Learning different language scripts through separation model in a bilingual preschool setting

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the acquisition of Roman alphabetic script among young children within a bilingual (Arabic and English) educational environment employing a language separation pedagogical approach in Muscat, Oman. Data were collected utilizing participant observations, video recordings to capture the interactions of three children and the instructive practices of the teacher, and teacher interviews, in order to explore the efficacy of this model. The findings of the study indicate that children demonstrate proficiency in script composition in their second language (Roman-English) through engagement in diverse classroom activities, including mathematical and artistic pursuits. Despite prevalent negative perceptions associated with language separation methodologies, our findings suggest its potential effectiveness in facilitating second language acquisition and literacy development. Implications of the study’s outcomes are discussed, along with avenues for future research inquiry.

Keywords:

• Bilingual education
• early bilingualism
• language scripts
• separation model
• Oman

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Yung Kevin, Education University of Hong Kong FEHD: The Education University of Hong Kong Faculty of Education and Human Development, Hong Kong

SUBJECTS:

• Bilingualism / ESL
• Childhood
• Early Years

1. Introduction

Recent research on bilingual education has suggested flexible language strategies (e.g. translanguaging) to support children’s second language learning and to challenge the view that languages need to be separated (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; García, 2009; García & Wei, 2014). Scholarship on the use of translanguaging argues that language separation models rarely allow children to use their linguistic repertoire (e.g. transgressing language boundaries) (Wei, 2021) and to learn a second language through translanguaging. Here, the language separation model refers to teaching languages separately (one teacher, one language) and according to content and subjects (Baker & Prys-Jones, 1998; Prošić-Santovac & Radović, 2018). Although language separation models are criticized for separating languages (Palmer et al., 2014), they are still applied by teachers to bilingual school settings, especially classrooms in western countries such as the USA and Canada (Cummins, 2005; Moore, 2010). Yet, language separation models might have some negative connotations, implying that languages are strictly separated and ideologically constructed (Blackledge, 2000) and children should not be allowed to transfer between languages (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Cummins, 2005).

Another connotation associated with these models is that teachers might value one language over another (hierarchizing languages) (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). Although they are associated with such connotations, studies show that preschool children can learn two languages with language separation models (Barnett et al., 2007; Farver et al., 2009; Lindholm-Leary, 2020). For example, Barnett et al. (2007)’s study found that the dual language program (English and Spanish) was effective in developing children’s skills in literacy and mathematics. The participant children and teachers in their study rotated weekly between two English and Spanish classes each week (Barnett et al., 2007). Reviewing studies on dual language models, Lindholm-Leary (2020) suggested that dual language models can develop children’s bilingualism. Another study conducted by Prošić-Santovac and Radović (2018) found that the language separation model was effective in developing children’s receptive skills, but it was not effective in developing productive communication skills. But these studies were concluded in a context where the script of both languages was Roman type and limited to literacy activities.

However, our study examines the development of children’s skills in math and art subjects in the Roman script through the Arabic and English language separation model. The study focused on children’s writing skills in math operations and in color mixing activities in the Roman alphabetic script in an Arabic-English bilingual preschool context. Our study aims to understand how preschool children can develop their writing, math, and art skills in a different language script that is different from the script of their first language. The following questions will be addressed:

• How do children learn the Roman alphabetic script?

• What is the role of the language separation model in learning language scripts?

2. Literature review

2.1. Learning language scripts in early years

Research into learning language scripts was mainly conducted in western countries, where researchers focused on children’s script learning in Saturday schools (Kenner, 2004; Kenner & Kress, 2003), with their children in home settings (Al-Salmi & Smith, 2015; Choi, 2021; Kabuto, 2010), and language immersion programs (Moore, 2010). In mainstream schools in these countries, English is mainly the language of instruction and is written in the Roman script. For example, Kenner (2004) examined Arab, Spanish, and Chinese immigrant children’s script learning in a Saturday school in London. Kenner found that the participating children were aware of the key characteristics of their language writing system. In that case, Arab children knew that the Arabic alphabet was different from the Roman alphabet as it was written and read from the right hand and in a cursive direction. Spanish children in the study noticed that English and Spanish alphabets were taught differently, though the alphabets have the same script. Kenner highlighted that when children use different language scripts simultaneously, they might have transition points at which they mix the directionality of the scripts. She argued that this should not be associated with ‘confusion’, as it is a matter of transition (Kenner, 2004, p. 53).

