“That’s my mission”: Examining parents’ investments in their emergent bilingual learners’ development

Full text

Bilingual Research Journal
The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ubrj20
“That’s my mission”: Examining parents’
investments in their emergent bilingual learners’
development
Lenny Sánchez, Eurydice Bouchereau Bauer, Yang Wang, Wenyu Guo, Ling
Hao & Kyungjin Hwang
To cite this article: Lenny Sánchez, Eurydice Bouchereau Bauer, Yang Wang, Wenyu Guo, Ling
Hao & Kyungjin Hwang (2023) “That’s my mission”: Examining parents’ investments in their
emergent bilingual learners’ development, Bilingual Research Journal, 46:3-4, 224-238, DOI:
10.1080/15235882.2023.2264810
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2023.2264810
Published online: 19 Oct 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 343
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ubrj20

RESEARCH ARTICLE
“That’s my mission”: Examining parents’ investments in their
emergent bilingual learners’ development
Lenny Sánchez
a
, Eurydice Bouchereau Bauer
a
, Yang Wang
a
, Wenyu Guo
b
,
Ling Hao
a
, and Kyungjin Hwang
a
a
University of South Carolina, USA;
b
University of South Florida, USA
ABSTRACT
Numerous complexities undergird how parents support the bilingual devel-
opment of their young learners, especially in a predominantly monolingual-
centric society. In this article, we highlight belief practices which informed
parents’ decision-making processes in supporting their children, who were
enrolled in a diverse dual language immersion school in the Southeast U.S.
Specically, we focus on four ideological “investments” (Darvin & Norton,
2015) which shaped the social and cultural resources they leveraged and
sought after for themselves and their children. These include: investing in an
asset-based stance on bilingualism, investing in language as cultural prac-
tices, investing in the need to shape language development, and investing in
the long run that bilingualism matters. These ideological investments, which
inuenced small and extensive actions, greatly impacted how parents parti-
cipated in their children’s journey in becoming bilingual. We further discuss
considerations for schools, which should take into account these types of
parental experiences and insights so that schools and parents can work in
tandem to champion success for their children.
According to educational research, it is clear parents are key in strengthening the cultural and
linguistic development of emerging bilingual children (Bauer & Harris, 2015; Li & Sun, 2019; Rubin
et al., 2021). Although existing literature affirms parents’ roles in their children’s development, there
still needs to be greater clarity on how parents operate within complex, and often competing,
discourses as they support their children’s bilingual learning. This is especially true within mono-
lingual-centric societies, such as the U.S., which proffer deficit views of bilingualism. In these contexts,
CONTACT Lenny Sánchez sanchezl@sc.edu University of South Carolina, 820 Main Street, Columbia, SC 29208
Lenny Sánchez is a faculty member in Language and Literacy Education at University of South Carolina where he serves as Co-
Director for the university’s Bilingualism Matters Center. His research focuses on critical and cultural literacies with specific interest in
young people’s agency and activism and the ways children and their families cultivate bilingual, bicultural meaning-making.
Eurydice Bouchereau Bauer is the John E. Swearingen Chair in the Department of Teacher Education at University of South Carolina
where she also serves as Director for the Bilingualism Matters Center. Her research focuses on literacy development, instruction, and
assessment of students from diverse linguistic, economic, and cultural backgrounds.
Yang Wang is an associate professor in the Department of Teacher Education at the University of South Carolina. She is Co-Director of
the Center of Bilingualism Matters @USC. Her research focuses on reading comprehension, eye movement miscue analysis, English
language teaching and learning, and bilingual literacy.
Wenyu Guo is an assistant professor of Literacy Studies in the Department of Language, Literacy, Ed.D., Exceptional Education, and
Physical Education at the University of South Florida. She earned her Ph.D. in Teaching & Learning and Certificate of Graduate Study
in Qualitative Research from the University of South Carolina.
