A cultural communities approach to understanding Head Start teachers’ beliefs about language use with dual language learners: Implications for practice

Abstract

The school-readiness gap for Latino dual language learners in the United States has been well documented, despite a strong research base highlighting effective strategies and practices for supporting their academic success. However, current educational practices reflect the hegemonic discourse that, because the United States is an English-speaking country, English should be the language of instruction. Additionally, educational research during the past decade has been characterized by an emphasis on the use of rigorous experimental designs that are highly generalizable and fail to take into consideration the role of teacher beliefs on classroom practices. This study used a cultural communities lens to explore the beliefs about classroom language use of two Head Start teachers in order to gain insight into how teacher beliefs influence classroom practices, particularly the language of instruction. Analysis of teacher interviews and assessments of classroom language use indicated that teachers had very different beliefs about language use, despite their coming from very similar ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, and that these beliefs were translated into classroom practice. Teacher beliefs were grounded in teachers’ experiences as members of cultural communities, and the findings highlight the need to attend to within-group variability as well as classroom processes that influence teaching and learning.

Keywords

Cultural communities dual language learners early childhood Head Start teacher beliefs teacher practices

Increased awareness of the school-readiness gap has led policymakers, researchers, and practitioners in the United States to examine the quality of language and literacy programs for children at risk of academic failure, particularly for students from linguistically diverse backgrounds. Young Latino children are the largest and fastest-growing ethnic minority population in the United States (García, 2005; García et al., 2005; Hernández, 2005; Montemayor and Mendoza, 2004), and Spanish is the second most commonly spoken language (Espinosa and López, 2007). Latino children account for more than 20% of all children under five (Collins and Ribeiro, 2004), and these shifting demographics have major implications for the field of early childhood education. Numerous studies have documented that a school-readiness gap exists for low-income and racial/language-minority preschoolers (Lee and Burkham, 2002; US Department of Health, 2003; West et al., 2000), and recent data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K) indicated that Latino children continue to lag behind their Asian, White, and African American peers in both reading and mathematics as they enter kindergarten (Mulligan et al., 2012). Clearly, the examination of how preschool programs can meet the needs of these children and prepare them for school is critical, and the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics (2007: 1) noted that “the most promising opportunities for raising Hispanic achievement are in the early childhood years.”

The use of children’s home language for instruction in the school setting continues to be a controversial and politicized topic in the United States, and perceptions about bilingual education frequently reflect the belief that, because the United States is an English-speaking country, English should be the language of instruction. It is now widely recognized, however, that learning two languages at the same time does not cause confusion or language delays in young children, and that supporting the development of both languages actually facilitates English language learning. August and Shanahan (2006: 5) highlight the fact that strong skills in the child’s first language form the foundation for literacy skills in the child’s second language, and report that “language-minority students instructed in their native language as well as in English perform better, on average, on measures of English reading proficiency than language-minority students instructed only in English.”

Conversely, research on English immersion programs indicates that children in preschool immersion programs often lose their home language, begin to prefer English, may develop communication problems with their families, and experience lower academic achievement in English (Hakuta et al., 2000). Despite a strong research base highlighting effective strategies and practices for supporting the academic success of dual language learners (DLLs), current educational practices reflect deeply held beliefs and myths that do not reflect current research (Espinosa, 2008). Moreover, Gutiérrez (2006: 44) pointed to the lack of attention paid to the within-group variability of minority groups and proposed that “putting people into boxes in which we link culture to group membership minimizes the tremendous diversity within groups that may share a common social or linguistic history.” This lack of attention to within-group differences has been exacerbated by the fact that recent educational policy and research has been characterized by an emphasis on the use of rigorous experimental designs that are highly generalizable and focused on identifying interventions which can be applied on a grand scale (Slavin, 2002). This approach assumes that all children are the same, that all teachers are the same, and that they will respond to a curricular intervention in a similar way.

Others counter that the treatments inherent in experimental design and methodology cannot be defined objectively, but are affected by the beliefs, goals, and intentions of those involved in the treatments (Olson, 2004; Olson and Katz, 2001). Isenburg (1990) reviewed the research on early childhood education teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices, and found that exploring teachers’ beliefs and behaviors may lead to an increased understanding of variations in practice. Pettit’s (2013) review of the literature on teachers’ beliefs about English language learners in K–12 settings highlighted the congruence between beliefs and practices, and suggested that, in order to improve student outcomes, teachers must first adopt the beliefs associated with successful teaching practices for this population.

While there has been a great deal of attention paid to both policy and practice for older English language learners (elementary, middle, and high school students), there has been scant attention paid to these areas in early childhood education programs serving children from birth to five (Buysse et al., 2010; García and Frede, 2010). The Office of Head Start’s (2008: 3) report, Dual Language Learning: What Does It Take?, for example, found that “many Head Start programs reported struggling with knowing how best to promote children’s language acquisition, both their home language and English.” Spanish-speaking DLLs are more highly represented in programs such as Head Start because they are most often income-eligible for public preschool programs and, in 2009, Latinos comprised 35.9% of the Head Start program enrollment (US Department of Health, 2010). The purpose of this study was to explore the beliefs about classroom language use of two Head Start teachers, using a cultural communities lens to provide insight into how teacher beliefs influence classroom practices, particularly the language of instruction. Because of its focus on the social and cultural aspects of development, a cultural communities framework not only draws attention to the role of beliefs and practices in teaching and learning, but also encourages the examination of within-group differences by exploring how participation in cultural communities shapes behavior. As such, a cultural communities lens provides an appropriate framework for looking at the diverse students and teachers who spend their days in preschool programs for low-income children, and encourages researchers to foreground the cultural processes and events that influence teaching and learning.

