Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Early Childhood Research Quarterly
Review
The social–emotional development of dual language learners: Looking
back at existing research and moving forward with purpose
Tamara G. Halle a,∗ , Jessica Vick Whittaker b , Marlene Zepeda c , Laura Rothenberg a ,
Rachel Anderson a , Paula Daneri a , Julia Wessel a , Virginia Buysse d
a
Child Trends, United States
University of Virginia, United States
c
California State University, Los Angeles, United States
d
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, United States
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 4 January 2014
Keywords:
Dual language learners
Social–emotional development
Early childhood
Developmental trajectories
a b s t r a c t
This review describes the state of existing knowledge with regard to dual language learners’ (DLLs)
social–emotional development birth to age 5. The review focuses on several widely recognized dimensions of children’s social–emotional development: self-regulation, social competence, social cognition,
and problem behaviors. We begin by presenting a theoretical perspective that frames our understanding of the interplay between relational and contextual factors that contribute to the social–emotional
well-being of DLLs. A targeted search of the literature identified 14 peer-reviewed studies published
from 2000 to 2011 that examined social–emotional outcomes for young DLLs in family, school, and peer
contexts. Results suggest that DLLs have at least equal (if not better) social–emotional outcomes compared to native English speakers. There is also some evidence that the use of the home language in early
childhood classrooms can be a positive, moderating factor for DLLs’ social–emotional development. Contextual and individual characteristics are highly correlated with DLL status, making it difficult to develop
clear conclusions about the unique influence of DLL status on social–emotional outcomes. We conclude
by identifying avenues for future inquiry.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Theoretical perspectives for understanding social emotional development in young DLL children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relationships within the family and early care and education contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relationships with parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
2.1.1.
Attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2.
Parental socialization practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Relationships in early care and education contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child and family characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Socioeconomic status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.
3.2.
Immigrant status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Key dimensions of social–emotional development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.
Self-regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Social competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.
Social cognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.
Problem behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.
4.5.
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 202 572 6034; fax: +1 202 362 5533.
E-mail address: thalle@childtrends.org (T.G. Halle).
0885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.12.002
735
736
736
736
736
737
738
738
738
738
739
739
739
739
739
739
5.
6.
7.
8.
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
735
Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Search terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.
5.2.
Inclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of methodological characteristics of articles reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.
6.2.
Findings across studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1.
Self-regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Social competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2.
Social cognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.3.
Problem behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.4.
6.3.
Consideration of child and family characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations and future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A. Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
740
740
740
740
740
740
741
741
741
742
742
742
743
744
745
746
746
746
Children’s social–emotional development is critical to their
overall well-being (Damon & Eisenberg, 1998; Fabes, Gaertner, &
Popp, 2006; Halle, 2002; Thompson & Lagattuta, 2006). Being able
to regulate one’s own emotional states and recognize and respond
to others’ emotions are necessary skills for functioning successfully
in social situations (Gross, 2002; Saarni, 1997). Similarly, being able
to initiate social interactions, reciprocate appropriately to social
gestures made by others, share with others, resolve conflicts, and
take turns are important components of social–emotional competency (Denham, 1998; Hubbard & Coie, 1994). There are also
important linkages between early social–emotional development
and cognitive achievement (Arnold, Kupersmidt, Voegler-Lee, &
Marshall, 2012; Raver & Knitzer, 2002). The early childhood years
provide the foundation for the development of social–emotional
competencies. The relationships that develop between parents and
children, as well as non-parental caregivers and peers, set the stage
for later patterns of social interactions.
Understanding the social–emotional development of dual language learners (DLLs) is important because it is occurring within
the unique context of acquiring multiple languages. By definition,
a dual language learner is someone who is acquiring two or more
languages simultaneously, and learning a second language while
continuing to develop his or her first language (U. S. Department
of Health and Human Services, 2008). Most learning, both social
and cognitive, takes place through interactions with others within
specific cultural contexts, and language is the principle medium for
these social interactions (Eisenberg, 1999; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky,
1978). Acquiring language is an act of “becoming a person” and
a member of a particular society, as language conveys important
cultural norms (Nelson, 2003; Shatz, 1994). Thus, a child who is
learning two languages may need to negotiate between two competing sets of cultural expectations that have distinctive goals for
behavior relevant to social–emotional development.
Although acquiring more than one language at the same time
presents challenges to socialization and acculturation (especially
when a child’s home language has a minority status within a society which does not have bilingualism as a goal), developing two or
more languages also affords opportunities for the development of
bi- or multi-culturalism, such as the ability to communicate feelings in different, culturally-appropriate ways (Cervantes, 2002).
In addition, there is some research to suggest that bilingual children demonstrate a number of cognitive advantages that are
related to their need to understand social and contextual cues
in order to determine which language to use in any particular
situation (Cheung, Mak, Luo, & Xiao, 2010; Goetz, 2003). Studies have shown that when bilingual children are compared to
monolingual children they demonstrate greater inhibitory control
(Bialystok & Martin, 2004; Kovacs & Mehler, 2009), better metalinguistic understanding (Bialystok & Barac, 2012; Galambos &
Goldin-Meadow, 1990; Ricciardelli, 1992) and perform better in
perspective taking tasks (Greenberg, Bellana, & Bialystok, 2012).
It is postulated that the executive control system, associated with
such behaviors as planning, initiation of activity, mental flexibility
and self-monitoring, is the cognitive mechanism that influences
linguistic processing in bilingual children (Bialystok, 2011). There
is a growing body of literature that shows that bilingual children
outperform their monolingual peers on a variety of executive function tasks (Bialystok, Barac, Blaye, & Poulin-Dubois, 2010; Bialystok
& Martin, 2004; Carlson & Meltzoff, 2008; Yang, Yang, & Lust, 2011).
In comparison, the social and emotional development of bilingual
children has been a focus of scientific inquiry to a lesser degree
(Halle et al., 2011). The purpose of this current investigation is
to determine the extent to which recent scholarly literature provides information about DLLs’ social–emotional development in
early childhood, from birth to age five, and the extent to which this
information helps us understand DLLs’ developmental trajectories
within the social–emotional domain in the early years of life.
We begin with a discussion of theoretical perspectives that are
useful in understanding the interplay among cultural, relational,
and contextual factors that contribute to the social–emotional
well-being of DLLs. Although empirical evidence for understanding the connection of these relational and contextual factors to
social–emotional development is limited, for DLL populations,
these factors underpin cultural distinctions that are especially
salient in comprehending early social–emotional development in
bicultural environments. We then provide a brief overview of
several important dimensions of social–emotional development:
self-regulation, social competence, social cognition, and problem
behaviors. These dimensions have been widely recognized as key
elements of children’s social–emotional functioning and have figured prominently within conceptual models of social–emotional
development (National Research Council, 2008; Raver, 2008). We
follow this overview with a summary of the methodology we used
for conducting a targeted literature review to examine evidence
for the patterns of social–emotional development of DLLs in early
childhood. Findings from the literature review are presented and
discussed, and implications for future research are considered.
1. Theoretical perspectives for understanding social
emotional development in young DLL children
As culture plays an important role in both social and cognitive development (Rogoff, 2003; Saarni, Campos, Campos,
736
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
& Witherington, 2006; Wierzbicka, 1992), and language and
culture are interconnected (Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986;
Tomasello, 2006), it is logical to draw from theories that discuss
the relationship between culture and development to provide a
theoretical perspective for understanding DLLs’ social–emotional
development. Both bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
2006) and sociocultural perspectives (Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky,
1978) provide guidance about how culture operates to influence
child outcomes both directly – by the internalization of concepts
and their meaning through social interactions with more knowledgeable individuals and indirectly – through the organization of
social settings such as schools and community resources (Chen &
Rubin, 2011).
Only recently have researchers begun to articulate a conceptual framework for understanding the overall development of
young DLLs’ development that in part draws upon these theories.
Castro et al. (2012) at the Center for Early Care and Education
Research-Dual Language Learners (CECER-DLL) have outlined key
elements that are found in the bilingual experience of young children growing up in the U.S. Following a sociocultural and historical
perspective of development (Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978), this
framework is founded on the view that children’s development is
the result of bidirectional interactions within various cultural contexts, and posits that the quality of language interactions within
those contexts, as well as the amount of exposure to the home
language (L1) and the secondary language (L2), constitute unique
experiences for the development of DLLs compared to monolinguals. Further, this conceptual framework focuses on identifying
the particular characteristics of DLLs’ experiences that emerge from
their ethnic and language-minority status, suggesting that young
DLLs may possess a greater capacity to adapt to novel and variable social conditions when compared to monolinguals. It should
be noted that both ecological and sociocultural perspectives have
been previously incorporated within theoretical frameworks for
understanding the development of ethnic minority children (García
Coll et al., 1996; Ogbu, 1981). Still, the articulation and application
of these theoretical perspectives in understanding dual language
learners’ development is relatively new.
The framework is designed to advance understanding about the
processes that influence young DLLs’ development and learning
across areas of development (e.g., cognition, language and literacy,
social–emotional development) and includes several key components: societal, community, and family contexts; early care and
education contexts; and child characteristics. We hypothesize that
some of these components may be particularly important in understanding the development of DLLs’ social–emotional functioning.
Specifically, we describe how relationships within the family and
early care and education contexts, and child and family characteristics, are elements of the framework that are particularly salient
in explaining young DLLs’ social–emotional development.
2. Relationships within the family and early care and
education contexts
With respect to social–emotional functioning, the link between
individual development and culture is characterized by numerous and dynamic processes where the nature of social interactions
and the quality of social relationships are central to how children
learn social behavior (Chen, 2011; Stevenson-Hinde, 2011). In these
contextual-developmental models, social development is both bidirectional and transactional and social–emotional development
occurs within the context of relationships with parents, nonparental caregivers and teachers, and peers (Chen & Rubin, 2011;
Sameroff, 2009). Transactional models of development conceptualize development as occurring through reciprocal interactions
between individuals, and also reciprocal interactions between
an individual and his or her cultural/environmental context
(Bornstein, 2009). The notion of bi-directionality further suggests
that each social partner can influence the behaviors and skill
development of the other. In keeping with the overall conceptual model of DLLs’ development and the theoretical perspective
of transactional development within the social–emotional domain,
we would expect that young DLLs’ social–emotional development
would be uniquely influenced through transactional interactions
with significant social partners (i.e., parents, caregivers, and peers)
in their earliest social contexts and settings. Below, we review
the importance of early social partners and contexts for the social
development of all children, but where possible, we highlight
research that shows how the quality of these interpersonal relationships may be distinctive for DLLs’ social–emotional development.
2.1. Relationships with parents
As children’s first social partners, parents play a critical role
in children’s social–emotional development. Two examples of
parents’ influence on children’s social–emotional development
include the formation of attachment relationships and the transmission of cultural, linguistic, and social norms through specific
parenting practices.
2.1.1. Attachment
Children’s ability to form a secure attachment with parents and
other caregivers is thought to be foundational to positive social
adjustment (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1982; Dykas & Cassidy,
2011; Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). It is within the emerging attachment
relationship, forged within the first year of life between the primary
caregiver and infant, that communicative competence develops
(Klann-Delius & Hofmeister, 1997; Sachs, 2005). Early maternal
responsiveness has been found to be related to early comprehension skills (Paavola, Kunnari, & Moilanen, 2005) as well as an infant’s
attainment of language milestones (Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein, &
Baumwell, 2001). It is through the relational context of attachment
that the infant begins to develop his/her language skills (Belsky &
Pasco Fearon, 2002; Bus & IJzendoorn, 1988).
