Content uploaded by Kristin Kersten
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kristin Kersten on Oct 08, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
First published 2023
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor& Francis Group, an
informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Kristin Kersten& Adam
Winsler; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Kristin Kersten and Adam Winsler to be identified
as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for
their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with
sections77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-0-367-72638-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-72641-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-15568-3 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003155683
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
DOI: 10.4324/9781003155683-12
10 Can type of schooling
compensate for low SES?
Investigating eects of
instruction and SES on
cognitive skills
Ann-Christin Bruhn, Lisa Miller,
Claudia Mähler, Katharina Ponto,
and Kristin Kersten
Introduction
Learners’ development is influenced by a vast number of external fac-
tors, such as the family and the social environment with their respective
resources, as well as the educational institutional environment in which
a child grows up. However, the actual influence of these factors on the
developmental process depends on many conditions and varies greatly,
since learners themselves also have dierent individual abilities (i.e., cog-
nitive and linguistic abilities) and personality traits (i.e., motivation, atti-
tudes), which interact with external resources (Kersten, 2019).
Diversity in the social and institutional backgrounds of young children
manifests in numerous individual dierences even before school entry.
Aspects of diversity pertain to genetics, family education and income,
and type of preschool program. Even within the first years of life, such
dierences have been found to predict children’s cognitive (Hackman&
Farah, 2009; Lawson etal., 2018) and linguistic skills (Brooks-Gunn&
Duncan, 1997; Hart& Risley, 1995; Pace etal., 2017). Cognitive and
linguistic skills at school entry, in turn, are essential predictors of later
academic achievement in school (Alloway & Alloway, 2010). These
skills are closely intertwined and develop interdependently. It is therefore
vital for any type of early instructional program to create a learning envi-
ronment that fosters cognitive and linguistic development to help level
the playing field for young children from low-income backgrounds. In
this chapter, we take a closer look at the interplay of external resources
such as children’s socioeconomic background and type of institutional
education in preschool and their relevance for the development of learn-
ers’ internal cognitive skills. To that end, we present results from two
studies in two dierent preschool programs that were designed to foster
cognitive-linguistic development. In this context, it is important to note
that the term “preschool” is used in this chapter to refer to the institution
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 293
in the German education system that children attend between the ages
of three and six before they enter the first grade of formal schooling
in elementary school. The first study focuses on a preschool phonologi-
cal awareness training program, and the second study investigates the
impact of bilingual preschool experiences compared to monolingual pro-
grams. The overall main objective of both studies is to examine whether
such programs may compensate for cognitive disadvantages in preschool
linked to low socioeconomic status.
Internal cognitive resources
A growing body of literature has shown cognitive skills to be of consid-
erable predictive value for children’s development (Alloway& Alloway,
2010; Huschka etal., 2020; Robson etal., 2020). Traditionally, the role
of cognitive skills has been viewed under the scope of their contribution
to academic achievement. In this regard, specifically, nonverbal intelli-
gence, working memory, and phonological awareness are considered cru-
cial skills to develop before entering school (Roth etal., 2015; Schuchardt
etal., 2008; Schneider, 1989).
Nonverbal intelligence: Amid numerous disparate theories of intel-
ligence (for an overview, see Sternberg, 2018), Spearman’s structural
notion of the g factor remains among the most prominent (Spearman,
1904). Nonverbal intelligence (NVI) is assessed to gather children’s gen-
eral ability to process information without the need to rely on language
competencies.
Working memory: Auseful and widely accepted theoretical framework
for the functioning of short-term processing has been provided by Badde-
ley and Hitch (1974). The multicomponent model assumes that working
memory consists of three parts: the central executive, the phonological
loop, and the visuospatial sketchpad. The central executive is the main
component of the model, while the other two work as slave systems (Bad-
deley, 1994). The visuo-spatial sketchpad processes visual material, while
the phonological loop stores and rehearses verbal and acoustic informa-
tion. The higher-level attentional control system, the central executive,
monitors the slave systems’ capacities and regulates the flow of informa-
tion as well as the interaction between the systems. In a revision of the
original model, Baddeley (2000) includes the episodic buer, a third sys-
tem that functions as an interface between the other systems, the central
executive, and long-term storage.
Phonological awareness: As one of the three components of phono-
logical information processing (the others being phonological recoding in
lexical access and phonetic recoding in working memory), phonological
awareness (PA) refers to the awareness and manipulation of the phonetic
(sound) structure of language. It represents the ability to focus attention
on the formal linguistic aspects of language independently of the content
294 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
or meaning of what is said (Fröhlich etal., 2010). Skowronek and Marx
(1989) dierentiate between two subconstructs: PA in a broad and nar-
row sense. Regularly, the majority of preschoolers are able to process
general units of language, such as syllables and rhymes, implicitly in
play before school entry. PA in a narrow sense requires a more conscious
application of phonetic knowledge. It enables children to recognize pho-
nemes in particular words and to operate with these. For instance, this
ability is necessary to synthetize multiple phonemes into a word– a cru-
cial skill for literacy.
As indicated before, all of the cognitive resources described are cru-
cial predictors for future academic success. However, it has been shown
that in addition to children’s abilities, environmental aspects may aect
developmental and academic paths substantially, which is illustrated as
follows.
External social and institutional resources
Socioeconomic status
The social-economic environment is an important context in which
human development is shaped. Children’s background includes factors
such as parental occupation and education, family income, social pres-
tige, cultural capital, and other cultural aspects. Many of these are often
comprised within the concept of socioeconomic status (SES), which is
one of the most widely studied constructs in social science and is often
used as a predictor variable in empirical studies (Hackman & Farah,
2009; Lawson etal., 2016). There is universal agreement that children
from higher-SES backgrounds have access to more beneficial resources
for their social and cognitive development than children from lower-SES
backgrounds (Bornstein& Bradley, 2012). There is no consensus, how-
ever, on how to best operationalize family SES, as it is a container variable
that encompasses diverse proximal factors (Kersten& Greve, 2023, this
volume). Each of these dierent factors included in SES indices represents
a dierent resource that might foster children’s cognitive development in
dierent ways (Bradley& Corwyn, 2002; Duncan& Magnuson, 2012).
Despite uncertainty about the optimal index, the relationship between
SES and cognitive and language development is robust enough to occur
across dierent measurement approaches (Pace etal., 2017). For a long
period of time, maternal education appeared to be the most commonly
used component of SES that was most strongly associated with child
outcomes (Rindermann & Baumeister, 2015). However, according to
Homeyer-Zlotnik and Geis (2003), education and income seem to have
lost importance as indicators compared to occupation. Afrequently used
scale to measure SES in cross-national comparative studies (e.g., OECD’s
PISA) is the International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Sta-
tus (ISEI) developed by Ganzeboom (2010). In this study, the Highest
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 295
International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status among par-
ents (HISEI; Ganzeboom, 2010) was used to represent the family’s SES.
Numerous studies demonstrate that SES is a reliable predictor of many
facets of children’s development, with eects beginning prior to birth
and continuing into adulthood (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Children
from educationally disadvantaged and low-income families typically face
many barriers to learning due to fewer educational resources such as
books, games, and cognitively stimulating materials in their households.
In contrast, socioeconomically advantaged students are more likely to
get financial support and home resources for individual learning that
promote cognitive development (Sirin, 2005). It is therefore not surpris-
ing that a strong link between children’s development and intelligence
and their family background is becoming increasingly apparent (Brooks-
Gunn& Duncan, 1997; Gottfried etal., 2012).
Moreover, a growing body of research demonstrates that childhood
SES is positively related to executive functions (Hackman etal., 2015;
Noble etal., 2007; Rosen etal., 2020; Sarsour etal., 2011). Executive
functions, including working memory, inhibition, and attention shift-
ing, have been shown to partially mediate the relation between SES and
academic achievement in early (Lawson etal., 2016) and later childhood
(Lawson& Farah, 2017). In a meta-analysis of the relationship between
SES and executive function performance among children, Lawson and
colleagues (2018) confirm SES dierences in learners’ executive function
ranging from small to medium eects, depending on the measurement
method. Rosen etal. (2020) identified the amount of cognitive stimula-
tion in the home environment as an underlying mechanism explaining
the SES-related dierences in executive function performance. This is in
line with Kersten’s findings (2023, this volume), which showed that SES
strongly predicted working memory in primary school children and that
this eect was partially mediated by parental language support and lit-
eracy support at home. Similarly, Hackman etal. (2015) found that the
role of early childhood characteristics of the home and family environ-
ment partially explained the relation between SES and executive func-
tions. In addition, recent findings indicate SES dierences in prefrontal
function and cortical structure over the course of childhood (Kishiyama
etal., 2009; Sheridan etal., 2012). Kishiyama et al. (2009) associate
these alterations in prefrontal cortex function in children from lower-
SES backgrounds with higher levels of stress and lack of access to cog-
nitively stimulating materials and experiences, whereas Sheridan etal.