Ling Hao is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Instruction and Teacher Education at the University of South Carolina. Ling’s
research focuses on literacies in family, multimodal literacies, and literacy assessment.
Kyungjin Hwang is a PhD candidate in Language and Literacy at University of South Carolina. Her research interests include dynamic
bilingualism, multimodal translanguaging pedagogy, and language ideology. Her doctoral dissertation focuses on the development
and utilization of multimodal translanguaging pedagogy to support early bilingual children dynamically leveraging their bilingual
repertoire.
BILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
2023, VOL. 46, NOS. 3–4, 224–238
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2023.2264810
© 2023 NABE

it becomes necessary to not only understand how parents work within these challenges but why and
how they invest in their roles as parents of bilingual learners.
In response to this call for better understanding parental experiences, we interviewed a subset of
guardians whose children attended a dual-language immersion (DLI) Chinese-English and Spanish-
English elementary school. Subsequently, we examined the beliefs that undergirded how they sup-
ported their emerging bilingual learners. (We use the term “guardians” because each adult in our study
was a guardian but not necessarily the parent within the family unit.) In what follows, we provide
a synthesis of research focused on parental experiences with children in DLI programs. We then offer
a conceptualization of investment (Norton, 1995, 2018), which we draw upon to describe four major
beliefs that substantially contributed to the “parenting missions” (a characterization provided to us by
one of our participants) of those involved in our study. Drawing on these insights, we point to ways
schools can take into account these ideological investments to collectively help children flourish as
bilingual learners.
Literature review
In the U.S., the number of DLI programs has grown tremendously over the last two decades, with
more than 3,600 programs reported in 2021 (American Councils Research Center, n.d.). This growth
suggests parents have looked to DLI programs as an important option for promoting bilingual
outcomes for their children. Some studies have chronicled a range of reasons for program enrollment,
such as increasing their children’s biliteracy skillsets (Ee, 2018a, 2018b; Oliveira et al., 2020; Olivos &
Lucero, 2020; Sawyer et al., 2017; Zheng, 2021), viewing bilingualism as a way to foster greater
cognitive development (López, 2013), a desire to develop greater multicultural awareness (Ee,
2018a; Ryan, 2023), providing greater social integration (Ee, 2018a; Olivos & Lucero, 2020), preparing
for future professional and educational opportunities (Chaparro, 2020; López, 2013; Olivos & Lucero,
2020; Ryan, 2023; Sung & Tsai, 2019), maintaining transnational and intergenerational ties (Morales,
2016), and preserving cultural heritage (Ee, 2018a; Ryan, 2023; Sawyer et al., 2017). Although there
may be intersecting reasons why parents elect to enroll their children into DLI programs, a closer look
at these studies reveals there are numerous factors undergirding parents’ decisions and beliefs. For this
reason, it becomes necessary for those working in educational sectors to resist viewing parents through
homogenous lenses. For example, while several studies (Ee, 2017, 2018a; Feinauer & Whiting, 2014;
Morales, 2016; Richins & Balducci, 2021; Sung, 2020; Sung & Tsai, 2019) showed heritage language
speaking parents sought schooling opportunities to maintain their children’s heritage language, they
possessed varying reasons. For instance, some families wanted to have their children reach native-like
competency in both languages (Surrain, 2021), while others held the view that bilingualism was more
likely to develop and be sustained if English served as the dominant language at school (Lee et al., 2015;
Song, 2019).
Studies regarding white, English-speaking parent demographic in DLI programs also reveal that
these parents can hold onto competing outlooks. For example, Shin’s (2013) research described the
experiences of four White English-speaking moms who held onto what we would call transformative
views of bilingualism as they asked the Korean language school to teach their children how to counter
negative U.S. social attitudes toward Asians. They wanted to counter ethnic erasure for their children
and worked to ensure their children’s bilingual learning would generate meaningful long-term out-
comes for their children. In contrast, Chung (2020) found that white parents in Chinese-English
program held resistant views of Chinese culture during the COVID-19 outbreak. For instance, they
expressed a strong disinterest for their children to have ties to China nor have them visit China in the
future. They also did not want their children to embrace cultural aspects. Both Chung (2020) and
Shin’s (2013) studies illustrate how these parents’ goals were shaped by specific geo-political condi-
tions but for very different reasons and with very different desires. Simply identifying that parents
supported language learning would provide an incomplete picture of these parents’ specific and
differing ideologies and practices.
BILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 225

The literature also shows that many parents in DLI settings value their role in shaping their
children’s cultural and linguistic opportunities but do so in diverse ways to various degrees of
involvement. For example, some families engaged in literacy practices which increased opportu-
nities for their children to speak the target language in the home (Bauer & Harris, 2015; Richins &
Balducci, 2021). In Bauer and Harris (2015), parents shifted from speaking only the home
language in the home to include the target language. In other studies (e.g., Richins & Balducci,
2021; Sawyer et al., 2017), families actively learned how to collaborate with teachers to support
language development through various means (e.g., translating, providing pronunciation, practi-
cing keywords). Further yet, studies (Feinauer & Whiting, 2014; Zheng, 2021) highlighted that
families participated in a various social activities and sought authentic language resources in the
community to foster their children’s language proficiency, such as attending cultural events,
religious meetings in the target language, borrowing or purchasing bilingual books, among other
engagements to surround their children with resources they needed. Overall, these studies denote
many different ways parents play an active role and exhibit commitment to helping their children
achieve success in their language learning experiences.
While these studies show ways parents worked to be involved in the bilingual process, parents in
some studies also believed schools should play a critical role in their children’s bilingual development
(Chung, 2020; Ee, 2017). This was especially true if the parents did not speak the children’s target
language (Chung, 2020; Ee, 2021; Sung & Tsai, 2019). For instance, parents in Chung’s (2020) study
felt the Chinese language was too complex to teach at home because of the phonological tones and
orthographical strokes, so the parents sought out a Chinese immersion program. In other studies (Ee,
2017; Sung & Tsai, 2019), parents viewed schools as having access to teachers with authentic knowl-
edge and cultural resources, which would benefit their children’s understanding of how the language
lived through others’ experiences. In general, and across target languages, parents seemed to recognize
schools as having an instrumental influence in their children’s linguistic and academic achievement
and wanted to leverage the school as a resource for these possibilities.
Although schools were viewed as a valuable resource in many cases, parents also voiced concerns
about their children’s schools. For instance, Ee’s (2017) study signaled that Latino parents would have
participated more in their children’s schools if the schools had created a more inclusive atmosphere for
these parents. Parents also expressed concern about the lack of target language representation in the
instruction (Ee, 2018b). These parents found the 50/50 (English/Korean) instructional model operated
as a 70/30 (English/Korean) model. These parents feared the increased English language allocation
would compromise their children’s Korean proficiency. Moreover, other studies (Cervantes-Soon,
2014; Ee, 2018b; Sung, 2020; Sung & Tsai, 2019; Wang et al., 2023) cited additional concerns such as
parents wanting greater access to learning resources, increased communications from the teachers,
additional hirings of administrative staff who could use the target languages, and increased district
efforts to promote bilingual programs. In all, these studies reinforce the belief that parents desire to
stay closely connected to their children’s learning but held onto expectations for the schooling
institutions to support them.
As these various studies exemplify, parents valued having a voice in their children’s bilingual
education and were often intentional in how they supported their children. While these decisions were
expressed differently, parents believed their participation was an important aspect for their children to
thrive in a new language. These studies also suggest there is a need to support these parents as they
make conscious efforts to influence the outcomes of their children’s bilingual futures. While the path is
not easy, nor uniform in nature, the literature points to this work as necessary, especially if families
and schools wish to produce bilingual opportunities for children in a monolingual-centric society.
