parents, often university graduates and academics. Because of their attainments, the school system tends to overlook the needs of children from low-income Chinese families with less educated parents who speak limited English and cannot support L2 literacy development at home (e.g., Reference ShahShah, 2011).

Turning back to the longitudinal ethnographic observations of the HLE in the bilingual context, I assert that this methodological approach offers rich data on the nature of parent–child interaction (e.g., scaffolding questions, writing mediation, praise) including emotional contact (e.g., affectionate touch, gestures, smiling) during language and literacy activities (Reference GregoryGregory, 1998). Nonetheless, we can find promise in current efforts to apply quantitative methods in a bilingual context as well, which will be addressed further later in this chapter.

19.3.1 Parental Beliefs

Parental support of children’s literacy development is inevitably connected to components of the FLPP such as the parents’ literacy beliefs about how children acquire literacy and their own role in this process (e.g., Reference Serpell, Baker and SonnenscheinSerpell et al., 2005; Reference Weigel, Martin and BennettWeigel, Martin, & Bennett, 2006). In other words, parents’ literacy practices as a part of their family literacy policy and child’s HLE may be viewed as a realization of parental beliefs. Two studies will be used to illustrate this point.

Reference Weigel, Martin and BennettWeigel et al. (2006) found that profiles of mothers’ beliefs regarding the literacy development of their preschool children related to the child’s HLE. Data was collected from seventy-nine mothers and their children in the United States. Most mothers had a European descent with diverse educational levels ranging from high school to a university degree. In this study, two parental-belief profiles emerged – “facilitative” and “conventional.” The facilitative profile characterized mothers who believed in the importance of providing their children with diverse learning opportunities at home (e.g., shared book reading, telling stories, and playing language games with children) as a springboard for future literacy success in school, and in their own active role in this process. In addition, the mothers who tended to hold facilitative orientations reported having higher education levels and made more statements about their previous positive educational experience and extensive personal engagement in reading than mothers with conventional orientations.

The conventional profile described mothers who reported being unable to support their children’s literacy development at home due to lack of time and limited availability of books. They perceived schools as playing the most important role in teaching children and tended to spend less time with their children on shared-literacy activities. Accordingly, the mothers in the conventional group reported that they were less engaged in storytelling, shared book reading, and other emergent literacy activities than the mothers in the facilitative group.

In another comprehensive research project conducted in the United States, Reference Serpell, Baker and SonnenscheinSerpell et al. (2005) showed that parental beliefs about the best way to assist their child in literacy acquisition and development were correlated with the literacy practices reported by the parents and observed by the researchers. In this longitudinal study, the researchers followed sixty-three children and their families from low-income and middle-income backgrounds over five years, from when the children were aged four to the end of the third grade at the age of nine. Much of the researchers’ focus was on the home environments in which the children grew up with different levels of individual parental literacy. The two main orientations of parental beliefs were identified: entertainment orientation, which stressed making the parent–child literacy interaction enjoyable for the child and focusing on the child’s agency in the process of literacy development; and skills orientation, which stressed direct emergent literacy-skill teaching. In the following subsection, I elaborate on research findings regarding a link between these orientations, parental literacy practices at home, and children’s literacy development at preschool and school.

19.3.2 Home Literacy Practices

Several large-scale longitudinal research projects have underscored the importance of the HLE for children’s literacy acquisition and development (see also Friedlander & Goldenberg, Chapter 18 in this volume). The impact of HLE on children’s literacy development has been mainly evaluated on three parameters: (1) the presence of literacy resources at home while observing their use during joint parent–child literacy interactions; (2) the frequency of children’s engagement in literacy-related practices, and (3) parents’ familiarity with children’s storybooks (e.g., Reference Bus, van IJzendoorn and PellegriniBus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Reference Korat and LevinKorat & Levin, 2001; Reference Stanovich and WestStanovich & West, 1989).