Theoretical framework

Cultural communities are defined as a coordinated group of people who share common traditions and understandings that extend over several generations (Rogoff, 2003). This concept of cultural communities propels researchers to consider how teacher and children’s participation in daily activities, including language use, contributes to learning. In this view, community-held beliefs about the role of education, how education should be delivered, and the goals of education are part of a belief system developed through participation in a cultural community. Gutiérrez (2006) and Gutiérrez and Rogoff (2003) call for educators to adopt a cultural-historical view of learning that provides a process-orientated conceptualization of culture which takes into consideration the social and historical forces that shape development. Participation in cultural communities leads to the development of practices, which are routines or ways of doing things that reflect the goals and ideologies of the community. These repertoires of practice are adaptive and make sense for the community based on its values and beliefs, which have been developed via common experiences.

This idea of practices is reflected in the funds of knowledge approach, described by Moll et al. (Moll et al., 1990a, 1990b, 1992; Moll and Greenberg, 1990). Their ethnographic analysis of a Hispanic working-class community in Tucson, Arizona, revealed an abundance of knowledge both within and among the households studied, and the authors concluded that these households created strategic social ties that facilitated the transmission of the knowledge needed to survive in difficult economic times. This description of a cultural community exemplifies how repertoires of practice serve as adaptive mechanisms that help groups of individuals make sense of their surroundings and circumstances. As such, a cultural communities framework is particularly suited to the study of individuals from non-dominant cultures, as it proposes that community goals for children influence practices, and that practices and the goals they help attain are all situated within the broader community context, which includes political, social, and economic history.

Despite the prevalence of experimental or quasi-experimental designs in current research methodology, evidence exists that points to the relationship between beliefs and practices in early childhood education settings. An example of how community goals for children shape practices is found in the work of Sanders et al. (2007), who explored how culture affects beliefs and practices in a preschool setting via an in-depth case study of the childcare practices of six African American directors of subsidized childcare centers in a low-income, traditionally African American area of Los Angeles. The authors reported that these programs altered developmentally appropriate practice in unique ways, based on their understanding and participation in the community, and that preparing the children for participation in a society plagued by racial and social class stratification was a key influence on the pedagogical strategies used by the programs.

Similarly, McGill-Franzen et al. (2002) examined how five urban preschools socialized children to be literate through the exploration of language and literacy practices at both the teacher and program levels. Three of the preschools, one of which was a Head Start center, were specifically designed to serve low-income families meeting the federal poverty guidelines, and were located in low-income African American communities. The other two settings were a religiously affiliated nursery school serving a religious community and a preschool located at and administered by a university, which were selected because they served both low-income and middle-income families. McGill-Franzen et al. concluded that the different communities used and valued language and literacy differently, and that the children they observed were socialized into the literacy practices of the preschool communities to which they belonged. In this sense, teacher beliefs, grounded in their participation in cultural communities, led to specific practices at the teacher and program levels. Likewise, Wishard et al. (2003) explored how practices influenced children’s experiences in 22 childcare programs, with practices being operationalized as ways of doing things based on beliefs about what to teach and why. The authors concluded that children’s experiences were deeply rooted in the social, cultural, and historical values of the communities in which they were located, and teachers’ goals for children were based on the sociocultural and socio-historical history of the community.

The purpose of the current study was to explore teacher beliefs about classroom language use and whether these beliefs are translated into practice. Our goal was to uncover the meaning behind these practices, drawing from the notion of cultural communities in order to better understand the ways teachers engage in language interactions and use language as a tool for instruction that make sense from the vantage point of their own cultural community (Rogoff, 2003). This approach enabled us to situate specific teacher practices with a culturally relevant framework, as research has indicated that what caregiving and instruction look like may depend on the specific teacher and program practices, which are rooted in a cultural context (McGill-Franzen et al., 2002; Sanders et al., 2007; Wishard et al., 2003). In addition, this approach allowed us to explore teacher practices via a theoretical framework which assumes that culture, setting, beliefs, and values are key variables affecting classroom practices—an approach that is contrary to traditional approaches which are generally static in nature, as they examine teacher background variables primarily in terms of education level, type of degree, and years in the field, denying the cultural aspect of learning.

Methodology

This article presents data gathered as part of a larger study on children’s play and language and literacy development. In keeping with the qualitative nature of the larger study, the analysis of the interview data revealed emergent themes related to teacher beliefs about classroom language use. These themes were then juxtaposed with observational data on classroom language use, allowing for the exploration of the relationship between teacher beliefs and classroom practices.

Setting and participants

This study took place at Montgomery Head Start, located in an urban city approximately 15 miles from the United States–Mexico border. The area is known for its large Latino population, dating back to 1910 when refugees fleeing the Mexican Revolution settled in the area. Census data for the zip code where Montgomery Head Start is located indicates that 34.7% of the residents are foreign-born, with 73% being of Latino descent. Sixty-three percent speak Spanish and 36% live below the poverty level (US Census Bureau, 2010). The southern part of the neighborhood where the center is located is well known for its role in the Chicano movement of the 1970s and for its murals depicting famous Chicano leaders, including Cesar Chavez, Che Guevara, Benito Juárez, Frida Kahlo, and Emiliano Zapata. The center is co-located on the campus of a community organization serving children and families, and is part of a larger network of organizations designed to serve the community. Eighty children were enrolled in the center, which had two full-day classrooms (7.30 a.m.–5.30 p.m.) and two part-day classrooms (7.30–11.30 a.m. and 1.30–5.30 p.m.) operating five days a week. Twenty children were enrolled in each classroom. Data was collected over a three- month period beginning in January 2010 and concluding in April 2010.