Therefore, it becomes imperative educational sectors and researchers continue to examine the
ideological underpinnings of parents in these settings so that educational advocates and researchers
can better understand how and why parents seek out particular language, social, and cultural
opportunities for their children. Understanding the nuances of parents’ beliefs about guiding their
children’s bilingual development can provide valuable knowledge for ways schools can create better
226 L. SÁNCHEZ ET AL.

support systems to leverage and/or address the ideological investments these parents work so hard to
see come to life.
Theoretical framework
To understand how the guardians in our study drew upon and situated themselves within various
ideological stances and practices to support their children as bilingual learners, we turn to the concept
of investment (Darvin & Norton, 2015; Norton, 1995, 2013, 2018), which involves the process of
engaging in language learning in ways that acquire symbolic resources (e.g., language, education,
friendship) and material resources (e.g., capital goods, real estate, money) that ultimately help the
language learner accrue greater social power and capital (Norton, 2013, 2018).
Norton (1995, 2013) first introduced the notion of investment to recognize that language learning is
always tied to dynamic systems of power which shape how an individual is positioned within their
social worlds. Through further development of this concept, Darvin and Norton (2015) suggested
investment is informed by three interconnected socializing structures: ideology, capital, and identity.
Ideology pertains to the norms (or values) that legitimize, regulate, or de-regulate social systems.
Capital refers to the sources of power that enable individuals or systems to reify or alter the norms (or
values). How an individual or people group is positioned within these changing systems of power
creates identity, which frames a person or group’s sense of place within the shifting patterns of control.
Through these linked processes, language learners’ experiences become shaped by ideologies and
capital which influence the identities they take up as they navigate the entanglements of complex
societal structures.
While this framework offers an important and critical look at the development of bilingual learners,
we believe this framing can also be extended to understanding the complex beliefs and decisions
parents of young bilingual learners make to support their children’s bilingual development. Parents,
like their children, operate from social positions rooted in varying language ideologies and social
positionings which change over time and guide them to value and recognize ways of using language
(Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Kroskrity, 2007). Just as Norton and her colleagues illuminated how
systemic patterns of power and control operate within language learners’ spaces of learning, parents
(such as those in our study) operate in these same institutions. In the U.S., for example, these systems
of power favor monolingual-centric ways of being, which are further reified through master narratives
(Rosa & Burdick, 2017) of whiteness and English-speaking proprieties that produce the myth that
there is a “correct” and “pure” way for being a societal member and speaker. These ideologies create an
envisioned “ideal” member of U.S. society, motivated by tones of “correctness, social power, speaker
characteristics and morality” (Lyotard, 1984, p. 456).
For these reasons, we recognize that parents in the U.S., who wish to promote a multilingual view of
the world to their children, operate within these backdrops about what constitutes the language of the
U.S and how it should be used, by whom, and under what context (Gee, 2008). Parents of bilingual
children are, therefore, forced to make ongoing decisions related to their children’s language practices
to either legitimize or de-legitimize the interests of the dominant context. If we are to support parents’
efforts in creating bilingual opportunities for their children, it becomes important to understand their
beliefs about language and how these ideologies inform the ways they navigate their children’s
language learning opportunities. This is why we draw on investment theory to examine how the
guardians in our study lived out (or invested in) their desires to privilege the linguistic and cultural
futures of their emerging bilingual children. As Darvin and Norton (2015) note, “examining how
ideologies operate . . . enables us to dissect not just the dynamics of power within communicative
events, but also the structures of power that can prohibit the entry into specific spaces where these
events occur” (p.43). Thus, it becomes important to examine the ideologies parents invest in as they
seek to support their learners’ bilingual development and contribute to their children’s linguistic social
futures.
BILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 227

Methodology
For this article, we drew on an interview-based study we conducted, which was part of a larger two
– year qualitative case study (Merriam, 2009; Stake, 1994) involving families in Mandarin Chinese-
English and Spanish-English DLI programs in an urban elementary school in the Southeast U.S. The
larger study consisted of us working with families in after-school monthly workshops that were
designed to explore topics and hands-on strategies to advance family bilingualism, biliteracy, cross-
cultural communication, global children’s literature, and global awareness.