Some studies focused on measuring HLE through the presence at home of literacy devices such as adults’ and children’s books, which, in Western culture, is inevitably linked to parents’ socioeconomic status (SES). For instance, Reference Korat and LevinKorat and Levin (2001) found the expected differences in the number of books in the families with low and middle SES in Israel: Low-SES homes had 124 adult books and 51 children’s books on average, as opposed to middle-SES homes, which owned 309 adult books and 86 children’s books on average.

Regarding possible effect of the number of books at home on children’s reading skills, Reference Lau and McBride-ChangLau and McBride-Chang (2005) showed that this home environmental factor significantly contributed to second-graders’ reading performance in Chinese-character recognition in Hong Kong, even when vocabulary knowledge and maternal education were statistically controlled. In this context, a recent study of Reference van Bergen, van Zuijen, Bishop and de Jongvan Bergen, van Zuijen, Bishop, and de Long (2017) showed that the association between the number of books at home and the children’s reading ability might be explained by a third variable such as genetic predisposition to poor reading passing from parent to child. In this study, the data was obtained from 101 Dutch-speaking families (from both parents and their child with an age range of seven to seventeen years old) in the Netherlands. The finding was that the number of books in the home predicted child reading over and above parental reading fluency. However, this effect was rather “modest once parental skills had been controlled, consistent with a mixture of cultural and genetic transmission” (p. 155). That is, the genetic predisposition to slow reading fluency may also influence the parental motivation to buy books for the home.

Parental literacy practices as part of the family literacy policy and a child’s HLE at preschool period have been substantially researched. Some studies took a focused approach to studying the nature of relations between a specific and central parental literacy activity and the children’s literacy development. Examples include a focus on shared storybook reading and its frequency and children’s literacy development (Reference Bus, van IJzendoorn and PellegriniBus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995), a focus on children’s active participation in interactive book reading and the child’s expressive vocabulary (Reference Mol, Bus, DeJong and SmeetsMol, Bus, de Jong, & Smeets, 2008), and a focus on shared writing activity, parental scaffolding, and children’s literacy development (Reference Aram and LevinAram & Levin, 2004). Reference Bus, van IJzendoorn and PellegriniBus et al. (1995) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of sixteen studies on joint book reading and language development, sixteen studies on joint book reading and emergent literacy, and nine studies on joint book reading and reading achievement. The analysis showed that, on the whole, this type of parental support explained 8 percent of the variance in language (Cohen’s d=0.67), phonological processing (Cohen’s d=0.58), and reading achievement (Cohen’s d=0.55). The strength of the influence of the parent–child joint book reading on the children’s reading skills was even stronger than the influence of one of the most powerful predictors of reading problems, the nonword reading deficit, which explained approximately 6 percent of the variance between normal readers and readers with disabilities. In addition, as suggested by the researchers, the frequency of the joint book reading was a main factor necessary for the success of this type of parental support. This factor significantly affected children’s literacy skills even in the lower-SES families with low parental literacy.

Reference Aram and LevinAram and Levin (2001; Reference Aram and Levin2004) examined another specific parental literacy activity, joint writing, in light of Reference VygotskyVygotsky’s (1978) concept of scaffolding strategies activating the child’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). When analyzing the nature of parental writing support, researchers focus on the way that the parent introduces the child to the writing system (e.g. for the alphabetic writing system, there is a focus on segmenting the word into its phonemes, connecting each phoneme to a letter name, and printing the letter) and refers to the conventions of writing. In monolingual families, these features of joint writing activities have been found to relate to children’s early literacy (Reference Skibbe, Bindman, Hindman, Aram and MorrisonSkibbe et al., 2013) and predict children’s acquisition of reading and writing in different orthographies (Reference Aram and LevinAram & Levin, 2004; Reference Skibbe, Bindman, Hindman, Aram and MorrisonSkibbe et al., 2013).