Teachers

The participants in this study were two lead teachers at Montgomery Head Start. Demographic information for the teachers can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic information for the teachers.

Teacher	Education	Years teaching	Ethnicity	Languages	Birthplace
Carla	Bachelor of Arts	20	Mexican	Spanish,	Tijuana, Mexico
				English
Paola	Associate of Arts	10	Mexican	Spanish,	Tijuana, Mexico
				English

Carla had been a teacher for 20 years and entered the field when her son was two years old as a way to both work and be with her son. Born in Tijuana, Mexico, she came to the United States when she was 21. Because of her husband’s military career, Carla moved to different states while her children were young, working alternately as a preschool teacher and an accountant, and frequently doing both. This was Carla’s first year at Montgomery Head Start, having worked at a neighboring Head Start program for the previous six years. Carla earned an Associate of Arts degree from a local community college and had a Bachelor of Arts degree in human development. Carla stated that her goal was to work with Latino families and make a difference to the lives of the children in her classroom.

Paola was also born in Tijuana, and moved to San Diego with her family when she was six years old. A mother of four, her interest in child development began when she volunteered in her youngest daughter’s kindergarten class. Paola had an Associate of Arts degree in child development from a local community college and had worked in for-profit centers in the past. She shared that she enjoyed working with the population served by Head Start and had been working at Montgomery Head Start for three years.

At the time when the study took place, the Head Start agency had provided limited professional development to teaching staff on how to meet the needs of DLLs (lead teachers had attended one workshop on this topic), and there was no formal policy regarding how to provide instruction to this population in place. However, both the Head Start Program Performance Standards (US Department of Health, 1996) and the Head Start Act (1998) require that programs support children in the acquisition of their home language as well as English. In addition, the curriculum used by the program, The Creative Curriculum for Preschool (Dodge et al., 2004), cites the recommendations made in Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow et al., 1998) and advises teachers working with DLLs that a strong foundation in the first language promotes academic success in the second language. The curriculum further states that the goal should be to have children understand, speak, read, and write in both their primary language and English, and teachers should support children’s first language while helping them acquire oral proficiency in English.

Children

All 80 children enrolled at the center were recruited to participate in this study, and informed consent was obtained for all but one of the children. Demographic information obtained from the program indicated that, of the 79 participants, 80% were Latino, 15% were African American, and 5% were other. Eighty percent (n = 64) were identified as DLLs. Children were initially identified as DLLs using program information based on parental reports on the primary and secondary (if applicable) language(s) spoken in the home. Children’s status as DLLs was then verified by the lead teachers. We considered DLLs to be children between the ages of three and six who were learning a second language while still developing their skills in their home language (Ballantyne et al., 2008).

In addition to the 79 children who participated in global observations of classroom language practices, four target children from each classroom (n = 16; 9 girls) were purposively selected based on the following criteria: (1) they were of Mexican heritage; (2) they were going to kindergarten in the fall; and (3) their teachers and families identified them as DLLs. The target children’s ages ranged from four years three months to five years two months, with a mean age of four years eight months. Three of the target children were in Head Start for their first year, 12 were enrolled in Head Start for a second year, and one child was attending for her third year. When describing their English abilities during enrollment in the program, three families said that they did not speak any English, six said they did not speak English well, and seven said they spoke English well or very well. More in-depth data collection was conducted on the target children in order to obtain a fine-grained understanding of teacher language practices.

Measures and procedures

Seidman (2006) noted that at the heart of interviewing is interest in understanding the lived experiences of other people and the meaning they make of these experiences, and two sets of interview data were collected as part of the larger study. The teachers were interviewed using a modified version of the Cultural Change Interview (CCI; Rosenblatt et al., 2004), which focused on teachers’ perception of their cultural background, their pathways to becoming a teacher, their espoused and enacted language and literacy practices, and socialization goals for the children. This tool has been used by other researchers (Howes et al., 2007) and has proven to be a valid and reliable indicator of experiences and beliefs resulting from participation in cultural communities. These interviews were conducted at a time selected by the teacher, took one hour to complete, and were conducted by the second author.

Video-elicited interviews (Tobin, 1989; Tobin and Davidson, 2008) were conducted by the first author. A 20-minute literacy lesson selected by the teacher was videotaped and viewed with the teacher one week later, allowing the teacher to describe the video from her point of view. This technique was selected because of its potential to elicit feedback as to: (1) why each teacher planned the specific lesson; (2) the desired outcome of the lesson; (3) reflection on what worked and what did not work; and (4) additional insight into the teachers’ beliefs about language and literacy instruction. A set of core questions was used to guide the conversation, including why the activity was selected, the goal of the activity, and specific prompts based on what took place during the video (e.g. “So when you ask them questions, do you know in advance what you are going to ask?” or “How do you meet the needs of dual language learners?”). The interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes and were conducted at a time that was convenient for the teachers.

The Treatment of Native Languages (Barnett et al., 2007) is a global observational instrument designed to assess the overall use and treatment of the native languages of children learning English. Items included the overall frequency of home language use in the classroom, as well as the specific contexts when the home language was used, including conversation, instruction, and occasional greetings. The tool also measured the extent to which the native language was used to manage behavior and encourage critical thinking, who spoke to the children in their native language (teacher versus teacher assistants), and whether the use of the native language was encouraged and reflected in the environment in terms of the availability of books and environmental print. The tool also captured the use of simultaneous translation and whether it was done by the teacher or an assistant. The Treatment of Native Languages was completed by the second author, who is bilingual in English and Spanish, and was based on observations of language in each classroom for five days over a period of three weeks.

