literacy learning in three languages - dica-lab.orgdica-lab.org/files/2011/01/london_2005.pdf ·...

Paper presented at the dissemination conference for the ESRC-funded Multilingual Europe

seminar series at the Department of Educational Studies, Goldsmiths College.

London, November 12, 2005

Literacy learning in three languages

Charles MAX

Dominique PORTANTE

Brigitte STAMMET

University of Luxembourg

Abstract

In this paper we analyse literacy and language practices in Luxembourg classrooms at three

distinct but crucial moments of the school curriculum.

We present three excerpts of videotaped lessons.

The first excerpt highlights processes related to a written production of a third grader in

French. It highlights opportunities to expand the object of formal literacy practice.

In the second and third excerpts we follow a group of children from preschool to first grade.

The sequence outlines true benefits for literacy development when the pedagogical practices

of preschool classrooms and primary classrooms deliberately interpenetrate each other,

even when the official language shifts from Luxembourgish to German.

Theoretical background: Literacy as social practice

The LCMI research group at the University of Luxembourg sustains a sociocultural view of

literacy learning and development. This perspective puts a particular attention to the

cultural resources that mediate a person’s participation and engagement in social practice.

Following Razfar & Gutierrez, the construction of meaning provides the basis for literacy

practices and “is always situated and embedded within human activity systems that are goal

directed and rule governed” (2003: 39). Our research mainly focuses on the use of literacy

tools to make meaning of the world in cultural contexts.

Barton et al. (1999) enumerate six dimensions exemplifying the social nature of literacy:

• Literacy is best understood as a set of social practices; these can be inferred from

events which are mediated by written texts.

• There are different literacies associated with different domains of life.

UN IVERS ITY OF LUXEMBOURG (FLSHASE) 2005 LC M I R E S E A R C H U N I T - w w w . l c m i . l u

2

• Literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and power relationships, and

some literacies are more dominant, visible and influential than others.

• Literacy practices are purposeful and embedded in broader social goals and cultural

practices.

• Literacy is historically situated.

• Literacy practices change and new ones are frequently acquired through processes of

informal learning and sense making (1999: 8).

According to this framework, we define literacy practices as the cultural ways in which

individuals use written language as a tool to transform themselves, their contexts, as well

as the cultural tools and practices available to them. In addition, our research tries to place

a particular emphasis on:

• the dialectical relationship between the social and mental processes in literacy

learning;

• the (hybrid and) broader semiotic resources of bounded communities (e.g. home,

school) including the permeability of boundaries and the movements across

boundaries.

In order to understand how literacy practices shape and are shaped by specific contexts

(formal, institutional, societal…), we draw on cultural-historical activity theory in the line of

Engeström’s work (1987, 1999). CHAT stresses the productive role of tensions and

contradictions that are inherent in (learning) activities. Contradictions arise within and

between activity systems, such as home, schools, everyday contexts… An activity-

theoretical analysis creates a productive starting-point to reorganize the activity of a given

context and to create extended opportunities for innovation and change (expanded

learning).

The larger context of language and literacy learning in Luxembourg

We briefly describe elements of the wider linguistic and educational context of Luxembourg.

Luxembourg has two official languages, French and German and a National language,

Luxembourgish.

About 40 percent of the population are non-native speakers, the majority are people with

Portuguese origins. 42% of the children use at least two languages with their parents.

In preschool (2 years) all children have to learn Luxembourgish.

In primary school children start off in the 1st grade with German as the language for reading

and writing and as the official school language. French is taught from the 2nd grade


3

onwards.

Classroom teaching can mainly be described as traditional, with teacher centred whole class

instruction, a national curriculum and prescribed books at its backbone.

The curriculum does not take into account children’s home languages.

The complex linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the children in conjuncture with the

traditional, curriculum-oriented, normative schooling practices create tensions which

constitute an enormous challenge for teachers who want to address the needs of a

population in change.

The research context

The data we present here was collected in the context of a larger study on multilingualism

and literacy learning of 3 to 9 year-old-children (2002-2006), funded by the National

research fund of Luxembourg

The data was gathered through weekly classroom observations during two academic years

2003 – 2005.

We videotaped learning activities, conducted interviews with parents, teachers and pupils.