However, other studies found that learning two different scripts might influence children’s early literacy skills, such as reading, as well as meta-linguistic skills (e.g. recognition of letters and directionality of the writing system) (Piper & van Ginkel, 2016). But familiarity with one script makes it difficult to write and read in the opposite direction (Kenner & Kress, 2003). Because learning two scripts that have different directionalities in writing systems might require intensive teaching around the directionality of language scripts. In a weekend school where children learned their home language in London, for example, Kenner and Kress (2003) found that the teachers spared a lot of time for teaching children the directionalities of English and Arabic. The participating teachers highlighted that the children needed to differentiate the writing direction of the languages (Kenner & Kress, 2003). As Saracho (1990, p. 1) argued:

Skills in writing help children … to learn specific writing features, to learn to write, to know and to understand the letters of the alphabet, and to learn transactions in writing such as left-to-right progression…

As such, learning to write in two different scripts might be cognitively demanding (Nag, 2007). Because children develop an awareness of the scripts, including learning properties (e.g. the direction of writing) and symbols of a language (Moore, 2010). In addition, the cognitive demand is addressed by an integrated language system (including more than one language) in children’s minds. In other words, children transfer from one writing system to another by using their linguistic repertoire (Cook, 2003). According to Cook and Bassetti (2005), there is an interaction between language systems in the child’s mind. They argued that ‘[a] multi-competent L2 user is not two monolinguals in one person, but has an integrated knowledge of the two languages, which interact and affect each other’ (p. 45).

The consolidation of interaction between the language systems depends on the child’s capacity and the assistance of the teacher, as argued by Vygotsky (1978), who insisted that children’s potential can be supported within their zone of proximal development, which includes both the child and a more knowledgeable person. Therefore, learning to write in two languages such as Arabic and English requires both physical and cognitive efforts, as children need to consider the appropriate direction before writing (Kenner & Kress, 2003). For example, it can be relatively easy for children who learn to read and write in languages such as English and French that share the same writing system (Moore, 2010). A child who reads and writes in English may easily recognize and understand some common words in a text written in French. This can help the child transfer reading and writing skills from English to French. But an Arab child who can read and write in Arabic may not transfer those skills to English as smoothly as his counterpart does in French. That is because transmission from Arabic to English or vice versa includes both a different script (the Arabic alphabet) and writing direction (from right to left). Thus, it requires higher mental skills that can be achieved through interaction with the teacher’s scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976).

2.2. Language separation models in early years

One example of language teaching in bilingual contexts is the two-way dual language programs. Although we are aware of recent research suggesting flexible language teaching strategies (e.g. translanguaging) (García & Wei, 2014; Wei, 2021), we want to draw attention to the role of the language separation model in children’s expressive and early writing skills in second language learning. Studies (e.g. Prošić-Santovac & Radović, 2018) showed that language separation models can vary according to the allotted time and the person assigned to a particular language. They demonstrated that different models could have both negative and positive effects on children’s language learning. For example, Prošić-Santovac and Radović’s (2018) study, which examined a language separation model (one language-one person) used in a preschool setting in Serbia, indicated that the model mainly had positive effects on children’s receptive skills (Prošić-Santovac & Radović, 2018).