The Emergent Academics Snapshot Scale (Ritchie et al., 2001) was also completed by the second author. This is a time-sampling procedure that is used to capture salient features of the classroom experience from the child’s perspective. The Snapshot procedure gave insight into the experiences of the target children and allowed for descriptive analysis of classroom language use from the vantage point of the child. Two subscales of this tool were used for this study: (1) peer language (the language used by the child as he/she interacted with peers in this setting, coded as English, Spanish, or bilingual) and (2) adult–child language (the language spoken by the adult during an interaction with the child, coded as English, Spanish, or bilingual). In order to complete the Snapshot, the observer located the target child, observed for 20 seconds, and recorded his/her social interactions and language use. The observer then moved on to the next child on the list. The four target children were observed throughout the course of a typical morning (or afternoon in the case of the afternoon class), yielding between 156 and 162 observations per child. The Snapshot data was collected by the second author, who has extensive experience using this tool.

Data analysis

The protocol of Miller and Salkind (2002) was used to analyze the interview data. Significant statements related to language use were identified and were then reduced to meaning units or themes. The themes were then compared to the observational data on classroom language practices, allowing us to explore the relationship between teacher beliefs and classroom language use, using our theoretical framework to arrive at a deeper understanding of how teacher beliefs affect classroom practices. In addition, investigator triangulation (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003) was used to analyze the data, as both members of the research team independently collected and analyzed raw data, which was then compared in order to heighten the reliability of our findings. This form of data analysis allowed us to build consensus and reflect on what was experienced in the setting (Stake, 2005).

Results

Teacher beliefs

Themes and significant statements from the CCIs and video-elicited interviews are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Themes and significant statements from the interviews.

Teacher	Theme	Significant statements from the CCIs and video-elicited (VE) interviews
Carla	Beliefs about language use in the classroom	Oh, well, in my class I try to do it in English and Spanish. (CCI)
		It is very important for me to consider both languages. I believe in keeping, you know, if your child’s first language is Spanish don’t make that child lose their language. But, at the meantime, teach them English. Your language is important, but we need to learn something else too. (CCI)
		We do a lot of things in both languages. I have songs like the itsy bitsy spider. We do it in English and then in Spanish. (VE)
		There is many, many things that I have in both languages and we do them … all languages and the children that are English speakers they learn some Spanish, so that’s great. (VE)
Paola		I think English should be the basic language in school, in the United States. (CCI)
		We use a lot of English and Spanish. We use both languages. We have to use both languages in our instruction, English and Spanish, but we speak to them more in English. (CCI)
		With the dual language learners, we speak mostly English and, uh, the reason, believe it or not, they pick it up quickly. (VE)
Carla	Value of home language in school setting	For me, it is very important to keep their home language but at the same time teach them English. (VE)
Carla	Value of home language in school setting	I need to read in English but also translate in Spanish some, so that way they don’t get lost and they think that they are important too and that their home language is important. (VE)
Paola		The Spanish, they can learn that at home. (CCI)
Paola		Most of them are Spanish speakers. They know English but I feel that they can identify or talk better in Spanish. So most of them talk in Spanish, but we talk to them in English to try to encourage them to talk English, but again they still speak Spanish. (VE)
Carla	Goals for kindergarten	I don’t think they need to be fluent in English. (CCI)
Paola		For me, they need to learn English, obviously. (CCI)
		Yes, so they won’t have trouble when they get to kindergarten [when asked if the approach used to help children learn English is to use just English]. (CCI)
Carla	Understanding of language development	If they are fluent in one language, if the children know their native language, they speak well and they don’t have any problems. I think they can pick it up, they can pick up another language. The children that have problems and they don’t understand their own language, they have problems with anything! (CCI)
		Language in general! I don’t care in which language we communicate, but, for me, it is important for them to be able to do it. Because once they get one language well, they can learn another language. (CCI)
Paola		I notice that they speak more and they learn English faster if you just speak English to them. (CCI)
		Most of my Spanish speakers, when they first come in, they don’t know English at all so and I see that they are like little sponges. They pick up English really quickly. By the end of the year they already understand English at least. By the second year they are already speaking English and they are ready to go to school. (CCI)
		I’m not into much English as second language classes because I think it kind of interferes in their language. (CCI)

The themes identified in the CCIs and video-elicited interviews indicate that Carla and Paola had very different beliefs about language use in the classroom. Paola clearly espoused an immersion approach to teaching the children English, while Carla believed in the value of supporting the home language and actively encouraged bilingualism in her classroom. Paola stated that she believed that English should be the language of school in the United States, while Carla stated that she used Spanish in the classroom to let her children know that their home language was important. Both teachers drew on their personal experiences as the foundation for their beliefs and had a very different view of how children learn language. Carla recognized the importance of children having a strong foundation in their home language, while Paola believed that children learn a new language faster through an immersion approach.

Classroom language use

Classroom language use was assessed at the global classroom level via the Treatment of Native Languages. This global observational instrument was used to assess the overall use and treatment of Spanish. Items included the overall frequency of home language use in the classroom, as well as the specific contexts in which the home language was used. Data from this tool is presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Treatment of native languages.