To gain greater insights about the participating families, their experiences in the DLI program, and
their experiences in our after-school program, we designed an interview study near the end of Year 1
to explore families’ beliefs in being bilingual and their experiences in supporting their children’s
bilingual development. We created a semi-structured interview (Glesne, 2015; Magnusson & Marecek,
2015) to integrate open-ended discussions into the interviews and used a series of flexible, pre-
prepared questions so we could attend to the families’ cultural backgrounds and experiences.
Context
At the time of the study, the city’s population size was approximately 131,674 people, comprised of
53% White, 40% African American, 2.7% Asian American, and 5.5% Latino demographics (World
Population Review, 2021). Our school site was situated in a working-class, low-income, predominantly
African American community. Specifically, the school demographics consisted of 97.3% African
Americans, followed by Chinese, Chinese American, Mixed Race, Caucasian, and Latinx families.
Due to students’ underperformance on state assessments, the school was designated as a Title I school
and identified as a Federal Priority School due to its ranking in the lowest 5% of school performances
in the state. When the study began, the school contained two DLI tracks in PK-2nd grade as well as
a traditional English-only track in grades PK-5.
Participants
A total of 20 families and two teachers participated in the larger study. We used purposeful
sampling (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007) to select six families for the guardian interviews so we
could more closely explore parental beliefs and experiences regarding their children’s involve-
ment in the DLI program. We selected these families because they represented diverse cultural
and linguistic backgrounds and constituted children enrolled in different language programs
Table 1. Families’ backgrounds.
Guardians’
First Name
Guardians’
Role
Guardians’
Languages
Spoken
Guardians’ Self-
Identified Ethnicity
Child’s
Name
Child’s
Ethnicity
Child’s
Immersion
Program
Child’s
Grade Level
Carmen Mother Spanish,
Conversational
English
Latina Eva Latina Chinese 1
Qiaoyan Mother Chinese,
Conversational
English
Chinese Xiaolong Chinese Chinese Pre-K
Mingwei Mother Chinese,
Conversational
English
Chinese Heyu Chinese Chinese Pre-K
Vanessa Grandmother English, Familiar
Spanish
African American Jayden African
American
Spanish K
Cynthia &
Aaron
Grandparents English, Familiar
Spanish
African American,
Caucasian
Melissa Biracial
(Black/
White)
Spanish K
Jenna Mother English Caucasian Timothy Caucasian Spanish 2
228 L. SÁNCHEZ ET AL.

and grade levels within the school. The families’ linguistic and racial backgrounds are
presented in Table 1. In total, seven guardians from the six families participated in the
interview study. We use the term “conversational” to note when a guardian possessed the
ability to engage in a short conversation in the children’s target language, despite not having
linguistic accuracy or fluidity; whereas we use the term “familiar” to note when an adult
possessed some word or phrase knowledge but not the ability to engage in a conversation in
that language.
Three of the families had a child in the Chinese program. One family included parents – Carmen
and her husband – who immigrated from Mexico with their immediate family. They spoke in Spanish
at home but chose the Chinese program so their daughter, Eva, could develop a third language. The
other two families in the Chinese program immigrated from Mainland China a few years prior to the
start of the study. The focal parents of these two immigrant families were Qiaoyan and Mingwei, who
spoke Chinese and some English at home. The other three interviewed families each had a child in the
Spanish program. Vanessa worked in the school as an English counterpart teacher within the Spanish
DLI track. Cynthia and Aaron were grandparents, who mainly spoke English at home with occasional
occurrences of Spanish to their granddaughter. Jenna identified as monolingual English and worked as
a teacher in a different district.