Similarly, Schwartz and Deeb (2021) reported on a second language conducive classroom in a bilingual classroom where children learned two official languages that have the majority (Hebrew) and minority (Arabic) relationships in Israel. The goal of the school was to teach children both Hebrew and Arabic. In the classroom, both the Hebrew and Arabic teachers taught together ‘without allocating time for each’ language (p. 485). Their study showed that the model supported children’s receptive skills (e.g. comprehension), but it was not effective in supporting expressive skills (producing sentences), especially for children whose first language was Hebrew. They also highlighted that Hebrew-speaking children did not have sufficient motivation for using Arabic with each other and their teachers, and the children were allowed to use the language of their choice (Schwartz & Deeb, 2021). Likewise, Palmer et al. (2014) reported that in a two-way dual-language setting in the USA, children learned both Spanish and English. The model in their study was based on the idea that the content of activities could be in both English and Spanish to support children’s comprehension of the languages. Their findings showed that the participating teachers insisted on using each language in different activities. One of the teachers stressed that it was appropriate to use Spanish for telling stories relevant to children’s daily lives. The study also indicated that children developed comprehension of English as a second language. But they attributed this finding to allowing children to use both languages in some activities (Palmer et al., 2014).

The review of the studies exploring children’s second language learning in dual language educational settings suggested that children developed their receptive skills and their comprehension of the languages (Barnett et al., 2007; Palmer et al., 2014). The review of these studies also suggests that the language separation model can be considered flexible as the children were allowed to translate from English to Serbian (Prošić-Santovac & Radović, 2018). However, our study examines children’s skills in math and art activities in a strict, separated bilingual program.

3. Research method

3.1. Research design

This study employed qualitative research procedures including participant observations, video recording of interactions taking place between three children and a teacher. These procedures were suitable to gather authentic and in depth information about the learning process of young children (Gelir, 2021). Thereby, we observed the children in the observation rooms and sometimes participated in classroom activities. While observing the children, social distancing was practiced throughout the study which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic as suggested by Fine and Abramson (2020).

The preschool setting where this research was conducted is located at a state funded university in Oman. The school applied a bilingual model (Arabic and English) that taught languages separately; each language was taught in a different class, and the teachers did not support the transition between the languages. There were two classrooms (Arabic and English) with 30 children (15 children in each classroom) and three teachers in each class. The participant children learn both Arabic and English in the preschool setting. Arabic is the official language, and English is a socially prestigious and official foreign language in Oman (Tekin, 2015). Parents in Oman are keen to have their children learn English as early as possible (Tekin & Al-Salmi, 2019; Tekin, 2014). Omani teachers also have a positive attitude toward early bilingual education (Tekin, 2016).

3.2. Participants

The participants of the study included one preschool teacher and three preschool children (five and six years old). We focused on the children in the English class, as our goal was to examine the development of children’s skills in the Roman script in English activities. We chose the participant children purposively to represent the population. Because the other children’s first language was Arabic too. In addition, daily activities and their contents in both classes were identical, and the same materials and methods were used for teaching in each class. The children in the English class (first session) go to the Arabic class, and those in the Arabic class move to the English class. While exchanging classes, children’s name tags get changed. For the English class, their name tag was put on their left leg, whereas for the Arabic class, it was on the right leg. However, the three teachers in each class remain in their class while the children exchange classrooms. The first language of the teacher and the children is Arabic. The teacher had seven years of teaching experience at the time of the study. In addition, the participant children used Arabic in their home according to their parents’ self-report and the teacher’s account (see Table 1).

Table 1. The participants’ profile.

Participants	Age	First language	Second language	Languages at home
Child 1 (C1)	6	Arabic	English	Arabic
Child 2 (C2)	6	Arabic	English	Arabic
Child 3 (C3)	6	Arabic	English	Arabic
Teacher	Around 30	Arabic	English	Arabic and English

The participant children had at least one of their parents working for the university. During the day, the children exchanged classrooms at around 10:15 in the morning (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Daily schedule for the English class.

3.3. Data collection and analysis

We conducted participant observations in classroom activities as well as audio and video recordings daily (see Figure 1). The data were collected during individual activities in the second session. In addition to the physical participant observations inside the classrooms, the researchers observed children from the observation room as well as take pictures of children’s activities (Pink et al., 2016). This way of collecting the data was considered important at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observations lasted two hours a week for 13 weeks (in total 10 hours of recording). During participant observations, we had discussions with the teachers in the English class to address the questions about children’s script learning and progress in English learning. We conducted two interviews with the teacher, and each lasted around 15 minutes. We asked the following questions; did the children face any difficulties or experienced confusion when they learned and wrote in English in terms of the scripts? Although the teachers articulated that the children did not encounter any difficulties, our findings suggested a close look into children’s script learning. We also asked if the teacher had flexibility for allowing them to use Arabic along with English.