(2012) identify the home language environment and stress and adversity
exposure as two underlying mechanisms. Recent research confirms that
socioeconomically advantaged children tend to experience greater quan-
tity and quality of linguistic input and more social and cognitive stimu-
lation from their caregivers and home environment than children from
families with lower social status (Pace etal., 2017). Therefore, it is not
surprising that sensitive parenting is associated with positive outcomes
296 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
for children, including early language and literacy development (Noble
etal., 2006).
Although it is quite clear that phonological awareness and SES con-
tribute to individual dierences in reading ability, very few studies have
addressed the issue of the influence of SES on PA (Noble etal., 2006).
Anumber of studies report that lower-SES children show lower levels
of phonological awareness than middle- to high-SES children (Bowey,
1995; Lonigan et al., 1998; McDowell etal., 2007; McIntosh etal.,
2007; Zhang etal., 2013). Alarge-scale meta-analysis of phonological
awareness intervention studies by Ehri and colleagues (2001) reported
that children with low SES benefited from phonological awareness train-
ing as much as middle- to high-SES children. These findings indicate that
phonological awareness is teachable and modifiable, demonstrating the
potential for interventions focused on improving children’s early phono-
logical awareness (McIntosh etal., 2007; Lundberg etal., 2012).
Institutional environments
The two studies reported in this chapter both investigate preschool
programs, which are thought to foster early cognitive-linguistic devel-
opment. While one program consists of a specific and time-limited inter-
vention carried out by trained preschool teachers, the other program type
implements foreign language exposure with various stimulating scaold-
ing techniques in everyday routines in bilingual preschools over the full
course of preschool attendance.
Program 1: Training of phonological awareness
Training programs for PA are of particular relevance in preschools since
phonological abilities have been shown to be important precursors for
literacy, and thus, academic achievement. A pioneering Scandinavian
study administered a 9-month PA training in the final year of preschool,
showing large eects for phoneme segmentation and small eects on
rhyming and tasks involving word and syllable manipulation (Lundberg
et al., 1988). An early meta-analysis of experimental training studies
indicates that training PA may account for approximately 12% of vari-
ance in word-identification skills and greater eects if paired with letter
training (Bus& Ijzendoorn, 1999). Additional studies and meta-analyses
corroborate the value of PA interventions (Fälth etal., 2017; Fischer&
Pfost, 2015; Kjeldsen etal., 2014).
The vast majority of PA trainings focus on implementing programs
for several months, instructing preschool teachers to administer them to
children of the specific age group. Hören, Lauschen, Lernen [Hearing,
Listening, Learning] (HLL), a 20-week program with daily 10-minute
training sessions, is widely used in Germany (Küspert et al., 1999;
Küspert& Schneider, 2018). The training provides a playful approach
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 297
to attentional listening, rhyming, structures of words and sentences, syl-
lables, initial sounds, and phonemes. Jäger (2018) summarizes several
evaluation studies outlining the heterogeneity of eects, especially in rela-
tion to the transfer of phonological skills to the acquisition of literacy.
However, the author shows sustainable training eects until the second
year of school for both reading and writing skills. Since additive training
formats entail great eort and expense of resources, Jörns and colleagues
(2017) developed a training program conceptualized as a board game
(ZIK– Zuhören im Kindergarten [Listening in Preschool]). The design
is expected to promote PA in a playful manner without fixed schedules,
integrating the training into daily routines while deriving the ideas from
HLL and therefore covering substantial components of PA. In a first eval-
uation study, ZIK has shown promising short-term ecacy, while long-
term eects have not been found (Jörns etal., 2017).
Program 2: Bilingual education in preschools
As a result of the European Commission’s goal to promote language
learning to the extent that every citizen is fluent in at least two languages
in addition to their mother tongue, an increasing number of pre- and
primary schools have implemented bilingual programs (European Com-
mission, 2017). In bilingual preschools, usually, one preschool teacher
uses the ambient language (L1; e.g., German in the German educational
context), while another (preferably a native speaker) uses the target for-
eign language (L2) exclusively in all interactions with the children (One
Person-One Language approach; de Houwer, 2009, p. 107; Döpke,
1992). This way, the children receive a large part of their daily language
input in the L2. The advantage of this approach for language acquisition
lies, among other things, in the intensive, context-bound, and natural
use of language as well as the comprehension-promoting strategies of
illustration. As long as children have limited or no knowledge of their
L2, L2 preschool teachers need to find strategies to foster and stimulate
children’s development by contextualizing the new language as much as
possible and making it comprehensible (i.e., using gestures, facial expres-
sions, visualization, and real objects) (Kersten etal., 2010; Weitz etal.,
2010; Weitz, 2015). These scaolding techniques are often related to
linguistic input quality, which includes how teachers modify verbal and
nonverbal L2 input, create authentic communicative activities and inter-
actions, vary the type of feedback, focus on form, and provide opportu-
nities for learners’ L2 output, all to ensure comprehension and cognitive
stimulation during L2 acquisition and facilitate long-term retention (Ker-
sten, 2019).
Recent studies indicate that teachers in bilingual programs outperform
monolingual teachers regarding the cognitive stimulation and scaolding
children receive, their drive to improve their own teaching, and investing
time and implementing innovations (Kersten etal., 2019; Wegner, 2022).
298 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
Positive results for dierent aspects of input quality have been found in
various studies (for overviews, see Graham etal., 2017; Loewen& Sato,
2018; Weitz etal., 2010). In addition to input quality, numerous stud-
ies have also shown that the quantity of input in another language, i.e.,
intensive bilingual school contexts, has positive eects on the linguistic
development of young learners’ L1 and L2 (Graham etal., 2017; Uns-
worth etal., 2014) and can yield positive cognitive eects (Nicolay&
Poncelet, 2015; Woumans etal., 2016).
Recent research focuses increasingly on the eects of bilingualism on
cognitive skills. Positive results are mainly explained by the fact that
learners with bilingual exposure continuously switch between languages
and monitor this process during communication (Bialystok etal., 2008;
Bialystok etal., 2009; Costa etal., 2009). The bulk of the studies car-
ried out on the so-called bilingual advantage hypothesis (Bialystok etal.,
2009) has focused on bilingual first language acquisition (BFLA– when
children learn two languages simultaneously from birth; de Houwer,
2009), and one of the most important predictors is the speakers’ degree
of bilingualism (Bialystok etal., 2009; Bialystok& Barac, 2012). Strong
skills in two languages are assumed to contribute to the development of
cognitive skills. Meta-analyses suggest that bilingualism is reliably associ-
ated with increased working memory, attentional control, metalinguistic
awareness, and abstract and symbolic representational abilities (Adesope
etal., 2010).
While the degree of bilingualism in BFLA is much higher on average
than in bilingual institutions where L2 input is reduced to limited contact
time with the L2 teacher, several studies find positive eects of early insti-
tutional L2 acquisition on cognitive abilities such as attention, executive
control, working memory, or metalinguistic abilities (Bialystok& Barac,
2012; Nicolay& Poncelet, 2015; Woumans etal., 2016; Trebits etal.,
2021). Likewise, Kersten (2023, this volume) finds a strong eect of a
bilingual L2 program on PA in fourth graders. However, the influence of
bilingualism on cognitive skills is currently the subject of controversial
discussions within the bilingual advantage debate (Antón etal., 2014; De
Bruin etal., 2015; Duñabeitia etal., 2014; Lehtonen etal., 2018; Paap
etal., 2017; Festman etal., 2023, this volume). According to Dicataldo
and Roch (2020), many dierences in the results depend in particular on
the degree of bilingual exposure.
As the discussion has shown, both SES and degree of bilingualism
have been shown to influence children’s linguistic and cognitive abilities
when considered independently. However, much less is known about the
relationship between these two environmental factors (Meir& Armon-
Lotem, 2017). Calvo and Bialystok (2014) found no significant interac-
tion between SES (indexed by maternal education) and bilingualism but
only significant independent influences of both factors on 6- to 7-year-
old learners’ working memory performance and inhibitory control tasks.