Number of children by language	Carla	Paola
English as first language	3	2
Spanish as first language	17	18
Proportion of native language use	Carla	Paola
90% English, 10% native language
70% English, 30% native language		X
50% English, 50% native language	X
30% English, 70% native language
10% English, 90% native language
Purpose of behavior	Carla	Paola
Managing behavior	50%	70%
Encouraging thinking	50%	30%
Observation	Carla	Paola
The teacher speaks to children in their native language	X	X
An aide speaks to children in their native language	X	X
A parent or other volunteer speaks to children in their native language
Children are actively discouraged from speaking in their native language
Native English-speaking children are encouraged to speak native language of LEP or NEP students	X
Classroom has books in children’s native language
Classroom has signs or labels in children’s native language
Teacher uses simultaneous translation	X
An aide uses simultaneous translation	X

LEP: Limited English Proficient; NEP: Non-English Proficient.

The data on overall classroom language use was consistent with teacher beliefs. Carla was observed speaking Spanish and English in equal amounts, which was consistent with her belief in a bilingual approach to classroom language use. Paola was observed speaking English 70% of the time and Spanish 30% of the time, which was in line with her stated beliefs (“We use a lot of English and Spanish. We use both languages. We have to use both languages in our instruction, English and Spanish, but we speak to them more in English”). While Carla used Spanish and English in equal amounts to manage behavior and encourage thinking, Paola used Spanish more often to control behavior (70%) than to encourage thinking (30%).

Language use at the individual child level was assessed using the Academic Snapshot tool. Data on teacher language use is presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Academic Snapshot of teacher language use with target children.

Teacher language	Carla (%)	Paola (%)
English	50	78
Spanish	17.5	11
Bilingual	32.5	11

Teacher language use reflected the language the teacher spoke while engaged with the target children. Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of times each item was coded by the total number of observations. Carla was observed speaking to the target children in English 50% of the time, in Spanish 17.5% of the time, and bilingually 32.5% of the time, reflecting her beliefs about classroom language use. Paola was observed speaking to the target children in English 78% of the time, in Spanish 11% of the time, and bilingually 11% of the time, which was in line with her beliefs about language use in the classroom.

The percentage of time children spent speaking English or Spanish to their peers can be found in Table 5, along with instances in which they used both languages simultaneously. In both classrooms, the target children spoke to one another primarily in Spanish (66% of the time in Carla’s classroom and 75% in Paola’s classroom), reflecting Paola’s statement that “we talk to them in English to try to encourage them to talk English, but again, they still speak Spanish.”

Table 5.

Academic Snapshot of peer language use by target children.

Peer language	Carla (%)	Paola (%)
English	29	22
Spanish	66	75
Bilingual	4	3

Discussion

The use of a cultural communities lens allows researchers and practitioners to explore variations within ethnic and linguistic groups, rather than making comparisons across groups, and our findings challenge the common assumption that culture is equivalent to one’s ethnic or linguistic background. Although Carla and Paola shared similar characteristics in terms of language, ethnicity, and birthplace, their views about classroom language use were quite different. Carla’s beliefs about best practices for DLLs (“It is very important for me to consider both languages”) were more in line with the research which supports the use of a child’s home language to achieve critical language and school-readiness goals (Buysse et al., 2005; Garcia et al., 2008; Gillanders and Castro, 2007; Maschinot, 2008; National Association, 1996; Sanchez, 1999). Paola’s beliefs, on the other hand, represented the prevalent hegemonic discourse that the United States is an English-speaking country and that English should be the language of instruction in schools (“I think English should be the basic language in school, in the United States”). These differences support Rogoff’s contention that culture is much more than a “social address” equivalent to ethnicity and race. Instead, Rogoff (2003: 77) encourages us to view cultural processes as a set of “practices and traditions of dynamically related cultural communities in which individuals participate and to which they contribute across generations.” Our findings highlight this more nuanced view of culture and call into question the common practice of categorizing individuals based on a single category such as race, ethnicity, language, or social class (Rogoff, 2003).

A cultural communities lens assumes that cultural communities may have a unique set of cultural practices designed to help achieve the goals and values of that community. While Carla and Paola had a similar goal—that the children in their classroom do well in kindergarten—the practices they enacted to achieve this goal were very different, highlighting Rogoff’s (2003: 34) position that “different communities may apply similar means to different goals and different means to similar goals.” When asked to explicate their beliefs about language instruction in their classrooms, both Carla and Paola drew on their own experiences as the basis for their beliefs. Carla cited her experience speaking bilingually to her sons as evidence of the efficacy of her approach (“I believe that children can do it. I have two sons and they are totally bilingual. I started teaching them since they were babies in both languages”), while Paola recalled her experiences as a young child being immersed in an English-only classroom to support her beliefs about classroom language use (“I am an English second language learner. When I first started and my first language was Spanish and when I got into school I learned English very quickly because by that time there was only English speakers … so I’m all for just English”). Moreover, these beliefs reflected how they believed children learn language and what they believed was the best way to prepare the children in their classroom for kindergarten. Carla did not think that the children in her classroom needed to be fluent in English in order to be successful in kindergarten (“I don’t think they need to be fluent in English”) and articulated the importance of ensuring that the children had a strong foundation in their home language (“If they are fluent in one language, if the children know their native language, they speak well and they don’t have any problems. I think they can pick it up, they can pick up another language”). Conversely, Paola believed that the children in her classroom needed to learn English in order to succeed in school (“For me, they need to learn English, obviously”) and believed that the best way to achieve this goal was an immersion approach (“I notice that they speak more and they learn English faster if you just speak English to them”). Neither cited program policy or curricular guidance as the reason behind their language use in the classroom, providing insight into the research-to-practice gap identified by Espinosa (2008). While it is possible that differences in beliefs could be attributed to Carla’s higher education level, neither teacher referred to coursework as a reason for her beliefs about language use. Rather, these belief systems seemed to be grounded in their participation in various and overlapping cultural communities.