For example, Reference Aram and LevinAram and Levin (2001) assessed a link between the quality of maternal mediation of writing and preschool child’s (five-and-a-half to six years old) emergent literacy skills by asking children to write words and names and asking their mothers to help them. Forty-one low-SES and low-educational-level mothers and their children living in Israel were recruited to participate in the study. The researchers distinguished between two types of maternal mediation to the child identified using the literate scale, which was composed of levels of grapho-phonemic mediation and reference to orthographic rules, and printing mediation, which included level of mother’s scaffolding of child’s letter writing. It was found that the mother’s level of literate mediation at preschool age was strongly connected to the child’s emergent literacy level, measured by independent word writing and recognition, phonological awareness, and orthographic awareness, after controlling for the SES of the family. Moreover, the study showed that mothers who mediated children’s writing within the child’s Zone of Proximal Development (Reference VygotskyVygotsky, 1978) – challenging the child and providing help when the challenge was difficult – were more aware of their children’s literacy levels and cognitive abilities.

19.3.3 Modeling Parental Literacy Support

A causal model of the relationship between parental literacy practices, emergent literacy development, and literacy achievements during the first three years of schooling has been proposed by Reference Sénéchal and LeFevreSénéchal and LeFevre (2002). They distinguished between two types of parental literacy practices, joint book reading, and direct “teaching” of emergent literacy abilities such as invented spelling and letter-name memorization. Based on data collected among children from middle–high-SES homes, they found distinct causal pathways between these two types of parental literacy practices and different reading components. They uncovered a direct causal pathway from frequency of joint parent–child book reading to language development (vocabulary and listening comprehension) skills at the start of first grade. This, in turn, predicted reading comprehension at the end of third grade. At the same time, frequency of the “teaching” of parental emergent literacy skills was found to be related to word-decoding skills at the end of first grade.

These findings were further empirically supported and extended by Reference Hood, Conlon and AndrewsHood, Conlon, and Andrews (2008), who included spelling as an independent variable in the model. Based on data collected in a large-scale three-year longitudinal study in Australia, Reference Hood, Conlon and AndrewsHood et al. (2008) showed that the parental direct “teaching” practices indirectly affected word reading and spelling in first and second grade via their relationship with emergent literacy skills. Furthermore, in line with Sénéchal and LeFevre’s study, no significant correlation was found between joint book reading and later reading and spelling skills. In addition, in line with Reference Bus, van IJzendoorn and PellegriniBus et al. (1995), Reference Hood, Conlon and AndrewsHood et al. (2008) found that effects of home literacy practices did not differ among families with a diverse range of SES.

In their comprehensive five-year longitudinal project, Reference Serpell, Baker and SonnenscheinSerpell et al. (2005) investigated the relationship between parental literacy beliefs and practices, emergent literacy development, and literacy achievements during the first three years of schooling. Two types of parental literacy practices were distinguished. The first type had an entertainment orientation and made the literacy experience pleasant through the child’s active engagement in literacy-related games and telling stories. The second type was oriented more toward skills such as using workbooks and flashcards and teaching children to recognize letters and to write their names, in a school-like, instructing manner.

It was found that in homes where, during the preschool period, parents believed that the HLE should be a source of entertainment, children’s literacy development was considerably assisted. The parental entertainment orientation was significantly related to emergent literacy skills during the preschool period, word recognition in first and second grade, and reading comprehension in third grade. At the same time, no significant relationships were found between parental skills orientation and literacy skills. Regarding SES, this project showed that middle-income parents were more entertainment-oriented while low-income parents advocated a more skill-oriented approach. Differences were also found in the frequency with which children were exposed to certain types of text. Thus, children from low-income homes were less familiar with more developmentally advanced texts, such as storybooks and chapter books, and read picture books more frequently, even when they were in third grade. To recap, this project highlighted the role of the nature of children’s literacy experience at home as having a direct impact on literacy development. Socioeconomic status was not directly related to this development, but had an indirect influence on the children’s HLE.