With regard to data analysis, we looked for patterns in the data based on our research questions. Through an iterative process, we examined children’s Roman script learning across activities rather than focusing on one type of activity such as literacy. A focus on children’s script learning in one type of activity may overlook their script learning in other subject areas such as math and the arts. To be competent learners, children need to learn and be aware that a language script is used in every activity in which they practice the script. We categorized the data according to activities such as ‘learning to count butterflies from the English side’, which was one of the categories (Saldaña, 2009).

We also conducted a moment-to-moment analysis to examine how the teacher guided and supported the children to learn and write in the Roman script (Maybin, 2006). Our analysis was also informed by visual ethnography (Pink, 2007), as we provided pictures of activities and the daily schedule to contextualize the excerpts and add more details to the context and contextualize the activities. Codes were used to refer to the participants to ensure anonymity, and we used T to refer to the teacher and C1, C2, and C3 to refer to the participant children. Finally, we also provided the transcript of our interactions between the teacher and the children verbatim to ensure the credibility of our study.

3.4. Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations were ensured during this study. Before conducting the study, permission and informed consent forms were obtained from the school and parents. We ensured the teachers that we took children’s best interests into account (BERA, 2011). For example, we asked the children’s permission to join their activities. We also gave the children and the teacher the codes to ensure the anonymity of the participants.

4. Findings

Two main findings emerged from the data: (1) learning to count and write addition operations from the English side, and (2) mixing colors from the English side. The following interaction took place in a math activity. The excerpt shows how Child 3 learns to count butterflies from the English side.

Excerpt 1. Learning to count butterflies from the English side

1. T: The map has two sides. Give me your two hands, please.

2. C3: [holds the teacher’s hands]

3. T: Put one hand here. This is the English side, and this is…

4. C3: [puts other hand]

5. T: This is Arabic side, should we start from the English side or Arabic side?

6. C3: English side

7. T: On the English side, good! Did you count backward?

8. C3: [silent]

9. T: Yes, you did, Ok. How many butterflies do we have there?

10. C3: Four

11. T: And what number do we have there?

12. C3: Four

13. T: What about the second card? what number?

14. C3: Four

15. T: Yes. (Audio recording, 04/04/2021)

In turn 1, the teacher explains the sides of the map and tells the child to stretch his hands. The teacher contextualizes the scripts of the languages by teaching which side is right and left through the parts of his body (Turn 3). In doing so, the child is guided to associate English with his left hand and Arabic with his right hand (Turns 2 and 4). In other words, the teacher tells him that he can use his body parts to differentiate the scripts from each other. The distinction (English-left hand and Arabic-right hand side) is used to differentiate the scripts in Muslim countries (e.g. Turkey), where the Roman script is learned in mainstream schools and the Arabic script is learned in mosques and faith literacies. It seems that the child comprehends the difference between the scripts as he indecisively answers the teacher’s question ‘Should we start from the English side or the Arabic side?’ by saying the English side (Turn 6). The teacher provides him with verbal praise of ‘good’ and seeks confirmation for counting backward (Turn 7). Since the child is silent (Turn 8), she reminds him that he did it and asks him what the number of butterflies is (Turn 9). Then, she guides the child to label a set of objects (number of butterflies) with the number three through her question in turn 11 (Nguyen et al., 2017). The child can use labelling as long as he answers her questions correctly (Turns 11 and 13).

