Early Childhood Education and Care in Luxembourg and Language: Performance Closing the Gap between different Language Backgrounds?

Scientific Conference (2023, August 21)

Achievement gaps between students of different family backgrounds have been found in many countries (e.g. Stanat & Christensen, 2006). They are not only based on socioeconomic status or immigration ... [more ▼]

Achievement gaps between students of different family backgrounds have been found in many countries (e.g. Stanat & Christensen, 2006). They are not only based on socioeconomic status or immigration background, but also on home language: If children do not speak the language of instruction at home, they are often disadvantaged in school and perform worse in school performance tests than students speaking the instruction language at home (e.g. Van Staden et al., 2016). Low SES increases the risk that children with an L2 instruction language are disadvantaged (Cummins, 2018). With rising numbers of global migration (Edmond, 2020), these disparities in educational systems can be expected to become more distinct in the future. Luxembourg is a trilingual country with an already highly diverse student population in terms of nationality and language background, with 67 % of elementary school students not speaking the first instruction language Luxembourgish at home (MENJE & SCRIPT, 2022). It is therefore a prime example to study these educational challenges ahead of time. In addition to the “super-diversity” of Luxembourg, students of different language backgrounds have to deal with a highly demanding language curriculum at school, in which the instruction language switches first from Luxembourgish to German and then to French in secondary education. In consequence, many students face challenges in acquiring language and literacy skills (e.g. Hornung et al., 2021) – leading to distinct gaps between students of different language backgrounds. One possible way to decrease such disparities might be an early and extensive participation in early childhood education and care (ECEC). Participation in ECEC, that is “any regulated arrangement that provides education and care to children from birth to compulsory primary school age” (European Commission, n.d.), has been shown to have positive effects on language development and other cognitive abilities. These effects differ between age groups. For young children from age 0 to 3, a Norwegian study found that scaling up early ECEC improved early language skills at the age of seven (Drange & Havnes, 2015). However, a review also indicated research on this age group was scarcer and produced more varied findings (Melhuish et al., 2015). For children between the ages 3 and 6, effects on language and other cognitive skills were more consistently positive (Melhuish et al., 2015). In children with differing home language backgrounds, this association was stronger than in those who spoke the majority language at home (Ansari et al., 2021). This study aims to investigate if these findings hold in the multilingual and diverse school context of Luxembourg and to analyze the effects of ECEC attendance on language performance, differentiated by the student’s home language background and the particular type of ECEC (non-formal daycare vs formal early education). Based on the presented literature, we hypothesize that (1) participation in ECEC, formal and nonformal, is associated with higher listening comprehension in Luxembourgish (i.e. the first instruction language) in grade 1, that (2) the associations are moderated by the children home language background where greater associations are expected for children who do not speak the instruction language at home and that (3) participation in formal ECEC explains more variance than participation in nonformal ECEC. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used To answer our research questions, we draw on a large-scale dataset of n = 5.952 first graders from the Luxemburg school monitoring programme ÉpStan (Épreuves Standardisées) in 2021. The ÉpStan includes questionnaires and written competence tests in key school areas that are implemented every year for all Luxembourgish students in grades 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9. Its aim is a.o. to objectively assess the long-term performance of the Luxembourgish school system. For our study, we focus on Luxembourg listening comprehension in grade 1, which is assessed with different text formats, such as dialogues, short stories or radio broadcasts presented on CDs. The test is measuring different sub-skills, defined by the national curriculum, such as understanding one’s interlocutor, locating, understanding and interpreting information, and applying listening strategies (recognition of noises and voices). Information on ECEC participation is assessed retrospectively in parent questionnaires for crèches (non-formal ECEC targeted at 0-4 year olds) and for précoce (formal ECEC, targeted at 3 year olds). Home language background is assessed by self-report in the student questionnaire and categorised into five groups: a) Luxembourgish, b) French, c) Portuguese, d) bilingual Luxembourgish / French and e) bilingual Luxembourgish / Portuguese. After checking whether the prerequisites for the analyses are met, we calculate a multivariate regression model with the two ECEC types as binary predictors and other family background variables as control for hypothesis (1). For hypothesis (2), we test whether home language background moderates the association between ECEC and language performance by adding interaction terms of home language group with each ECEC type to our regression model. For hypothesis (3), we compare the incremental variance explained by each ECEC type. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings We expect our outcomes to show that attendance in both ECEC types have positive associations with Luxembourgish listening comprehension in first grade, in line with many findings on the topic. Additionally, attendance in formal ECEC is expected to explain more variance in Luxembourgish listening comprehension than attendance in nonformal ECEC as Luxembourgish is the main instruction language in formal ECEC. In nonformal ECEC institutions, language policies are usually less rigid and more plurilingual. We also expect significant moderations of this effect by home language background: We do not expect a strong effect of both formal and nonformal ECEC on listening comprehension for children who speak only Luxembourgish at home, as they are expected to have developed these skills at home. Children who do not speak Luxembourgish at home are, on the other hand, expected to benefit more from ECEC attendance. This would then indicate that more time spent in ECEC institutions fostered their basic skills in the instruction language and helped gain better listening performance. Being competent in the instruction language is essential for further learning. Without the language skills, children are unable to connect to the school’s input (Schleppegrell, 2001). All in all, the findings might help to understand the effects of two different ECEC types in Luxembourg for children of different language backgrounds – indicating for whom ECEC attendance should be explicitly encouraged. It might also give us valuable hints towards characteristics of ECEC that are especially helpful to further language skills and thus, later school performance. Implications on possible policy decisions with the goal of closing achievement gaps and furthering educational equality will be discussed. References Ansari, A., Pianta, R. C., Whittaker, J. E., Vitiello, V., & Ruzek, E. (2021). Enrollment in public-prekindergarten and school readiness skills at kindergarten entry: Differential associations by home language, income, and program characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54, 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.07.011 Cummins, J. (2018). Urban Multilingualism and Educational Achievement: Identifying and Implementing Evidence-Based Strategies for School Improvement. In P. Van Avermaet, S. Slembrouck, K. Van Gorp, S. Sierens, & K. Maryns (Eds.), The Multilingual Edge of Education (p. 67–90). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54856-6_4 Drange, N., & Havnes, T. (2015). Child Care Before Age Two and the Development of Language and Numeracy: Evidence from a Lottery. Discussion Papers. Statistics Norway. Research Department., 808. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2582539 Edmond, C. (2020, January 10). Global migration, by the numbers. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/iom-global-migration-report-international-migrants-2020/ European Commission. (n.d.). Early childhood education and care initiatives. Retrieved 23rd May 2022, from https://education.ec.europa.eu/node/1702 Hornung, C., Wollschläger, R., Keller, U., Esch, P., Muller, C., & Fischbach, A. (2021). Neue längsschnittliche Befunde aus dem nationalen Bildungsmonitoring ÉpStan in der 1. und 3. Klasse. Negativer Trend in der Kompetenzentwicklung und kein Erfolg bei Klassenwiederholungen. In LUCET & SCRIPT (Eds.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Luxemburg 2021 (p. 44–55). LUCET & SCRIPT. Melhuish, E., Ereky-Stevens, K., Petrogiannis, K., Ariescu, A., Penderi, E., Rentzou, K., Tawell, A., Leseman, P., & Broekhuisen, M. (2015). A review of research on the effects of early childhood education and care (ECEC) on child development [Technical Report.]. MENJE & SCRIPT. (2022). Education system in Luxembourg. Key Figures. edustat.lu Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic Features of the Language of Schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12(4), 431–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00073-0 Stanat, P., & Christensen, G. (2006). Where Immigrant Students Succeed—A Comparative Review of Performance and Engagement in PISA 2003. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/whereimmigrantstudentssucceed-acomparativereviewofperformanceandengagementinpisa2003.htm Van Staden, S., Bosker, R., & Bergbauer, A. (2016). Differences in achievement between home language and language of learning in South Africa: Evidence from prePIRLS 2011. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 6(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v6i1.441 [less ▲]