Currently, little is known about the early attachment relationships between young DLLs and their parents and how these
relationships affect later social–emotional development. A recent
study suggests that most mother-infant dyads of Mexican origin
participating in the evaluation of Early Head Start have relationships characterized by secure attachment (Howes & Wishard
Guerra, 2009). Furthermore, this study found that mothers of
Mexican origin who had more social support and more contact
with relatives in Mexico were more likely than their peers with
less social support to demonstrate secure attachment with their
children at 14 months. In a study linking the quality of the attachment relationship to later English and Spanish oral language skills,
Oades-Sese and Li (2011) studied 469 low-income Latino preschool
children and found that parent–child attachment related to English
but not Spanish oral language outcome. In addition, the acculturation level of the parent related to their child’s language outcome.
Specifically, as parental acculturation increased, children’s English
language development increased. Although it is important to know
the factors associated with attachment for DLL children and their
parents, to our knowledge, no studies exist that extend the study
of early attachment to DLL children’s later social–emotional outcomes.
2.1.2. Parental socialization practices
It is primarily through parental socialization practices that children learn about their racial or ethnic backgrounds, with parents
tailoring information to their children’s age level (Bornstein, 2009;
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
Hughes et al., 2006). Embedded in language are cultural beliefs and
values that connect children to their cultural past through oral traditions, literary forms, music, history, and customs conveyed in the
primary language (Padilla, 1999).
As children’s own language skills are developing, parents are
also conveying information about values and beliefs through language. Language not only conveys information through meaning,
it also communicates socio-cultural information through its functional features, such as turn taking, turn length, and lexical variation
(Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Early interactions with family lay the foundation for children’s acquisition of social norms and
practices (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). These early interactions influence child behavior and well-being, including the development
of self-concept, positive social adjustment, and identity formation
(Bialystok, 2001; Espinosa, 2006; Oller & Jarmulowicz, 2007).
For young DLLs, understanding and using their primary language may enable them to access important information about
their culture, which may, in turn, be linked to their developing sense
of self and their social–emotional functioning. Maintaining one’s
home language in addition to a second language helps to sustain
cultural and familial ties as well as support cultural identity, selfconcept, and metalinguistic abilities (Bialystok, 2001; Espinosa,
2006; Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1990; Oller & Jarmulowicz, 2007;
Sanchez & Thorp, 1998). However, dual language learners are at
risk of losing their home language, especially once they become
more immersed in a new language and culture. Loss of a child’s
primary language may hinder communication in the family, thus
diminishing trust and understanding and feelings of parental control (Tannenbaum & Berkovich, 2005; Tseng & Fuligni, 2000; Wong
Fillmore, 2000).
2.2. Relationships in early care and education contexts
According to the attachment perspective, non-parental caregivers can serve a regulatory function with regard to children’s
social and emotional development. The quality of caregiver–child
relationships can be characterized by the levels of closeness,
conflict, and dependency caregivers have with children (Howes,
Matheson, & Hamilton, 1994). Studies have found that these
attachment-related aspects of relationship quality are associated
with children’s emotion regulation, and social and behavioral competence (Denham & Burton, 1996; Howes et al., 1994; Stuhlman &
Pianta, 2001).
Although some children develop relationships with their
teachers that are similar in quality to their parent–child relationships, other children have differentiated internal working
models and develop relationships that are distinct in their quality and type of attachment (Davis, 2003). For example, Howes
et al. (1994) found that the early teacher–child attachment, not
mother–child attachment, significantly predicted children’s social
competency with peers. Furthermore, there is some evidence that
teacher–child attachment relationships may compensate for insecure mother–child attachment relationships (Mitchell-Copeland,
Denham, & DeMulder, 1997).
The general research on children’s early relationships with caregivers has implications for the study of DLLs’ social–emotional
development. In particular, the concept of differentiated internal
working models of attachment (Davis, 2003) may be particularly
important for DLLs. Children who are growing up bilingually and
biculturally will likely be exposed to different socialization practices as conveyed through both speech and action of socializing
agents such as parents, early care providers, and early childhood
educators. These children may therefore be better able than monolinguals to differentiate between different socialization practices,
and consequently could develop distinct relationships with different attachment figures. Depending on individual differences, some
737
DLL children may be more successful than others in differentiating
the socialization cues from parents and caregivers, and responding
appropriately within different social contexts. Thus, the study of
DLLs’ relationships with both parents and early care and education
professionals is an important window into the antecedents of DLLs’
social–emotional development.
A recent study found that social relationships between teachers and non-native English-speaking preschoolers were rated
by teachers to be closer and less characterized by conflict than
relationships between teachers and English-speaking children,
suggesting that the quality of social relationships between teachers
and young DLLs are generally favorable (Luchtel, Hughes, Luze,
Bruna, & Peterson). But the contexts in which these relationships
develop do matter. For example, there is some evidence suggesting
that the use of the child’s home language in the classroom is associated with a higher level of closeness between teachers and DLLs
(Chang et al., 2007).
There is an emerging literature on classroom characteristics and
teacher practices that may be particularly important in supporting
the cognitive and social development of DLLs (Howes, Downer, &
Pianta, 2011). The Classroom Assessment Scoring System or CLASS
(Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008) is an observational assessment that
focuses on classroom quality by examining teacher–child interactions related to classroom organization, emotional climate and
instructional support and has been used in several studies that
include DLLs. There are mixed findings regarding the association
between teacher–child interactions, as measured by the CLASS, and
child outcomes. In one study, Downer et al. (2012) found that the
quality of emotional support and classroom organization provided
by pre-kindergarten teachers were related to gains in DLLs’ social
competence across the year. The quality of classroom organization was also negatively related to DLLs’ problem behaviors. The
strength of association between observed quality of teacher–child
interactions and child outcomes was equivalent for children who
were and were not DLLs. However, other studies have found that
when DLLs are the primary focus of research there is no association between the CLASS and child outcomes (Lopez, 2011; L. Lopez,
personal communication, April 23, 2013; Lopez, Arango, & Ferron).
More work is needed to determine whether the CLASS, and other
measures of environmental quality in early care and education
setting that do not assess aspects of the environment specifically
related to DLLs, are valid tools to use with this population.
More recently, assessment tools are being developed that measure aspects of the environment and teaching practices that address
unique needs of DLLs. For example, (Solari, Landry, Zucker, &
Crawford 2011) have developed the Bilingual Teacher Behavior
Rating Scale that assesses supports related specifically to DLLs’
language and literacy development, and other supports (e.g.,
classroom organization and management and teacher sensitivity) that may relate to children’s social–emotional development.
They included items in the measure specifically designed to assess
whether teachers are responsive to and provide accommodations
for DLLs.
The
importance
of
relationships
for
developing
social–emotional competence extends beyond children’s relationships with teachers to include the peer network. Young
children who have positive peer relationships characterized by
sharing, appropriate communication, play, and acceptance are
more likely to be successful at school (Downer & Pianta, 2006; Ladd
& Burgess, 1999). Research supports this theory and suggests that
classroom interactions with peers during play are associated with
children’s self-regulation (Elias & Berk, 2002; Mendez, Fantuzzo, &
Cicchetti, 2002).
Given this extant literature suggesting the importance of peer
relationships for children’s positive development, surprisingly little
is known about the quality of peer relationships of DLLs. What little
738
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
research there is suggests that the quality of peer relationships may
be affected by a child’s dual language learner status. For example,
some dual language learners enter a non-verbal stage of second
language development (Tabors, 2008) and peers may misinterpret their silence as being shy or disengaged with the activities
around them (Restrepo, 2008). Peers may also ignore or exclude a
dual language learning classmate who does not use normal verbal
cues. On the other hand, a recent study indicates that the use of
DLL children’s primary language by the teacher in the classroom is
associated with the reduced likelihood of being the victim of peer
aggression (Chang et al., 2007). For DLL children, peer relationships
among children who speak the same language may be a particularly important source of support, especially in classroom contexts
where the teacher does not speak the children’s home language.
It is important that DLL children engage in positive interactions
with their English-speaking peers. Castro (2011) suggests that teachers should promote positive peer relationships between young
DLLs and their English-speaking peers with the dual purpose of
promoting positive social relationships and providing opportunities for English language exposure. Indeed, at least one study
suggests that interaction with English-speaking peers is, in fact,
correlated with DLLs’ English proficiency (Barrows Chesterfield,
Chetserfield, & Chavez, 1982). Similar to Castro (2011), Garcia
(2012) notes that classrooms should be set up to be responsive
learning communities that are based on several conceptual dimensions, one of which is a focus on maximizing student interactions
across categories of English proficiency, academic performance,
and immigration status.
3. Child and family characteristics
Young dual language learners are not a monolithic group.
Castro et al. (2012) posit that there are important associations
between DLL children’s individual and family characteristics and
their development. Specifically, they cite embedded factors (e.g.,
SES, immigration status, racial/ethnic identity), socio-cultural factors (e.g., children’s exposure to their family’s native language), and
psychological factors (e.g., personality, motivation) as important
predictors of DLLs’ functioning across domains. We discuss a few
of these key child characteristics below.
3.1. Socioeconomic status
Family socioeconomic status has been found to be an important factor associated with the development of DLLs’ social and
emotional functioning (Crosnoe, 2005, 2007; Han, 2010; Han &
Huang, 2010). However, because language status, income, and
other family risk and protective factors (e.g., parents’ emotional
well-being, parents’ literacy) are often highly correlated, it is often
difficult to disentangle the influence of these factors on children’s development. For example, McLoyd (1990) suggests that
poverty increases parenting stress, which diminishes their ability to
provide sensitive caregiving, and consequently leads to children’s
impaired social–emotional functioning. However, if parents are
able to engage in positive parenting practices despite the risks they
face, this can buffer the negative effects of family risk on children’s
social–emotional functioning (Gershoff, Aber, Raver, & Lennon,
2007; Vick Whittaker, Jones Harden, See, Meisch, & Westbrook,
2011; Yeung, Linver, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002).
The research on DLLs is predominantly based on samples of
low-income children and not on an economically diverse sample, thereby making it difficult to generalize results. Furthermore,
additional family stressors associated with poverty are often not
assessed in studies of DLLs, making it difficult to disentangle the
association between DLL status, income, and family risk and protective factors, and DLLs’ social–emotional development.
3.2. Immigrant status
Immigrant status is another child characteristic that is important to consider in understanding DLLs’ development across
domains. Although dual language learners and children of immigrants are distinct groups, there is overlap in the two populations
(Castro, 2009). Some research suggests that children who immigrate may be vulnerable to psychological stressors that result in
measurable differences in social–emotional well-being when compared to non-immigrant children (Bashir, 1993). Some research
also suggests that even if the immigrant experience is that of
the child’s parents and not the child him or herself, it could
still have a negative effect on children’s social–emotional development, through parent–child interactions (Weiss, Goebel, Page,
Wilson, & Warda, 1999). Undocumented status can be a particular source of distress for parents that can indirectly affect
child outcomes, as prolonged fears of deportation and separation
from family may negatively affect interactions between parents
and their young children (Yoshikawa, 2011; Yoshikawa & Kalil,
2011). However, there is also ample evidence that the majority
of immigrant children fall within the normal range on behavioral
and psychological assessments (Fuligni, 1998; Weiss et al., 1999).
Indeed, research actually suggests that immigrant children have
more social–emotional competence and fewer behavior problems
compared with non-immigrants (Crosnoe, 2005, 2007; DeFeyter
& Winsler, 2009; Harris, 1999). In addition, research has shown
that positive psychological outcomes for immigrants are related
to strong identification with both immigrants’ ethnic group and
the larger society (Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001).