Specifically, higher-SES children outperformed lower-SES children, and
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 299
bilingual children outperformed monolingual children on all executive
function tasks. In contrast, Hartanto etal. (2019) report that SES pre-
dicted verbal working memory scores and that bilingualism moderated
the eects of SES in their longitudinal study by mitigating the negative
consequences of low SES on executive functions. A similar assump-
tion was made by Engel de Abreu etal. (2012), who found a bilingual
advantage in executive control among children growing up in economi-
cally disadvantaged families in their study. Based on their findings, the
authors suggest that “bilingualism might also provide protection against
the adverse cognitive eects that are associated with poverty. From this
perspective, regular use of more than one language is a mentally stimulat-
ing activity that provides the opportunity to strengthen executive control
mechanisms that build a defense to counteract the negative impact of
poverty on cognition” (Engel de Abreu et al., 2012, p. 1369). More-
over, Kersten (2020) found that the relation between SES and working
memory was moderated by type of bilingual school program: The higher
the intensity of bilingual teaching at the school, the lower was the eect
of SES on working memory. Similarly, Trebits etal. (2021) reported
that SES has a higher impact on children participating in a monolingual
school program than on children in a bilingual program. These data indi-
cate that intensive bilingual programs have the potential to exert a strong
influence on children’s development, raising the question of whether neg-
ative eects of low socioeconomic background can be partially mitigated
by programs that provide linguistic and cognitive support.
In summary, research has provided evidence that low SES aects chil-
dren’s language and cognitive development, even though the underly-
ing mechanisms have yet to be identified. These eects can be observed
even in young children. However, previous research also suggests that
language-sensitive interventions may be able to help mitigate eects of
families’ SES on their children’s life outcomes.
The current studies
In this chapter, we address the question of whether purportedly negative
eects of low SES could be mitigated or alleviated by specific language
support programs in preschool. For this purpose, this chapter presents
two new cross-sectional studies that investigate the relationship of socio-
economic status and dierent types of preschool interventions on cogni-
tive skills. Both studies focus on subsets of two longitudinal research
projects FRISCH– Early Inclusion in Literacy Acquisition (Study 1) and
FLINK – Foreign Language Learning in Inclusive Contexts (Study 2),
which are part of the research network Inclusive Educational Research
in Early Childhood as a Multidisciplinary Challenge [Inklusive Bildungs-
forschung der frühen Kindheit als multidisziplinäre Herausforderung] of
the Competence Center Early Childhood Lower Saxony [Kompetenzzen-
trum Frühe Kindheit Niedersachsen] at the University of Hildesheim (see
300 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
www.uni-hildesheim.de/inklusive-bildungsforschung/inklusive-bildungs
forschung-der-fruehen-kindheit-als-multidisziplinaere-herausforderung).
Research questions
Specifically, we address the following research questions:
1. Does SES predict young learners’ cognitive skills?
2. If so, is this influence moderated by dierent types of language sup-
port programs?
To answer these questions, children were tested at the end of their last
year in preschool over a 3-month period (April–June) in 2018 in dierent
language-supporting preschool programs. Participants from traditional
preschools serve as comparison groups. Study 1 reports on the ecacy
of phonological awareness intervention programs. Study 2 focuses on
the influence of bilingual school programs, which are characterized by
specific foreign language input scaolding techniques to foster compre-
hension, interaction, and language production. We expected to find an
eect of SES on learners’ cognitive skills across both samples, as well as
a moderating eect of language-supporting preschool programs on this
relationship. Identical measures were used for both projects. Procedures
and results will be described first for Study 1, subsequently for Study 2.
Results of both studies will be discussed in combination.
Method
Participants
Participants Study 1: The sample consisted of N=171 children from 21
preschools in urban and suburban German areas. Children were already
enrolled in the particular preschool when the respective programs were
introduced. Hence, all groups are naturally occurring groups; thus, we
could not randomly assign kids to intervention and control groups.
Atotal of n=80 children (45% female) participated in PA training pro-
grams (age in months: M=75.68, SD=4.30). The control group sample
consisted of n=91 children (45% female) and did not partake in any
kind of phonological training (age in months: M=74.54, SD= 3.80).
The participants were assessed within the last 3 months of the particular
year of preschool and were between 66 and 89 months old (M=75.07,
SD=4.16).
Participants Study 2: The study investigated N = 43 children (26
female, 17 male; age in months: M = 75, SD = 4.57) enrolled in 10
regular monolingual (German) preschools (n=29; 18 female, 11 male;
M=74.66, SD=4.16) and two bilingual (German-English) preschools
(n=14; 8 female, 6 male; M=75.71, SD=5.41) in urban and suburban
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 301
areas of Germany. All children attending bilingual preschools had spent
at least 3years in the institution.
In contrast to the monolingual preschools, the bilingual preschools
were characterized by an intensive bilingual approach, which means
that in addition to the German-speaking educator, a foreign language
teacher spent the whole day with the children and exclusively used the
foreign language English (One Person-One Language principle). The
two bilingual preschools were private preschools, while the monolingual
preschools were state-run. However, except for the bilingual approach,
all preschools were almost identical in terms of their structural features,
organization, and resources.
Measures and procedures in Study 1 and 2
Learners’ cognitive abilities were assessed with a battery of standardized
tests conducted in German. All cognitive tests were administered indi-
vidually in the prescribed standardized way by trained research assistants
in 20- to 30-minute sessions. All assessments took place in quiet rooms
within the preschool building. In addition, all parents and guardians were
asked to complete a questionnaire on the family’s linguistic and socioeco-
nomic background. Informed consent for participation in the study was
obtained from preschool administrations, parents, and children.
Socioeconomic status: Information about the parents’ current occupa-
tion or employment was obtained from responses to open-ended ques-
tions. The indicator used for SES was the International Socioeconomic
Index of Occupational Status (ISEI; Ganzeboom, 2010), which com-
bines occupational activity with information on income and education
(Homeyer-Zlotnik& Geis, 2003). The ISEI is constructed as a con-
tinuous metric variable and can take values between 16 and 90. For the
following analyses, the highest ISEI (HISEI) of both parents or the only
available parent’s ISEI value was used to represent the family’s SES. For
Study 1, only a subset of our participants from all preschools (N=134)
provided data on their HISEI.
Nonverbal intelligence: NVI was assessed using Raven’s Coloured
Progressive Matrices, which were designed as a language-free test for
young children aged 5 to 11years and older adults (Raven etal., 2006).
Measuring the children’s fluid intelligence (ability to think clearly and
make sense of complexity), the test contains three sets of matrices, with
12 items per set. According to Raven’s standardized procedure, children
were asked to choose the missing element from six options in a drawing.
One point was given for each correct answer, and the total score was the
sum of the correct answers, with a maximum score of 36. For the analy-
ses of this chapter, the raw scores were converted to IQ scores.
Working memory: Four sub-tests of the standardized computer-based
AGTB 5–12 (Arbeitsgedächtnistestbatterie für Kinder von 5 bis 12 Jah-
ren [Working memory test battery for children aged 5 to 12], Hasselhorn
302 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
etal., 2012) were used to measure storage capacity of the phonologi-
cal loop and central executive, according to Baddeley’s working memory
model (Baddeley, 2000). Instructions for each task were given acous-
tically by the interviewer. Depending on the task, children were asked
to respond by tapping on a touchscreen monitor or by responding ver-
bally. Phonological loop measures included a nonword repetition task
(Kunstwörter [pseudo words]), consisting of the repetition of 24 three- to
five-syllable nonwords (e.g., “karflumen”, “fradorlucke”, or “grappen-
fegalit”), and a one-syllable word span task (Wortspanne einsilbig), in
which sequences of monosyllables had to be repeated in chronological
order. For assessment of central executive functioning, the subtests color
span backwards test (Farben rückwärts) and complex span task (Objekt-
spanne) were used. During the former task, the children had to repeat
an ascending sequence of dierent colors in the reverse order of their
appearance. The latter consists of sequences of dierent pictures (e.g.,
cheese, apple, key) shown on the screen. The children were asked to say
whether the item in the picture was edible or not by answering yes/no. At
the end of the sequence, children were asked to recall the correct order
of the items. To obtain the final scores for both scales, the mean of the
standardized scores of the respective subtests was calculated.
Phonological awareness: Several aspects of PA were estimated using
five subtests of the German Würzburger Vorschultest [Würzburg pre-
school test] (WVT, Endlich etal., 2017). The scale Phonological Aware-
ness comprises the scales Phonological Awareness in a broad sense (two
tasks) and Phonological Awareness in a narrow sense (three tasks). Each
task contains a number of ten items, hence the possible maximum score
for the scale is a value of 50. First, in the subtest Anlauterkennung [iden-
tification of initial sounds], the children heard singular words and were
then asked to identify their initial sound. Subsequently, the children were
presented with sequences of single phonemes and were asked to pick the
corresponding word out of three choices (subtest Phonemsynthese [pho-
neme synthesis]). In the third assignment, this task was inverted. Chil-
dren were shown a picture and were asked to recite the correct sequence
of phonemes for each corresponding word (Phonemanalyse [phoneme
analysis]). The following task required children to decide whether a pre-
sented phoneme was audible in a specific word (Silbe-zu-Wort [syllable
to word]). At last, children were presented with a sequence of four words
and were asked to identify the single word that does not rhyme with the
remaining three words (Reimaufgabe [rhyming task]). Each subtest con-
sisted of 10 items. The order of presentation was standardized and iden-
tical for all participants. The tasks syllable-to-word and rhyming were
used to compile a scale for PA in a broad sense, while the scale for PA in
a narrow sense comprises the subtest identification of initial sounds, pho-
neme synthesis, and phoneme analysis. Both scales were added together
to a total score of PA with a possible maximum score of 50.