A cultural communities approach foregrounds the saliency of social, political, and economic contexts for the development of beliefs and practices. Rogoff (2003) proposed that, while community goals and cultural practices are passed down from generation to generation, they often evolve to meet changing circumstances, such as immigration. Traditionally, immigrant parents seek rapid integration into their new country (Merino, 1983), and encourage their children to learn the dominant language quickly in order for them to succeed in school and later life (Cummins, 2000). While Paola continued to espouse this view, Carla did not, which could be due to the fact that, although both immigrated to the United States from Tijuana, Mexico, they had very different immigration experiences. Paola came to the United States at six years of age and experienced the immersion approach to learning English (“I am an English second language learner. When I first started and my first language was Spanish and when I got into school I learned English very quickly because by that time there was only English speakers … so I’m all for just English”). Carla, on the other hand, came to the United States as an adult and learned English by attending English as a Second Language courses at a local community college. Paola remained in the border town to which she immigrated as a child, while Carla immigrated as an adult and had lived in several cities across the United States as part of the military community (“When I was in Oklahoma I had a little girl from India, I believe, and so nobody speaks that language. So what I did was I started learning the basics. I learned a few words to make that child more comfortable”). Our data highlights the fact that, although Carla and Paola both identified themselves as Mexican Spanish speakers who emigrated from the same city and shared many similar traits and characteristics, they had very different beliefs about language use in their classrooms. When asked to describe these practices, they drew on their very different life experiences to explain their teaching methods, highlighting the dynamic and shifting nature of cultural communities.

Similar to the research on teacher beliefs about English language learners in K–12 settings (Pettit, 2013), our findings highlight the relationship between teacher beliefs and practices, and how beliefs can impede the implementation of evidence-based practices. While Carla believed that both languages should be supported in the classroom (“For me, it is very important to keep their home language but at the same time teach them English”), Paola expressed the belief that English should be taught at school and Spanish should be taught at home (“The Spanish, they can learn that at home”). In both classrooms under investigation, the relationship between teacher beliefs and classroom language use was consistent, as evidenced by the data from the Treatment of Native Languages and Academic Snapshot. As a result, the children at Montgomery Head Start had very different experiences with language depending on their classroom placement, despite the fact that Head Start is a highly regulated program with specific guidelines on how to provide program services. This finding supports the extant literature on the saliency of teacher beliefs for practices, reflected by Thompson’s (1992) assertion that, in order to understand teaching from the perspective of teachers, we must understand the beliefs that guide their work. Given its focus on within-group differences and the fluidity of cultural practices, a cultural communities lens helps to explicate the very different beliefs and practices about language use that we observed at Montgomery Head Start.

Implications for practice

A great deal of research supports the social, emotional, and cognitive benefits of maintaining children’s home language and using the home language to support the development of English (August and Shanahan, 2006). But what should be done when beliefs and practices developed via participation in cultural communities do not reflect what the research tells us is best for children and families? Following her review of the literature on K–12 teacher beliefs about working with English language learners, Pettit (2013: 144) concluded that: “if teachers’ beliefs can be understood, the predictors of certain beliefs toward ELLs [English language learners] identified, and unwarranted teachers’ beliefs rectified, the education of the fastest growing population in the United States today can begin to improve.” Indeed, there is a great deal of research documenting the benefits of teachers adjusting their beliefs and changing classroom practices to accommodate the cultural practices found in the home. The seminal work of Heath (1983), for example, described the value of teachers changing their teaching practices and adopting more culturally relevant questioning styles, and the funds of knowledge approach is now widely used to assist teachers in accessing and utilizing family knowledge to create individualized learning opportunities within the classroom. However, encouraging teachers from the dominant culture to adopt more culturally relevant pedagogy to meet the needs of their diverse students is quite different from asking members of minoritized groups, whose beliefs and practices reflect community goals for children, to change their “cultural ways of learning” to reflect evidence-based practices (Gutiérrez and Rogoff, 2003: 19). Given the well-documented and unfortunate history of deficit thinking that has plagued education both in the United States and internationally (Gee, 1996), it is important to consider the effects of asking teachers who come from diverse backgrounds to change their practices to reflect the dominant perspective. While numerous and successful (e.g. Suskind et al., 2013) interventions have been developed based on Hart and Risley’s (1995) identification of the 30,000,000 word gap, it has been proposed that this work has reignited the culture-of-deficit perspective that pathologizes the language and culture of poor students and their families by failing to situate the results within an explicit theory of language or culture (Dudley-Marling, 2007; Foley, 1997). Moreover, Dudley-Marling and Lucas (2009) asserted that the conclusions drawn by Hart and Risley presume that individuals living in poverty share a common language or culture—an assumption that is called into question by the cultural communities framework.

Inherent in the cultural communities approach, however, is the notion that practices are fluid and can evolve to meet changing circumstances and/or knowledge. While continuities are preserved and built on across generations, “each new generation transforms what is ‘given’” (Rogoff, 2003: 90). In this way, practices are not static, but adapt, based on political, social, and economic contexts. Rowe (2008), for example, expanded on the work of Hart and Risley (1995) and found that the relationship between socio-economic status and child-directed speech was mediated by parental knowledge of child development. Her research suggests that, once parents are informed of best practices, they are more apt to adjust their beliefs and how they interact with their children. Similarly, as members of cultural communities integrate new information and changing circumstances into their daily lives, community goals and practices are modified to adjust to new information. In this way, Carla rejected the traditional belief that English-only instruction was needed to prepare immigrant children to be successful, and was able to adopt beliefs that made sense, given the circumstances she encountered in a new country. Paola, on the other hand, preserved the traditions of previous generations and continued to advocate for an immersion approach to instruction.

