Australian Parents’ Aspirations for Biliteracy in English and Additional Home Language/s for Their Preschool-Aged Children

Abstract

Purpose:

To investigate the emergent literacy aspirations and practices of Australian parents raising preschool-aged children (3;0–5;11 years) in bilingual environments.

Methodology:

Seventy-two parents raising children in bilingual contexts completed an online survey exploring language proficiency, emergent literacy aspirations and practices in English and their primary additional home language. Responses were compared across four participant groups based on a 2 × 2 comparison considering: (a) aspirations for biliteracy and bilingualism or oral bilingualism only and (b) developmental concerns (concerns vs. not).

Data and Analysis:

Descriptive statistics were used to summarise emergent literacy practices across English and the primary additional language within the home. An independent samples t-test was used to compare the frequency of emergent literacy practices. Open-ended text responses concerning parents’ biliterate and bilingual versus oral bilingual only aspirations were analysed qualitatively.

Findings:

More (67%) participants aspired to raise their child to be biliterate and bilingual, with fewer (33%) aspiring for oral bilingualism only. Two themes emerged regarding participants reasons for their aspirations: (a) biliteracy is valuable for my child’s development, life opportunities, family and culture, and (b) biliteracy would be good, but . . . Participants who aspired for their child to be biliterate and bilingual engaged in significantly more emergent literacy practices at home in the primary additional language compared to participants who aspired for their child to be oral bilingual only. Both groups, however, still engaged more in English emergent literacy practices at home.

Originality:

This study provides a novel perspective from Australian parents on raising their children to be biliterate and bilingual including deeper exploration of their aspirations and practices to achieve biliteracy.

Implications:

Many but not all Australian parents raising preschool-aged children in bilingual environments desire for them to be both biliterate and bilingual. This highlights the need for innovative emergent literacy programmes that offer flexibility for parents to effectively incorporate home languages.

Keywords

Australia children bilingualism biliteracy parent beliefs and practices

Introduction

Home literacy environments promote oral language and emergent literacy skills in children before they begin formal schooling (Payne et al., 1994; Rydland & Grøver, 2021; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). These environments include literacy resources and experiences available to children as well as parental attitudes and values placed on literacy within the home (Phillips & Lonigan, 2009). For bilingual children raised in an English-dominant society like Australia, language and literacy activities can serve as one of the few opportunities for nurturing skills in their home language (Eisenchlas et al., 2013; Jones Diaz et al., 2000). Home language refers to a language spoken to the child other than the dominant official language. Some Australian parents worry about the impact of home language use on their child’s English language skills and subsequent academic performance (Escudero et al., 2023; Piller & Gerber, 2021); these concerns can reduce home language use and literacy practices.

Take the hypothetical case of Amar, a 4-year-old and attending a community-based preschool in Australia with English as the language of instruction. Born in Australia to Bosnian Australian parents who speak Bosnian and English, he understands Bosnian but prefers to speak English. Amar’s mother has lived in Australia for 20 years. Her preferred language is English; she reads to Amar often but prioritises English-language books. She aspires for Amar to learn to read Bosnian as well as English. Recently, while reading a poem by a famous Bosnian poet her mother used to read to her, she hesitated as she read. Although keen to share this poem with Amar, she was concerned about her own proficiency and the impact on Amar’s language and literacy development. Through this study, we aim to gain a deeper understanding of Australian parents’ aspirations for bilingualism (understanding and/or speaking at least two languages) and biliteracy (reading and/or writing in at least two languages) and how these aspirations are reflected in their home literacy practices. Recognising that parents of children with developmental concerns may have more intense worries about the influence of bilingualism on their child’s language learning, we incorporated this consideration into our study. We aimed to listen to the voices of parents to understand their preferences and learn about their practices in bilingual contexts as they raise their preschool-aged child in Australia.

Home Literacy Environment: Impact on Bilingualism and Biliteracy

Across the extant literature on children’s home literacy environments, researchers have repeatedly reported cascading benefits for oral language, emergent literacy, and later literacy skills (e.g., Payne et al., 1994; Sénéchal et al., 1998; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002). Although much of this research has focused on children being raised in monolingual families, there is evidence of benefits from rich home literacy environments for preschool- and early school-aged children growing up in bilingual families (Karpava, 2021; Kim & Yim, 2024; Li et al., 2023; Ryan, 2021; Rydland & Grøver, 2021; Sun et al., 2024). Reported benefits, however, have primarily focused on oral bilingualism, rather than biliteracy.

For instance, Ryan (2021) investigated the impact of home literacy experiences in French and English on the vocabulary of 5- to 6-year-olds in an English-French immersion programme in the southwestern United States. Children with more exposure to French print and media had higher baseline French vocabulary scores, especially those with less exposure to English print and media. Ryan (2021) argued “children’s growth in the minority language cannot be sustained without out-of-school support in the form of home literacy environment” (p. 118). To maximise children’s vocabulary skills in the home language, Ryan (2021) suggested that children frequently engage in literacy activities in French rather than English. Similarly, Li et al. (2023) reported that Canadian Chinese English-speaking bilingual children’s literacy experiences in Cantonese and Mandarin correlated with their receptive vocabulary in these languages. Sun et al. (2024) found that shared book reading at home predicted Singaporean bilingual preschool children’s vocabulary. Among bilingual preschoolers (from 11 different home language groups) in Norway, Rydland and Grøver (2021) reported that the home literacy environment also predicted vocabulary – the richer the environment, the better the vocabulary in both languages the children were learning.