Thus, Reference Serpell, Baker and SonnenscheinSerpell et al. (2005) highlighted that the HLE measured at preschool ages, rather than SES, was a factor significantly predicting word reading and reading comprehension when children were in third grade. However, Reference Phillips, Aram and KoratPhillips (2010) drew attention to the fact that low-SES families cannot be viewed as a homogeneous group. This researcher critically addressed the mistaken assumptions of many educators and educational policymakers that there is an overwhelming deficiency of literacy practices and low interest in children’s literacy development in low-income families (Reference Phillips, Aram and KoratPhillips, 2010). In Western countries today, even families with low SES and a low level of parental education own children’s books and basic writing tools (crayons, pencils, and paper). However, children from low-SES homes differ from children from high-SES homes in their literacy home experiences such as in the frequency of joint storybook reading and quality of parental mediation during joint literacy activities, which were found to influence children’s literacy abilities (e.g., Reference Aram and LevinAram & Levin, 2001; Reference Leseman and de JongLeseman & de Jong, 1998; Reference Korat and LevinKorat & Levin, 2001).

In addition, drawing on a distinction between such entertainment-oriented activities as joint book reading and nursery-rhyme singing and more structured and skill-oriented “teaching” activities such as letter learning and writing practice, another question attracts the attention of practitioners in particular: Should parents be encouraged to provide more emergent literacy activities at home such as letter naming and invented spelling rather than enjoyable joint book reading with the child, or vice versa? Summarizing what we have learned thus far in addressing this question, it is evident that the way parents initiate activities with their children and the children’s place in this initiative might reflect their beliefs about what it means to be literate and how literacy is acquired, and their own role and their child’s role in this process. Some empirical evidence exists also regarding the link between SES and parental preference for one of the two types of practices (e.g., Reference Serpell, Baker and SonnenscheinSerpell et al., 2005). Additionally, both these types are linked to literacy acquisition, but the magnitude of their impact depends on its underlying components of literacy and language, namely decoding, spelling accuracy, and fluency versus vocabulary and reading comprehension. Researchers and practitioners need to encourage more enjoyable and playful methods for structured and “teaching”-oriented activities at home. They need to induce awareness among parents that joint parent–child book reading as well as other types of activities constitute quality time spent together, which is essential for children’s socio-emotional well-being and security.

Importantly, an analysis of the current research on the FLLP, including HLE and children’s literacy development suggests that such factors as SES, parental education, cultural and linguistic variations, and the quantity and quality of literacy devices available at home have been inconsistently addressed and produced contradictory data. In this context, Reference BurgessBurgess (2005) claimed that a complex network of environmental and attitudinal factors and not just SES explained the quality of the HLE. Further, only a few studies have addressed the important environmental and attitudinal factor of the quality of the socio-emotional interaction during joint parent–child literacy activities. One notable exception is by Reference de Jong and Lesemande Jong and Leseman (2001), who conducted a longitudinal research project over five years in the Netherlands. The study examined how the HLE, including the nature of the socio-emotional interactions during mother–child shared-literacy activities, affects the development of word decoding and reading comprehension in an ethnically and social-economically heterogeneous sample of sixty-nine children and their mothers, coming from a native Dutch background and from immigrant Surinamese and Turkish backgrounds. The researchers found that the quality of socio-emotional interaction style (e.g., supportive presence, respect for the child’s autonomy, confidence in the success of the ongoing interaction) during joint parent–child activities such as book reading and problem solving measured at preschool ages was related to children’s reading comprehension at school up to third grade.

Finally, from the previous subsections overwhelming use is made of quantitative methods of data collection. At the same time, alongside the quantitative analysis, it was the use of qualitative analysis of observation data that permitted detailed inferences about the form and content of verbal interaction (e.g., scaffolding questions, writing mediation, praise) and nonverbal interactions (e.g., affectionate touch, gestures, smiling) between parents and children during joint literacy activities (Reference Aram and LevinAram and Levin, 2001; Reference GregoryGregory, 1998).