In this excerpt, the child learns that he should start with the English side when he counts and labels the objects in the English lesson. This will provide him with a foundation for counting skills in the Roman script. The teacher extends his understanding of the Roman script by teaching him implicitly that in English class the script needs to be used for activities such as counting. In other words, the use of the script is not limited to literacy activities such as learning letters and symbols (Kabuto, 2010; Kenner, 2004). Therefore, it could be argued that his understanding of the script goes beyond one type of activity. The following excerpt was recorded during a math activity. It shows how the teacher guides Child 1 to write a math operation from the English side.

Excerpt 2. Learning to write addition operation from the English side

1. T: What do we have here?

2. C1: Birds

3. T: Are these birds?

4. C1: White

5. T: So, white birds here. What is the colour of other birds?

6. C1: Red.

7. T: Red or pink?

8. C1: Pink

9. T: Yes, pink. Please, put white birds there and the pink birds here.

10. C1: [puts]

11. T: Okay, what number do we have here?

12. C1: Three.

13. T: Three. Do you want to start with the white birds or pink ones?

14. C1: White.

15. T: Okay. Put three birds here, please.

16. C1: [puts]

17. T: Very good, put other side. Tell me what are you going to write here?

18. C1: [silent]

19. T: What number should we write?

20. C1: zero [tries to write from the Arabic side]

21. T: You have to start from the English side. Together with what?

22. C1: Three [writes equals symbol]

23. T: is the same as…

24. C1: as

25. T: Yeah

26. C1: 3

27. T: Finish. (Video recording, 30/03/2021)

In this activity, the child learns to write an addition operation in the Roman script. The teacher starts asking what objects he has (Turn 1) and what the color of the objects is (Turn 3). The child responds to the teacher’s question by naming the color of the birds (Turns 2 and 4). The teacher asks the same question to the pink birds (Turn 5). At first, the child’s answer is wrong (Turn 6). To elicit the correct answer, the teacher asks another question, implying that the answer is pink (Turn 7). The child provides the expected answer (Turn 8), and the teacher confirms it and guides him to where he needs to put the white and pink birds (Turn 9). Then, the teacher moves the interaction to evolve around the number 3 by asking what number it is (Turn 11).

The child correctly answers the question (Turn 12). The teacher confirms his response and asks with which birds he wants to start (Turn 13). The child says his choice of birds (Turn 14). After that, the teacher guides the child to write the label of set sizes (putting three birds for the number 3), which is a critical component of cardinality in math learning (Nguyen et al., 2017) (Turn 15). The teacher praises the child for doing so by saying ‘very good’ and asks him what number he needs to write (Turn 17). Since the child does not answer (Turn 18), the teacher explicitly asks, ‘What number should we write?’ (Turn 19). This time, it seems that the child understands what number he needs to write, but he does not write in the appropriate writing direction as he tries to write from the right-hand side (the Arabic side) (Turn 20). Recognizing this, the teacher uses the modal ‘have to’ to stress the appropriate writing direction and provides the clue ‘Together with what?’ for completing the addition operation (Turn 21). The child gets the clue by saying ‘three’ (Turn 22). The teacher continues to assist the child in order to produce the operation verbally while he writes it (Turn 23). The teacher provides the child with a model of writing the operation (highlighted in green in Figure 2). Finally, the child completes the addition operation by saying ‘as’ and ‘three’ (Turns 24 and 26), and the teacher confirms him and terminates the interaction (Turns 25 and 27).

Figure 2. Teacher’s modelling and child’s writing in the math activity.

In this interaction, the child learns and develops cognitive skills (e.g. writing in the Roman script) and mathematical skills (cardinality) through the teacher’s scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976), which divides the writing process into small parts (e.g. ‘together with what?’ and ‘is the same as’). As such, the child develops higher mental skills by completing the math operations in his new script.

The next interaction was recorded when one of the participant children engaged in an art activity. The excerpt indicates how Child 2 learns to mix colors in an abstract way, including manipulation of materials and using a square tray (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Mixing colors on the square tray.