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 303
Study 1: Specific procedures, analyses and results
The primary objective of Study 1 was to explore everyday incidental
chances to facilitate the introduction to literacy for children with low
cognitive skills specifically important for the acquisition of written lan-
guage. We expected children who participated in training of phonologi-
cal awareness to have significantly higher levels of PA than children who
did not receive a specific training as such. Furthermore, we expected a
significant interaction of children’s SES and their respective participation
in a training program with regard to the correlation of SES and cognitive
skill level.
During the 3 preceding months before the point of measurement,
N= 85 children received phonological awareness training, either ZIK
(Jörns etal., 2017) or HLL (Küspert& Schneider, 2008). While we imple-
mented the training (ZIK) in some of the participating preschools, oth-
ers already regularly performed phonological awareness training (HLL)
before regardless of project participation. Thus, children were assigned
to the training group ex post. The training procedures focused on pho-
nological awareness in a broad as well as in a narrow sense, containing
elements for rhyming, segmenting of syllables, identification of initial
sounds, and analysis of phonemes. Trainings were instructed as well as
supervised by preschool teachers. While increasing in diculty over the
course of time, the attention focus shifts to increasingly smaller units of
language.
Analyses Study 1
Descriptive data were generated for all dependent variables using SPSS
27. We opted against data imputation for missing values since for the
cognitive variables, the maximum number of missing cases per task did
not exceed 10 children. For SES analyses, we only included completed
questionnaires due to concerns regarding the imputation of parents’ pro-
fessions and occupation. After inspecting bivariate correlations, t-tests
for independent samples were conducted, followed by moderated hierar-
chical regression analyses with standardized dependent variables.
Results Study 1
Descriptive statistics as well as bivariate correlations for the dependent
variables for the entire sample are presented in Table10.1.
T-tests for independent variables were conducted to examine dier-
ences between the children who have received phonological training
and children who have not partaken in specific additional training. The
results are depicted in Table10.2. It is evident that groups dier signifi-
cantly from each other regarding all scales of PA. They do not dier from
each other in NVI, working memory, and SES.
304 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
Table 10.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables
Variable n M SD NVI CE PL PA PA_B PA_N SES
Nonverbal 170 101.31 13.72 − .284** .154* .369** .377** .280** .115
Intelligence
(NVI)
Central Executive 164 48.87 8.46 − .221** .357** .250** .333** .220*
(CE)
Phonological 165 49.98 7.07 − .342** .282** .297** .144
Loop (PL)
Phonological 168 22.01 7.33 − .690** .929** .286**
Awareness
Total (PA)
PA in a broad 169 12.03 2.92 − .375** .213*
sense (PA_B)
PA in a narrow 168 9.95 5.72 − .263**
sense (PA_N)
Socioeconomic 134 54.27 15.51 −
Status (SES)
Note. Phonological Awareness Total (PA) comprises the scales Phonological Awareness in a
broad sense and Phonological Awareness in a narrow sense.
+p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
Table 10.2 Results of independent samples t-tests
Control Intervention t df p
Group Group
M SD M SD
Nonverbal 100.76 14.57 101.94 12.73 −0.557 168 .578
Intelligence
Central Executive 48.69 8.51 49.06 8.46 −0.281 162 .683
Phonological Loop 49.49 6.50 48.44 7.64 0.953 163 .128
Phonological 20.69 6.94 23.53 7.52 −2.54 166 .012*
Awareness Total
PA in a broad sense 11.60 3.00 12.52 2.77 −2.06 167 .041*
PA in a narrow sense 9.09 5.32 10.95 6.03 −2.12 166 .035*
Socioeconomic Status 54.18 16.56 54.35 14.54 −0.064 132 .949
Note. +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
To examine the impact of SES on cognitive skills as well as the cross-
sectional interaction between SES and the participation in a training of
PA in regard to children’s cognitive skill level, moderated hierarchical
regression analyses were conducted. For cognitive variables significantly
correlating with SES, the results of the moderated hierarchical regression
analyses are depicted in Tables10.3 to 10.6.
SES significantly predicts the central executive, while training partici-
pation does not explain further variance and, hence, does not moderate
the relation between SES and the central executive (see Table10.3).
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 305
To assess the influence of PA training on the relation between SES
and PA, first, hierarchical moderated regression was conducted for the
total score of PA as the dependent variable. SES significantly predicts PA.
While the participation in PA training explains dierences between the
children regarding PA, it does not influence the impact of SES on PA itself
(Table10.4).
Table 10.3 Hierarchical moderated regression analysis predicting central execu-
tive with PA training program as moderator
B SEBβt p R2∆R2
Model 1 .040 .048
(Constant) .057 .087 0.654 .514
SES .215 .087 .220 2.46 .015*
Model 2 .036 .004
(Constant) −.011 .129 −0.082 .934
SES .212 .088 .217 2.422 .017*
PA training program .126 .175 .064 0.717 .475
Model 3 .028 .000
(Constant) −.010 .129 −0.079 .937
SES .216 .122 .222 1.77 .079+
PA training program .125 .176 .064 0.711 .478
SES x PA training −.009 .176 −.006 −0.052 .959
Note. (N=121)
+p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
Model 1: F(1,119) =6.04, p = .015; Model 2: F(2,118) = 3.27, p = .042; Model 3:
F(3,117)=2.16, p=.096
Table 10.4 Hierarchical moderated regression analysis predicting phonological
awareness (total) with program as moderator
B SEBβt p R2∆R2
Model 1 .075 .082
(Constant) .093 .085 1.09 .277
SES .281 .085 .286 3.30 .001**
Model 2 .106 .038
(Constant) −.102 .119 −0.853 .395
SES .278 .084 .284 3.33 .001**
PA training program .382 .167 .195 2.29 .024*
Model 3 .107 .009
(Constant) −.105 .119 −0.882 .380
SES .193 .113 .197 1.70 .092+
PA training program .388 .167 .198 2.32 .022*
SES x PA training .187 .168 .129 1.12 .266
Note. (N=124)
+p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
Model 1: F(1,122) = 10.90, p = .001; Model 2: F(2,121) = 8.26, p= .000; Model 3:
F(3,120)=5.94, p=.001
306 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
To inspect influences on PA more closely, separate analyses were con-
ducted for PA in a broad sense and PA in a narrow sense as dependent
variables, respectively. SES predicts PA in a broad as well as narrow sense
significantly (B=.189, p < .05, R2=.036; B=.262, p < .01, R2=.096).
Training participation neither explains variance in the dependent vari-
able nor does it moderate the relation between SES and PA in a broad
sense (B=.134, n.s., R2=.096; B=.114, n.s., R2=.032). Training par-
ticipation does explain variance in PA in a narrow sense. However, it
does not moderate the relation between SES and the dependent variable
(B=.409, p < .01, R2=.096; B=.186, n.s., R2=.097).
Study 2: Specific procedures, analyses, and results
Study 2 investigated whether intensive bilingual preschool programs, which
aim to foster skills in a foreign language using numerous comprehension-
promoting and cognitively stimulating scaolding techniques, are benefi-
cial for the development of cognitive skills and are able to compensate
somewhat for negative eects of SES. Learners in monolingual and bilin-
gual preschools in Germany were examined in their last year of preschool
with regard to their central executive, phonological loop, and nonverbal
intelligence as described. In contrast to Study 1, this study did not assess
phonological awareness. We expected a correlation between the learners’
SES and their cognitive skills in both school programs, and we assumed
that children who participated in the bilingual program would perform
better on all cognitive tasks. Furthermore, we predicted a moderating eect
of program on the relationship between SES and cognitive skills.
Analyses Study 2
Analogous to Study 1, identical analyses were performed in Study 2. Based
on information from the parent questionnaire on the family’s linguistic
background and language use at home, children who grew up bilingual,
i.e., learned two languages at home or in the social environment from
birth or before preschool, were excluded from the initial dataset to avoid
interactions between bilingual first language acquisition and the bilingual
institutional intervention. Accordingly, for all participants in this study,
German was the first and only language acquired before entering pre-
school. For the children of the intervention group, English was added as
a second language at the beginning of preschool. Only participants who
completed all corresponding tests and returned the parent questionnaire
with information on their language background and HISEI were included.