It is important to note that, although policy and the curriculum used by the Head Start program clearly reflected best practices for working with DLLs, Paola and Carla had attended only one training workshop on how to work with this population. This is not surprising, given the highly political nature of immigration and language use in the state in which Montgomery Head Start is located. Key to the cultural communities approach is the recognition of the economic, political, and social forces that shape beliefs and practices, and these contexts have continued to change and evolve since we collected our data. Both the Head Start program and the state’s Department of Education have made significant and intentional efforts to disseminate information about best practices for DLLs, including the provision of many and varied professional development opportunities for teachers. Because the research of Rowe (2008) suggests the role of knowledge in mediating beliefs and practices, additional research is warranted to explore whether or not teachers’ beliefs about classroom language use have changed based on their increased understanding of best practices.

Conclusion

The notion of cultural communities encourages researchers to foreground the cultural processes and events of the classroom. Our application of a cultural communities framework to the study of teacher language use provides insight into how the nuances of beliefs, practices, and intentions influence classroom practices, and helps to highlight the within-group variability of individuals who share a common ethnic, racial, and linguistic heritage.

Footnotes

Funding

I received funding from and would like to thank the David and Lucile Packard Foundation Ed.D. Fellowship Program.

Author biographies

Sarah Garrity is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Child and Family at San Diego State University and was a practitioner in the field of early care and education for almost 20 years as a teacher, administrator, and literacy coach. Her research involves the exploration of how best practices are implemented in the field, with a focus on continuity of care, positive behavioral support, and programs serving culturally and linguistically diverse students. Her research aims to increase understanding of the research-to-practice gap by exploring the complexities of educational settings.

Alison Wishard Guerra is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education Studies at the University of California, San Diego, interested in culture and development in early childhood, with particular focus on Latino children from low-income families. She has conducted longitudinal mixed-methods studies among low-income and culturally diverse communities. Her research examines what kinds of environments and interpersonal interactions support young children’s social and cognitive development and later academic achievement. Her current work explores language and literacy practices and interpersonal interactions among adults and children and peers at home and in preschool among culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

References

August

Shanahan

(2006) Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ballantyne

Sanderman

D’Emilio

. (2008) Dual Language Learners in the Early Years: Getting Ready to Succeed in School. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instructional Programs.

Barnett

Yarosz

Thomas

. (2007) Two-way and monolingual English immersion in preschool education: An experimental comparison. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 22(3): 277–293.

Buysse

Castro

Peisner-Feinberg

(2010) Effects of a professional development program on classroom practices and outcomes for Latino dual language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25(2): 194–206.

Buysse

Castro

West

. (2005) Addressing the needs of Latino children: A national survey of state administrators of early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 20(2): 146–163.

Collins

Ribeiro

(2004) Toward an early care and education agenda for Latino children. Early Childhood Research and Practice 6(2). Available at: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v6n2/collins.html (accessed 6 May 2010).

Cummins

(2000) Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Dodge

Colker

Heroman

(2004) The Creative Curriculum for Preschool. 4th ed. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies.

Dudley-Marling

(2007) Return of the deficit. Journal of Educational Controversy 2(1): 5.

10.

Dudley-Marling

Lucas

(2009) Pathologizing the language and culture of poor children. Language Arts 86(5): 362–370.

11.

Espinosa

(2008) Challenging common myths about young English language learners. FCD Policy Brief, Advancing PK-3, no. 8, January. New York: Foundation for Child Development.

12.

Espinosa

López

(2007) Assessment considerations for young English language learners across different levels of accountability. National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force and First 5.

13.

Foley

(1997) Deficit thinking models based on culture: The anthropological protest. In: Valencia

(ed.) The Evolution of Deficit Thinking. London: Falmer Press, pp. 113–131.

14.

García

(2005) Teaching and Learning in Two Languages: Bilingualism and Schooling in the United States. New York: Teachers College Press.

15.

García

Frede

(eds) (2010) Young English Language Learners: Current Research and Emerging Directions for Practice and Policy. New York: Teachers College Press.

16.

García

Jensen

Miller

. (2005) Early childhood education of Latinos in the United States. National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. Available at: http://fcd-us.org/resources/early-childhood-education-hispanics-united-states?destination=resources/search?page=19 (accessed 1 October 2005).

17.

Garcia

Kleifgen

Falchi

(2008) From English language learners to emergent bilinguals. Equity Matters Research Review no. 1. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

18.

Gee

(1996) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: Falmer Press.

19.

Gillanders

Castro

(2007) Reading aloud to English language learners. Children and Families 21(3): 2–14.

20.

Gutiérrez

(2006) Culture Matters: Rethinking Educational Equity. New York: Carnegie Foundation.

21.

Gutiérrez

Rogoff

(2003) Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher 32(19): 19–25.

22.

Hakuta

Butler

Witt

(2000) How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Policy Report 2000-1. Adolescence 40: 503–512.

23.

Hart

Risley

(1995) Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

24.

Head Start Act, as amended 1998. 101st Cong., 2nd sess., Congressional Record 144 (18 September 1998): H7620H7643. US Code Citation: 42USC9801 et seq.