Across the more limited body of research examining the potential benefits of preschoolers’ home literacy environments on biliteracy skills, findings have been less conclusive and somewhat ambiguous. This is partly because the home literacy practices seem to vary in whether parents are focused on bilingualism and/or biliteracy, and whether they are engaged in direct and/or indirect emergent literacy practices in one or more languages being learned. Such complexity is illustrated by Kim and Yim’s (2024) comprehensive study of 36 Australian bilingual children aged 4 to 5 years whose home language was Korean and the mainstream language was English. Literacy interactions were described as either indirect or direct (following Sénéchal et al., 1998). Using parent questionnaires and direct observation of parent-child book reading, variation in home literacy interactions was found across Korean and English. Parents tended to use indirect literacy experiences in Korean (e.g., talking about the content of a book the child shows interest in, asking questions about the book to ensure understanding, guessing what would happen next) while literacy experiences in English were more instructional and direct (e.g., identifying, reading, or teaching letters, words, and sound-letter relationships). Direct measures of the children’s emerging literacy skills suggested that formal and explicit parental instruction was necessary to promote literacy skills in Korean, whereas indirect methods were sufficient for early English literacy. Interestingly, the authors noted that the parents had “abundance of literacy resources” in Korean (Kim and Yim, 2024, p. 12). Conceivably, the parents in the study had strong aspirations for their children to be bilingual and biliterate. This issue of parental aspiration warrants further exploration.

Karpava (2021) researched the home literacy environment and literacy skill development among Russian multilingual children in Cyprus. The children ranged from 2 to 16 years-old, but each family had at least one child aged 2–5 years. Using interviews, questionnaires, and observation, Karpava (2021) concluded that the home literacy environments and practices varied among the families, and that the variation seemed to be a byproduct of the diverse language groupings within families, parents’ language proficiency, available resources in the languages, and parents’ preferences. The types of literacy activities used were affected by “life trajectories and experiences of the parents, as well as the affordability and availability of these opportunities” (p.15). This suggests that parents’ aspirations and available resources across language/s need to be considered alongside home literacy practices to understand how to support bilingual families as they raise their children. In addition, given that the study’s wide age range of children, the relevance of home literacy environments for biliteracy, specifically for preschool-aged children, remains to be further explored.

In an in-depth observational and interview study of five Australian Chinese families raising preschool-aged children, Hu et al. (2014) reported that the parents’ expectations for their children’s Chinese language development differed based on the value/utility they perceived in bilingualism. Three mothers who felt bilingualism was important for career development expected both spoken and written Chinese proficiency from their children, and the two mothers who felt that bilingualism was most important for communicating with family members expected their children to develop Chinese oral language skills. Although the authors were primarily focused on studying bilingualism, Hu et al. (2014, p. 147) noted that not all parents had “high expectations for literacy development in Chinese”. This finding seemed to be motivated by the fact that four of the five parents prioritised their children learning English during the preschool years to equip their preschoolers for later academic success, as the children had primarily been speaking Chinese before starting preschool. Nonetheless, the families were observed to have fixed times each day for engaging in home literacy practices (e.g., parents read books in Chinese to their preschoolers) and to capitalise on serendipitous opportunities to teach Chinese characters. These findings suggest that the relationship between bilingualism, biliteracy, and home literacy practices for families raising preschoolers is multifaceted and complex and needs to be better understood.

Summary and Purpose

It can be challenging for parents raising children bilingually in countries such as Australia where English is the dominant language and home language loss is widespread (Eisenchlas et al., 2013; Escudero et al., 2023; Schalley et al., 2016; Schalley & Eisenchlas, 2025). Unlike countries with compulsory bilingual education such as Singapore (Sun et al., 2024), Australia does not have an official policy and readily accessible resources for formal literacy instruction in home languages. Although much has been learned about the challenges and practices that parents employ to foster bilingualism, there is a need to explore this specifically for biliteracy. Some studies seem to purport that parents have the necessary resources and aspire for both bilingualism and biliteracy (Hu et al., 2021; Kim & Yim, 2024). Other research suggests that resources and/or aspirations for biliteracy vary. There is also evidence to suggest that parents of children with developmental concerns may have greater worries regarding bilingualism, but further insights into biliteracy are needed (Quirk et al., 2024). If we are to better understand and support bilingual families in Australia – a country where over 300 languages are spoken (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021) – there is a need for a richer sample of families across a wider range of languages. Our study was designed to meet this need by exploring the aspirations of Australian parents raising preschool-aged children in bilingual settings. We sought to understand whether parents prioritised the development of oral-only bilingualism, or whether they also desired for their children to achieve biliteracy. We further aimed to understand how these aspirations are reflected in their home literacy practices.

Research Questions

The present study addressed three research questions, each with sub-questions:

1. For parents in Australia raising preschool-aged children in bilingual environments:

(a) What proportion of families aspire for their child to be biliterate and bilingual versus oral bilingual only?

(b) What are the characteristics (including education level, language proficiency, time in Australia, and family context) of parents who aspire for their child to be biliterate and bilingual versus oral bilingual only?

2. For parents who aspire for their preschool-aged child to be biliterate and bilingual versus oral bilingual only:

(a) What is the reported frequency of emergent literacy practices in the home?

(b) What type of resources do they have access to?

(c) Is there a significant difference in the overall frequency of emergent literacy practices in the home for (i) primary additional language and (ii) English?

3. Are emergent literacy practices in the home more frequent in English versus primary additional languages for parents who aspire for their preschool-aged child to be (a) biliterate and bilingual or (b) oral bilingual only?

Method

The study received approval from the Western Sydney University Human Research Ethics Committee (H15220).