Results Study 2
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between SES and cogni-
tive variables for the total sample are presented in Table10.5. Aweak
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 307
Table 10.5 Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables
Variable n M SD NVI CE PL SES
Nonverbal Intelligence (NVI) 43 108.16 12.12 −.171 .149 .281+
Central Executive (CE) 41 52.41 8.06 −.287+.142
Phonological Loop (PL) 41 56.29 8.12 −.081
Socioeconomic Status (SES) 43 60.28 18.48 −
Note. +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
Table 10.6 Results of independent samples t-tests
Monolingual Bilingual t df p
Preschool Preschool
M SD M SD
Nonverbal Intelligence 108.59 12.03 107.29 12.71 0.326 41 .746
Central Executive 51.78 8.48 53.64 7.30 −0.698 39 .489
Phonological Loop 53.96 7.63 60.79 7.30 −2.755 39 .009**
Socioeconomic Status 57.07 20.78 66.93 10.13 −2.091 40.968 .043*
Note. +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
positive correlation between SES and NVI was found at a 10% alpha
level (r=.28, p < .10).
Independent samples t-tests were performed comparing the mean
scores of monolingual and bilingual preschoolers on cognitive abilities
Table 10.7 Hierarchical moderated regression analysis predicting nonverbal
intelligence with program as moderator
B SEBβt p R2∆R2
Model 1 .079 .079
(Constant) 5.428E-16 0.148 0.000 1.000
SES 0.281 0.150 .281 1.876 .068+
Model 2 .095 .016
(Constant) 0.089 0.183 0.489 .628
SES 0.314 0.155 .314 2.020 .050+
Bilingual program −0.275 0.328 −.130 −0.838 .407
Model 3 .100 .005
(Constant) 0.085 0.185 0.462 .647
SES 0.291 0.165 .291 1.756 .087
Bilingual program −0.347 0.368 −.165 −0.942 .352
SES x Bilingual program 0.235 0.525 .082 0.448 .657
Note. (N=43)
+p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
Model 1: F(1,41)=3.52, p=.068; Model 2: F(2,40)=2.10, p=.136; Model 3: F(3,39)=
1.44, p=.247
308 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
and SES, with the bilingual group coming from a significantly higher
social background. Statistically significant dierences between the two
groups were found only for performance on phonological loop tasks,
on which the children who attended bilingual schools performed better
(Table10.6).
Contrary to expectations, a hierarchical moderated regression analysis
did not show that program moderated the eect between SES and NVI
significantly (see Table 10.7). However, regression analysis predicting
NVI revealed that at a 10% significance level, SES (B=0.281, t=1.876,
p=.068) did predict NVI.
Discussion
The presented studies addressed the question of which cognitive skills are
predicted by SES in our samples and whether purported negative eects
of low SES could be buered by two dierent cognitive-linguistic inter-
ventions in preschool. To that end, our studies examined the relationship
between dierent types of preschool interventions (i.e., Study 1: phono-
logical awareness interventions; Study 2: bilingual education) and SES on
cognitive skills. Although the two interventions dier in their objectives
and intensity, both share the common goal of promoting cognitive and
linguistic skills.
Relevance of socioeconomic status
In Study 1, SES correlated strongly with aspects of processing of speech
sounds, i.e., all subtests of phonological awareness, and with the central
executive. These results are in line with past research indicating that PA
is significantly influenced by children’s family background and that high
SES correlates with an eciently functioning prefrontal cortex, which,
in turn, navigates working memory capability (Lundberg etal., 2012;
Sheridan etal., 2012). However, nonverbal intelligence was not predicted
by SES. This is contrary to the results of Study 2, in which only NVI cor-
related with SES (at the 10% level), while no correlations were found
for central executive and the phonological loop. We interpreted results
at a 10% level following a recommendation by Ellis (2010). As he cau-
tions, eects are generally small in the social sciences, which leads to an
inherent risk of a type 2 error, i.e., the risk of missing a small eect due
to low statistical power. As one of several remedies, he suggests relaxing
the alpha criterion to an α=.10 level, especially for small sample studies
(Larson-Hall, 2012).
On the surface level, mean values and correlations diered between
the two studies. Furthermore, sample sizes diered from each other.
Hence, significant eects may prevail in Study 1 due to larger sample
size and, therefore, stronger statistical power. As for parental influence
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 309
on cognitive skills, it is important to note the SES dierence within and
between the samples. Thus, disparities in results possibly reflect sample
variance regarding parental background.
Relevance of preschool programs/cognitive-linguistic
interventions
To check whether the influence of programs might be relevant as a possi-
ble moderator for SES eects on cognition (RQ2), main eects of program
were calculated in the form of group dierences between intervention and
control groups. T-tests showed that learners in the Study 1 intervention
group diered significantly from the controls in all aspects of phonologi-
cal awareness and in Study 2 for the subtest phonological loop. As Tre-
bits etal. (2021) argue, phonological awareness seems more malleable
and susceptible to training influences than central executive functions or
intelligence (Kersten, 2023, this volume). These results also match those
observed in earlier studies (Schneider etal., 2000; Jörns etal., 2017). We
would expect to find a similar result for phonological awareness in bilin-
gual versus monolingual preschools (Trebits etal., 2021); it would thus be
recommendable to include PA in subsequent studies with a similar design.
These group dierences have, however, to be treated with caution, as
data are only cross-sectional, and a baseline test is missing. To establish
causal relationships, a pretest-posttest and random assignment design is
necessary and advisable for future studies. Another indicator for cautious
interpretation is the fact that in Study 2, intervention and control groups
also diered in SES. The groups dier in HISEI by 9.86 units. One reason
could be the clientele of bilingual private schools, which draw families
from more educationally advantaged households.
However, no eects of program were found for intelligence and central
executive. This might be for a number of reasons. In both studies, it is yet
unclear to what extent children were given enough opportunities to con-
solidate and transfer knowledge acquired during the training processes.
In Study 1, before cognitive skill assessment, children had participated in
a specific training for a duration of 3 months. It is possible that this time
span was insucient for training eects to manifest. In Study 1, children
participating in the ZIK training autonomously determined the frequency
of playing the games. Hence, only a few children reached training inten-
sity as high as children participating in trainings conducted by preschool
teachers on a daily basis. Since previous evaluations have shown ZIK to
eectively increase phonological awareness (Jörns etal., 2017), future
studies should advise preschool teachers to administer fixed playtimes
in order to achieve sucient training intensity. As this may play a cru-
cial role to training ecacy, it can be argued that either children need
more persuasive incentives to play the games more often voluntarily or a
stricter administration by teachers is necessary.
310 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
In Study 2, children participated in a bilingual schooling program.
Even though L2 speakers were present in the bilingual groups at all times,
children were able to choose whether they would like to interact with and
take part in the activities oered by the L2 personnel. Analyses did not
account for such interindividual dierences in exposure to the second lan-
guage. Future studies should consider including these dierences in their
analysis. Furthermore, this result is not entirely surprising as cognitive
benefits often emerge after children have participated in a high-intensity
bilingual program for an extended period of time (Trebits etal., 2021).
Taken together, no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these
studies as to whether the interventions were successful, since no baseline
for cognitive skills was elicited, and numerous other factors may have
influenced the children’s development. Thus, we were not able to control
whether the intervention groups had higher cognitive abilities from the
beginning or whether their advantage developed as a result of the inter-
vention experience.
The relationship between parental SES, school type, and
cognitive abilities
In past research, summarized earlier, both PA training and bilingual edu-
cation have been shown to have positive impact on specific cognitive
skills (Fischer& Pfost, 2015; Bialystok, 2018; Nicolay& Poncelet, 2015;
Woumans etal., 2016; Trebits etal., 2021). Since such promotion is espe-
cially crucial for children from low-SES backgrounds, in this chapter, we
aimed for a closer look at the possibility that trainings might mitigate SES
impacts on cognitive skills.
Based on the assumption that cognitively stimulating intervention pro-
grams could strengthen cognitive processes and the findings on cognitive
benefits for socially disadvantaged children (Engel de Abreu etal., 2012;
Hartanto etal., 2019; Kersten, 2020; Trebits etal., 2021), we expected a
moderating eect of the programs (i.e., PA training and the bilingual edu-
cation) on the relationship between SES and cognitive abilities. Contrary
to expectations, no moderating eect of preschool cognitive-linguistic
support programs on the association between SES and cognitive variables
was found. This might partly be due to the fact that the independent
cognitive variables did not show strong variation in the sample. On the
other hand, with regard to Study 2, the results are in line with those stud-
ies critical of the bilingual advantage hypothesis that do not find eects of
degree of bilingualism on cognition (Simonis etal., 2019). Although we
expected dierent results (Kersten, 2020), these findings are consistent
with other previous studies documenting strong eects of parental influ-
ence on children’s cognitive as well as academic development (Niklas&
Schneider, 2017). Strong parental influence may, in turn, be associated
with skills resistant to short trainings. This does, however, not exclude
the possibility that a moderation eect could be found in a larger data set
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 311
with more statistical power, in longer and more intensive interventions,
and in samples that do not dier in their SES in the first place.