Data sources
The study consisted of six independent interviews facilitated by the lead researchers. On average,
interviews lasted about one hour which resulted in six hours of interview data. Approximately, they
comprised of twenty questions centered on three core topics: the children’s language learning
experiences (e.g., What languages does the child know? When do they use them and how?), the
guardians’ experiences in supporting their children (e.g., What goals do you have for your child in
learning another language? What obstacles do you face?), and the families’ experiences in our work-
shops (e.g., Why did you join the workshops?)
The guardians selected the interview locations. The language preference was determined by the
guardians to accommodate their comfort level in expressing their responses. Four of the interviews
were conducted in English, one primarily in Spanish, and one in Chinese. Each interview was audio
recorded and transcribed. The Spanish and Chinese interviews were translated into English and
checked by a second member to confirm the translations conveyed accurate meanings.
Positionality
The authors’ diverse cultural backgrounds significantly contributed to the study. Collectively, the
authors speak Chinese Mandarin, English, French, German, Haitian Creole, Korean, and Spanish. We
each grew up in bilingual environments and/or had bilingual schooling experiences, which informed
how we interpreted language use and cultural experiences which emerged in the interviews. Some of us
also raised bilingual children and see ourselves as bilingual parents. Beyond engaging in regular
interactions with the families within the larger study, two of the authors had personal connections
with two of the families through a language program at a local heritage school where the authors taught
the families’ children on the weekends. Thus, altogether, we found ourselves quite familiar with the
families as community insiders and believe the families engaged comfortably during the interviews.
Data analysis
Using an iterative process of data analysis (Charmaz, 2006), each author first open-coded (Khandkar,
2009) each transcript multiple times through systematic processes of identifying key parental experi-
ences related to each of the major interview topics (e.g., guardian roles, guardian supports and
resources, guardian challenges, children’s schooling, and our project workshops). Then, we discussed
BILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 229

our codes and established points of similarities and differences for each major topic, working toward
consensus. Building on these topics, we created a chart of key issues/experiences related to each of the
topics. Afterward, we returned to the transcripts in pairs to further analyze and identify nuances
associated with each of the key issues and topics. Subsequently, we disseminated our findings to one
another, which led to the development of new topics such as guardians’ interest in global-mindedness,
guardians’ viewpoints on language as commodity, and specific types of challenges (i.e., language,
culture, instruction) among others. To better understand the diverse ways guardians supported their
children, we then revisited the transcripts and engaged in further analysis to examine their involve-
ment, which led us to a new set of categories that included guardians as teachers, guardians as learning
buddies, guardians as resource providers, and so forth. After selecting our focus on investment, we
then returned to our initial round of analysis once more to identify and overlay ideological viewpoints
that seemed to guide guardians’ actions for supporting their children’s bilingual learning. This analysis
led us to identify the four ideological stances we highlight in our findings section.
Findings
Informed by the concept of investment, we describe four major ideological investments which seemed
to influence how guardians operated within the paradox of promoting bilingual development within
a monolingual- and/or monolithic-centered societal culture such as the U.S. Our hope is that by
understanding these investments, one can better understand how guardians move within multi-
layered and complex systems of beliefs and practices as well as how they can be better supported to
respond to barriers that emerge for them in this process. In what follows, we highlight four core beliefs
which emerged through the interviews: investing in an asset-based stance on bilingualism, investing in
language as cultural practices, investing in the need to shape language development, and investing in
the long run that bilingualism matters. These ideologies, which can interconnect at times, appeared to
shape what the guardians’ roles could/should look like, the kinds of experiences they wished to create
for their children, and how they addressed roadblocks as they sought to craft particular bilingual
opportunities for their children.