Einfluss des Faktors Wortfrequenz auf die satzinterne Großschreibung bei Fünftklässler:innen

in Rautenberg, Iris; Bangel, Melanie (Eds.) Das Verhältnis zwischen Wissen und Können beim Lesen- und Schreibenlernen (2023)

Frequenz ist ein vielbeachteter Faktor, wenn es darum geht, zu erklären, warum manche Wörter und Teilbereiche von Wörtern eher fehleranfälliger sind als andere. In regelhaften Bereichen der Orthographie ... [more ▼]

Frequenz ist ein vielbeachteter Faktor, wenn es darum geht, zu erklären, warum manche Wörter und Teilbereiche von Wörtern eher fehleranfälliger sind als andere. In regelhaften Bereichen der Orthographie haben viele Studien zudem gezeigt, dass Frequenz einen größeren Einfluss auf Richtigschreibungen haben könnte als regelbasiertes Lernen. Der vorliegende Beitrag nimmt dies zum Ausgangspunkt und untersucht, ob der Faktor der Wortfrequenz in der satzinternen Großschreibung eine Rolle spielt. Die Arbeit umfasst zwei Forschungsfragen: (1) Sagt die Wortfrequenz von Nomen deren Großschreibung voraus, wenn man Konkretheit kontrolliert? und (2) Sagt die Frequenz von Verben und Adjektiven in Bezug auf die Frequenz der entsprechenden Nominalisierungen die Großschreibung letzterer voraus? Für die Untersuchung wurde die Großschreibung von 185 luxemburgischen Fünftklässler:innen in Lücken- und Satzdiktaten analysiert. Die Frequenz wurde aufgrund von drei Korpora berechnet. Die Regressionsanalysen zeigen das frequente Nomen eher großgeschrieben werden als seltene Nomen. Allerdings verschwindet dieser Effekt, wenn der lexikalisch-semantische Typ (Konkreta, Abstrakta, Nominalisierungen) in die Analysen einbezogen wird. Der ausschlaggebende Faktor für die Großschreibung in dieser Studie war schließlich Konkretheit, nicht Frequenz. [less ▲]

Profiles of poor and good spellers in German noun capitalization

in L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature (2023), 23

This study investigated how fourth graders with different proficiency levels (1st and 4th quartile, 192 and 195 pupils respectively) produce and detect German noun capitalization in relation to two ... [more ▼]

This study investigated how fourth graders with different proficiency levels (1st and 4th quartile, 192 and 195 pupils respectively) produce and detect German noun capitalization in relation to two factors, lexical-semantic characteristics of the noun and the structure of the noun phrase (NP). The first factor includes concrete and abstract nouns, as well as nominalized verbs and adjectives; the second factor the syntactic context of the NP (with or without determiner and/or adjective, including bare noun). The two proficiency groups showed different patterns in the production and detection of capitalization in relation to these two factors after three years of instruction in noun capitalization. The low-proficiency group performed on chance level only for concrete nouns in the context with precedent determiner, the context highlighted at school. The high-proficiency group seemed to make use systematically of the expanded NP in order to recognize and capitalize the noun but still had difficulties with most bare nouns. The paper discusses the type of information low- and high-achieving pupils seem to use in noun capitalization and detection. [less ▲]

Schreiben mit Legos. Die Bausteine Grammatik für das Untersuchen von Sätzen im Luxemburgischen, Deutschen und Französischen.

Report (2021)

Spelling patterns of plural marking and learning trajectories in French taught as a foreign language

in Written Language and Literacy (2021), 24(1), 81-110

Although French plural spelling has been studied extensively, the complexity of factors affecting the learning of French plural spelling are not yet fully explained, namely on the level of adjectival and ... [more ▼]

Although French plural spelling has been studied extensively, the complexity of factors affecting the learning of French plural spelling are not yet fully explained, namely on the level of adjectival and verbal plural. This study investigates spelling profiles of French plural markers of 228 multilingual grade 5 pupils with French taught as a foreign language. Three analyses on the learner performances of plural spelling in nouns, verbs and pre- and postnominal attributive adjectives were conducted (1) to detect the pupils’ spelling profiles of plural marking on the basis of the performances in the pretest, (2) to test the profiles against two psycholinguistic theories, and (3) to evaluate the impact of the training on each spelling profile in the posttest. The first analysis confirms the existing literature that pupils’ learning of French plural is not random but ordered and emphasizes the role of the position for adjectives (pre- or postnominal) on correct plural spelling. The second analysis reveals the theoretical difficulties of predicting spelling of adjectival and verbal plural. The third analysis shows that strong and poor spellers both benefit from a morphosyntactic training and provides transparency and traceability of the learning trajectories. Together, the descriptive analyses reveal clear patterns of intra-individual spelling profiles. They point to a need for further research in those areas that have empirically provided the most inconsistent results to date and that are not supported by the theories: verbs and adjectives. [less ▲]