Researchers’ Positionality

As a team, we comprise three Speech-Language Pathologists (authors 1, 2, and 4) and a Linguist (author 3). The first author is a bilingual speaker who moved to Australia at the age of nine and is raising her two young children to be biliterate and bilingual. The second author is a monolingual English speaker living in a monolingual household, but who aspires for her children to be bilingual. Collectively, we are interested in exploring the perspectives of parents raising bilingual children in Australia and the factors that influence their decision-making, including the impact of communication difficulties. We hope that through our research, we can support the maintenance of home languages.

Questionnaire

An anonymous online questionnaire (see Supplemental Material 1) was developed in Qualtrics within a larger study exploring bilingualism and biliteracy in children with and without communication and/or developmental concerns. The questionnaire consisted of 18 pages, with an average of two to three questions per page. Display logic ensured participants only saw questions relevant to them, reducing the number of items encountered. The questionnaire was open for a period of 6 months (February to August 2023). Participants could review their responses through the Back button prior to submitting. At the end of the questionnaire, participants could enter a draw to win one of four gift cards. Identifying information gathered for the draw was not linked to their questionnaire responses which remained anonymous.

Demographic data collected through the questionnaire included participant’s country of birth, total years spent in Australia, languages spoken and participant’s self-rated language proficiency for understanding, speaking, reading, and writing skills. Participants reported on one preschool-aged child’s language exposure context/s as well as emergent literacy practices at home. Participants rated how often they or other significant people in the child’s life took part in a range of literacy activities such as “teach nursery rhymes and/or songs to the child” or “teach the child the names of letters/characters/script”. Participants rated the frequency of such home literacy practices across languages on a 5-point Likert-type scale (never, rarely, sometimes, often, very often) in questions based on Buvaneswari and Padakannaya (2017) with permission.

Participants’ aspirations were explored using the question: ‘Which of the following statements is most reflective of the goals you have for the child?’. Parents selected one of: actively speak, read, and write in more than one language; actively speak more than one language; however, they do not need to read and write in the language other than English; be fluent in English and understand (but not necessarily speak) the language/s other than English; or be fluent in English and if the language/s other than English are not learnt that is okay.

Participants

Participants were adults living in Australia, with a child aged 3 years 0 months to 5 years 11 months hearing more than one language from family, relatives, or others they spend significant time with. Potential participants were provided with details of the study at the beginning of the online questionnaire and provided informed consent prior to commencing the questionnaire. Participants also confirmed that they were basing their responses on a child aged between 3 years 0 months and 5 years 11 months. Participants were recruited via social media or flyers through preschools, libraries, community language schools, and infancy research participant register at Western Sydney University’s BabyLab participant database. Of the 128 participants who commenced the questionnaire, 72 were included in the final sample. Excluded were participants who did not complete the final survey question regarding language and literacy goals and aspirations for their child (n = 52), who had no bilingual/biliteracy aspiration for their child (n = 2), and who were unsure if their child had a developmental disability (n = 2). Data from 12 participants, who reported their child had previously/was currently seeing a speech pathologist and/or had a reported developmental disability and/or medical condition, were included and are reported separately. These participants are reported separately to understand whether their aspirations differed, as any such differences would have important implications for tailored recommendations. In the final sample, 43 languages/dialects other than English were reported chiefly French (n = 14), Spanish (n = 12), German (n = 7), Hindi (n = 7), Japanese (n = 7), Mandarin (n = 6), Arabic (n = 5), Cantonese (n = 4), Vietnamese (n = 4), Italian (n = 3), Persian (n = 3) and Punjabi (n = 3). More participants were bilingual (n = 37) than multilingual (n = 31). Four participants were monolingual, with children being raised in a bilingual home environment.

Data Analysis and Overview of Variables

Data were analysed within SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 29.0.1.0) considering participants’ (a) aspirations for biliteracy and bilingualism (Biliterate-Bilingual) or oral only bilingualism (Oral-Bilingual) and (b) report of no communication and/or developmental concerns (NC) or communication and/or developmental concerns (DC). A 2 × 2 comparison resulted in four groups: (a) biliteracy and bilingualism group with no developmental concerns (“Biliterate-Bilingual-NC”); (b) Oral-Bilingual-NC; (c) bilingual and biliteracy group with developmental concerns (“Biliterate-Bilingual-DC”); and (d) Oral-Bilingual-DC. Descriptive statistics compared emergent literacy practices at home. An independent samples t-test was used to compare the frequency of emergent literacy practices at home (Biliterate-Bilingual-NC vs. Oral-Bilingual-NC).

Prior to analyses, the dataset was recoded for practicality regarding ‘child’s primary additional language’ (the sample included both bilingual and multilingual families). The construct of home language was operationalised as the primary additional language as identified by parent report. The child’s primary additional language was determined based on the highest reported proficiency understanding an additional language (receptive proficiency). If receptive proficiency was rated the same for more than one additional language, primary additional language was determined based on the child’s proficiency using an additional language (expressive proficiency). If expressive proficiency was the same for more than one language, primary additional language was then determined as the language of highest exposure in the child’s environment. If exposure was the same across more than one additional language, child’s primary additional language was determined by the parent’s self-reported proficiency in a language spoken by the child that met each of the earlier criteria. If primary additional language still could not be determined due to a comparable language profile across more than one additional language, the parent’s first additional language documented in the survey was designated as the child’s primary additional language.

Two composite variables were calculated based on participant’s ratings of their home literacy practices: ‘Total Literacy Score in Child’s Primary Additional Language’ and ‘Total Literacy Score in English’. These variables were calculated using the participants’ ratings across seven emergent literacy practices (tell stories, teach nursery rhymes, borrow books, child asks to be read to, teach letters/characters/script, child practices writing name, teach child to read). Independent t-tests tested for difference in Total Literacy Scores in the Child’s Primary Additional Language between the groups of interest. Likewise, paired samples t-tests tested for within-group differences between Total Literacy scores in the Child’s Primary Additional Language and Total Literacy scores in English.