The core research questions address: a) the diversity in children’s language uses; b) the

opportunities for literacy and language learning; c) the children’s strategies for participating

in literacy and language practices; d) the teachers’ strategies to organize literacy and

language practices.

Data analysis is mainly qualitative, theory-driven using socio-cultural theories (Cultural

Historical Activity Theory, New Literacy Studies, Bakhtinian theory…).

We will present and discuss the following data excerpts (that are extracted from videotaped

language and literacy learning lessons):

The first excerpt shows processes related to a written production in the context of French

language learning in a third grade classroom.

The second excerpt shows a classroom activity in a preschool class that focuses on learning

Luxembourgish. It is part of a larger sequence of activities that recur every week in a

similar format.

A year later, in the third excerpt we meet the same group of children again during a first

grade learning activity. The format of the activity is similar to preschool, the language has


4

shifted from Luxembourgish to German.

The three examples come from a large primary school with 650 children. The vast majority

of the children in this school are of working class and immigrant background. In 2003, 83%

of children were non-native speakers. A large proportion of the children’s parents did not go

to school in Luxembourg. Many families live less than 10 years in Luxembourg.

A. Writing French stories: Language and literacy learning in a third grade

classroom

The first example shows a practice that is linked closely to the set textbook. We will look

first at the written production of one child in French. The text is entitled My Portrait and was

prepared by textbook examples and exercises.

Figure 1 : French textbook pages

We see that the textbook reproduces letters in which children write to their friends and

describe themselves.

Next, the information is presented in the form of a template from which the children can

select among possible answers.

A series of exercises require the children to fill in the bits of information themselves.

Finally, the children were asked to write their own portrait.

At this stage, the activity was entirely focused on the official curriculum, giving little space

to the diversity of the children’s backgrounds to be used as a resource for learning.


5

This is David’s written text.

Mardi, le 18, januar 2005

Mon portrait

Je me’ appelle David.

J’ai 9 ans.

J’habite à Esch-sur-Alzette.

J’ai duas saeurs soeurs. Ells Elle

s’appellent D. et L.

Mon père s’appelle F.

il travale est machiniste.

Ma mere ne travaille pas.

J’avais un lapin me mais il et est mort.

J’adore les lasal lasagnas et la Pizza

et les glaces.

Tuesday, 18, January 2005

My portrait

I am called David.

I am 9 years old.

I live in Esch-sur-Alzette.

I have two sisters. They

are called D. and L.

My father is called F.

He is an operator.

My mother does not work.

I had a rabbit but he is dead.

I like lasagna and pizza

and ice cream.

januar: German

duas: Portuguese

travale: Portuguese-French mix

Figure 2 : David’s text, transcribed from his notebook and translation.

We see that he followed the template and correctly filled in the bits of information about

himself.

David corrected some false starts in writing by himself. On two occasions we see that his

Portuguese mother tongue enters his writing (duas and travale= trabalhar).

The date includes the German word Januar (instead of janvier in French), probably copied

from the blackboard.

David read his portrait to the teacher and to the class.

His reading was not fluent, scattered with interruptions, hesitations, pauses in mid-

sentence.

Although he completed the task successfully, he gave the impression of a child who

struggles with the French language, who finds it difficult to form sentences. He read his text

as though it was another exercise from the book. However, David is an expert user of

French language in informal contexts. His home language is mainly Portuguese, but with his

two older sisters he often uses French. This language is used by the siblings as a

mediational tool especially to exchange on non family matters. No trace of all this can be

found in his official school discourse.

After the lesson, a few children came to present their work to the researcher. This routine

had been established over the year, because he often asked the children to talk about their

work and they knew he had an interest in what they did.


6

David and Melissa came with their notebooks to present their work.

Here is a transcript of the oral portrait David presented. Although he kept his notebook in

front of him, he did not read from it. At the beginning he looked at his notebook, then he

played with it while speaking (opened and closed it, waved it around).

01 David & M. : My portrait 02 David: I had a rabbit. She was called Susi. 03 But, she is dead. 04 Ehm. My da, my father, he works in (macasite: invented word). 05 My mother, she works at nothing. 06 Ehm. I am Portuguese. 07 Ehm. My hobby is, ehm, football and swimming. 08 Ehm … 09 I wanted a dog, but I cannot,

10 because I live in a flat (pronounces apartamã ) 11 and we and we cannot … 12 We are not allowed to take animals there. 13 Researcher: pas le droit. (fr: not allowed) 14 David: We are not allowed to keep it.

italic: text originally in French

bold: apartamã in Portuguese

bold: We are not allowed to take …there. in Luxembourgish

Figure 3: Transcript of David’s oral presentation.