Together, these findings suggest that it is important not to study
factors influencing DLLs’ development in isolation, but rather to
consider the myriad factors and mechanisms that influence their
social–emotional development.
3.3. Summary
The early years of life are an important time for all children to
acquire both cognitive and social–emotional skills that will be the
foundation for later development. There is some evidence to suggest that the unique experience of simultaneously acquiring two or
more languages during early childhood promotes certain cognitive
abilities as well as children’s underlying executive function. In comparison to the cognitive and linguistic domains, we know much less
about the benefits or barriers to children’s early social functioning
based on the unique experience of being a dual language learner
(Halle et al., 2011).
Relationships with parents, early childhood caregivers and teachers, and peers are seen as foundational to the establishment
of social–emotional well-being for all children, including DLLs.
Although the research examining foundational social relationships
in relation to DLLs’ social–emotional development is slight at
present, extant research suggests that social partners and contexts
that are able to support a child’s home language as well as facilitate the acquisition of a second language are critical to supporting
not only DLLs’ bilingual fluency but also their social and emotional
development (Castro, 2011; Chang et al., 2007; Howes & Wishard
Guerra, 2009). Given the multi-cultural and multi-linguistic environments in which young DLLs develop, we would expect that
the transactional nature of DLLs’ relationships with parents, caregivers/teachers, and peers could be qualitatively different than that
of monolingual children, and would therefore result in distinct
patterns of association with DLLs’ social–emotional development.
Furthermore, recognizing that DLLs represent a very diverse and
pan-ethnic group of individuals, we would expect that child and
family characteristics such as immigrant status may moderate the
association between DLL status and social–emotional outcomes.
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
The goal of this investigation was to determine the extent to which
social–emotional development is examined among DLLs in the
recent research literature, and from an examination of that literature, to assess what we currently know about the developmental
trajectories of young DLLs’ social and emotional competencies.
We explore DLLs’ social–emotional outcomes within their distinct group but also in relation to the social–emotional outcomes
of non-DLLs, and through the lens of the major dimensions of
social–emotional functioning proposed by developmental theorists
and researchers.
4. Key dimensions of social–emotional development
There are many important aspects of social–emotional development that have received the attention of developmental scholars.
However, prominent researchers in the field of social–emotional
development (National Research Council, 2008; Raver, 2008) have
highlighted several specific dimensions within their conceptualizations of children’s social–emotional development: self-regulation
which includes the ability to focus attention, manage emotions, and
control behaviors (Blair & Razza, 2007); social competence which
reflects the degree to which children are effective in their social
interactions with others (Fabes et al., 2006); social cognition which
includes children’s cognitive representations regarding relationships with peers and adults (Raver, 2008); and problem behaviors
including maladjustment in the development of self-regulation,
social competence, and emotional expression (Campbell, 2006).
Below, we briefly outline the research on these dimensions and
their relationship to children’s overall development.
4.1. Self-regulation
Recently there has been a marked increase in research aimed at
defining, measuring, and exploring how self-regulation develops
in young children (Eisenhower, Baker, & Blacher, 2007; McClelland
et al., 2007; Morrison, Ponitz, & McClelland, 2010; Rimm-Kaufman,
Curby, Grimm, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009). Definitions of selfregulation vary, but most agree that it includes the ability to focus
attention, to manage emotions, and to control behaviors (Blair &
Razza, 2007; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009). The early childhood
period is marked by the substantial development of these abilities, as children learn to attend to activities, to manage emotions,
to comply with adult demands and directives, to control their
impulse responses and to delay engagement in specific activities
(Campbell, 2006; Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1995). The development
of self-regulation skills in early childhood is considered foundational for establishing competencies in both social and cognitive
developmental domains in later years (Blair & Raver, 2012; Ursache,
Blair, & Raver, 2012). In particular, the ability to regulate emotional expressions in a manner that matches cultural and societal
expectations is a prerequisite for developing social competence.
Conversely, emotional dysregulation can be an early indicator of
subsequent behavior problems (Greenberg, Kusche, & Speltz, 1991;
Webster-Stratton & Taylor, 2001).
4.2. Social competence
Social competence includes the ability to interact effectively
with others, and develop and maintain positive relationships (Fabes
et al., 2006). The development of these skills in early childhood
has been found to be particularly important as they are associated
with later academic achievement and social competence in early
elementary school (Raver, Garner, & Smith-Donald, 2007).
During the preschool period, children should begin to engage in
more complex play with peers (Fabes et al., 2006). Studies suggest
that children who demonstrate high levels of interactive peer play
739
receive higher teacher ratings on social skills and are better able to
cooperate, to resolve conflicts, and to develop empathy, whereas
children who engage in disruptive peer play behaviors are reported
to have poor self-control and are not well accepted by their peers
(Fantuzzo, Sekino, & Cohen, 2004).
Positive teacher–child relationships are also associated with
children’s social competence. Studies have consistently shown that
children who have more supportive and less conflictual relationships with teachers are more accepted by their peers (Birch &
Ladd, 1997; Hughes, Cavell, & Wilson, 2001; Taylor, 1989). Secure
teacher–child relationships in early childhood have been found to
be positively associated with complex peer play and higher sociometric ratings by unfamiliar peers (Howes et al., 1994).
4.3. Social cognition
In addition to social competence, the early childhood period
is critical for the development of social cognition, or the ability
for a child to understand how he or she relates to others and
how to interact in a social situation. In essence, social cognition
is the cognitive representation of the child’s social experiences
in the world (Moore, 2007). In infants and toddlers, this can be
seen through self-recognition, such as in a mirror (Bischof-Kohler,
1991), through imitation of an intended rather than an accidental
action (Bellagamba & Tomasello, 1999; Johnson, Booth, & O’Hearn,
2001), and also through mutual play with other children and adults
(Asendorf, 2002). Studies have shown that children who master
aspects of social cognition such as emotion labeling skills and recognition of social cues are more likely to exhibit pro-social behaviors
and less likely to exhibit aggression (Denham, 1986; Meece & Mize,
2010).
4.4. Problem behaviors
Problem behaviors in preschool are characterized by extreme
variations in the development of self-regulation, social competence, and emotional expression (Campbell, 2006). Behavior
problems have been categorized into internalizing and externalizing problems. Internalizing problems are characterized by worry,
anxiety, sadness, and social withdrawal (Campbell, 2006). Externalizing problems are characterized by hostile and aggressive physical
behavior, impulsivity, and hyperactivity (McMahon, 1994). Both
types of behavior problems in young children can lead to later
maladjustment (Mesman, Bongers, & Koot, 2001).
4.5. Summary
The field of social–emotional development has identified several
areas of study, including self-regulation, social competency, social
cognition, and problem behaviors. We focus on these key dimensions in our analysis of the literature of DLLs’ social–emotional
development because they have been found to be important for
child well-being, have figured prominently in the way scholars have
organized their understanding of the domains of social–emotional
development (National Research Council, 2008; Raver, 2008), and
have also been found to be responsive to intervention in early
childhood (Bierman et al., 2008). While these social–emotional outcomes are defined and understood as universal, our theoretical
perspective of DLLs’ social–emotional development would posit
that these social–emotional outcomes may manifest themselves
in unique ways for DLLs because of the cultural, linguistic, and
contextual factors that affect DLLs’ development as compared to
monolingual children (Castro et al., 2012; Chen & Rubin, 2011;
García Coll, Akerman, & Cicchetti, 2000). The extent to which these
dimensions of social–emotional development are examined within
populations of DLLs, and the extent to which this examination
740
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
illuminates our understanding of DLLs’ development within the
social–emotional domain, is a focus of our critical review of the
literature.
5. Method
developmental outcomes for DLLs within the key social–emotional
dimensions outlined above. The main goal was to determine
the extent to which social–emotional development is examined
within populations of young DLLs, and the extent to which this
examination helps us understand DLLs’ developmental trajectories
within the social–emotional domain in the early years of life.
5.1. Search terms
In order to conduct a targeted review of the social–emotional
literature, a list of search terms was developed based on guidance from the Center for Early Care and Education Research,
Dual Language Learners (CECER-DLL) Steering Committee, and the
authors’ knowledge of prior work on both social–emotional development and DLLs (Center for Early Care & Education Research—Dual
Language Learners, 2011). Search terms included words or phrases
related to the following categories: dual language learners, bilingual, language minority, socio-emotional development, and early
childhood (a full list of search terms is available within the online
supplementary materials). The databases used to conduct these
searches included Psych Info, ERIC, Google Scholar, EBSCO, and
JSTOR.
5.2. Inclusion criteria
A set of inclusion criteria was used to determine the relevant literature for the review. Specifically, research studies that
were published in U.S., peer-reviewed journals where the publication dates occurred between 2000 and 2011 were included in
the review. Additionally, studies needed to include children who
were DLLs (i.e., children learning a second language while continuing to acquire their first or home language), either as the main
focus of the study or at least as a focus of sub-group analyses. The
study’s measurement plan needed to include at least one assessment point occurring prior to age six; both cross-sectional and
longitudinal studies were eligible for inclusion. The measurement
instruments for social–emotional outcomes needed to be administered either via direct child assessment or standardized ratings
completed by observers, parents, or caregivers. In addition, the
study had to include a typically developing sample of children (e.g.,
not a sample with a specific medical condition). Lastly, the study
could not represent a single case study.
5.3. Procedure
The search terms, alone and in combination, were searched
within a set of databases and selected journals, as noted above. This
search identified more than 30 research articles and eight conceptual articles/books that met the initial inclusion criteria. The list of
articles was then reviewed again with the exclusion criteria in mind
(i.e., special populations, case studies); articles that did not fit the
inclusion criteria were removed from the list. This resulted in 13
articles. An additional article fitting our inclusion criteria but that
was not found in the database search was subsequently provided by
the third author for inclusion in the review. Thus, a total of 14 articles remained in the final set of studies that were included in the
critical review. A table summarizing pertinent information about
each of the articles included in the critical review is available in the
online supplement. This summary table highlights research questions and study design elements, as well as study findings relevant
to the study of children’s social–emotional development. Note that
research design was categorized as either longitudinal (i.e., data
were collected at two or more time points for a single sample) or
cross-sectional (i.e., data were collected at one time point only for
one or more samples).
We did not conduct a meta-analysis of the 14 studies in our
review. Rather, we examined the studies to identify patterns of
6. Results
6.1. Analysis of methodological characteristics of articles
reviewed
The 14 articles meeting the inclusion criteria included samples
from a variety of dual-language learner populations. The majority
of studies (11 out of 14 or 79%) focused on Spanish-speaking DLLs
(Cervantes, 2002; Chang et al., 2007; Crosnoe, 2005, 2007; Dawson
& Williams, 2008; , Farver, Xu, Eppe, & Lonigan, 2006; Galindo &
Fuller, 2010; Han, 2010; Howes et al., 2011; Luchtel et al., 2010;
Vaughan van Hecke et al., 2007). One study focused on Cantonese
speakers (Cheung et al., 2010), one study focused on children from
Asian regions (Han & Huang, 2010), and one study focused on Spanish and Creole speakers (DeFeyter & Winsler, 2009). Three articles
compared DLLs from various racial/ethnic backgrounds to monolingual English speakers (Han, 2010; Han & Huang, 2010; Vaughan van
Hecke et al., 2007), with one of these using generational immigrant
status, along with English proficiency, as a population of interest for
studying social–emotional developmental outcomes (Han & Huang,
2010). All but one study (Cheung et al., 2010) was conducted in the
United States.