Literacies in contact: Forms, functions, and practices

in Written Language and Literacy (2020), 23(2), 133-153

Research on language contact has so far mainly focused on oral situations, although standardization and language ideologies always have an important influence on multilingualism in both its written and ... [more ▼]

Research on language contact has so far mainly focused on oral situations, although standardization and language ideologies always have an important influence on multilingualism in both its written and its spoken form. This raises the question of which theoretical models are most suitable for the description of written language contact. The present paper recalls linguistic investigations of written language. Some research on multilingual writing shares concepts with research on oral language contacts, always adapting them for writing. Other research develops new concepts for investigating multilingual writing. Within the framework of research on multilingualism, some concepts approach language contact as a question of systematic interactions between linguistic systems (e.g. borrowing, code-switching, graphe¬mat¬ic matrix, schriftdenken), other concepts envisage language contact as a multilingual practice (e.g. translanguaging, multimodal analysis, biliteracy). Written language contact is an especially fruitful field of study for pointing out major differences between these two research traditions and for bridging them. [less ▲]

Literacies in Context

in Written Language and Literacy (2020), 23

Clara Mortamet (dir.), L’orthographe. Pratiques d’élèves, pratiques d’enseignants, représentations

Article for general public (2020)

compte rendu / report

Distinguishing Syntactic Markers From Morphological Markers. A Cross-Linguistic Comparison

in Frontiers in Psychology (2020), 11(2082),

This brief review summarizes findings about syntactic markers, i.e., graphemic elements that indicate syntactic relations, such as inflection morphemes. Current spelling models subsume inflection with ... [more ▼]

This brief review summarizes findings about syntactic markers, i.e., graphemic elements that indicate syntactic relations, such as inflection morphemes. Current spelling models subsume inflection with derivation and stem alternations under “morphological spellings.” They hence consider inflection only in relation to the orthographic word. This paper argues that syntactic markers are a specific category as they are part of the orthographic word but also systematically tied to the presence of syntactic features above the word level. Syntactic spelling refers thus not only to the correct spelling of a syntactic marker but to its correct application within a given syntactical context. In syntactic reading, (proof)readers must notice the marker and interpret it correctly to understand the sentence. Syntactic spelling and reading have hence been found to be highly demanding in many languages. Syntactic information is not decisive for sentence understanding in many cases, since the information can be deduced from the context. In order to focus the definition of syntactic markers, this paper restricts them to those graphemic elements that convey syntactical but no lexical features and are further unrelated to phonology. The paper concludes that syntactic markers and spelling should be distinguished from morphological spelling. Examples are given for English, French, Dutch, and German. [less ▲]

Spelling patterns of German 4th graders in French vowels: Insights into spelling solutions within and across two alphabetic writing systems

in Writing Systems Research (2020)

Cross-language transfer in vowel spelling is difficult to detect because the relation between a vowel and its grapheme is often ambiguous within a writing system and the interpretation of transfer complex ... [more ▼]

Cross-language transfer in vowel spelling is difficult to detect because the relation between a vowel and its grapheme is often ambiguous within a writing system and the interpretation of transfer complex. This study examined French spelling patterns of German fourth graders with French as Foreign language cross-linguistically by applying a fine-grained measure to the differences in spelling, tested with a dictation. The study differentiated between phonologically and graphematically joint vs. unshared vowel graphemes in French and German and the contribution of each category to transfer. Instead of testing orthographic knowledge as in applying the orthographic norm correctly, it used the model of the ‘graphematic solution space’ [Neef, M. (2015). Writing systems as modular objects: Proposals for theory design in grapholinguistics. Open Linguistics, 1(1), 708–721.] that takes into account spelling that is graphematically licensed within the involved writing system. The analysis distinguished between poor and good German spellers to get insights on the relation of the pupils’ competence in the German and French spelling. Results showed an influence of the phonological and graphematic overlap in the spelling patterns, but also inconsistencies with both writing systems. The findings challenge statistical learning in multilingual contexts as the produced graphotactic patterns are rather French-like than French. [less ▲]