David spoke fluently. Although there were pauses between the sentences, he seemed to

know exactly what he wanted to say. We see a mixture of elements of the previous task and

new, much more personal information. The episode of the rabbit comes first. He adds

information, the name of the rabbit.

Here we have the impression that David really wants to share information about himself.

The episode about keeping an animal in their flat was completely absent from his official

text. Yet, it seems that to him it is very important.

He uses Luxembourgish to convey the meaning when he cannot find the right French words.

It seems that the official school portrait has moved to the background. David is not

completing a set task, but his lived experience and preoccupations take over.

His production gains an entirely different quality.

Engeström’s triangle model of AT allows us to outline the literacy and language practice in

the third grade classroom. During the French lessons, the activity follows the traditional

habitus:


7

Figure 4: 3d grade French writing activity

The teacher teaches the entire class. The object of this activity is learning French language

within the predefined templates.

The tools are all classroom-based: the official languages and the set textbook are the tools

that mediate the activity.

The most important rules concern classroom participation and language use. The teacher

uses French. Children are allowed to use other school languages but not other home

languages. Communication follows the IRF model.

Teacher regulates activity, participation and language changes; children complete tasks.

This excerpt shows that the described classroom practice is in contradiction with the

children’s contexts. These are multi-voiced and constitutive of multiple, interconnected

linguistic spaces.

David’s involvement with the learning activity becomes quite different when he presents his

work to the researcher. Here we are in an informal space and his meanings tie back to

former discourses and personal meanings, to practices with important others like his

parents and his sisters. David’s discourse on animal keeping becomes situated and is now

part of the intertextual chain of discourses, texts and meanings relevant to him. This socio-


8

historical and socio-cultural dimension only appears when the learning context gives him

opportunity to draw on his social experience, interests and cultural resources.

The following examples show that such practices can be legitimated by teachers and

consciously utilized by them within the school discourse to create new contexts for

development.

B. Storying as a boundary crossing activity for language and literacy learning

An example from preschool

The second example starts with a typical activity in a preschool class.

Of 19 children in this class, only 3 use Luxembourgish as their home language. The majority

speak Portuguese at home.

The teacher and children work on a children’s book, Cornelius by Leo Lionni. The story was

presented to the whole class by the teacher in a previous activity. Now, the teacher and a

group of 5 children go again through the story. The teacher shows the pictures, turns the

pages and encourages the children to tell the story.

The children involved in the activity are a mixed group of 4 and 5 year olds. 3 girls are in

their second preschool year, 2 Yugoslav, 1 Portuguese. They know the format of the activity

and they already know some Luxembourgish. Two children are in their first year, they are

only beginning to learn Luxembourgish, both speak Portuguese at home.

We discuss in detail a one-minute excerpt, of an activity, which lasts for 20 minutes.

The story being told is about Cornelius, a crocodile that is different from other crocodiles.

He can do things the others can’t, mainly because he walks on two legs.

The whole clip last 55 seconds.

01 ((Teacher lifts hand to front and pretends to look into distance))

02 Teacher: He can see things that are far away (….)

03 ((Pedro imitates gesture))

04 ((Teacher asks Katja to translate))

05 Teacher: How do you say this in Portuguese? (…)

06 Katja: Cornelius… (hesitates)

07 Teacher: in Portuguese.

08 ((David is putting on his camisole, he is close to the table))

09 Teacher: David come over here.

10 Say: Cornelius can see things that are far away!

11 ((David speaks to Pedro and Ana))

12 David: Olha, o crocodilo consegue ver coisas que estão muito lon.., muito longe.

13 Teacher: Because he stands on two legs.

14 ((Pedro repeats gesture))

15 Teacher repeats gesture and states in Luxembourgish what the gesture means

16: Teacher: Because he stands on two legs. Yes, he can look far into the distance.

Figure 5: Transcript of preschool language and literacy activity


9

Teacher: He can see things that are far away.