The study samples varied, but 10 studies relied on large-scale,
multi-state or nationally representative datasets. Of the 14 studies,
six used the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class
of 1998–99 (ECLS-K) (Crosnoe, 2005, 2007; Dawson & Williams,
2008; Galindo & Fuller, 2010; Han, 2010; Han & Huang, 2010), two
studies used data from the National Early Head Start Research and
Evaluation Project (Howes et al, 2011; Luchtel et al., 2010), one
study used data from the Miami School Readiness Project (DeFeyter
& Winsler, 2009), and one study used data from the National
Center for Early Development and Learning’s (NCEDL) Multi-state
Study of Pre-Kindergarten and the State-Wide Early Education Programs Study (SWEEP) (Chang et al., 2007). The remaining four
studies included local samples from the United States and China
(Cervantes, 2002; Cheung et al., 2010; Farver et al., 2006; Vaughan
van Hecke et al., 2007). All but one of the studies included analyses
of preschool-aged children (i.e., four-year-olds or in preschool or
pre-kindergarten) or kindergartners at the beginning of the study
(Vaughan van Hecke et al., 2007). Five studies had a longitudinal design (Chang et al., 2007; Crosnoe, 2005; Han, 2010; Han &
Huang, 2010; Vaughan van Hecke et al., 2007) and nine had a crosssectional design (Cervantes, 2002; Cheung et al., 2010; Crosnoe,
2007; Dawson & Williams, 2008; DeFeyter & Winsler, 2009; Farver
et al., 2006; Galindo & Fuller, 2010; Howes et al., 2011; Luchtel et al.,
2010).
Across the various studies, there were different ways of defining
“dual language learner.” As mentioned earlier, our definition of dual
language learner is a young child who is learning a second language
while he or she is continuing to develop his or her first language
(U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). Of the 14
studies, three used a combination of indicators for defining DLL
status (e.g., parent report, teacher report, proficiency data from a
standardized measure) (Dawson & Williams, 2008; Han, 2010; Han
& Huang, 2010), whereas the remaining 11 used a single indicator
(e.g., parent report). Six studies that analyzed data from the ECLS-K
used the English Oral Language Development Scale (OLDS), which
was derived from the PreLAS 2000 assessment (Duncan & De Avila,
741
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
Table 1
Summary of studies by construct.
Reference
Cervantes (2002)
Chang et al. (2007)
Cheung et al. (2010)
Crosnoe (2005)
Crosnoe (2007)
Dawson and Williams (2008)
DeFeyter and Winsler (2009)
Farver et al. (2006)
Galindo and Fuller (2010)
Han (2010)
Han and Huang (2010)
Howes et al (2011)
Luchtel et al. (2010)
Vaughan van Hecke et al. (2007)
Self-regulation
Social competence
Social cognition
Problem behaviors
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1998), to determine English language proficiency. Similarly, Chang
et al. (2007) reported studies that used the PreLAS 2000 to screen for
English proficiency. Several studies focused on the development of
social skills among children of immigrants varying by race/ethnicity
and country of origin (Cervantes, 2002; Crosnoe, 2007; DeFeyter &
Winsler, 2009).
Eight of the 14 studies (57%) compared DLLs to non-DLLs
(Crosnoe, 2005, 2007; DeFeyter & Winsler, 2009; Galindo & Fuller,
2010; Han, 2010; Han & Huang, 2010; Luchtel et al., 2010; Vaughan
van Hecke et al., 2007). The remaining six studies compared various sub-populations of DLLs (Cervantes, 2002; Chang et al., 2007;
Cheung et al., 2010; Dawson & Williams, 2008; Farver et al., 2006;
Howes et al, 2011), such as comparing Mexican American and Mexican immigrant DLL groups (Cervantes, 2002).
The social–emotional outcome measures used across studies
varied. The majority of studies (n = 8 or 57%) relied on teacher
report for all of the outcome data (Crosnoe, 2005, 2007; Dawson &
Williams, 2008; DeFeyter & Winsler, 2009; Galindo & Fuller, 2010;
Han, 2010; Han & Huang, 2010; Luchtel et al., 2010). One study used
a combination of teacher and parent report (Farver et al., 2006),
and another study relied on a combination of teacher report and
observation (Chang et al., 2007). Three additional studies relied
exclusively on observation (Cervantes, 2002; Cheung et al., 2010;
Howes et al, 2011) and the remaining study collected observation
and parent-report outcome data (Vaughan van Hecke et al., 2007).
6.2. Findings across studies
This section addresses findings from the published literature regarding the social–emotional development of young DLLs.
Findings are summarized below by the key dimensions for
social–emotional development: self-regulation, social competence,
social cognition, and behavior problems. See also Table 1 for a summary of studies, noting coverage of each construct.
6.2.1. Self-regulation
Six of the 14 studies (43%) examined emotion- or behaviorregulation (Chang et al., 2007; DeFeyter & Winsler, 2009; Galindo
& Fuller, 2010; Han, 2010; Luchtel et al., 2010; Vaughan van
Hecke et al., 2007). Two studies found significant differences
between first-generation and second-generation immigrant children on measures of self-control (DeFeyter & Winsler, 2009;
Galindo & Fuller, 2010); however one study (using the ECLS-K)
found a slight advantage of later-generation Latino children compared to first-generation Latino children (Galindo & Fuller, 2010),
while the other study (using a Miami-based sample) found firstgeneration immigrant children scoring higher on measures of
self-control and initiative than either second-generation immigrants or non-immigrant children (DeFeyter & Winsler, 2009).
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
One of the rare studies that examined developmental trajectories from early childhood through elementary school suggests that
some Spanish-speaking DLLs have higher levels of self-control at
kindergarten entry than monolingual peers, and continue to excel
at these skills through fifth grade, especially if they become fluent bilinguals. Specifically, Han (2010) noted that fluent bilingual
Latino children had higher levels of self-control than native English
speakers at kindergarten entry and they also had faster growth
in self-control through fifth grade. Non-English dominant bilingual Latino children had faster rates of growth in self-control than
White, English monolingual children, surpassing them by spring of
first grade and continuing to achieve higher rates of self-control
through fifth grade. Conversely, non-English monolingual Latino
children (i.e., those who did not achieve bilingual status) had the
lowest self-control and interpersonal skills at kindergarten entry
and continued to trail monolingual English speakers through fifth
grade (Han, 2010). English-dominant bilingual Latino children had
similar levels and trajectories of socio-emotional skills as their
English-monolingual peers. Other studies also indicate that, among
Spanish-speaking DLLs, the development of self-regulation is supported by the use of the children’s L1 in early care and education
settings. For example, one study found that the amount of Spanish heard in the pre-kindergarten classroom was associated with
Spanish-speaking children’s ability to tolerate frustration and orient to tasks, whereas the amount of English spoken in the classroom
had no effect on change in frustration tolerance and task orientation
from fall to spring of the year (Chang et al., 2007).
6.2.2. Social competence
Eight of the 14 studies (57%) included social competence as an
outcome (Chang et al., 2007; Crosnoe, 2005; DeFeyter & Winsler,
2009; Farver et al., 2006; Galindo & Fuller, 2010; Han, 2010; Howes
et al, 2011; Luchtel et al., 2010). Results from a study using ECLS-K
data suggested that Mexican immigrant children had comparable
interpersonal functioning to Whites, Asians, and other Latinos, but
they had better interpersonal functioning than Blacks (Crosnoe,
2005). Another study by Galindo and Fuller (2010), also using
the ECLS-K dataset, found further variation among Latino subgroups. Namely, Cuban and South American children were found
to have higher social competency scores than other Latino groups.
Compared to white children, children of Mexican decent received
similar social competency scores while children of Puerto Rican
decent received lower social competency scores than their white
peers (Galindo & Fuller, 2010).
Contextual factors in the school environment were found to be
related to the social competence of young DLLs in some but not
all studies. The use of children’s primary language in the classroom may enhance social competence among DLLs. For example,
the use of Spanish by the teacher in pre-kindergarten classrooms
742
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
was found to be positively associated with teacher-reported frustration tolerance, assertiveness, task orientation, and peer social
skills among Spanish-speaking children (Chang et al., 2007). However, Howes et al (2011) found no differences in the quality of
children’s peer interactions based on whether Spanish-speaking
preschoolers interacted with other Spanish-speaking peers or nonSpanish-speaking peers in Head Start and center-based classrooms.
In addition, Han (2010) found that children in elementary schools
with high levels of stability (i.e., less teacher and student absenteeism, and lower teacher turnover) had significantly faster growth
in self-control and interpersonal skills from kindergarten to fifth
grade, as reported by teachers, compared to children in schools
with lower levels of stability.
6.2.3. Social cognition
Two of the 14 studies addressed social cognition (Cervantes,
2002; Cheung et al., 2010). As noted earlier, language is a principle means by which important social and cultural constructs are
introduced to young children. The language used to talk about
emotions is one example of the intersection of language socialization and the development of social–emotional understanding in
children (Chen, Kennedy, & Zhou, 2012). Cervantes (2002) examined mothers’ and preschool children’s use of emotional talk and
emotional explanations among Mexican American and Mexican
immigrant mother–child dyads. Differences were found when comparing Mexican American to Mexican immigrant children in that
Mexican American girls had more emotion utterances than either
Mexican American boys or Mexican immigrant girls and boys. Mexican American children and Mexican immigrant boys had more
negative emotion utterances than positive ones whereas Mexican
immigrant girls showed no difference between positive and negative utterances. Nevertheless, both Mexican American and Mexican
immigrant mothers used emotion explanations regularly with their
preschool children (Cervantes, 2002).
Similarly, children’s ability to adjust the language they use based
on the language spoken by those around them represents another
example of social cognition (specifically, sociolinguistic awareness). Cheung et al. (2010) assessed the sociolinguistic awareness
of Cantonese-native preschoolers living in Hong Kong who either
learned English a few hours a week at school from Cantonese speaking teachers or attended school where most of the curriculum
was taught in English and the majority of the staff were English
speakers. In this study, each child was told to say hello to an experimenter, who then replied to the child in the language the child
had not used (e.g., if the child said hello in English, the experimenter would reply in Cantonese, and vice-versa). Children were
given five tries to switch the language they were speaking to the
experimenter’s. Results revealed that Cantonese-speaking children
taught by teachers who only spoke English had greater sociolinguistic awareness, meaning they switched the language they spoke
faster, than children taught by teachers who spoke both English and
Cantonese.
6.2.4. Problem behaviors
Ten of the 14 studies (71%) included behavior problems as an
outcome (Chang et al., 2007; Crosnoe, 2007; Dawson & Williams,
2008; DeFeyter & Winsler, 2009; Farver et al., 2006; Galindo &
Fuller, 2010; Han, 2010; Han & Huang, 2010; Luchtel et al., 2010;
Vaughan van Hecke et al., 2007). One of the few studies that examined outcomes during infancy and toddlerhood concluded that
language use in the home (comparing monolingual English, monolingual Spanish, and various levels of English–Spanish bilingualism)
does not play a substantial role in influencing externalizing behaviors at 30 months of age (Vaughan van Hecke et al., 2007). Studies
of pre-kindergarten classrooms find some evidence for fewer problem behaviors among Spanish-speaking children, but also suggest
that the context of the classroom environment might mitigate
these patterns. Specifically, Luchtel et al. (2010) found that prekindergarten teachers reported DLLs displayed less frequent and
less severe negative behaviors than their monolingual English
peaking peers. But Chang et al. (2007) found that the more English
interactions a child experienced in the pre-kindergarten classroom,
the higher Spanish-speaking children were rated by their teachers
on conduct and learning problems and the lower they were rated
on frustration tolerance. In addition, Han found that children in elementary schools with more supportive teaching environments had
slower increased rates of behavior problems from kindergarten to
fifth grade, as reported by teachers, compared to children in schools
with less supportive teaching environments.