25.

Heath

(1983) Way with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Hernández

(2005) Young Latino children in the US: A demographic portrait based on Census 2000. Report to the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics. Available at: http://omega.cc.umb.edu/~pubpol/documents/DemographicPortraitofHispanicChildren.pdf

27.

Howes

Wishard Guerra

Zucker

(2007) Cultural communities and parenting in Mexican-heritage families. Parenting 7(3): 235–270.

28.

Isenburg

(1990) Teachers’ thinking and beliefs and classroom practice. Childhood Education 66(5): 322–327.

29.

Lee

Burkham

(2002) Inequality at the Starting Gate. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

30.

McGill-Franzen

Lanford

Adams

(2002) Learning to be literate: A comparison of five urban early childhood programs. Journal of Educational Psychology 94(3): 443–464.

31.

Maschinot

(2008) The Changing Face of the United States: The Influence of Culture on Early Child Development. Washington, DC: Zero to Three.

32.

Merino

(1983) Language loss in bilingual Chicano children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 4(3): 277–294.

33.

Miller

Salkind

(eds) (2002) Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

34.

Moll

Amanti

Neff

. (1992) Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice 31(2): 132–141.

35.

Moll

Greenberg

(1990) Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In: Moll

(ed.) Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 319–348.

36.

Moll

Velez-Ibanez

Greenberg

. (1990a) Community knowledge and classroom practice: Combining resources for literacy instruction. A handbook for teachers and planners. OBEMLA Contract no. 300-87-0131. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona College of Education and Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology.

37.

Moll

Velez-Ibanez

Greenberg

. (1990b) Community knowledge and classroom practice: Combining resources for literacy instruction. Technical report. OBEMLA Contract no. 300-87-0131. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona College of Education and Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology.

38.

Montemayor

Mendoza

(2004) Right before Our Eyes: Latinos Past, Present, and Future. Tempe, AZ: Scholarly Publishing.

39.

Mulligan

Hastedt

McCarroll

(2012) First-time kindergartners in 2010–11: First findings from the kindergarten rounds of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K: 2011). NCES 2012–049, July. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

40.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (1996) Responding to linguistic and cultural diversity: Recommendations for effective early childhood education. Young Children 51(2): 4–12.

41.

National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics (2007) Para nuestros niños: Expanding and improving early education for Hispanics. Available at: http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/PNNExecReport.pdf

42.

Office of Head Start (2008) Dual Language Learning: What Does It Take? Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families.

43.

Olson

(2004) The triumph of hope over experience in the search for “what works”: A response to Slavin. Educational Researcher 33(1): 24–26.

44.

Olson

Katz

(2001) The fourth fold pedagogy. In: Torff

Sternberg

(eds) Understanding and Teaching the Intuitive Mind: Student and Teacher Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 243–263.

45.

Pettit

(2013) Teachers’ beliefs about English language learners in the mainstream classroom: A review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal 5(2): 123–147.

46.

Ritchie

Howes

Kraft-Sayre

. (2001) Emerging Academic Snapshot. Unpublished measure, University of California at Los Angeles.

47.

Rogoff

(2003) The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

48.

Rosenblatt

Garza-Mourino

Howes

(2004) How did you end up here? Collaborative ways of listening to Mexican immigrant mothers as they contemplate their lives there/then, and here/now: The story of the cultural change interview (CCI). Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

49.

Rowe

(2008) Child-directed speech: Relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development and child vocabulary skill. Journal of child language 35(01): 185–205.

50.

Sanchez

(1999) Issues of language and culture impacting the early care of young Latino children. Vienna, VA: National Child Care Information Center. Available at: http://www.ncela.us/rcd/bibliography/BE023082 (accessed 3 April 2010).

51.

Sanders

Deihl

Kyer

(2007) DAP in the ‘hood: Perceptions of child care practices by African American child care directors caring for children of color. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 22(3): 394–406.

52.

Seidman

(2006) Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

53.

Slavin

(2002) Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher 31(7): 15–21.

54.

Snow

Burns

Griffin

(1998) Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

55.

Stake

(2005) Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 443–466.

56.

Suskind

Leffel

Hernandez

. (2013) An exploratory study of quantitative linguistic feedback: Effect of LENA feedback on adult language production. Communication Disorders Quarterly 34(4): 199–209.

57.

Tashakkori

Teddlie

(2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

58.

Thompson

(1992) Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of research. In: Grouws

(ed.) Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan, pp. 127–146.

59.

Tobin

(1989) Visual anthropology and multivocal ethnography: A dialogical approach to Japanese preschool class size. Dialectical Anthropology 13: 173–187.

60.

Tobin

Davidson

(2008) The ethics of polyvocal ethnography: Empowering vs. contextualizing children and teachers. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 3(3): 271–283.

61.

US Census Bureau (2010) American FactFinder fact sheet: San Diego, CA. Available at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml (accessed 3 April 2014).

62.

US Department of Health and Human Services (1996) The Head Start Program Performance Standards. Washington, DC.

63.

US Department of Health and Human Services (2010) Revisiting and Updating the Multicultural Principles for Head Start Programs Serving Children Ages Birth to Five. Washington, DC: Office of Head Start.

64.

US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2003) Head Start FACES 2000. Washington, DC.

65.

West

Denton

Germini-Hausken

(2000) America’s kindergarteners. NCES 2000-070, February. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

66.

Wishard

Shivers

Ritchie

. (2003) Child care program and teacher practices: Associations with quality and children’s experiences. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18(1): 65–103.