The teacher asks Katja, a Portuguese girl in 2nd year: How do you say this in

Portuguese?

Katja: …Cornelius…

Katja hesitates. She does not succeed in translating.

Another boy, David, hovers at the table. He is putting on his camisole, but is more intent on

observing and listening to what happens at the table.

The teacher has noticed David and because he is a Portuguese native speaker in his second

year and has learnt a lot of Luxembourgish already, she asks him to translate.

T: David come over here. Say: He can see things that are far away.

The teacher does not ask for translation, because David has followed the activity and knows

the format anyway.

David translates: Olha, o crocodilo consegue ver coisas que estão muito lon.., muito

longe.

He looks at Pedro, because he knows the translation is for him and for Ana (the 4 year old

girl).

The teacher adds in Luxembourgish: Because he can stand on two legs.

Pedro repeats the gesture to indicate that he has understood and has connected it with

what was said before.

The teacher acknowledges Pedro’s gesture by repeating it again and reformulates the whole

sequence in Luxembourgish.

We analyze the sequence according to the activity-theoretical framework. Engeström’s

triangle helps us to analyse the context within literacy is used and learned.

Hybridity in the group composition is the key to the joint language production.

The teacher chose to work with a mixed group of 5 children who bring different levels of

familiarity with activity formats, different levels of competence in Luxembourgish and

various home languages into the activity.

The teacher consciously draws upon these various resources of the children and turns them

into tools for learning. She combines them with semiotic tools of the classroom.

A new rule is introduced, that legitimizes children’s use of their home languages.

Multilingual speech and non-verbal forms of communication become valid forms of

participation in the learning community.


10

Figure 6: Preschool language and literacy activity

The teacher coordinates and switches between the different modes of communication to

support the meaning making processes.

The roles (of experts and novices) are not fixed, but are continuously negotiated. Although

the teacher regulates the activity, she is prepared to hand control over to the translators.

The children are considered experts in their native language. Translation is clearly marked

as an additional expertise.

All these elements contribute to achieve the complex object of the activity: literacy learning

and learning a new language. Here, meaning making is the central quality of literacy and

language learning and is achieved as a joint production. This approach is in sharp contrast

with the more traditional view of language learning as the acquisition of a set of skills.

By drawing on multiple resources (knowledge about the home languages, children’s

linguistic resources, gesture and pointing, diverse levels of competence of the children), the

teacher and the children succeeded in creating an innovative practice that permitted joint

productive activity.


11

An example from 1st grade

A year later, we meet the same group of children again during a first grade learning activity.

The teacher and children work on a children’s book, The very hungry caterpillar, by Eric

Carle.

01 David: On Friday he ate 5 Oranges, but he was still very hungry. 02 Mira: Apfelsinen 03 Teacher: Yes. 04 David: Apfelsinen 05 Teacher: What is the difference between Orangen and Apfelsinen? 06 Lejla. Apfelsinen are small, Orangen are big. 07 Teacher: Do you think so? 08 Lejla: Yes. 09 David: But some are big. 10 Teacher: No, they are the same. It is just another word. 11 You can say Apfelsinen or Orangen. 12 Lejla: Ok. 13 Teacher: It’s ok. It’s the same word. 14 There are also the small ones: Mandarinen 15 Lejla: But.. That’s the ones! (refers to the book) 16 Teacher: No. These are the normal Apfelsinen. 17 Selma: But, in Yugoslavian, you say this too. (Lux) 18 Teacher: Yes? How do you say there? 19 Mandarinen? ((German pronounciation)) 20 Semira: No. Mandariné! (Youg) 21 Teacher: Mandariné. Em-hm. 22 And in Portuguese. How do you say? 23 Maida: Or Pomarandza.(Youg) 24 Teacher: And in Portuguese, how do you say? 25 David: What ? ((he was engaged in conversation with Mira.)) 26 Teacher: How do you say for Apfelsine? 27 Michael: Uma laranja ((Port. pronounces: maranje)) 28 Teacher: Maranje? 29 David: Laranja, laranja. ((pronounces more clearly and drops article)) 30 Mira: And in Yugoslav you can name also Pomarandza. 31 Selma: Yes, that’s something big, the big ones. 32 Mira: Eh-eh. ((no)) 33 Lejla: That’s an orange. 34 Selma: Yes, Pomarandza (Youg) 35 Mira: There are also small ones. 36 Lejla: Orange. 37 Selma: Ah? 38 Mira: Orange like the colour orange. 39 Teacher: Ok. ((signals to get back to text)) 40 Lejla: You say the same word. 41 Teacher: ((Turns to next page…, continues with plot.)) 42 Teacher: What day was this? black italic: German grey bold: Luxembourgish black bold: Yugoslav and Portuguese

Figure 7: Transcript of the first grade language and literacy activity


12

The children involved in the activity are 3 Yugoslav girls and 2 Portuguese boys. They know

the format of the activity from preschool. The children are about 10 minutes into the

activity.