Studies using the same dataset (the ECLS-K) yielded multiple
conclusions about the relationship between DLLs’ English language
proficiency and their internalizing and externalizing behaviors. For
example, Dawson and Williams (2008) found that Hispanic DLLs
with limited English proficiency in kindergarten were more likely
to exhibit externalizing behaviors in third grade than Hispanic DLLs
with more English proficiency, but concluded that English proficiency among Hispanic DLLs at kindergarten entry did not explain
internalizing and externalizing behaviors at the end of third grade.
Han (2010) and Han and Huang (2010) found that the level of Hispanic and Asian DLLs’ fluency in English in kindergarten coupled
with their use of their home language with parents differentially predicted the growth in their internalizing and externalizing
behaviors from kindergarten through fifth grade. For example,
Hispanic bilingual children were more likely than White English
monolingual children to have slower growth in internalizing and
externalizing behaviors from kindergarten to fifth grade and lower
levels of problem behaviors in fifth grade (Han, 2010). Across these
studies, there was convergence in the finding that DLLs who are the
least proficient in English tend to have the worst social–emotional
outcomes. For example, Han (2010) found that a group identified
as “non-English monolingual” children (i.e., those who were not
proficient in English by the end of kindergarten and spoke only a
language other than English at home) had the lowest self-control
and interpersonal skills and the highest level of internalizing problems by fifth grade as rated by teachers; this finding is similar to
the findings reported by Dawson and Williams (2008) for longitudinal analyses of the ECLS-K data through third grade, albeit for
externalizing problems.
6.3. Consideration of child and family characteristics
Socioeconomic differences often account for much of the statistical differences found between subgroups based on home
language, racial/ethnic, and/or immigrant background. Family SES
was associated with rates of internalizing behaviors, children’s
participation in peer-oriented structured extracurricular activities,
participation in child care, and the types of schools children attend
(Crosnoe, 2005, 2007; Han, 2010; Han & Huang, 2010). Other family
risk and protective factors were not often included in the studies,
but one study found that among Latino families, parents’ literacy
involvement was positively related to children’s social functioning
as reported by teachers, whereas parental stress was negatively
related to children’s social–emotional competence (Farver et al.,
2006).
DLL status and language proficiency explained much less of the
variance in children’s outcomes than socioeconomic status. Significant effects based on DLL status were reported in only five of the
14 studies (36%) and tended to be small to moderate in magnitude (see table in the appendix). Of the five studies that reported
effect sizes, the highest was around 0.42. Furthermore, significant
effects of DLL or immigrant status tended to disappear once other
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
family background characteristics were taken into account
(Crosnoe, 2005, 2007).
There are some noteworthy findings regarding children’s
social–emotional development and immigration status. In the
studies reviewed, immigrant children tended to have more
social–emotional competencies (initiative and self-control) and
fewer behavior problems than non-immigrants (Crosnoe, 2005,
2007; DeFeyter & Winsler, 2009). First-generation immigrants
had fewer behavior problems than second-generation immigrants, and both groups had fewer behavior problems than
non-immigrant children. First-generation immigrants also did significantly better on interpersonal skills (ES = .38) (DeFeyter &
Winsler, 2009). However, as noted above, effects of immigrant
status on social–emotional outcomes tended to disappear when
controlling for other background characteristics (Crosnoe, 2005,
2007). Although there is a significant overlap in the population of
children of immigrants and DLLs, the two populations are not necessarily equivalent. For example, there are children of immigrants
whose home language is English and DLLs who are not children of
immigrants. Although there are shared contextual environments
and shared developmental milestones, it is important to distinguish the population of DLLs from the population of children of
immigrants.
7. Discussion
Within the last decade, the U.S. has experienced a dramatic shift
in its child population. Today one in eight residents of the U. S. are
foreign born and according to a recent U.S. Census Bureau report,
28% of children age zero to four live in a household where English
is not the primary language (Kominski, Shin, & Marotz, 2008). This
demographic reality spotlights the need to understand the particular development of young DLLs so that developmental science is
representative and inclusive of this growing population. However,
because the majority of young DLLs are ethnic and racial minorities experiencing economic and social hardship, research with
this population has tended to conflate socioeconomic and other
characteristics, potentially obscuring assets in DLLs development
(Cabrera, Beeghly, & Eisenberg, 2012). Until recently, advancement
in both theory and research for the DLL population has been constrained. The research literature is replete with studies that have
overlooked DLLs by under-sampling (NICHD Study of Early Child
Care, 1997), combined DLLs into samples categorized as at-risk or
immigrant, or prevented DLLs from full participation in studies due
to lack of available assessment instruments (Westat, 2000).
Fortunately the tide is turning. The new Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B, Nord et al., 2004) is cognizant
of the need to appropriately sample and assess DLLs; the Institute for Educational Science (IES) is focused on the development
of appropriate assessment tools for DLLs; the National Institute for
Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) has funded three
preschool intervention programs focused on school readiness for
DLLs; and the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation within
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Child and Families (OPRE/HHS/ACF) has supported the development of the Center for Early Care and Education Research–Dual
Language Learners. Taken together, these efforts represent a distillation of decades of discussion about the importance of studying
minority youth for their own sake within their particular sociocultural contexts (García Coll et al., 1996; Ogbu, 1981).
When DLLs are studied in their own right, the focus has tended
to be on the development of their language and cognitive abilities rather than on the development of their social–emotional
competencies. The main goal of this critical literature review
was to examine and document DLLs’ developmental trajectories
within the social–emotional domain in the early years of life.
743
Our review of the literature was focused on the major dimensions of social–emotional development (i.e., self regulation, social
competence, social cognition, and problem behaviors) and guided
by a theoretical perspective that considers social–emotional development to be a function of dynamic, transactional processes with
significant social partners (parents, caregivers/teachers, and peers)
that are embedded within and may vary across cultural and linguistic settings (Castro et al., 2012; Chen & Rubin, 2011). Our
review of the literature published in peer-reviewed, U.S. journals
between 2000 and 2011 revealed that research focused on DLLs’
social–emotional development is sparse; only 14 articles were
found that met our inclusion criteria. The limited number of studies
underscores the fact that the study of social–emotional development among DLLs is an emerging area of research. Clearly, there is
a need for more research on the social–emotional development in
this important and burgeoning population.
Despite the small corpus of studies, a picture of DLLs’
social–emotional development does begin to emerge. DLLs tend
to be judged by teachers and observers as higher in measures of
self-control and interpersonal skills, and lower in levels of externalizing and internalizing behaviors and other problem behaviors,
compared to English-speaking monolinguals (DeFeyter & Winsler,
2009; Han, 2010; Han & Huang, 2010; Luchtel et al., 2010). However, this positive picture of DLLs’ social–emotional functioning
needs to be tempered by findings from other studies which show
no differences in social–emotional functioning related to language
use in the home (Farver et al., 2006; Vaughan van Hecke et al.,
2007). We believe that part of the reason for conflicting findings
in the current literature is due to the lack of systematic study of
DLLs’ social–emotional development. The literature is further complicated by various operational definitions of DLLs across analytic
samples, even if the samples are drawn from the same data source
(ECLS-K; Crosnoe, 2005, 2007; Dawson & Williams, 2008; Galindo &
Fuller, 2010; Han, 2010; Han & Huang, 2010). Nevertheless, the collective findings indicate that young dual language learners function
at least as well as if not better than monolingual English speakers
in the social–emotional domain.
Only four studies permitted an examination of longitudinal
development within the social–emotional domain starting in early
childhood (Dawson & Williams, 2008; Han, 2010; Han & Huang,
2010). While Chang et al. (2007) looked at social and cognitive
outcomes between fall and spring of the pre-kindergarten year,
Dawson and Williams (2008) examined social–emotional development from kindergarten to third grade, and Han (2010) and Han
and Huang (2010) examined social–emotional development from
kindergarten to fifth grade. As noted above, Dawson and Williams
(2008) concluded that limited English proficiency among Hispanic
children led to more externalizing behaviors over time, whereas
Han (2010) and Han and Huang (2010), using the same data set (the
ECLS-K) found positive developmental trajectories for both externalizing and internalizing behaviors among Hispanic and Asian
DLLs who had fluency in more than one language compared to
monolingual English speakers. One explanation for the disparate
findings is the different ways that the researchers operationalized
language proficiency: Dawson and Williams (2008) relied solely on
the findings from the English language screener within the ECLSK to determine English proficiency whereas Han used the English
language screener as well as parental report of home language
use to classify levels of bilingualism amongst Hispanic (Han, 2010)
and Asian (Han & Huang, 2010) children. Furthermore, Dawson
and Williams (2008) did not compare Hispanic children to nonHispanic white children, whereas Han (2010), and Han and Huang
(2010), did. Finally, the studies differed in their inclusion of other
family- and school-level factors in their analytic models: Dawson
and Williams (2008) included four child and family characteristics
and no school characteristics in their models, whereas Han (2010)
744
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
and Han and Huang (2010) included a host of time-variant and
time-invariant child and family characteristics as well as 14 school
environment variables in their models. Later in this discussion, we
propose ways that the field can advance a more intentional and rigorous investigation of DLLs’ social–emotional development starting
in early childhood.
Several factors within the home and early care and education
environments appear to be associated with social–emotional outcomes for DLL children. The mechanisms underlying the association
between family processes (e.g., parental stress, family literacy) and
DLLs’ social–emotional functioning are not fully understood at this
time, with many studies using an over-reliance on demographic
variables to understand family influences (Castro, 2011). In an effort
to better understand the influence of family processes, Farver et al.
(2006) included measures of several family risk and protective factors, and found that maternal stress was a negative predictor of
DLLs’ social functioning, but parents’ literacy involvement was a
positive predictor of social functioning. In addition, Farver et al.
(2006) found parents’ perceptions of children’s literacy interest
mediate the relationship between parents’ literacy involvement
and DLLs’ social functioning; they also speculate that child temperament may play a role.
High levels of school stability and supportive teaching environments in elementary school are associated with better
social–emotional outcomes for DLLs (Han, 2010). In addition, the
use of the child’s primary language in early care and education settings by the teacher appears to be a significant pathway
through which closer relationships with both teachers and peers
are forged (Chang et al., 2007). These findings support our theoretical perspective that it is important to consider the context
in which development is measured such as the home and school
contexts–as well as the social relationships with parents, caregivers
and teachers–as important influences on DLLs’ social–emotional
development in early childhood.
It is important to note that some of the findings regarding moderating factors for DLLs’ social–emotional development are similar
to what would be expected for any child (e.g., parental stress
negatively affecting children’s social–emotional outcomes; Farver
et al., 2006), while others are more unique to the context of DLLs’
social–emotional development (e.g., use of L1 in the classroom;
Chang et al., 2007). In the study of DLLs’ social–emotional development, it is critical that we distinguish what is universal to all
children from what is specific to the needs of DLL children, either
by degree or by uniqueness of the cultural and linguistic context in
which DLLs develop.
On the other hand, the relatively small number of studies
that found significant differences in social–emotional development between DLLs and non-DLLs may suggest that all
children’s social–emotional development follows a similar trajectory. For example, the one study we found that investigated
social–emotional development in infants and toddlers exposed to
varying degrees of English and Spanish concluded that DLL status should not be used as a predictor of outcomes at 30 months
because no differences were found by DLL status at 24 months
(Vaughan van Hecke et al., 2007). However, it is possible that there
are longer-term effects on children’s social–emotional development that would be detected if children’s home language and/or
language proficiency status were kept in longitudinal models as a
variable of interest. In general, we feel more research is needed
before drawing the conclusion that there are few differences in
DLLs’ and non-DLLs’ social–emotional trajectories.