Oftentimes, although children spend a majority of their time in educa-
tional institutions, additive as well as incidental trainings do not reach the
intensity of parent–child interactions. While there is evidence for additive
trainings to be eective (Schneider etal., 1997), it has also been shown
that cognitive skills are stable to a large extent (Hoekstra etal., 2007;
Schneider etal., 2014). Furthermore, relevant findings imply an extensive
role of family environment in regard to learning, even after the consid-
eration of children’s cognitive skills and their socioeconomic background
(Niklas& Schneider, 2010). Niklas and colleagues (2018) point out the
potential of promoting children’s home learning environment by oering
parents training in dialogic reading. Since children experience a substan-
tial amount of learning experiences at home, it is possible that train-
ing children’s parents may provide additional eects along with training
children in preschool, who may have diculties transferring knowledge
without constant guidance at a young age. Thus, the relatively short
duration (and, in the case of Study 1, low intensity) of our training pro-
grams may have been insucient to contribute to performance above and
beyond children’s socioeconomic status. In prior studies, training eects
have been shown in the longer term (Ise etal., 2012). For this reason, it
is recommendable that future studies should consider points of measure-
ments later in school.
As a final aspect of consideration, SES is a distal container variable that
is used as a proxy for numerous other eects that were not controlled
for in this study (Kersten & Greve, and Kersten, 2023, this volume).
As a consequence, it exerts stronger statistical power in analyses than
proximal external variables such as specific types of teacher behavior or
parent–child interaction. The latter, however, describe the actual point of
stimulation of the learner. While it is more dicult to detect the impact
of such proximal variables, they are logically the better predictors as they
have actual explanatory value for changes in the learners’ minds (Prox-
imity Hypothesis, Kersten, 2023, this volume). This might be another
reason we find correlations between the central executive, phonological
awareness, and nonverbal intelligence with SES across both data sets but
no moderation of the instructional programs.
Limitations of the studies
Finally, a number of important limitations need to be considered. Due to
high organizational complexity and limited resources, not all children in
both studies could be tested with all test instruments. For a more com-
prehensive view, it would be helpful to include more learners with data
for each variable. The missing values are particularly noticeable in the
participation in the parents’ questionnaire. Unfortunately, there was a
low response rate to the parent questionnaires (especially in Study 2), so
312 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
for future studies, we will need to recruit a larger number of participants
to ensure the reliability and generalizability of our results. Additionally,
the question arises as to whether a kind of preselection had already taken
place by filling out the parent questionnaire, since parents from better-
educated households may be more likely to participate in this type of
questionnaire than parents from lower-educated households. Further-
more, the parent questionnaire is a self-report of occupational or socioec-
onomic status, which may lead to response bias due to social desirability.
For those reasons, caution must be applied to the interpretation of the
results due to small sample sizes, especially in Study 2. In addition, larger
samples would provide more statistical power. However, the most impor-
tant limitation lies in the fact that cross-sectional data, such as those used
in these studies, do not allow for causal interpretation. For future studies,
longitudinal designs that also include baselines for cognitive variables
and control for additional domestic variables are needed.
Conclusion and future directions
The aim of this study was to examine whether the relationship between
parental SES and cognitive abilities is moderated by the type of schooling
in preschool (two dierent cognitive-linguistic interventions: phonologi-
cal awareness intervention and bilingual education). The presented cross-
sectional studies were able to provide initial insights to the chances and
limitations of preschool trainings regarding diverse cognitive skills. While
the given theoretical assumptions behind the trainings imply promising
results, they are not reflected in the data of our respective studies. In
neither of these were interactions between training and socioeconomic
status found. Although correlations were found between SES and pho-
nological awareness as well as central executive, a playful training of
phonological awareness could not moderate this relationship and thus
was not eective in order to support children with low SES (Study 1), nor
was the positive correlation of SES and nonverbal intelligence influenced
by bilingual education in preschool (Study 2).
We suggest that future studies and analyses should, first, account for
additional variables such as home learning environment and dierent
degrees of bilingualism. Second, a longitudinal perspective is crucial to
inspect the ecacy of the training programs. Finally, we would expect
that the impact of educational training programs emerges gradually as a
function of quality, intensity, and duration of the intervention and dif-
ferentially for dierent cognitive skills.
Funding
Research within the research association Inclusive Educational Research in
Early Childhood as a Multidisciplinary Challenge [Inklusive Bildungsforschung
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 313
der frühen Kindheit als multidisziplinäre Herausforderung] was funded by the
Lower Saxony Ministry of Science and Culture (“Niedersächsisches Vorab”).
References
Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T.,& Ungerleider, C. (2010). A sys-
tematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism.
Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 207–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654310368803
Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of
working memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 106(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003
Antón, E., Duñabeitia, J. A., Estévez, A., Hernández, J. A., Castillo, A., Fuentes,
L. J., Davidson, D. J.,& Carreiras, M. (2014). Is there a bilingual advantage in
the ANT task? Evidence from children. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 398. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00398
Baddeley, A. D. (1994). The magical number seven: Still magic after all these
years? Psychological Review, 101(2), 353–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.101.2.353
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buer: Anew component of working mem-
ory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1364-6613(00)01538-2
Baddeley, A. D.,& Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),
Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp.47–89). Elsevier. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
Bialystok, E. (2018). Bilingual education for young children: Review of the eects
and consequences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingual-
ism, 21(6), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1203859
Bialystok, E.,& Barac, R. (2012). Emerging bilingualism: Dissociating advan-
tages for metalinguistic awareness and executive control. Cognition, 122(1),
67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.003
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W.,& Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual
minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(3), 89–129. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1529100610387084
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M.,& Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical
access in younger and older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 859–873. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0278-7393.34.4.859
Bornstein, M. H.,& Bradley, R. H. (Eds.). (2012). Socioeconomic status, parent-
ing, and child development. Psychology Press Taylor& Francis Group.
Bowey, J. A. (1995). Socioeconomic status dierences in preschool phonological
sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 87(3), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.476
Bradley, R. H.,& Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child develop-
ment. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 371–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.53.100901.135233
Brooks-Gunn, J.,& Duncan, G. J. (1997). The eects of poverty on children. The
Future of Children, 7(2), 55. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602387
314 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
Bus, A. G.,& van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early
reading: Ameta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91(3), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.403
Calvo, A.,& Bialystok, E. (2014). Independent eects of bilingualism and soci-
oeconomic status on language ability and executive functioning. Cognition,
130(3), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.015
Costa, A., Hernández, M., Costa-Faidella, J.,& Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2009). On
the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you don’t.
Cognition, 113(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.001
De Bruin, A., Treccani, B.,& Della Sala, S. (2015). Cognitive advantage in
bilingualism: An example of publication bias? Psychological Science, 26(1),
99–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614557866
De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition. Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691507
Dicataldo, R.,& Roch, M. (2020). Are the eects of variation in quantity of daily
bilingual exposure and socioeconomic status on language and cognitive abili-
ties independent in preschool children? International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 17(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124570
Döpke, S. (1992). One parent– one language: An interactional approach. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Duñabeitia, J. A., Hernández, J. A., Antón, E., Macizo, P., Estévez, A., Fuentes,
L. J.,& Carreiras, M. (2014). The inhibitory advantage in bilingual children
revisited: Myth or reality? Experimental Psychology, 61(3), 234–251. https://
doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000243
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2012). Socioeconomic status and cognitive
functioning: Moving from correlation to causation. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews. Cognitive Science, 3(3), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1176
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z.,&
Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to
read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Reading
Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to eect sizes: Statistical power, meta-
analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge University Press.
Endlich, D., Berger, N., Küspert, P., Lenhard, W., Marx, P., Weber, J.,& Schnei-
der, W. (2017). WVT. Würzburger Vorschultest. Erfassung schriftsprachlicher
und mathematischer (Vorläufer-)Fertigkeiten und sprachlicher Kompetenzen
im letzten Kindergartenjahr [Würzburg preschool test: Assessment of literacy
and mathematical (precursor) abilities and linguistic competencies in the last
year of preschool] (1st ed.). Hogrefe.
Engel de Abreu, P. M. J., Cruz-Santos, A., Tourinho, C. J., Martin, R.,& Bia-
lystok, E. (2012). Bilingualism enriches the poor: Enhanced cognitive control
in low-income minority children. Psychological Science, 23(11), 1364–1371.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612443836
European Commission. (2017). Key data on teaching languages at school in
Europe– 2017 edition. Eurydice report. Publications Oce of the European
Union.
Fälth, L., Gustafson, S.,& Svensson, I. (2017). Phonological awareness train-
ing with articulation promotes early reading development.Education,137(3),
261–276.