In this activity the teacher and the children work through the story, the object is more

clarifying meanings. In the first part of the transcript (1-20) the children and the teacher

speak German, the curriculum language.

The point they discuss is about two German words ‘Orangen’ and ‘Apfelsinen’, which both

can be used for oranges. The text in the book uses ‘Apfelsinen’, but David, the child who

retells this part of the story uses ‘Orangen’.

The children seem to know the two words, but as the conversation shows, they are not sure

about the exact meaning. They try to relate the two words to the bigger oranges and the

smaller tangerines (Mandarinen). (6-9). Despite the teacher’s efforts to explain that in

German there are two words for the same thing, they are not easily convinced ((15).

When the teacher provides the word for the small ones ‘Mandarinen’ (14), this triggers

Selma to relate the word to her first language, Yugoslav. The word is the same as in

German, but pronounced in a different way. (17-20).

The introduction of the Yugoslav word entails a search for the Yugoslav and the Portuguese

words for Oranges. (22-35)

The children are still preoccupied to match the different word to the size of the fruit.

Towards the end Lejla introduces a new aspect of the word orange, its use to designate the

colour orange. (36-42)

Here the teacher breaks off and signals to get back to the text, in German.

The session continues for another 10 minutes, entirely in German.

This excerpt shows a truly multilingual learning situation, where children draw on many

resources to make meaning. The complex interplay of the languages shows that the children

are able to use all their languages as a resource for learning language and for knowledge

building.


13

Figure 8: First grade language and literacy activity

This analysis shows that the learning/teaching practice has many similarities with the

example from preschool. The teacher works with a small group of children. The main tools

are again the school and home languages (with German now taking the place of the official

language and Luxembourgish as the common school language) and a children’s book.

The rules about language use are similar and the role of the teacher and children also,

albeit with a lot more children regulated talk in the 1st grade.

The double object of the lesson, meaning making in a new language, which combines

literacy and language learning remain intact.

The two examples showed children who worked with children’s books who were encouraged

to appropriate the text, discuss it with other children and their teacher. Discussions were

lively, the children participated, took initiatives, shared their thoughts and ideas. Theses

teachers had devised language and literacy learning practices that are removed from the

traditional practices. They had substituted the set textbook (in 1st grade) by children’s

books and set up sequences of activities that involved the children in various ways in

language and literacy learning. There is a strong sense of continuity between the preschool

and the 1st grade activities that provide the children with additional resources to tackle the

challenging task of learning a new language and becoming literate in this language.


14

Conclusion Our analysis emphasizes how children and teachers use different ways to deal with written

language in Luxembourg classrooms. According to our activity-theoretical framework, the

organisation and transformation of literacy practices can only be understood by taking its

historical and structural aspects into account. Chaiklin (1993) specifies the historical

evolution of concepts and practices, the contributions of social aspects and societal

demands, and “the political interests of participants and institutions as critical for

understanding individual practice” (p. 397).

A dialectical research approach puts a particular attention to the underlying tensions and

contradictions of literacy practices and valuates them as productive opportunities for

development and change. In Luxembourg, multilingualism and the diversity of the children’s

linguistic contexts confront all the actors in school with a major challenge: learning

language and learning literacy in the multilingual context.

This double object generates tensions as shown in the example of the third grade: On the

one side, the national policy sustains a normative, textbook mediated and mainly teacher

centred school practice so far. It is focussed on exclusive language use, generates rigid

roles and offers little space for negotiation. On the other side, children’s contexts are multi-

voiced, introducing interconnected social and linguistic spaces which could be treated as

diverse resources for learning.