Investing in an asset-based stance on bilingualism
It was clear from the data that each of the guardians was shaped by an affirming viewpoint of
bilingualism. This is significant because it impacted how they used their roles to counter the pressures
of linguistic and cultural assimilation in the U.S. to “Americanize” (Rucker & Richeson, 2021; Steward
et al., 2019) their children. At the very least, the guardians saw bilingualism as an equalizer that could
substantially impact their children’s experiences in the world. As Jenna remarked, “I feel like the
United States education is suffering as far as language. I think as a society, too, we’re only English-
based. That’s what people have in their head.” She also echoed a concern for students who go to school
with a home language other than English yet required to speak and write solely in English. In fact, she
believed so strongly in the need for DLI that she applied for a leadership position within her child’s
school so she could better advocate for the improvement and maintenance of bilingual programming.
Cynthia and Aaron held onto a similar conviction for pushing against the monolingual
borders they observed. As Aaron expressed,
I’ve also been around people who are stuck in their native language . . . They are very limited. They’re just kind of
limited to that community that they’re a part of, whereas, if they could branch out and learn the second
language . . . they [would] have a broader experience in life.
Aaron also made clear, “She’s [Melissa] not going to stay in [this state].” He nor his wife, Cynthia,
wanted Melissa to be “sheltered” (a descriptor used by Aaron) or be cut off from the world around her.
They desired that through being bilingual, Melissa, in a not-so-distant future, could better explore
230 L. SÁNCHEZ ET AL.

spaces beyond her backyard so she would not have to solely rely on the need to remain living where
she was.
Embracing an affirmative stance of bilingualism was also true for guardians whose home language
was different than English and were able to draw on their own rich bilingual capital to influence
bilingual opportunities for their children. As explained by Qiaoyan, she and her husband enrolled
their son in the Chinese-English program “because we’re from China, and he [her son] came to
America when he was two, so we thought . . . because he definitely needs to learn English here, which is
a must. But we thought he could also continue to learn some Chinese and grow up in an English
environment later.”
Mingwei and her family also had recently moved to the U.S. In fact, Mingwei believed being
bilingual would not just be valuable for her son but for herself as well, so she committed to learning
English as her son attended the DLI program. As she recounted,
I learn English at the same time as him . . . I don’t have an English cultural background so Ithink for us, we should
have a positive learning attitude to learn a new language with our children. In this way, he will feel easy and happy.
Although for differing reasons, guardians such as Jenna, Aaron, Qiaoyan and Mingwei embraced
bilingualism as necessary and vital, motivated by the belief that being monolingual is not sufficient
enough for living in society. Rather, they recognized there was much to be gained from being bilingual
that could pave important pathways for their children.
Investing in language as cultural practices
The guardians in all six families also shared the perspective that language and cultural development
should be closely intertwined. This viewpoint is significant to recognize because language learning
practices can often be artificially divided or neglected altogether from explicit cultural development
when teaching new languages in home or school settings (Valdez-Castro, 2021). The guardians,
however, advocated for important links to exist between linguistic and cultural ways of knowing.
Mingwei and Qiaoyan, for example, provided their children access to Chinese language and cultural
practices at home while simultaneously creating opportunities for their children to experience how the
English language was used in different contexts outside the home. As Qiaoyan expressed, this was
necessary because “if you use these languages [Chinese and English] flexibly, you can access other
worlds.” To promote English, the mothers, for instance, had their children attend church in English
and take English classes offered by the church. Mingwei also spent time learning how to read in
English while spending lots of time teaching her son how to read and write in English at home. She
also read many professional books about bilingualism to learn “the general knowledge about how
[what] the parents should notice . . . ”
While supporting efforts to promote English, Qiaoyan and Mingwei also sought to support their
sons’ continuous learning of Chinese language and cultural practices. For example, Mingwei and her
husband spoke both English and Chinese to Heyu at home but read Chinese stories to him each night.
Mingwei and her husband also exposed Heyu to the Wuhan dialect of family’s hometown. When
Mingwei’s parents called, they also discussed differences about the locations’ time zones. Additionally,
they kept a wall map and a globe at home to discuss cities in China with Heyu so he could gain
geographical knowledge about his home country. These kinds of activities were true as well for
Qiaoyan and her family. They read children’s books in both languages to Xiaolong and discussed
both U.S. and Chinese cultures with him. They also discussed news from China with Xiaolong and
used a Chinese video chat platform to speak with extended family members. It was clear both families
sought to build up their children’s transnational awareness by intentionally and jointly developing
cultural and linguistic practices.