Open-ended text responses on participants’ views on how important it was for their child to read and write in more than one language and why were analysed using Qualitative Content Analysis based on Graneheim and Lundman (2004). Participants were initially asked to rate how important it was that their child learn to read and/or write in more than one language on a 5-point Likert-type scale. They were then asked to explain their rating through open text, elaborating on their views of biliteracy. Participant responses were read in full and segmented into meaning units. Meaning units were condensed where necessary while preserving their essential meaning, then coded. Responses that were already concise were coded directly. Examples of meaning units, condensed meaning units and codes are provided in Figure 1. Codes were compared for similarities and differences and organised into categories representing the manifest content of the data. These categories were then examined for underlying patterns which informed the development of themes, representing the latent content.

Figure 1.

Example meaning units, condensed meaning units, and codes.

To enhance trustworthiness, the first and last authors independently coded the data, then compared and discussed their interpretations. Categories and themes were generated and agreed to by all authors.

Results

Parents’ Aspirations and Characteristics

In relation to Research Question 1a, 48 parents (67%) aspired for their preschool-aged child to be biliterate and bilingual (including 5/48 raising a child with reported communication and/or developmental concerns). By contrast, 24 (33%) aspired for oral bilingualism only (including 7/24 raising a child with communication and/or developmental concerns). Therefore, 43 participants were in the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group, 17 in the Oral-Bilingual-NC group, 5 in the Biliterate-Bilingual-DC group, and 7 in the Oral-Bilingual-DC group. Regarding participant characteristics relevant to Research Question 1b, most participants (n = 62; 87.5%) were university educated and had resided in Australia (mostly New South Wales) for over 5 years (n = 62; 86.1%), with similar trends across participants according to aspirations and concerns about their child’s communication and/or development. Participants reported similar living arrangements (for their child) during a typical week across the four groups, except that proportionally fewer (n = 21; 48.8%) in the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group reported the presence of siblings compared to 70.6% (n = 12) of participants from the Oral-Bilingual-NC group reporting siblings in the home. Most of the children were reported to hear the primary additional language in the home of immediate (n = 69; 95.8%) and extended family (n = 54; 75%) and less in the community (n = 29; 40.3%) and in early education or care settings (n = 14; 19.4%).

Participants’ highest self-reported proficiency ratings for understanding of language/s other than English were similar, with 90.5% (n = 38) of participants from the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group and 88.2% (n = 15) of participants from the Oral-Bilingual-NC rating their understanding of a language other than English as ‘very well’. The majority (n = 38; 90.5%) of participants in the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group had their highest rating for speaking language/s other than English as very well, while relatively less (n = 11; 67.7%) of participants in the Oral-Bilingual-NC group rated their proficiency as very well. More participants in the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group also reported their highest rating for reading (n = 35; 83.3%) and writing (n = 31; 73.8%) as very well in the language/s other than English compared to the Oral-Bilingual-NC group (n = 9; 52.9% reading, n = 9; 52.9% writing). Although, across both groups higher proficiency ratings were reported for understanding and speaking compared to reading and writing. Participants who reported communication and/or developmental concerns for their child presented with similar trends (see Supplemental Material 4).

Language proficiency ratings in English for understanding were slightly higher in the Oral-Bilingual-NC group with 93.8% (n = 15) rating their ability very well compared to 79.1% (n = 34) of participants in the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group; however, ratings for speaking, reading and writing in English were similar. Across Biliterate-Bilingual-DC and Oral-Bilingual-DC groups, similar proficiency ratings for English were observed across understanding, speaking, reading and writing (see Supplemental Material 3).

Reasons Shaping Parents’ Aspirations

The majority of participants rated the importance of their child learning to read and/or write in more than one language as extremely (n = 23; 31.9%) or very important (n = 23; 31.9%). A smaller proportion rated this as moderately (n = 13; 18.1%), slightly (n = 10; 13.9%), or not at all important (n = 3; 4.2%). Participants’ follow-up open text responses (n = 64) explaining their ratings revealed two themes: (1) biliteracy is valuable for my child’s development, life opportunities, family and culture, and (2) biliteracy would be good, but. . . These themes were formed from five categories, explained below.

Theme 1: Biliteracy is Valuable for my Child’s Development, Life Opportunities, Family and Culture

Literacy in the Home Language Opens Doors

Participants who placed importance on their children learning to read and write in more than one language said this could enhance life opportunities including educational pursuits, employment, and travel opportunities (“give her more opportunities to get a job, travelling, to communicate with others” [P89], “German university education is excellent and free (as opposed to the expensive Australian one) and I want my child to have the option to access all of this” [P15], “Working in a different country will require reading and writing as well” [P67] or “Being fluent in German opens so many opportunities to be able to work and study in Europe in addition to English speaking countries. Hence, their ability to read/write is just as important as English” [P30]). Others explained that biliteracy could provide their children with more options in the future including relocating to the home country (e.g., “options for her future life, either way she will live in Australia/Japan in her future” [P74]).

Literacy in the Home Language Provides a Cognitive and Linguistic Boost

Participants who placed importance on their children learning to read and write in more than one language associated this skill with facilitating their children’s cognitive and linguistic abilities. Participants expressed that being biliterate could provide a cognitive edge (“I’d like for my child to read and write in French to broaden her way of thinking…” [P76] or “lets your brain think in more than one ‘dimension’” [P69]). Others expressed that biliteracy could support their child’s cognitive skills (“because it supports their…cognitive development” [P57], “makes people smarter” [P61], and “it boosts intelligence” [P91]). The benefit was also linked to language learning including proficiency and maintenance (“Being able to read allows the child to also continue their learning journey independently” [P99], “without literacy she will forget it and the language will be useless” [P63] and “you can only fully master a language if you are literate” [P75]).