7.1. Limitations and future research directions
The majority of studies meeting the inclusion criteria addressed
the social–emotional development of native Spanish speakers or
children from Hispanic/Latino backgrounds (11 out of 14 studies, or 79%). Although native Spanish speakers are the largest
proportion of non-English speaking children in the United States,
the study of DLLs’ development must encompass all DLLs, or at
least explore variations among DLLs as well as potential differences between DLLs and non-DLLs. It is noteworthy that several
research studies that did not meet inclusion criteria because
they were dissertations or case studies examined the social
development of Chinese-speaking DLLs (Chen, 2009), Hebrewspeaking DLLs (Hoffman, 2007), and Korean-speaking DLLs
(Ryu, 2004).
Future research should attempt to gather data from DLLs who
speak languages other than Spanish. While children whose home
language is Spanish are the largest proportion of DLLs in the United
States, they are not the only group of DLLs of interest. In addition,
not all Spanish-speaking DLLs can be assumed to develop similarly
within the social–emotional domain (Halle et al., 2011). Studies
in other countries suggest that the prestige of the home language
may be of importance for social–emotional and other outcomes
of bilingual speakers (Genesse, 2008; Kohnert, Yim, Nett, Kan, &
Duran, 2005; Wong Fillmore, 2000), and even within the United
States, policies and attitudes about language of instruction, or the
salience and acceptance of Spanish or other non-English languages,
varies by state or local contexts. More research is needed on a
broader base of dual language learners that takes into consideration the various cultural, social, geographic, and policy contexts
in which DLLs develop to understand the complexities of relationships between DLL status and social–emotional outcomes for young
children.
There are several additional caveats to keep in mind when
considering the findings from this review. Our review indicated, for
example, that the study of developmental trajectories among DLLs
within the social–emotional domain is limited. We found no studies
of DLLs’ social–emotional developmental trajectories from infancy
through school entry. Only one study of those reviewed examined developmental trajectories from infancy through preschool
(Vaughan van Hecke et al., 2007). We found only three studies
that examined social–emotional developmental trajectories over
the early elementary years among DLLs (Dawson & Williams, 2008;
Han, 2010; Han & Huang, 2010). For the most part, the existing
literature focuses on point-in-time development for DLLs. One of
the barriers to more research on developmental trajectories is the
lack of high-quality longitudinal data sets that include well-defined
subgroups of DLLs. Future research should include infant-toddler
samples followed longitudinally to examine the long-term effects
of early social and linguistic experiences on social–emotional outcomes for DLL children. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study,
Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) is one data set that may permit such analyses
over time (Winsler et al., 2014).
In addition, six of the 14 studies (43%) relied on data from
a single dataset: the ECLS-K (Crosnoe, 2005, 2007; Dawson
& Williams, 2008; Galindo & Fuller, 2010; Han, 2010; Han
& Huang, 2010). There are limitations to this dataset with
regard to the study of DLLs, including discrepancies between
parent- and school-report of home language, which was the
main indicator of DLL status along with an oral language
screening tool to measure adequate English proficiency. Happily,
a new Early Childhood Longitudinal Study which began fielding in 2010 and will follow another nationally-representative
cohort of kindergartners through fifth grade is poised to provide
a new and improved opportunity to track DLLs’ development across multiple developmental domains in the years to
come.
In addition to the current review being based largely on a
small set of studies, a limited set of longitudinal datasets, and
a limited range of DLLs (mainly Spanish-speakers), the current
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
research base is hindered by several methodological concerns.
This literature review highlighted methodological concerns around
measurement, defining DLLs, and confounds in research design.
Most studies rely on teacher report of child outcomes; there are
few direct assessments or standardized observations available.
This reliance on teacher report for child outcome data could be
threatened by bias; research suggests that teachers have difficulty
accurately reporting on children’s skills and behaviors (Konold &
Pianta, 2007; Mashburn & Henry, 2004) and this may be particularly
true for children from a different culture or language group. Additionally, we need to account for variability in teacher report within
longitudinal datasets by using teachers’ fixed-effects approaches
to identify true differences in social–emotional outcomes across
groups and across years. Furthermore, measures that were developed based on Western values and assumptions may be in conflict
with the value perspectives of DLL populations, thus complicating our understanding of social–emotional development of
DLLs.
Future studies should use more observational measures or direct
assessments of social–emotional competence rather than relying
on parent or teacher report of children’s social and emotional status. Specifically, research should employ different methods, such as
case studies or ethnographies, to provide more detail and a better
understanding of the processes underlying social–emotional development in DLLs. Also, the question of construct equivalency across
sociolinguistic groups needs to be addressed. The measures that are
used in future studies of young DLLs’ social–emotional competencies should be validated for use with culturally and linguistically
diverse samples. It is possible that adaptation of existing measures
or the development of new measures will be necessary to obtain
psychometrically sound data on DLLs’ social–emotional development.
The inconsistency in the definition of DLLs and varying methodology used to determine DLL status across studies is of concern.
For example, studies using the ELCS-K dataset come to different
conclusions about the relationship between English fluency among
DLLs and their internalizing and externalizing problems, in part,
based on how samples were defined, what analytic techniques were
used, and the amount of data included (Dawson & Williams, 2008;
Han, 2010; Han & Huang, 2010). There is also imprecision in the
methodology used to determine the language skills of DLLs in the
literature. For example, the ECLS-K study used a language screener
(an adaptation of the Pre-LAS) as the only indicator of English proficiency; this is problematic because it only provides a threshold for
assessing a child in English and does not provide an absolute level
of the child’s English language proficiency. Furthermore, there is
no assessment of English proficiency after “passing” the language
screener in kindergarten or first grade, nor is there measurement
of proficiency in the child’s home language. Clearly, the field needs
guidance on how to define and measure DLL status.
Future studies should also take into consideration proficiency
in both the home language and the second language. In particular,
it will be important to identify a consistent methodology that can
be used uniformly across studies to ascertain children’s home and
English language skills, and the child’s level of exposure to both
languages. It is hypothesized that “home language loss” could have
detrimental effects on social and emotional outcomes for children
(Wong Fillmore, 1991; Wong Fillmore, 2000), yet we currently have
little empirical evidence among young DLLs that this is indeed the
case. Having consistent ways to document exposure to and proficiency in L1 and L2 will assist in this line of inquiry.
As noted earlier, DLL status is often confounded with
race/ethnicity, immigrant status and years of residence in the
United States, as well as with SES; few studies effectively disentangle these factors. Additionally, in some cases, small sample
sizes preclude looking at differences among bilingual children or
745
disaggregating DLLs from the full sample. For example, most studies do not examine differences among Latino populations within
a single Spanish-speaking sample (Chang et al., 2007; Dawson &
Williams, 2008; DeFeyter & Winsler, 2009; Farver et al., 2006;
Galindo & Fuller, 2010; Han, 2010; Han & Huang, 2010; Luchtel
et al., 2010; Vaughan van Hecke et al., 2007). Galindo and Fuller
(2010) did examine variations in social competencies based on
country of origin. The variations in social competency among Latino
subgroups they found underscores that DLLs are not a monolithic
group. However, the findings of the Galindo and Fuller (2010) study
also suggest that what might be underlying these differences is
really a socioeconomic factor. Future research should try to control for socioeconomic status to isolate the findings associated with
country of origin, immigrant status, and language status–separately
and in various combinations. In addition, it is often hard to disentangle the measures within the social–emotional domain. Distinct
dimensions are often combined in an overall composite that might
mask important differences between DLLs and non-DLLs (or among
DLL subgroups) on particular aspects of social–emotional development, making it difficult to isolate the effects of DLL status on
discrete social–emotional dimensions of interest. For example, the
social–emotional dimension of “problem behaviors” might benefit from de-coupling internalizing and externalizing behaviors
when analyzing outcomes for DLLs and non-DLLs. In addition, our
review revealed very little research specifically on self-regulation
or social cognition. More research is needed that allows for examination of specific dimensions of social–emotional development
among DLLs, and of developmental trajectories in DLLs’ specific
social–emotional competencies over the early childhood years.
Finally, it is important to note that although the theoretical
framework for understanding young children’s social–emotional
development includes a focus on transactional, bi-directional relationships starting in infancy, we did not find any extant studies
focused on attachment patterns among young dual language learners and their parents and caregivers, nor the relation of these
attachment patterns to subsequent social–emotional development
among DLLs. Future research of young DLLs should include the
examination of early attachment patterns in relation to the development of specific social–emotional competencies.
It is anticipated that young investigators who are beginning to
study the development of DLLs across a host of different home and
early childhood settings, as witnessed by the many posters and presentations featuring DLLs at Head Start’s 11th National Research
Conference in 2012, will add to our knowledge base. As the field
matures, we hope that the body of research on DLLs will allow for
more generalizable information about the social–emotional development of DLLs.
8. Conclusion
The small set of studies that report on DLLs’ social–emotional
development identified within this critical review highlight the
emerging nature of this scholarly area of inquiry. Results suggest
that young DLLs have at least equal (if not better) social–emotional
outcomes compared to native English monolingual speakers. This
small corpus of studies demands that a very intentional, rigorous
scientific inquiry of social–emotional development for DLLs be pursued in future research.
As noted in the introduction to this review, early relationships established between parents and infants and caregivers and
children, and the ways that language conveys cultural meaning within these relationships, are considered foundational to
all social–emotional development. Currently, we know very little about the antecedents of DLLs’ social–emotional development
(Callaghan et al., 2011). Research that takes into account the
746
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
cultural and linguistic contexts in which children develop in the
early years will inform the field by modeling how these contexts
affect early relationships and social adjustment over time. A first
step in this direction would be to establish a dynamic, iterative process between theory building and empirical hypothesis
testing. We need to refine the theoretical perspectives that will
inform our understanding of the unique factors that influence
DLLs’ social–emotional development, while at the same time design
empirical studies that will test this refined theoretical perspective
with more diverse, longitudinal samples so that a clearer picture
of DLLs’ social–emotional development can emerge. This future
research should attempt to determine the moderating factors that
influence the quality of parent–child, teacher–child, and peer relationships, and the subsequent factors that mediate or moderate
the influence of relationships on social–emotional outcomes for
DLLs. Such future research, we hope, will inform recommendations
for parents, caregivers, and policy-makers regarding how best to
support the development of DLLs’ social–emotional outcomes.
Acknowledgments
Funding for the Center for Early Care and Education Research,
Dual Language Learners (CECER-DLL) was provided through cooperative agreement 90YR0041/01 between the Frank Porter Graham
Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill and the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation in the
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. The contents of this paper are solely the
responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
official views of the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, the
Administration for Children and Families, or the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. The authors thank the members of the
CECER-DLL Steering Committee, Drs. Dina Castro, Margaret Burchinal, and Ellen Peisner-Feinberg, for helpful advice and feedback.
Dr. Selma Caal of Child Trends contributed advice and assistance
during revisions to the paper. The authors also greatly appreciate the anonymous reviewers and Dr. Adam Winsler who provided
many thoughtful and helpful suggestions. Although at Child Trends
when this paper was written, Laura Rothenberg is currently studying at the School of Social Service Administration at the University
of Chicago; Rachel Anderson is at the Data Quality Campaign; Paula
Daneri is studying at the Department of Applied Psychology, New
York University; and Julia Wessel is at the Yale Child Study Center,
Yale University School of Medicine.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be
found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecresq.2013.12.002.