Excerpt 3. Mixing colors on the English side

1. T: What is this color?

2. C2: Blue

3. T: And what is this color?

4. C2: Yellow

5. T: What is this color?

6. C2: Red

7. T: We are going to start with one color only. Choose one color.

8. C2: [chooses one color]

9. T: What is this color?

10. C2: Red

11. T: Okay, put it on the English side.

12. C2: [takes the red color and tries to put it on the Arabic side]

13. T: On the English side.

14. C2: [puts]

15. T: Put a different color together with it

16. C2: [takes the blue color]

17. T: What is this color?

18. C2: Blue

19. T: Here, we are going to put red and blue together. We will see what we are going to get.

20. C2: [puts one colour on the top of the other color]

21. T: What do we get?

22. C2: Purple

23. T: Yes, that is right (Video recording, 23/03/2021)

In this interaction, the child learns to use the color mixing tray in the appropriate writing direction. He also learns to get secondary colors by testing them in an abstract way that does not need water to mix the colors. The teacher asks questions about the names of colors, and the child responds to her questions by saying the names (Turns 1–6). The teacher tells the child that at first he needs to choose one color, and the child does so (Turns 7 and 8). She asks the child which color he gets (Turn 9). The child responds to her by saying the name of the color (Turn 10). Then the teacher guides the child to put it on the English side (Turn 11), but he fails to do so (Turn 12). Again, she tells him that it should be on the English side (Turn 13). In contrast to the previous example where she used the modal ‘have to’, here the teacher’s stress is weaker. He follows the teacher’s guidance by putting it in the appropriate writing direction (Turn 14). She asks him to get another color by putting them together (Turn 15). This time, the child takes the blue color (Turn 16). The teacher explains the following steps, including testing (Turn 19). The child puts one color on top of another color (Turn 20). The teacher asks him a final question whether he can see and understand the result (Turn 21). He correctly responds to the teacher (Turn 22).

This excerpt shows that the child tends to start from the Arabic side (Turn 12), even if the teacher reminds him of the writing direction (Turn 11). His tendency indicates temporarily his cognitive errors in the directionality of the script. But he puts the colors on the English side after the teacher has stressed the writing direction. The child’s answer to ‘What do we get?’ demonstrates that he can do color mixing on a tray that requires manipulation of the materials, rather than experimenting with a concrete way (e.g. using water to mix colors).

5. Discussion

This study has examined children’s script learning and the role of the language separation model in script learning. It showed that the participant children learned and developed an understanding of the Roman alphabetic script in various classroom activities such as art and math. From the interactions between the teacher and children, we can understand that children participated in a rich classroom environment in terms of materials and activities that helped them experience and understand the use of the Roman script across activities. Thus, this study is at odds with previous studies that argued that language separation models might not develop children’s competence in languages and negatively affect their cognitive skills (Kabuto, 2010). For example, excerpt 2 showed that the child practiced writing skills in the Roman script through the teacher’s scaffolding. The child further conducted an addition operation in the script and mentally labelled a set of sizes with a number (matching the number 3 with three birds).

In response to the first research question, our findings highlighted the role that context (e.g. availability of materials and teachers) plays in learning different scripts through the language separation model. As highlighted above, there were three teachers in each session, and the children had opportunities to work individually with the teacher. This helped the participating children practice their learning thoroughly, as well as enable the teacher to have sufficient time to guide the children in script learning. With the availability of materials such as the color tray, another participant’s child mixed colors in a less concrete way, which enabled him to integrate color mixing with writing skills. What is usually done for missing colors is to conduct an experiment that mixes the colors with water in order to get the second one.

As such, children might not need to practice their writing skills, especially those who are learning a second language. In other words, not only did the child practice mixing the colors, but he also learned how to do it using a new script. This helped the child move beyond mixing colors. Mixing colors or ingredients, which is considered a science activity (Charlesworth, 2016), helps children develop reasoning and prediction skills. However, writing their predictions down or doing their science activity in the directionality of their second language script requires children to transfer from one language system to another. This language transfer can help children develop an awareness of and competence in the languages. As discussed above, studies on translanguaging view children’s linguistic resources as one repertoire. The idea of allowing children to move between languages is helpful for them to draw on their linguistic resources (Creese & Blackledge, 2015) and feel linguistic security (García, 2009). But children might not be allowed to transgress language boundaries in every context. The point raised is that children can have the capacity to separate the writing systems (scripts) (Kenner, 2004) and develop their writing skills (e.g. math operations) with the availability of teachers and resources. In addition, the findings were not aligned with the teacher’s view that children did not experience difficulties. Our findings, however, highlighted that the children experienced difficulties and confusion when they needed to mix the colors in the Roman script.