Literacy in the Home Language Provides Family and Cultural Ties

Across all groups participants conveyed that literacy in the primary additional language could enhance family and cultural ties (e.g., “she has Australian family and Japanese family in both countries who needs to understand and use those two languages” [P23], “allows for communication with extended family who do not read or write in English” [P70] “reading, writing and talking home language is extremely needed for having connection with families back in the home country” [P29]). Participants also expressed that literacy in the primary additional language was useful in maintaining intergenerational family connection (“we have a lot of family records, letters and documents written in German” [P15] or “so he can communicate with his grandparents other than by video calls” [P7]). Cultural connection was frequently mentioned with several participants providing general statements to acknowledge the link, including “there’s more connection to our culture” [P31], “because it’s part of his cultural background” [P32], and “helps stay connected to roots” [P57]. Other participants elaborated further on the significance for fostering richer cultural understanding, including: “written language (books, newspapers, media etc.) is a big part of German culture” [P15], “to be able to appreciate the vast literary works in different languages” [P36] and “reading in other languages opens up more resources you can tap into e.g., books, tv, media and other perspectives. You can only learn so much of a culture orally” [P44].

Theme 2: Biliteracy Would be Good, But . . .

Biliteracy Would be Nice, But it’s up to the Child

Some participants who ranked biliteracy as of moderate or slight importance, considered it should ultimately be the child’s decision. One participant explained “it would be nice for him to but if he doesn’t want to then I am ok with it” [P59]. Another stated “if possible and he is eager it could be beneficial in future” [P52]. Another participant shared satisfaction in their child’s ability to fluently speak the primary additional language placing less importance on the need to learn to read or write in the language (“if he wants to learn it he can, but I am already happy if he speaks fluent Swiss” [P51]). Two participants indicated that learning to read and write in the primary additional language was an effortful process (“it would be preferred but not forced. It’s too difficult to be able to write and read Mandarin” [P63] and “it is going to be too much work to teach how to read/write in Malayalam” [P54]).

Biliteracy in the Additional Language Would be Good, but it’s not Necessary

Some participants conveyed that learning to read and write in a language other than English is beneficial but not a necessary ability for their child (e.g., “I would like her to read and write for her own knowledge however it is not necessary” [P34]), particularly growing up in an English-speaking country (“given my child is growing up in an English-speaking environment, it’s unlikely they achieve complete fluency in reading and writing. Being able to communicate in another language is more important” [P62] or “because the child lives in an English country where they will not be asked to write in his home language” [P28]). Several participants emphasised the importance of speaking the language other than English over reading and writing in it (“just basic ability to communicate is more important. . . personally I don’t know to read and write many but I am very fluent in those languages” [P47] and “I never grew up learning how to read and write Vietnamese, but I do think this is a disadvantage. However, it’s not as important as speaking” [P61]), or a temporal priority (“reading and writing can come later” [P53]). One participant was concerned about impact on development (“putting too much pressure and strain on child’s development creates a lot of development delays” [P76]) and indicated the option of introducing literacy later (“the child will eventually grow up, and once a lot older and if interested then these teachings will be taught to them” [P76]). One participant did not support biliteracy (“don’t think it will benefit my child in any way” [P74]).

Frequency of Home Literacy Practices

As shown in Table 1 the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group more frequently engaged in all seven literacy activities compared to the Oral-Bilingual-NC group in the child’s primary additional language. The Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group reported engaging ‘often’ in 4 out of 7 literacy activities in the child’s primary additional language compared to 1 out of 7 reported by Oral-Bilingual-NC group. Similar trends were evident across the participants who reported concerns regarding their child’s communication and/or development.

Table 1.

Median Frequency^a of Engagement Across Seven Literacy Practices in the Child’s Primary Additional Language.

Literacy activities	Totaln = 72	Biliteracy NCn = 43^b	Biliteracy DCn = 5	Bilingual-only NCn = 17	Bilingual-only DCn = 7^c
1. Teach nursery rhymes and/or songs	Often	Often	Often	Sometimes	Often
2. Tell stories	Often	Often	Sometimes	Often	Sometimes
3. Borrow books from library	Rarely	Rarely	Often	Never	Never
4. Encourage name writing	Sometimes	Sometimes	Very Often	Rarely	Sometimes
5. Teach Letters/Script/ characters	Sometimes	Often	Often	Sometimes	Sometimes
6. Teach child to read	Rarely	Sometimes	Often	Rarely	Never
7. Child asks to be read to in language other than English	Sometimes	Often	Rarely	Rarely	Sometimes

Frequencies ranged from Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often and Very Often.

Not all participants responded to each activity. The number of respondents per activity in the Biliteracy NC group was: 1 (n = 42); 2 (n = 42); 3 (n = 42); 4 (n = 41); 5 (n = 42); 6 (n = 40); 7 (n = 42).

All participants in the Bilingual-only-DC group responded to each activity except activity 7 (n = 6).

Resources in English and Child’s Primary Additional Language

Participants overall reported greater access to children’s books in English. Many participants in the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC (n = 36; 83.7%) and Oral-Bilingual-NC (n = 14; 82.4%) reported access to English children’s books. For the primary additional language, most (n = 32; 74.4%) of the participants in the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group had more than 10 books, compared to relatively few (n = 5; 29.4%) participants in the Oral-Bilingual-NC group. Similar trends were evident across the Biliterate-Bilingual and Oral-Bilingual groups with reported communication and/or developmental concerns (see Supplemental Material 5 for details).