References1
Ainsworth, M. (1979). Infant–mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34,
932–937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.932
Arnold, D. H., Kupersmidt, J. B., Voegler-Lee, M. E., & Marshall, N. A. (2012).
The association between preschool children’s social functioning and their
emergent academic skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 376–386.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.009
Asendorf, J. B. (2002). Self-awareness, other-awareness, and secondary representation. In A. Meltzoff, & W. Prinz (Eds.), The imitative mind: Development, evolution,
and brain bases (pp. 63–73). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Barrows Chesterfield, K., Chetserfield, R. A., & Chavez, R. (1982). Peer
interaction, language proficiency, and language preference in bilingual
preschool classrooms. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 4, 467–486.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07399863820044004
1
Articles denoted with an asterisk are those reviewed in this paper.
Bashir, M. (1993). Issues of immigration for the health and adjustment
of young people. Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health, 29, 42–45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1754.1993.tb02260.x
Bellagamba, F., & Tomasello, M. (1999). Re-enacting intended acts: Comparing 12- and 18-month-olds. Infant Behavior and Development, 22, 277–282.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(99)00002-8
Belsky, J., & Pasco Fearon, R. M. (2002). Infant-mother attachment security, contextual risk, and early development: A moderational analysis. Development and
Psychopathology, 14, 293–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579402002067
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(4), 229–235.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025406
Bialystok, E., & Barac, R. (2012). Emerging bilingualism: Dissociating advantages
for metalinguistic awareness and executive control. Cognition, 122, 67–73.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.003
Bialystok, E., Barac, R., Blaye, A., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2010). Word
mapping and executive functioning in young monolingual and bilingual children. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(4), 485–508.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2010.516420
Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children:
Evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science,
7(3,), 325–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00351., x
Bierman, K. L., Domitrovich, C. E., Nix, R. L., Gest, S., Welsh, J. A., Greenberg,
J. P., & Gill, S. (2008). Promoting academic and social–emotional school
readiness: The Head Start REDI program. Child Development, 79, 1802–1817.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01227.x
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61–79.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00029-5
Bischof-Kohler, D. (1991). The development of empathy in infants. In M. Lamb, & H.
Keller (Eds.), Infant development: Perspectives from German-speaking countries.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012). Child development in the context of adversity: Experiential canalization of brain and behavior. American Psychologist, 67(4), 309–318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027493
Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability
in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647–663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x
Bornstein, M. H. (2009). Toward a model of culture↔parent↔child transactions. In
A. Sameroff (Ed.), The transactional model of development: How children and contexts shape each other (pp. 139–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11877-008
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 664–678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner, & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.
1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bus, A. G., & IJzendoorn, M. H. (1988). Mother–child interactions, attachment, and
emergent literacy: A cross-sectional study. Child Development, 59, 1262–1272.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130489
Cabrera, N., Beeghly, M., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Positive development of minority
children: Introduction to the special issue. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3),
207–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00253.x
Callaghan, T., Moll, H., Rakoczy, H., Warneken, F., Liszkowski, U., Behne, T., &
Tomasello, M. (2011). Early social cognition in three cultural contexts. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 299, 76(2)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2011.00603.x
Campbell, S. B. (2006). Maladjustment in preschool children: A developmental
psychopathology perspective. In K. McCartney, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell
handbook of early childhood development (pp. 358–378). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Carlson, S. M., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Bilingual experience and executive functioning in young children. Developmental Science, 11(2), 282–298.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00675.x
Castro, D. (October, 2009). Assessing dual language learners and children of immigrant families in early care and education. In Paper presented at the Child Care
Policy Research Consortium Washington, DC.
Castro, D. (2011). High quality early education for young dual language learners:
What can be done? NHSA Dialog Briefs, 14, 1–7.
Castro, D., Garcia, E. E., Espinosa, L. M., Genesse, F., Gillanders, C., Hammer, C. S., et al.
(2012). Conceptual framework for the study of dual language learners’ development:
Executive summary. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child
Development Institute, Center for Early Care and Education Research – Dual
Language Learners (CECER-DLL).
Center for Early Care and Education Research—Dual Language Learners. (2011).
Social–emotional development in dual language learners: A critical review of the
research. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute (Research brief 7).
*Cervantes, C. A. (2002). Explanatory emotion talk in Mexican immigrant and Mexican American families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24, 138–163.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739986302024002003
*Chang, F., Crawford, G., Early, D., Bryant, D., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., & Pianta,
R. (2007). Spanish-speaking children’s social and language development in
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Education and Development, 18, 243–269.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280701282959
Chen, K. (2009). Cultural differences in children’s development of social competence between European American and Chinese immigrant families. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Chen, X. (2011). Culture and children’s socioemotional functioning: A contextualdevelopmental perspective. In X. Chen, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Socioemotional development in cultural context (pp. 29–52). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Chen, S. H., Kennedy, M., & Zhou, Q. (2012). Parents’ expression and discussion of
emotion in the multilingual family: Does language matter? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 74, 365–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612447307
Chen, X., & Rubin, K. H. (Eds.). (2011). Socioemotional development in cultural context.
New York, NY: Guilford.
*Cheung, H., Mak, W. Y., Luo, X., & Xiao, W. (2010). Sociolinguistic awareness and
false belief in young Cantonese learners of English. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 107, 188–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.05.001
*Crosnoe, R. (2005). Double disadvantage or signs of resilience? The
elementary
school
contexts
of
children
from
Mexican
immigrant families. American Education Research Journal, 42, 269–303.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002269
*Crosnoe, R. (2007). Early child care and the school readiness of children from
Mexican immigrant families. International Migration Review, 41, 151–182.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00060.x
Damon, W., & Eisenberg, N. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social,
emotional, and personality development. New York, NY: Wiley.
Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student–teacher
relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38, 207–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804 2
*Dawson, B. A., & Williams, S. A. (2008). The impact of language status
as an acculturative stressor on internalizing and externalizing behaviors among Latino/a children: A longitudinal analysis from school
entry through third grade. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 37, 399–411.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9233-z
*DeFeyter, J. J., & Winsler, A. (2009). The early developmental competencies and
school readiness of low-income immigrant children: Influences of generation, race/ethnicity, and national origins. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24,
411–431.
Denham, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and emotion
in preschoolers: Contextual validation. Child Development, 57, 194–201.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130651
Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York, NY: Guilford.
Denham, S. A., & Burton, R. (1996). A social–emotional intervention for at-risk 4year-olds. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 225–245.
Downer, J. T., López, M. L., Grimm, K. J., Hamagami, A., Pianta, R. C., & Howes, C.
(2012). Observations of teacher–child interactions in classrooms serving Latinos
and dual language learners: Applicability of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System in diverse settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 21–32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.07.005
Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Academic and cognitive functioning in first
grade: Associations with earlier home ad child care predictors and with concurrent home and classroom experiences. School Psychology Review, 35(1),
11–30.
Duncan, S. E., & De Avila, E. A. (1998). PreLAS. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, J. (2011). Attachment and the processing of social information
across the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 19–46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021367
Eisenberg, A. R. (1999). Emotion talk among Mexican American and Anglo American mothers and children from two social classes. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45,
267–284.
Eisenhower, A. S., Baker, B. L., & Blacher, J. (2007). Early student-teacher relationships
of children with and without intellectual disability: Contributions of behavioral,
social, and self-regulatory competence. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 363–383.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.10.002
Elias, C. L., & Berk, L. E. (2002). Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role
for sociodramatic play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(2), 216–238.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00146-1
Espinosa, L.M. (2006). Young English language learners in the U.S. Parents as Teacher
News. Fall 2006.
Fabes, R. A., Gaertner, B. M., & Popp, T. K. (2006). Getting along with others:
Social competence in early childhood. In K. McCartney, & D. Phillips (Eds.),
Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 297–316). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Fantuzzo, J., Sekino, Y., & Cohen, H. (2004). An examination of the contributions of interactive peer play to salient classroom competencies
for urban Head Start children. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 323–336.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.10162
*Farver, J. M., Xu, Y., Eppe, S., & Lonigan, C. J. (2006). Home environments and
young Latino children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21,
196–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.008
Fuligni, A. J. (1998). The adjustment of children from immigrant families. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 99–103.
Galambos, S. J., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1990). The effects of learning two
languages on levels of metalinguistic awareness. Cognition, 34, 1–56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90030-N
747
*Galindo, C., & Fuller, B. (2010). The social competence of Latino kindergarteners and
growth in mathematical understanding. Developmental Psychology, 46, 579–592.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017821
García Coll, C., Akerman, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). Cultural influences on
developmental processes and outcomes: Implications for the study of development and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 333–356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400003059
García Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., &
Vázquez García, H. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914. DOI:
10.111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb0183.x.
Garcia, E. E. (2012). Language, culture, and early education in the United States. In
R. Pianta, S. W. Barnett, L. M. Justice, & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of early
childhood education (pp. 137–174). New York, NY: Guilford.
Genesse, F. (2008). Early dual language learning. Zero to Three, 29, 17–23.
Gershoff, E., Aber, J., Raver, C., & Lennon, M. (2007). Income is not enough:
Incorporating material hardship into models of income associations
with parenting and child development. Child Development, 78(1), 70–95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00986.x
Goetz, P. J. (2003). The effects of bilingualism on theory of mind development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/S1366728903001007
Greenberg, A., Bellana, B., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Perspective-taking ability
in bilingual children: Extending advantages in executive control to spatial reasoning. Cognitive Development, 28, 41–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogdev.2012.10.002
Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., & Speltz, M. (1991). Emotional regulation, self-control
and psychopathology: The role of relationships in early childhood. In D. Cicchetti,
& S. Toth (Eds.), Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology (Vol. 2)
(pp. 21–56). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences.
Psychophysiology, 29, 281–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0048577201393198
Gudykunst, W., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1990). Ethnic identity, language and communication breakdowns. In Handbook of language and social psychology. Oxford,
England: Wiley.
Halle, T. (2002). Emotional development and well-being. In M. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. Keyes, & K. Moore (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the
lifespan (pp. 125–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Halle, T., Castro, D., Franco, X., McSwiggan, M., Hair, E., & Wandner, L. (2011). The role
of early care and education in the development of young Latino dual language
learners. In N. Cabrera, F. A. Villarruel, & H. E. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Latina and Latino
children and mental health: Volume I: Development and context (pp. 63–90). Santa
Barbara, CA: Praeger.
*Han, W. (2010). Bilingualism and socioemotional well-being. Children
and Youth Services Review, 32, 720–731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.childyouth.2010.01.009
*Han, W. J., & Huang, C.-C. (2010). The forgotten treasure: Bilingualism and Asian
children’s emotional and behavioral health. American Journal of Public Health,
100, 731–838. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.174219
Harris, K. M. (1999). The health status and risk behavior of adolescents in immigrant
families. In D. J. Hernandez (Ed.), Children of immigrants: Health adjustment and
public assistance (pp. 286–315). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hoffman, E. (2007). Assessing the relationship between childhood bilingualism
and social–emotional understanding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Long
Island, NY: Long Island University.
Howes, C., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. (2011). Dual language learners in the early
childhood classroom. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Howes, C., Matheson, C. C., & Hamilton, B. E. (1994). Maternal, teacher, and child care
history correlates of children’s relationships with peers. Child Development, 65,
265–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131380
Howes, C., & Wishard Guerra, A. G. (2009). Networks of attachment relationships in low-income children of Mexican heritage: Infancy through
preschool. Child Development, 18, 896–914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9507.2008.00524.x
*Howes, C., Wishard Guerra, A. G., Fuligni, A. J., Zucker, E., Lee, L., Obregon, N.