In response to the second research question, the findings demonstrated that language separations (e.g. by teacher and time) can be an effective way to develop children’s Roman script learning. Previous studies, such as Kenner (2004), argue that young children rarely face linguistic and cognitive difficulties. However, experiencing cognitive confusion does not mean that children cannot overcome the difficulties. Children might experience confusion when they learn to write math operations and mix colors in the script of their second language (English), which has a different form from their first language (Arabic). However, this should not be considered detrimental to their cognitive skills if they are not allowed to move between the languages (Creese & Blackledge, 2015). What can be effectively done by teachers is to observe children and support them where necessary. Such confusion can even be considered a challenge that children overcome within the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Although language separation models were criticized for enforcing boundaries between languages (Palmer et al., 2014; Sánchez et al., 2018), as this study showed, such models can help children develop their cognitive functions (Baker, 2011).

Therefore, this study is at odds with previous studies (Kabuto, 2010) that argued that children might not develop language competence through language separation models, and consequently their language learning might be limited. The findings of our study suggested that children can develop writing skills and math operations in a second language through a language separation model. The current study also suggested that children may develop their expressive skills in a second language when they are not allowed to use the language of their choice in the classroom.

6. Conclusion and implications

The findings showed that the children had opportunities to practice the Roman script in different activities such as art and math through the language separation model. This study also concludes that teachers might need to take a close look at children’s script learning as children might experience confusion and make errors (starting with their first language script). An awareness of this can be helpful for children to overcome difficulties and confusion in their early years.

Our study suggests that emerging bilingual children can write and do math operations in the script of their second language, which might be different from their first language, through language separation models. Theoretically, our study contributes to studies examining the importance of language separation models by showing that these models can be effective in enabling children to learn a new script. Our study emphasized the importance of providing support for children, especially on a one-to-one basis, which is ruled by the ratio of children to teachers in the classroom, as the availability of more teachers provided the children with opportunities that included individual activities and sufficient time, helping them to refine their skills in the Roman script. Hence, the study recommends that more research can be conducted on the role of the language separation model in learning to write in a second language. Researchers might examine script learning in contexts where dual language education is applied.

Our findings, however, have to be considered in light of some limitations. The first limitation was that our study included a limited number of participant children and sessions. Especially, we conducted our study with the number of the children as there were some COVID-19 restrictions at the time of the study. The restrictions made hard to visit other schools and to get permission for conducting our research in other schools. Similarly, the second limitation occurred due to social distance while observing the children. Because the voices of the other children and teacher could distract our attention to the participating children when we observed the children from the observation room. Future research, therefore, can examine children’s script learning over a longer period of time in their first and second languages and include more participants.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Iskender Gelir

Iskender Gelir is an Assistant Professor in Early Education. He received his Ph.D. degree at Goldsmiths, University of London. His research interests include bilingual education, multilingualism, inclusive language pedagogies in monolingual contexts, ethnography (visual and digital) and STEM education.

Ali Kemal Tekin

Ali Kemal Tekin is a Professor in Early Childhood Education. He holds Masters and Ph.D. degrees from The Pennsylvania State University. His research interests include family involvement, early bilingual education, assessment & evaluation in ECE, motivation, and efficacy of ECE teachers, ECE development and policy, and play. He is the current Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Early Childhood (IJEC).

Laila Al-Salmi

Laila Al-Salmi is an Assistant Professor in Early Education. She obtained her Ph.D. from University of Texas. Her research interests include language development and emergent literacy, digital biliteracy, parent involvement, and teaching methodologies. She is the current Head of Early Education Department.