19.4.1 Family Language and Literacy Policy in a Bilingual Context

Family language and literacy policy in the bilingual context is affected by general language policies in particular families. Many immigrant and minority-language parents feel strongly about teaching their children the heritage language and literacy as a way of transmitting their values and traditions, strengthening their ethnic identity, and keeping in touch with monolingual relatives (Reference SchwartzSchwartz, 2010). Similar to the monolingual context, in bilingual families, parents’ literacy beliefs and practices are interrelated as components of their FLLP, and children’s biliterate development can be viewed as a realization of this interaction.

In a twelve-year-long research project, Reference Kopeliovich, Schwartz and VerschikKopeliovich (2013), as a parent-researcher, presented her experience of raising a bilingual Russian–Hebrew-speaking family in Israel. She incorporated a new perspective, of parents as language and literacy teachers in the bilingual family. Drawing on an ecological approach toward childhood literacy and biliteracy, she asserted that teaching literacy in the heritage language at home should be based on two related principles. The first principle is teaching within a bilingual biliterate mode (e.g., creative translation of literary texts from Russian to Hebrew and vice versa, highlighting structural differences between the languages and stimulating the development of metalinguistic awareness). The second principle is parental management of a multidimensional and flexible FLLP, which assumes a positive emotional coloring of home literacy activities and “unbiased attitude to diverse languages that enter the household and respect for the language preferences of the children” (Reference Kopeliovich, Schwartz and VerschikKopeliovich, 2013, p. 251). These parental beliefs in the bilingual biliterate mode and a flexible language policy at home can be expected to result in the child’s metalinguistic awareness of word structure and print conventions.

Similarly, Reference LiLi (2007) found that FLLP played a critical role in children’s biliteracy development in Mandarin or Cantonese (L1) and English (L2). This one-year, ethnographic study examined how parents’ attitudes toward biliteracy development are related to practices at home. The study focused on three Chinese immigrant families with first- and second-grade children in Vancouver, an ideal location for biliteracy development due to the high density of Chinese immigrants and good economic prospects for bilinguals. Semi-structured interviews revealed that the parents had different perceptions of literacy learning in L1 and L2. Thus, in two cases, the findings showed some discrepancy between the parents’ overall positive view of biliteracy and their home practices. In one of these families, parents believed that Chinese learning would be a barrier to the child’s English development. In a second family, the parents did not believe that young children could acquire two languages and cultures simultaneously. In a third case, the parents believed that their children’s acquisition of literacy skills in Chinese at home would have a positive impact on their progress in English literacy. Their beliefs led to their child’s positive attitude toward biliteracy. This diversity in the FLLPs was attributed to intrafamily factors such as parents’ perceptions of their minority status in the host society and proficiency levels in the two languages, as well as several school and societal factors, such as a lack of interest in children’s linguistic resources among mainstream teachers and lack of understanding on the part of policymakers of how individual learners’ language socialization is shaped through their biliterate development.

19.4.2 Home Biliteracy Practices

Home biliteracy practices assume more significance for intergenerational transmission of L1 literacy than L2 literacy. Since schools are not always willing or lack resources to support L1 literacy, the responsibility falls on parents and other family members to provide the support. Reference Duursma, Romero-Contreras, Szuber, Proctor and SnowDuursma et al. (2007) found that Spanish (L1)-speaking children in bilingual programs were able to acquire English (L2) literacy solely through instruction at school but relied on home support for Spanish (L1) literacy. Reference SchwarzerSchwarzer (2001) observed the literacy practices of his trilingual daughter at home and in school in the United States (with Hebrew and Spanish as heritage languages and English as the socially dominant language). He reported that although the child was in a Spanish–English bilingual elementary program, writing and reading instruction at school was provided mostly in English, with few opportunities to practice Spanish. Her Hebrew literacy development was supported only at home.