Relationships Between Frequency of Emergent Literacy Practices in the Home for English and Primary Additional Language

There was a statistically significant difference in the mean Total Literacy scores in the Child’s Primary Additional Language between the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group (M = 15.78, SD = 6.871) and the Oral-Bilingual-NC group (M = 10.59, SD = 4.938), [t(55) = 2.813, p = .007]; the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group engaged in significantly more literacy activities in the primary additional language. In contrast, the Oral-Bilingual-NC group (M = 23.41, SD = 3.299) engaged more frequently in literacy activities in English compared to the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group (M = 20.75, SD = 4.662) [t(55) = −2.133, p = .037]. Within-group analysis of the frequency of literacy activities indicated that both the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC and Oral-Bilingual-NC groups were doing significantly more literacy activities in English compared to the primary additional language (Biliterate-Bilingual-NC: M = 20.62, SD = 4.643 [English], M = 15.92, SD = 6.895 [Primary additional language], t(38) = −3.595, p ⩽ .001; Oral-Bilingual-NC group: M = 23.41, SD = 3.299 [English], M = 10.59, SD = 4.938 [Primary additional language], t(16) = −12.409, p ⩽ .001).

The Biliterate-Bilingual and Oral-Bilingual groups with reported communication and/or developmental concerns presented with a similar trend. Participants reported more engagement in English-based literacy activities (M = 21.20, 20.17) than literacy activities in the primary additional language (M = 17.00, 14.3).

Discussion

This study aimed to provide Australian parents of preschool-aged children the opportunity to share their perspectives on their aspirations for raising children to be bilingual and/or biliterate and provide insight into the emergent literacy practices they use during this critical stage of language and literacy development. In keeping with previous research, more parents had a positive view towards bilingualism and biliteracy and viewed it as an asset (Hu et al., 2021; Piller & Gerber, 2021). More parents aspired for their children to be bilingual as well as biliterate (67%). This proportion increased slightly to 70% when families who reported concerns regarding their child’s development and/or communication were omitted from analysis. In their open text responses, some parents emphasised the benefits of biliteracy, while others viewed it positively but not as a necessity. Parents who aspired for biliteracy (versus parents who aspired for oral bilingualism only) had access to more books in languages other than English and engaged in more emergent literacy activities in these languages.

Reasons for our findings and how they compare and contrast with the extant literature need to be understood in light of the characteristics of the survey participants. Most parents surveyed had lived in Australia for more than 5 years (86.2%), and were university educated (87.5%), but differed in language proficiency across the two main groups (Biliterate-Bilingual-NC and Oral-Bilingual-NC). Parents in the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group tended to have higher proficiency across understanding, speaking, reading and writing in the language other than English. It is possible that these parents aspired for their child to be both biliterate and bilingual due to their own self-confidence and ease in using languages other than English. These findings are consistent with previous research reporting parental language proficiency to be a factor impacting home language maintenance (Pauwels, 2005; Tran et al., 2024). Parents’ own experiences with bilingualism can also shape the decisions they make when raising their bilingual children (King & Fogle, 2006). Given that many parents in the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group reported high literacy skills across languages, as reflected in their self-ratings, they may view similar high literacy skills as both desirable and attainable for their children.

Parents in the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group placed higher importance on their children learning to read and write in the home language, and this emphasis was reflected in their literacy practices; aligning with Luo et al. (2023), these parents’ beliefs were connected to the home learning environments and practices they created. They reported engaging significantly more in emergent literacy activities in the home language. They more frequently participated in indirect (teaching nursery rhymes and/or songs, telling stories, borrowing books from the library, the child asking to be read to) and direct literacy practices (encouraging name writing, teaching letters/characters/script, teaching the child to read) in the home language. This finding is reassuring as previous research indicated the benefits of direct literacy instruction in the development of children’s literacy skills, particularly for the growth of literacy skills in the home language (Kim & Yim, 2024; Sénéchal et al., 1998). Parents in the Oral-Bilingual-NC group still engaged in literacy activities in the home language, but the most frequent were oral-based language activities such as teaching nursery rhymes and/or songs and telling stories. Interestingly, parents in the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group reported that their children more frequently asked to be read to in the home language, which may also be reflective of the child’s home language familiarity and proficiency.

Parents’ reasons for their aspirations for biliteracy formed two themes: “Biliteracy is valuable for my child’s development, life opportunities, family and culture” and “Biliteracy would be good, but. . .”. Parents echoed previous findings from broader bilingual research indicating that biliteracy in the home language is an investment that can open doors for their children in the future relating to travel, study, and work (Hu et al., 2014; Piller & Gerber, 2021). For instance, one parent noted that obtaining a university education was ‘excellent’ and ‘free’ in the home country, so it was important that their child learn to read and write in the home language to more easily access this opportunity. Other parents’ motivations were more specifically literacy focused. These more layered understandings reflected the deliberate emphasis on biliteracy in our study. Parents noted that biliteracy would enable accessing a culture at a deeper level (e.g., “you can only learn so much of a culture orally” [P99]) by accessing various written resources such as books, newspapers, and family documents. In addition, several parents saw biliteracy as a way for their children to strengthen their oral bilingual skills and sustain their home language into the future. These parents viewed bilingualism as encompassing biliteracy with some recognising it as an important skill for their children to poses to function comfortably if they were to live in the home country.