At the present state, only a low percentage of teachers succeed in expanding the object of

the classroom activity, considering the child as a competent language producer and as a

learning subject.

Both examples however, reveal promising clues for promoting and developing literacy as

social practice as mentioned earlier.

In the third grade classroom, the children’s voices, meanings and former linguistic

experiences existed, but solely outside the official space for literacy learning. Only, a closer

look revealed their existence in the informal space.

Well-reflected learning arrangements authenticated the children’s hybrid semiotic tools as

valuable resources in the preschool – first grade classrooms. In both communities, the

children’s broad semiotic resources were consciously drawn upon. These practices emerged

through the teachers’ conscious efforts to overcome contradictions in their activity systems.


15

Promising elements from the studied practices

We want to outline some promising elements for policy making from the practices we

studied. In our examples, productive literacy practices emphasized continuity in the

strategies of the children across contexts.

This continuity occurs when

• children have rich opportunities to draw on former/other experiences (across

boundaries);

• they get involved in joint activities (could participate, take initiatives, share their

thoughts and ideas);

• they can draw on their cultural resources to develop understanding and knoweldge

about the world;

• they work with familiar tools from everyday contexts (children’s books) instead of

school-specific tools (text book);

• their discourses get valued as part of the intertextual chain of discourses, texts and

meanings relevant to them.

Further emphasis is put on the continuity in the strategies of the teachers. Successful

practice can be characterized according to the following four dimensions:

1. Drawing on semiotic resources across boundaries

School and home languages are integrated in order to make sense of the topic (story)

and to build up the new language (Luxembourgish in preschool, German in primary

school). The (open) learning context gives children opportunity to draw on their social

experience, interests and cultural resources. The meaning making process refers to

personal meanings and former discourses, to practices with important others like the

children’s family members, friends... (home-school, preschool-primary school).

2. Organizing an hybrid literacy practice

The broad semiotic resources of the multilingual groups are deliberately used as

resources for meaning making and understanding. Children get aware of the various

cultural resources, of their own competence, their identity and the specific context they

are embedded with in.

3. Creating joint productive activity

Joint productive activity increases communication and mutual assistance with the teacher

as one resource among others. The CHAT framework emphasizes the role of the activity

itself. The members of the community constantly create outcomes through collaborative

actions that broaden the range of available tools of the activity. The members can draw


16

on these continuously elaborated tools for further joint productive actions. This is a

crucial element of JPA that creates promising conditions in which joint development may

occur.

4. Fostering literacy as a tool for development

Preschool and primary school draw continuously on the tools that are historically stored

within literacy and language, as a cultural phenomenon. They mediate the children’s

thinking and knowledge construction about the world. They also contribute to enhance

the processes of self-reflection, self-regulation and awareness of their own thinking.

How can literacy practices be reorganized ?

First of all new practices, as shown in preschool and first grade examples, have to

legitimated by the official policy and by the teachers. This is an important condition for the

teachers who try to consciously utilize the resources of diversity.

The preschool and first grade teachers show us the way in creating opportunities for hybrid

language activities that tie back to former meanings with important others in children’s lives

and that thus create contexts for joint development.

References:

BARTON, D., HAMILTON, M. (1999). Literacy Practices. In: BARTON, D., HAMILTON, M., IVANIC, R.

(Eds.). Situated Literacies. Reading and Writing in Context, pp.7-15. London:

Routledge.

CHAIKLIN, S. (1993). Conclusion - Understanding the social scientific practice of

Understanding Practice. IN: CHAIKLIN, S., LAVE, J. (EDS). Understanding Practice -

Perspectives on activity and context, pp.377-401. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press.

ENGESTRÖM, Y. (1987): Learning by Expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

ENGESTRÖM, Y. (1999). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity-theoretical

Reconceptualization. Paper presented at the CLWR 7th Annual International Conference

on Post-compulsory Education and Training.

GUTTIERREZ, K., TEJEDA, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language

practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity 6(4), 286-303.

RAZFAR, A., GUTTIERREZ, K. (2003). Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Literacy: The

Sociocultural Influence. In: Hall, N., Larson. J., Marsh, J. (Eds.). Handbook of Early

Childhood Literacy, pp.34-47. London: Sage.

literacy learning in three languages - dica-lab.orgdica-lab.org/files/2011/01/london_2005.pdf ·...

Documents