Research on a link between the type of maternal writing mediation and the child’s emergent literacy skills, conducted within the monolingual context, became a source of inspiration for exploring the nature of these relationships within a bilingual biliterate context. Recently, Reference MinkovMinkov (2021) investigated the connection between the mother’s mediation strategies and the child’s emergent biliteracy in Russian–Hebrew-speaking families in Israel by using quantitative methodology. More specifically, the study established the links between such characteristics of FLLP as the mothers’ attitudes toward emergent biliteracy, their planned activities, writing mediation, language practices, and the emergent literacy of the children in both Russian, as a heritage language, and Hebrew as a dominant language of the society. It has been found that writing support given in one of the child’s languages explained a significant amount of variance in the child’s emergent literacy skills in the target language as well as cross-linguistically, namely, in another language. Minkov explained this cross-linguistic predictability in light of the consistency of the mother’s behavior during writing mediation. Thus, the writing support given by the mothers in two languages was highly correlated across languages; that is, the mother tended to show the same level of mediation. For example, by mediating the child’s writing on a phonological level, the mother separated the word into syllables and sounds or encouraged the children to do so in both languages. In addition, the study showed that during writing mediation the mothers were sensitive to the orthographic characteristics of each language. Hence, in Hebrew they were sensitive to consonant-vowel structure as the smallest instructional unit versus the Russian phoneme (consonants and vowels) being the smallest instructional unit.

Several studies have found that biliteracy development may scaffold L2 literacy acquisition (Reference LiLi, 2007; Reference ReyesReyes, 2006; Reference RuizRuiz, 1984). Through biliteracy practices at home, children begin to develop metalinguistic awareness, which is defined by psycholinguists as a person’s explicit knowledge about language, knowledge that can be brought into awareness, verbally reported, and declaratively presented (Reference BialystokBialystok, 2001; Reference Bruck and GeneseeBruck & Genesee, 1995). Recent longitudinal ethnographic studies give examples of how home literacy practices induce children to compare the prominent characteristics of their languages and notice different aspects of oral language (e.g., phonemes, morphemes) and print (Reference Kenner, Gregory, Larson and MarshKenner & Gregory, 2012). Metalinguistic awareness, in turn, enhances biliteracy development. Even if parents focus exclusively on L1 literacy, this still may produce positive effects on children’s L2 literacy acquisition (Reference HancockHancock, 2002; Reference Reese, Garnier, Gallimore and GoldenbergReese et al., 2000) by increasing metalinguistic awareness, providing necessary tools and skills for the acquisition of L2 literacy, and building the children’s confidence in their ability to learn.

In a longitudinal ethnographic research project, Reference ReyesReyes (2006) examined emergent literacy practices at home among first-generation Mexican families living in Arizona. The study showed that four-year-old children in these families learned to represent ideas in writing in Spanish and English simultaneously. Reference ReyesReyes (2006) demonstrated also how home and community environments (supermarket, local library, tax office, clothing store) supported the development of the concept of print in two languages. Through their exposure to different prints, children developed differential hypotheses about L1 and L2 orthographies. For example, when four-year-old Adam was asked by the researcher to identify which words were written in Spanish, he explicitly noted the letter patterns used in Spanish, such as double rr in the word perro “dog” and Ñ as in the word niña “girl,” but not in English. Reference ReyesReyes (2006) concluded that the diverse literacy practices in use at home and in the community enabled children to practice in their Zone of Proximal Development and provided them with the “opportunity to transact with two overlapping and interactive literate worlds” (p. 286).

Another example is Reference SchwarzerSchwarzer (2001), a parent-researcher with longitudinal experience in encouraging the triliterate development of his daughter, Noa, in the United States. As noted above, Noa was enrolled in a bilingual English–Spanish-speaking school and was exposed to literacy in Hebrew at home. Like Reference ReyesReyes’s (2006) findings, this study showed how a six-year-old girl growing up in a triliterate environment provided her own hypotheses about how to spell in her three languages and to compare three scripts. She raised questions about spelling in these three scripts and understood that two of them, English and Spanish, had similarities, whereas the Hebrew script was quite different. Even with minimum experience with writing in Hebrew (a total of six instances during one research year), Noa was aware that at the end of a word, the Hebrew letter ה /h/ “hei” is silent and appears frequently in that position because of its morphological role as indicator of a feminine noun (pp. 122–123).