On the other hand, some parents, although positive about the idea of biliteracy, prioritised oral bilingualism with some indicating that biliteracy can come later or preferring to leave the decision about pursuing biliteracy to their children. In some cases, parents indicated that it was too effortful (e.g., “It is going to be too much work to teach how to read/write in Malayalam” [P54]) and, not necessary, given that their child was living in an English -speaking country. This is not surprising given that parenting inherently involves navigating competing demands, and as Torsh and Lising (2022) observe, parents weigh home language maintenance against other socialisation goals for their children. In addition, families bring their own linguistic identities and experiences when making decisions regarding their practices (Ellis & Sims, 2022); however, a deeper examination of these influences was beyond the scope of this study. More recent research from Australia has found that the task of home language teaching often falls on the parents, both due to the limited availability of institutional support and because parents perceive themselves as responsible for teaching their home language to their children (Schalley & Eisenchlas, 2025). Most of the parents in this study reported that their children heard the home language mostly in the home of immediate or extended family and less in the community or in educational settings. Taken together, these factors may shape families’ decisions to prioritise oral bilingualism, with biliteracy becoming a secondary consideration in their language goals.

These findings aside, despite parents in the Biliterate-Bilingual-NC group aspiring for literacy skills in the home language, it was interesting to discover that they still engaged significantly more in English emergent literacy activities compared to activities in the home language. This may be due to apprehensions about preparing their child for school in English, as has been raised in previous studies (Hu et al., 2021; Pauwels, 2005; Piller & Gerber, 2021). Access to resources was also higher in English compared to the home language. It could be assumed that these children are receiving less input in the home language through literacy experiences, possibly reducing their chances of improved proficiency and the development of early literacy skills in the home language. These experiences may further diminish when these children commence school which is often English-dominant unless support is provided.

From the small number of parents surveyed who reported communication and/or developmental concerns for their child, slightly less parents aspired for biliteracy (41.7%) compared to oral bilingualism (58.3%). Parents who aspired for biliteracy reported higher proficiency in the home language across understanding, speaking, reading and writing. Similarly, parents who aspired for biliteracy on average engaged more frequently in emergent literacy activities in the home and had greater access to books in the home language. Further research, including a greater sample size, would be needed to ascertain whether parents of children with communication disorders and/or developmental concerns do place less importance on biliteracy compared to parents of children without communication and/or developmental concerns. This would have important implications for health and education practitioners.

Implications and Directions for Future Research

Our study offers a distinctive contribution to the literature as it has deliberately placed focus on understanding parents’ aspirations and emergent literacy practices in home languages. Many of the parents we surveyed aspired for their preschool-aged children to be bilingual and biliterate, recognising the benefits linked to this skill. However, these aspirations can be difficult to realise, particularly when much of the responsibility for maintaining home languages falls on families who already manage multiple and competing parenting demands. Our study highlights the need to support families to sustain bilingualism and biliteracy by providing reassurance and information through community initiatives. Escudero et al. (2023), for instance, suggested structured, formal programmes for preschool children to support families access and engagement with home language supports and improve home language maintenance. Given the high rate of home language loss in Australia once children start school (Eisenchlas et al., 2013), resources and supports from local communities could bolster the realisation of parents’ aspirations, particularly for biliteracy. Countries such as Australia, with no second dominant language, and indeed trilingual families living in regions where there are two recognised languages, could heed our results recognising that multilingual families aspiring for their children to be biliterate need support. Formal education institutions should also more readily recognise the oral language and literacy abilities of children in their home language/s rather than placing all focus on English. As Schalley and Eisenchlas (2025) argue, meaningful support for home language maintenance depends on integrating top-down leadership through coordinated initiatives by professional associations with bottom-up engagement from families and school communities who can maintain practices in everyday context. Our research joins this growing movement advocating for initiatives that will harness parent aspirations for their children to become bilingual and biliterate.

Future research could explore the literacy aspirations and practices of parents and caregivers raising children to be bilingual with differing demographics or linguistic profiles to understand if similar aspirations and practices are observed. The role of family dynamics, the presence of multiple languages at home, and the writing systems being learned could also be explored. Furthermore, the influence of the type of education the preschool-aged children were (or were not) attending on parents’ desire for their children to become biliterate should be explored. Our sample of children with communication and/or developmental concerns as reported by their parents was small (n = 12). This highlights the need for future research to more fully understand the specific needs of these families and the supports they may require.

Limitations

This study is not without limitations. There is the potential for sampling bias as many participants were university educated and mothers having resided in Australia for more than 5 years. Thus, the beliefs and practices reported may not be representative of a wider sample of the population. Given that the survey was written in English, participants who were not as confident in English literacy may not have attempted the survey. Surveys translated into the most common languages spoken across Australia may be able to reach a wider audience. As the survey was also administered exclusively online, participation may have been restricted for families with limited or no access to digital technologies.

Conclusion

Many but not all parents in Australia raising preschool-aged children in bilingual environments aspire for their children to be both biliterate and bilingual. Coordinated support is needed across families, schools and systems to harness parents’ aspirations and create diverse pathways to biliteracy.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ijb-10.1177_13670069261443440 – Supplemental material for Australian Parents’ Aspirations for Biliteracy in English and Additional Home Language/s for Their Preschool-Aged Children

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ijb-10.1177_13670069261443440 for Australian Parents’ Aspirations for Biliteracy in English and Additional Home Language/s for Their Preschool-Aged Children by Maja Ibric, Sarah Masso, Caroline Jones and Elise Baker in International Journal of Bilingualism

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank all the study participants.

ORCID iDs

Maja Ibric

Sarah Masso

Caroline Jones

Elise Baker

Ethical Considerations

This study received approval from the Western Sydney University Human Research Ethics Committee (H15220).

Consent to Participate

Participants gave informed consent to join an anonymous online questionnaire.

Author Contributions

MI led survey development, data analysis, and first draft of manuscript. All authors contributed to study design, data collection, writing of manuscript and approved the submitted version.