B., & Spivak, A. (2011). Classroom dimensions predict early peer interaction
when children are diverse in ethnicity, race, and home language. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 26, 399–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.02.004
Hubbard, J. A., & Coie, J. D. (1994). Special issue: Children’s emotions and social
competence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 1–20.
Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J. L., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., &
Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of
research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747–770.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Wilson, V. (2001). Further support for the developmental
significance of the quality of the teacher-student relationship. Journal of School
Psychology, 39, 289–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00074-7
Johnson, S. C., Booth, A., & O’Hearn, K. (2001). Inferring the goals
a
nonhuman
agent.
Cognitive
Development,
16,
637–656.
of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00043-0
Klann-Delius, G., & Hofmeister, C. (1997). The development of communicative
competence of securely and insecurely attached children in interactions with their mothers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 69–88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025012221407
Kohnert, K., Yim, D., Nett, K., Kan, P. F., & Duran, L. (2005). Intervention
with linguistically diverse preschool children: A focus on developing home
748
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
language(s). Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 251–263.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2005/025)
Kominski, R., Shin, H., & Marotz, K. (2008). Language needs of school-aged children.
In Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America
New Orleans, LA.
Konold, T. R., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). The influence of informants
on ratings of children’s behavioral functioning: A latent variable
approach. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessments, 25, 222–236.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282906297784
Kovacs, A., & Mehler, J. (2009). Cognitive gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
106, 6556–6560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811323106
Kuczynski, L., & Kochanska, G. (1995). Function and content of maternal demands:
Developmental significance of early demands for competent action. Child Development, 66, 616–628. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131938
Ladd, G., & Burgess, K. (1999). Charting the relationship trajectories of aggressive,
withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children during early grade school. Child
Development, 70, 910–929. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00066
Lopez, F. (2011). The nongeneralizability of classroom dynamics as predictors of achievement for Hispanic students in upper elementary
grades. Hispanic Journal of the Behavioral Sciences, 33(3), 350–376.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739986311415222
Lopez, L., Arango, L., & Ferron, J. (February, 2012). Positive effects of home and classroom variables on the development of bilingual language skills in preschool
Latino children. In Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Special Topics Meeting, “Positive Development in Minority Youth” Tampa,
FL.
*Luchtel, M., Hughes, K., Luze, G., Bruna, K. R., & Peterson, C. (2010). A comparison
of teacher-rated classroom conduct, social skills, and teacher–child relationship quality between Preschool English learners and Preschool English speakers.
NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Intervention Field, 13,
92–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15240751003737877
Mashburn, A. J., & Henry, G. T. (2004). Assessing school readiness: Validity and bias in
preschool and kindergarten teacher’s ratings. Educational Measurement: Issues
and Practice, 23, 16–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2004.tb00165.x
McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Jewkes, A. M., &
Morrison, F. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’
literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43, 947–959.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.947
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child
Development, 61, 311–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.ep5878984
McMahon, R. J. (1994). Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of externalizing problems in children: The role of longitudinal data. Journal of Consulting & Clinical
Psychology, 62, 901–917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.62.5.901
Meece, D., & Mize, J. (2010). Multiple aspects of preschool children’s social cognition:
Relations with peer acceptance and peer interaction style. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 585–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430802181452
Mendez, J. L., Fantuzzo, J., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Profiles of social competence
among low-income African American preschool children. Child Development, 73,
1085–1100.
Mesman, J., Bongers, I. L., & Koot, H. M. (2001). Preschool developmental pathways to
preadolescent internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 679–695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00763
Mitchell-Copeland, J., Denham, S. A., & DeMulder, E. K. (1997). Q-Sort
Assessment of child-teacher attachment relationships and social competence in preschool. Early Education and Development, 8, 27–39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed0801 3
Moore, C. (2007). Understanding self and others in the second year. In C.
A. Brownwell, & C. B. Kopp (Eds.), Socioemotional development in the toddler years: Transitions and transformations (pp. 43–65). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Morrison, F. J., Ponitz, C. C., & McClelland, M. M. (2010). Self-regulation and academic
achievement in the transition to school. In S. D. Calkins, & M. A. Bell (Eds.),
Child development at the intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 203–224).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
National Research Council. (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nelson, K. (2003). Narrative and self, myth, and memory: Emergence of a cultural
self. In R. Fivush, & C. A. Haden (Eds.), Autobiographical memory and the construction of a narrative self: Developmental and cultural perspectives (pp. 72–90).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
NICHD Study of Early Child Care. (1997). Mother–child interacting and cognitive
outcomes associated with early child care: Results of the NICHD Study. In Paper
presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development
Washington, DC.
Nord, C., Andreassen, C., Branden, L., Dulaney, R., Edwards, C. P., Elmore, A., et al.
(2004). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B), User’s manual for
the ECLS-B nine-month public-use data file and electronic code book. Washington,
DC: US Department of Education.
Oades-Sese, G. V., & Li, Y. (2011). Attachment relationships as predictors of language
skills for an at-risk bilingual preschool children. Psychology in Schools, 48(7),
707–722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20583
Ochs, E. (1986). Introduction. In B. B. Schieffelin, & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language
socialization across cultures (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective.
Child Development, 413–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1129158
Oller, D. K., & Jarmulowicz, L. (2007). Language and literacy in bilingual children in
the early school years. In E. Hoff, & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language
development (pp. 368–386). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Paavola, L., Kunnari, S., & Moilanen, I. (2005). Maternal responsiveness and
infant intentional communication: Implications for early communicative and
linguistic development. Child: Care, Health & Development, 31, 727–735.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2005.00566.x
Padilla, A. M. (1999). Psychology. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Handbook of language and
ethnic identity (pp. 109–121). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Phinney, J., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3),
493–510.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Raver, C. C. (2008). Promoting children’s socioemotional development in contexts of
early educational intervention and care: A review of the impact of federally-funded
research initiatives on young children’s school readiness. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Raver, C. C., Garner, P., & Smith-Donald, R. (2007). The roles of emotion regulation
and emotion knowledge for children’s academic readiness: Are the links causal?
In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the transition
to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 121–147). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Raver, C. C., & Knitzer, J. (2002). Ready to enter: What research tells us policymakers
about strategies to promote social and emotional school readiness among three- and
four-year-old children. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty,
Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.
Restrepo, A. (2008). Personal communication at Quality Measures Roundtable.
Ricciardelli, L. A. (1992). Bilingualism and cognitive development in relation
to threshold theory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21(4), 301–316.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01067515
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Curby, T. W., Grimm, K. J., Nathanson, L., & Brock, L. L. (2009).
The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s
adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology, 45,
958–972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015861
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Ryu, J. (2004). The social adjustment of three, young, high-achieving KoreanEnglish bilingual students in kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal,
32, 165–171.
Saarni, C. (1997). Emotional competence and self-regulation in childhood. In P.
Salovey, & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence
(pp. 35–66). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Saarni, C., Campos, J., Campos, L. A., & Witherington, D. (2006). Emotional development: Action, communication, and understanding. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner,
& E. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and
personal development (6th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 226–299). New York, NY: Wiley.
Sachs, J. (2005). Communication development in infancy. In J. B. Gleason (Ed.), Development of language. (pp. 39–61). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Sanchez, S.Y., & Thorp, E.K. (1998). Policies on linguistic continuity: A family’s right,
a practitioner’s choice, or an opportunity to create shared meaning and a more
equitable relationship? Zero to Three, June/July, 12–20.
Sameroff, A. (2009). The transactional model of development: How children and contexts shape each other. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20246
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.15.100186.001115
Solari, E. J., Landry, S., Zucker, T. A., & Crawford, A. (2011). The importance of sensitive measurement tools for understanding what instructional practices promote
school readiness for dual language learners. In C. Howes, J. T. Downer, & R. C.
Pianta (Eds.), Dual Language Learners in the Early Childhood Classroom (pp. 45–67).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Shatz, M. (1994). A toddler’s life: Becoming a person. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of relationships.
In W. Hartup, & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Stevenson-Hinde, J. (2011). Culture and socioemotional development, with a focus
on fearfulness and attachment. In X. Chen, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Socioemotional
development in cultural context (pp. 11–28). New York, NY: Guilford.
Stuhlman, M. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers’ narratives about their relationships with children: Associations with behavior in classrooms. School Psychology
Review, 31, 148–163.
Tabors, P. O. (2008). One child, two languages: A guide for early childhood educators of
children learning English as a second language (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Tamis-LeMonda, S., Bornstein, M., & Baumwell, L. (2001). Maternal responsiveness and children’s achievement of language milestones. Child Development, 72,
748–767. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00313
Tannenbaum, M., & Berkovich, M. (2005). Family relations and language maintenance: Implications for language educational policies. Language Policy, 4,
287–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10993-005-7557-7
T.G. Halle et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (2014) 734–749
Taylor, A. R. (1989). Predictors of peer rejection in early elementary
grades: Roles of problem behavior, academic achievement, and teacher
preference. Journal of Clinical and Child Psychology, 18, 360–365.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp1804 10
Thompson, R. A., & Lagattuta, K. H. (2006). Feeling and understanding: Early
emotional development. In K. McCartney, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 317–338). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Tomasello, M. (2006). Acquiring linguistic constructions. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner,
D. Kuhn, & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 255–289). New York, NY: Wiley.
Tseng, V., & Fuligni, A. J. (2000). Parent-adolescent language use and relationships among immigrant families with East Asian, Filipino, and Latin
American backgrounds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 465–476.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00465.x
Ursache, A., Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012). The promotion of self-regulation
as a means of enhancing school readiness and early achievement in children at risk for school failure. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 122–128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00209.x
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). Dual language learning: What
does it take? Washington, DC: Author.
*Vaughan van Hecke, A., Mundy, P. C., Francoise, C., Block, J. J., Delgado, C.
E. F., Parlade, M. V., et al. (2007). Infant joint attention, temperament,
and social competence in preschool children. Child Development, 78, 53–69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00985.x
Vick Whittaker, J. E., Jones Harden, B., See, H. M., Meisch, A., & Westbrook, T.
(2011). Family risks and protective factors: Predicting Early Head Start toddlers’
social–emotional functioning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 74–86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.04.007
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Taylor, T. (2001). Nipping early risk factors in the bud: Preventing substance abuse, delinquency, and violence in adolescence through
749
interventions targeted at young children (0–8 years). Prevention Science, 2(3),
165–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011510923900
Weiss, S. J., Goebel, P., Page, A., Wilson, P., & Warda, M. (1999). The impact of cultural
and familial context on behavioral and emotional problems of preschool Latino
children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 29, 287–301.
Westat. (2000). ECLS-K base year public-use data files and electronic codebook (user’s
manual).
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Talking about emotions: Semantics, culture, and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 285–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02699939208411073
Winsler, A., Burchinal, M., Tien, H., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Espinosa, L., Castro, D., et al.
(2014). Early development among dual language learners: The roles of language
use at home, maternal immigration, country of origin, and sociodemographics.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing
the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323–346. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80059-6
Wong Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be
concerned? Theory into Practice, 39, 203–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15430421tip3904 3
Yang, S., Yang, H., & Lust, B. (2011). Early childhood bilingualism leads to
advances in executive attention: Dissociating culture and language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(3), 412–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S1366728910000611
Yeung, W., Linver, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). How money matters for young
children’s development: Parental investment and family processes. Child
Development, 73(6), 1861–1879. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.t01-100511
Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Immigrants raising citizens: Undocumented parents and their
young children. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Yoshikawa, H., & Kalil, A. (2011). The effects of parental undocumented status on the
developmental contexts of young children in immigrant families. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 291–297.