Parental approaches toward biliteracy practices at home often have a tendency to incorporate practical steps for realizing the intergenerational transmission of heritage language through planned and structured literacy activities (e.g., Reference SchwarzerSchwarzer, 2001). Other case studies present a tendency for spontaneous literacy activities drawing on daily faith practices and reading sacred texts with family members (e.g., Reference ReyesReyes, 2006). Both planned and spontaneous activities were described by Reference Kopeliovich, Schwartz and VerschikKopeliovich’s (2013) longitudinal ethnographic study with a focus on parents as teachers. The study showed that parents can plan, regulate, assess, and negotiate explicit systematic literacy activities (home lessons of the heritage language, thematic units of study, creative-writing projects), enhancing their FLLP goals. Alongside the planned literacy activities, the parents as teacher-researchers observed and collected data on their children’s initiations of spontaneous literacy activities such as children writing notes to parents or siblings, letters, and samples of independent writing in each of the languages or in both languages combined. Particularly interesting artifacts were related to the children’s games: doctor’s prescriptions, lists of dolls and stuffed animals attending a “kindergarten,” lesson plans and worksheets for younger siblings, maps related to imaginary lands, a peace treaty signed after a big quarrel, and a dictionary of a language invented by the children (p. 252). It is therefore clear that within their FLLP, parents as agents might build a creative HLE that supports intergenerational heritage language transmission as well as other languages the child may acquire later in life.

19.4.3 Modeling Parental Biliteracy Support

Recent research shows that within immigrant families, family literacy support might be bidirectional (e.g., Reference GregoryGregory, 2001, Reference Gregory2004). Based on longitudinal home observations of children’s emergent biliteracy in Spanish and English, Reference ReyesReyes (2006) revealed that, through participating in diverse literacy practices, family members supported not only the child but also each other in biliteracy development. This role was defined by Reyes as bidirectional. Thus, parents and older siblings served as experts and scaffolded L1 print knowledge but became novice learners when performing English (L2) literacy practices together.

Furthermore, research has shown that limited proficiency in the L2 does not prevent parents from helping their children develop L2 and L3 literacy skills (e.g., Reference Caesar and NelsonCaesar & Nelson, 2013; Reference Riches and Curdt-ChristiansenRiches & Curdt-Christiansen, 2010). In a study of Chinese parents in Montreal, Reference Riches and Curdt-ChristiansenRiches and Curdt-Christiansen (2010) observed that educated middle-SES parents helped their children with English homework and read books with them. They also purchased French reading materials, hired tutors to help their children learn French, and some of them even took French classes to help their children.

As in the monolingual context, it would be a mistake to generalize that minority parents with lower SES and education levels do not invest in their children’s literacy development. Several studies showed that Spanish-speaking parents from lower-SES backgrounds might be eager to be involved and help their children with L2 literacy acquisition at home (Reference Anderson and MinkeAnderson & Minke, 2007; Reference Caesar and NelsonCaesar & Nelson, 2013; Reference Walker, Ice, Hoover-Dempsey and HowardWalker et al., 2013). However, minority parents, especially with lower SES, might have trouble communicating with schools due to a lack of common educational and cultural values (Reference Hidalgo, Perry and FraserHidalgo, 1993).

To summarize, the studies reported showed that emergent biliteracy is a result of family policy with proactive biliteracy management embedded into an ecological perspective, considering different intra- and interfamily factors. This biliteracy management can be expressed by planned literacy activities initiated by family members as well as spontaneous literacy activities “embedded in meaningful contexts” and initiated by the child (Reference Reyes and AzuaraReyes & Azuara, 2008, p. 392). Children’s exposure to the concept of print in different languages at home and in community environments helps them to develop hypotheses about L1 and L2 scripts. The observations showed that children’s home experience with writing and reading in different languages might draw their attention to the degree of orthographic and linguistic proximity between the languages, facilitating their literacy development in both languages.