Funding

The authors disclosed that the research was partly funded by Western Sydney University through the Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) provided to MI.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data are not readily available due to conditions of ethical approval. Contact first author for questions: 20627775@student.westernsydney.edu.au

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Maja Ibric is a bilingual speech-language pathologist, PhD candidate at Western Sydney University, and a lecturer in speech pathology at The University of Sydney, Australia. Her research interest includes bilingualism and biliteracy in preschool aged children.

Sarah Masso is a senior lecturer and researcher in speech pathology at The University of Sydney, Australia. Her research has a focus on improving services for children who require communication support and their families.

Caroline Jones is a professor at the MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour & Development at Western Sydney University, Australia. Her research interests include assessment of children’s early communication development, especially among multilingual children.

Elise Baker is a speech-language pathologist and conjoint associate professor with Western Sydney University and South Western Sydney Local Health District, Australia. Her research interests focus on optimizing communication skills of young children from diverse communities.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Snapshot of Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/snapshot-australia/latest-release

Buvaneswari

Padakannaya

(2017). Development of a home literacy environment questionnaire for Tamil-speaking kindergarten children. Language Testing in Asia, 7(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-017-0047-y

Eisenchlas

S. A.

Schalley

A. C.

Guillemin

(2013). The importance of literacy in the home language: The view from Australia. Sage Open, 3(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013507270

Ellis

E. M.

Sims

(2022). “It’s like the root of a tree that I grew up from. . . .”: Parents’ linguistic identity shaping family language policy in isolated circumstances. Multilingua, 41(5), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2021-0100

Escudero

Diskin-Holdaway

Pino Escobar

Hajek

(2023). Needs and demands for heritage language support in Australia: Results from a nationwide survey. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 46(2), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2189261

Graneheim

U. H.

Lundman

(2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

Hao

Yang

(2021). Chinese Australian children’s shared reading experiences at home and in preschools: A case study on parents and educators’ attitudes and practices. Sage Open, 11(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211007493

Torr

Whiteman

(2014). Australian Chinese parents’ language attitudes and practices relating to their children’s bilingual development prior to school. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 12(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X13515429

Jones Diaz

Arthur

Beecher

McNaught

. (2000). Multiple literacies in early childhood: What do families and communities think about their children’s early literacy learning? The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 23(3), 230–244.

10.

Karpava

(2021). The effect of the family type and home literacy environment on the development of literacy skills by bi-/multilingual children in Cyprus. Languages, 6(2), 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6020102

11.

Kim

W.-J.

Yim

(2024). Exploring the influence of the home literacy environment on early literacy and vocabulary skills in Korean–English bilingual children. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1336292

12.

King

Fogle

(2006). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents’ perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(6), 695–712. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb362.0

13.

Zhen

Lin

Gunderson

(2023). Bilingual home literacy experiences and early biliteracy development among Chinese–Canadian first graders. Education Sciences, 13(8), 808. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080808

14.

Luo

Song

Davis-Hilton

Surrain

(2023). Parental beliefs and knowledge about dual language learning and education (KnDLLE) predict children’s Spanish and English experiences at home. Early Childhood Education Journal, 53(1), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01594-5

15.

Pauwels

(2005). Maintaining the community language in Australia: Challenges and roles for families. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2–3), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050508668601

16.

Payne

A. C.

Whitehurst

G. J.

Angell

A. L.

(1994). The role of home literacy environment in the development of language ability in preschool children from low-income families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9(3–4), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(94)90018-3

17.

Phillips

B. M.

Lonigan

C. J.

(2009). Variations in the home literacy environment of preschool children: A cluster analytic approach. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(2), 146–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430902769533

18.

Piller

Gerber

(2021). Family language policy between the bilingual advantage and the monolingual mindset. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(5), 622–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1503227

19.

Quirk

Brouillard

Ahooja

Ballinger

Polka

Byers-Heinlein

Kircher

(2024). Quebec-based parents’ concerns regarding their children’s multilingual development. International Journal of Multilingualism, 21(3), 1476–1493. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2023.2184475

20.

Ryan

. (2021). The impact of home literacy on bilingual vocabulary development. Bilingual Research Journal, 44(1), 108–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2021.1905105

21.

Rydland

Grøver

(2021). Language use, home literacy environment, and demography: Predicting vocabulary skills among diverse young dual language learners in Norway. Journal of Child Language, 48(4), 717–736. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000920000495

22.

Schalley

A. C.

Eisenchlas

S. A.

(2025). Home languages are everyone’s business. In Turner

Green

Multilingualism as Opportunity (1st ed., pp. 60–75). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003479734-6

23.

Schalley

A. C.

Eisenchlas

S. A.

Guillemin

(2016). Multilingualism and literacy: Practices and effects. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1037714

24.

Sénéchal

LeFevre

(2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00417

25.

Sénéchal

Lefevre

J.-A.

Thomas

E. M.

Daley

K. E.

(1998). Differential effects of home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1), 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.1.5

26.

Sun

O’Brien

B. A.

Arshad

N. A. B.

Sun

(2024). The contribution of intrinsic motivation and home literacy environment to Singaporean bilingual children’s receptive vocabulary. Reading and Writing, 37(7), 1849–1877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10409-9

27.

Torsh

H. I.

Lising

(2022). Multilingual family language policy in monolingual Australia: Multilingual desires and monolingual realities. Multilingua, 41(5), 519–527. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2022-0103

28.

Tran

V. H.

McLeod

Verdon

Wang

(2024). Vietnamese-Australian parents: Factors associated with language use and attitudes towards home language maintenance. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 45(2), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1904963

29.

Whitehurst

G. J.

Lonigan

C. J.

(1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69(3), 848–872.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.04 MB

0.00 MB