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 315
Festman, J., Czapka, S.,& Winsler A. (2023, this volume). How many modera-
tors does is take till we know... that too many bilingual advantage eects have
died? In K. Kersten& A. Winsler (Eds.), Interplay of variables in cognitive-
linguistic development– Amulti-layered perspective. Routledge.
Fischer, M. Y.,& Pfost, M. (2015). Wie eektiv sind Maßnahmen zur Förderung
der phonologischen Bewusstheit? [How eective are interventions to promote
phonological awareness?]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Päd-
agogische Psychologie [Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychol-
ogy], 47(1), 35–51.
Fröhlich, L. P., Metz, D.,& Petermann, F. (2010). Förderung der phonologischen
Bewusstheit und sprachlicher Kompetenzen. Das Lobo-Kindergartenprogramm
[Promoting phonological awareness and language skills. The Lobo-preschool
program]. Hogrefe.
Ganzeboom, H. B. G. (2010). A new international socio-economic index (ISEI)
of occupational status for the international standard classification of occupa-
tion 2008 (ISCO-08) constructed with data from the ISSP 2002–2007: With
an analysis of quality of occupational measurement in ISSP. Annual Confer-
ence of the International Social Survey Programme.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., Guerin, D. W.,& Parramore, M. M.
(2012). Socioeconomic status in children’s development and family environ-
ment: Infancy through adolescence. In M. H. Bornstein& R. H. Bradley (Eds.),
Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp.189–207). Psy-
chology Press and Taylor& Francis Group.
Graham, S., Courtney, L., Marinis, T., & Tonkyn, A. (2017). Early language
learning: The impact of teaching and teacher factors. Language Learning,
67(4), 922–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12251
Hackman, D. A.,& Farah, M. J. (2009). Socioeconomic status and the develop-
ing brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tics.2008.11.003
Hackman, D. A., Gallop, R., Evans, G. W.,& Farah, M. J. (2015). Socioeconomic
status and executive function: Developmental trajectories and mediation.
Developmental Science, 18(5), 686–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12246
Hart, B.,& Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful dierences in the everyday experi-
ence of young American children. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Hartanto, A., Toh, W. X., & Yang, H. (2019). Bilingualism narrows socioeco-
nomic disparities in executive functions and self-regulatory behaviors during
early childhood: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study. Child
Development, 90(4), 1215–1235. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13032
Hasselhorn, M., Schumann-Hengsteler, R., Gronauer, J., Grube, D., Mähler,
C., Schmid, I., Seitz-Stein, K., & Zoelch, C. (2012). AGTB 5–12. Arbeits-
gedächtnistestbatterie für Kinder von 5 bis 12 Jahren [Working memory test
battery for children aged 5 to 12]. Hogrefe.
Hoekstra, R. A., Bartels, M.,& Boomsma, D. I. (2007). Longitudinal genetic
study of verbal and nonverbal IQ from early childhood to young adult-
hood.Learning and Individual Dierences,17(2), 97–114.
Homeyer-Zlotnik, J. H. P., & Geis, A. J. (2003). Berufsklassifikation und
Messung des beruflichen Status/Prestige [Occupational classification and
measurement of occupational status/prestige]. ZUMA Nachrichten, 27(52),
125–138.
316 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
Huschka, S. S., Emde, K. R., & Brandenburg, J. (2020). Zur Vorhersage der
Schriftsprache durch vorschulische Kompetenzen [On the prediction of written
language by preschool skills]. Frühe Bildung [Early Education], 9(4), 193–202.
Ise, E., Engel, R. R., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2012). Was hilft bei der Lese-
Rechtschreibstörung? [What helps with dyslexia?].Kindheit und Entwicklung
[Childhood and Development], 21(2), 122–136.
Jäger, D. (2018).Zur pädagogischen Legitimation des Würzburger Trainingspro-
grammes Hören, lauschen, lernen: Trainingseekte und Trainereekte[On the
pedagogical legitimacy of the Würzburg training program hearing, listening,
learning: Training eects and trainer eects] (Doctoral dissertation). Univer-
sität Würzburg.
Jörns, C., Schuchardt, K., Grube, D., Barkam, L. V., & Mähler, C. (2017).
ZIKZAK– Profitieren Kindergartenkinder von Gesellschaftsspielen zur Förder-
ung numerischer Kompetenzen und phonologischer Bewusstheit? [ZIKZAK–
Do preschool children benefit from board games to promote numerical skills
and phonological awareness?]. Unterrichtswissenschaft [Teaching Science], 45,
220–238.
Kersten, K. (2019). Einflussfaktoren im bilingualen Fremdsprachenerwerb [Influ-
encing factors in bilingual foreign language acquisition]. In A. Rohde& A. K.
Steinlen (Eds.), Sprachenvielfalt als Ressource begreifen: Mehrsprachigkeit in
bilingualen Kindertagesstätten und Schulen [Understanding linguistic diversity
as a resource: Multilingualism in bilingual preschools and schools] (Vol. 2,
pp.35–70). Dohrmann Verlag.
Kersten, K. (2020, January). The interplay of cognitive, linguistic and instruc-
tional factors in early language acquisition. Paper presented at the Interdiscipli-
nary symposium: Variables aecting (language) learning processes, Hildesheim
University.
Kersten, K. (2023, this volume). Proximity of stimulation: Investigating the
interplay of cognitive, linguistic and instructional factors in early language
acquisition. In K. Kersten & A. Winsler (Eds.), Interplay of variables in
cognitive-linguistic development: Amulti-layered perspective. Routledge.
Kersten, K., Bruhn, A.-C., Koch, M.,& Schriek, J. (2019, August). The eect
of L2 input and cognitively stimulating tasks on second language acquisition.
Paper presented at EuroSLA 29, Lund University.
Kersten, K.,& Greve, W. (2023, this volume). Investigating influencing factors
of cognitive-linguistic development in SLA: Challenges for empirical research.
In K. Kersten& A. Winsler (Eds.), Interplay of variables in cognitive-linguistic
development: Amulti-layered perspective. Routledge.
Kersten, K., Rohde, A., Schelletter, C.,& Steinlen, A. K. (2010). Bilingual pre-
schools: Learning and development (Vol. 1). Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Kishiyama, M. M., Boyce, W. T., Jimenez, A. M., Perry, L. M.,& Knight, R. T.
(2009). Socioeconomic disparities aect prefrontal function in children. Jour-
nal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(6), 1106–1115. https://doi.org/10.1162/
jocn.2009.21101
Kjeldsen, A. C., Kärnä, A., Niemi, P., Olofsson, Å.,& Witting, K. (2014). Gains
from training in phonological awareness in kindergarten predict reading com-
prehension in grade 9. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(6), 452–467.
Küspert, P., & Schneider, W. (2008). Hören, lauschen, lernen – Anleitung:
Sprachspiele für Kinder im Vorschulalter – Würzburger Trainingsprogramm
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 317
zur Vorbereitung auf den Erwerb der Schriftsprache [Hearing, listening, learn-
ing– instructions: Language games for preschool children– Würzburg training
program to prepare for the acquisition of written language]. Vandenhoeck&
Ruprecht.
Küspert, P., & Schneider, W. (2018). Hören, lauschen, lernen – Anleitung:
Sprachspiele für Kinder im Vorschulalter – Würzburger Trainingsprogramm
zur Vorbereitung auf den Erwerb der Schriftsprache [Hearing, listening, learn-
ing. Language games for preschoolers. Würzburg training program for the
preparation of literacy. Acquisition]. Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht.
Küspert, P., Schneider, W.,& Plume, E. (1999). Hören, lauschen, lernen [Hearing,
listening, learning]. Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht.
Larson-Hall, J. (2012). Our statistical intuitions May be misleading us: Why we
need robust statistics. Language Teaching, 45(4), 460–474. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0261444811000127
Lawson, G. M., & Farah, M. J. (2017). Executive function as a mediator
between SES and academic achievement throughout childhood. Interna-
tional Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(1), 94–104. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0165025415603489
Lawson, G. M., Hook, C. J.,& Farah, M. J. (2018). Ameta-analysis of the rela-
tionship between socioeconomic status and executive function performance
among children. Developmental Science, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.
12529
Lawson, G. M., Hook, C. J., Hackman, D. A.,& Farah, M. J. (2016). Socio-
economic status and the development of executive function: Behavioral and
neuroscience approaches. In P. D. McCardle, J. A. Grin,& L. Freund (Eds.),
Executive function in preschool-age children: Integrating measurement, neu-
rodevelopment, and translational research (pp.259–278). American Psycho-
logical Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14797-012
Lehtonen, M., Soveri, A., Laine, A., Järvenpää, J., De Bruin, A., & Antfolk,
J. (2018). Is bilingualism associated with enhanced executive functioning in
adults? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(4), 394–425.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000142
Loewen, S.,& Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acqui-
sition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261
444818000125
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Anthony, J. L.,& Barker, T. A. (1998). Development
of phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5-year-old children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90(2), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.294
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O. P. (1988). Eects of an extensive pro-
gram for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading
Research Quarterly, 263–284.
Lundberg, I., Larsman, P., & Strid, A. (2012). Development of phonologi-
cal awareness during the preschool year: The influence of gender and socio-
economic status. Reading and Writing, 25(2), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11145-010-9269-4
McDowell, K. D., Lonigan, C. J., & Goldstein, H. (2007). Relations among
socioeconomic status, age, and predictors of phonological awareness. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 1079–1092. https://doi.
org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/075)
318 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
McIntosh, B., Crosbie, S., Holm, A., Dodd, B.,& Thomas, S. (2007). Enhanc-
ing the phonological awareness and language skills of socially disadvantaged
preschoolers: An interdisciplinary programme. Child Language Teaching and
Therapy, 23(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659007080678
Meir, N.,& Armon-Lotem, S. (2017). Independent and combined eects of soci-
oeconomic status (SES) and bilingualism on children’s vocabulary and verbal
short-term memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1442. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.01442
Nicolay, A. C.,& Poncelet, M. (2015). Cognitive benefits in children enrolled
in an early bilingual immersion school: Afollow up study. Bilingualism: Lan-
guage and Cognition, 18(4), 789–795.
Niklas, F., Cohrssen, C.,& Tayler, C. (2018). Making a dierence to children’s
reasoning skills before school-entry: The contribution of the home learning
environment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 79–88. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.06.001
Niklas, F.,& Schneider, W. (2010). Der Zusammenhang von familiärer Lernum-
welt mit schulrelevanten Kompetenzen im Vorschulalter [The association of
family learning environments with school-relevant competencies in preschool.].
Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation [Journal for Sociol-
ogy of Education and Socialization], 30(2), 149–165.
Niklas, F.,& Schneider, W. (2017). Home learning environment and develop-
ment of child competencies from kindergarten until the end of elementary
school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 263–274. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.03.006
Noble, K. G., Farah, M. J.,& McCandliss, B. D. (2006). Socioeconomic back-
ground modulates cognition-achievement relationships in reading. Cognitive
Development, 21(3), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.01.007
Noble, K. G., McCandliss, B. D.,& Farah, M. J. (2007). Socioeconomic gradi-
ents predict individual dierences in neurocognitive abilities. Developmental
Science, 10(4), 464–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00600.x
Paap, K. R., Myuz, H. A., Anders, R. T., Bockelman, M. F., Mikulinsky, R.,&
Sawi, O. M. (2017). No compelling evidence for a bilingual advantage in
switching or that frequent language switching reduces switch cost. Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 29(2), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.201
6.1248436
Pace, A., Luo, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinko, R. M. (2017). Identifying
pathways between socioeconomic status and language development. Annual
Review of Linguistics, 3(1), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
linguistics-011516-034226
Raven, J., Raven, J. C.,& Court, J. H. (2006). Manual zu Raven‘s Progressive
Matrices and Vocabulary Scales (Deutsche Bearbeitung und Normierung von
S. Bulheller und H. Häcker) [Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and
vocabulary scales (German editing and standardization by S. Bulheller and H.
Häcker)]. Harcourt Test Services.
Rindermann, H., & Baumeister, A. E. (2015). Parents’ SES vs. parental edu-
cational behavior and children’s development: Areanalysis of the Hart and
Risley study. Learning and Individual Dierences, 37, 133–138. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.12.005
Can schooling type compensate for low SES? 319
Robson, D. A., Allen, M. S.,& Howard, S. J. (2020). Self-regulation in childhood
as a predictor of future outcomes: Ameta-analytic review. Psychological Bul-
letin, 146(4), 324–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000227
Rosen, M. L., Hagen, M. P., Lurie, L. A., Miles, Z. E., Sheridan, M. A., Melt-
zo, A. N.,& McLaughlin, K. A. (2020). Cognitive stimulation as a mecha-
nism linking socioeconomic status with executive function: A longitudinal
investigation. Child Development, 91(4), e762–e779. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdev.13315
Roth, B., Becker, N., Romeyke, S., Schäfer, S., Domnick, F., & Spinath, F. M.
(2015). Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 53,
118–137.
Sarsour, K., Sheridan, M., Jutte, D., Nuru-Jeter, A., Hinshaw, S.,& Boyce, W.
T. (2011). Family socioeconomic status and child executive functions: The
roles of language, home environment, and single parenthood. Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society: JINS, 17(1), 120–132. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1355617710001335
Schneider, W. (1989). Möglichkeiten der frühen Vorhersage von Leseleistungen
im Schulalter [Opportunities for early prediction of school-age reading achieve-
ment]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie [Journal of Educational Psy-
chology], 3(2), 157–168.
Schneider, W., Küspert, P., Roth, E., Visé, M.,& Marx, H. (1997). Short- and
long-term eects of training phonological awareness in kindergarten: Evidence
from two German studies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66(3),
311–340. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1997.2384
Schneider, W., Niklas, F., & Schmiedeler, S. (2014). Intellectual development
from early childhood to early adulthood: The impact of early IQ dierences
on stability and change over time. Learning and Individual Dierences, 32,
156–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.02.001
Schneider, W., Roth, E.,& Ennemoser, M. (2000). Training phonological skills
and letter knowledge in children at risk for dyslexia: Acomparison of three
kindergarten intervention programs. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92(2), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.284
Schuchardt, K., Maehler, C.,& Hasselhorn, M. (2008). Working memory deficits
in children with specific learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
41(6), 514–523.
Sheridan, M. A., Sarsour, K., Jutte, D., D’Esposito, M.,& Boyce, W. T. (2012).
The impact of social disparity on prefrontal function in childhood. PloS One,
7(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035744
Simonis, M., Van der Linden, L., Galand, B., Hiligsmann, P.,& Szmalec, A.
(2019). Executive control performance and foreign-language proficiency asso-
ciated with immersion education in French-speaking Belgium. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 23(2), 355–370.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: Ameta-
analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
Skowronek, H.,& Marx, H. (1989). The Bielefeld longitudinal study on early
identification of risks in learning to read and write: Theoretical background
and first results. In M. Brambring, F. Lösel,& H. Skowronek (Eds.), Children
320 Ann-Christin Bruhn et al.
at risk: Assessment, longitudinal research, and intervention (pp. 268–294).
Walter De Gruyter.
Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two
things. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 72–101. https://doi.org/
10.2307/1412159
Sternberg, R. J. (2018). Theories of intelligence. In S. I. Pfeier, E. Shaunessy-
Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and
talent (pp. 145–161). American Psychological Association. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0000038-010
Trebits, A., Koch, M. J., Ponto, K., Bruhn, A.-C., Adler, M., & Kersten, K.
(2021). Cognitive gains and socioeconomic status in early second language
acquisition in immersion and EFL learning settings. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/136700
50.2021.1943307
Unsworth, S., Argyri, F., Cornips, L., Hulk, A., Sorace, A.,& Tsimpli, I. (2014).
The role of age of onset and input in early child bilingualism in Greek and
Dutch: S. Unsworth, F. Argyri, L. Cornips, A. Hulk, A. Sorace, I. Tsimpli.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(4), 765–805. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271
6412000574
Wegner, A. (2022). Die Implementation von CLIL (Content and Language Inte-
grated Learning) in der Grundschule: Eine methodenintegrierende Untersu-
chung zu Einflussfaktoren bei der Umsetzung bilingualer Unterrichtskonzepte
[The implementation of CLIL in elementary school: A method-integrating
study of factors influencing the implementation of bilingual instructional con-
cepts]. Universitätsverlag Hildesheim. https://doi.org/10.18442/191
Weitz, M. (2015). Die Rolle des L2-Inputs in bilingualen Kindergärten [The role
of L2 input in bilingual preschools]. Peter Lang.
Weitz, M., Pahl, S., Mattson, A. F., Buyl, A.,& Kalbe, E. (2010). The input qual-
ity observation scheme (IQOS): The nature of L2 input and its influence on L2
development in bilingual preschools. In K. Kersten, A. Rohde, C. Schelletter,&
A. K. Steinlen (Eds.), Bilingual preschools, Volume I: Learning and develop-
ment (pp.5–44). Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Woumans, E., Surmont, J., Struys, E., & Duyck, W. (2016). The longitudinal
eect of bilingual immersion schooling on cognitive control and intelligence.
Language Learning, 66(S2), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12171
Zhang, Y., Tardif, T., Shu, H., Li, H., Liu, H., McBride-Chang, C., Liang, W.,&
Zhang, Z. (2013). Phonological skills and vocabulary knowledge mediate
socioeconomic status eects in predicting reading outcomes for Chinese chil-
dren. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 665–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0028612