Other guardians also utilized direct ties to languages and cultures through their family members
and/or friends. For example, Vanessa’s ex-husband, who was not a biological relation to Jayden – her
grandson – was Latino. Although the ex-husband was no longer present in the home, Vanessa
BILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 231

continued some of the shared cultural practices such as cooking Latin foods, playing Latin music, and
using her conversational Spanish in the home with Jayden. She also enrolled Jayden in the Spanish DLI
program to provide him an additional opportunity to appreciate and develop new Spanish cultural
practices that extended beyond those in the home. Vanessa also exposed Jayden to diverse local
community experiences, such as “on every Sunday, you can go to the art museum . . . and we can go to
the festivals.” Taking children to these types of experiences was, in fact, true for all the families in our
study. They each mentioned regularly attending cultural-centered community events (e.g., school-
based cultural fairs, city-wide festivals, holiday extravaganzas) that were at times culture specific (e.g.,
Latin festival) or wide-encompassing (e.g., the city’s international festival). As Vanessa phrased, these
pursuits provided a way to gain “a little glimpse” of the world.
Linking language to cultural practices were found in other English-speaking families, too. For
example, Aaron and Cynthia had close friendships with members in the Latinx community. Some of
their family members spoke Spanish, and they saw the Latinx culture as central to the future of
America and wanted to ensure Melissa could stay connected to this culture. They even planned trips to
visit friends and family so that Melissa would have lots of opportunities to “see different faces and
different parts of the country” and “get exposed to a lot.” During these travels, they further expressed,
“We talk about everything. I mean everything” so she could understand how people have “different
lifestyles.”
Although Vanessa, Cynthia, and Aaron’s links to a “home” culture were different from Mingwei
and Qiaoyan, each of these families shared a desire for their children to embrace languages and
cultures as connected to important and familial experiences. Although they did so via differing degrees
of familiarity and exposure, they each expressed a mentality that culture mattered in learning
a language and wanted to facilitate conversations and opportunities to learn about language and
culture concurrently. They perceived culture just as language to be an important lifebuoy for their
children to engage an ever-changing, diverse world.
Investing in the need to shape language development
Just as the guardians purposefully embraced in investments of shaping their children’s cultural
growth, the guardians deeply valued their roles in guiding their children’s linguistic development.
They did not believe in being hands-off, even if they did not speak the target languages, nor did
they depend upon the school to solely lead the children in this process. We found, however, they
held onto varying perspectives on how to exercise their roles. For example, some guardians reified
language practices they learned from their own school training as student learners. For instance,
Mingwei and Qiaoyan received their formal education in China, where they studied English as
a foreign language at school. For this reason, they applied those English language learning
methods to their children’s bilingual language development, which meant they emphasized
grammar, pronunciation, and spelling correctness. They also believed that language accuracy
would lead to greater success in their children’s language development. As Mingwei explained,
“I found my son likes to speak English to say something he learned. But I found sometimes he had
some grammar mistakes. I will say the right way again.”
Similarly, Cynthia and Aaron took great pride in promoting a standardized view of languaging for
Melissa. Given that standard English is often perceived in the U.S. to be the “best” or “correct” form of
English, they took great strides to ensure Melissa “grew up knowing how to say things in the proper
way.” They also believed it was vital for her to possess this type of successful language speaking “in
[any] kind of situation.” Therefore, they emphasized her use of “proper grammar” and “enunciation”
with her English and her Spanish and continuously worked with her to “make sure that she is
pronouncing it correctly. . .”
Vanessa, on the other hand, adopted a stance that language acquisition should be a natural process.
As she described, “You have more time to grow . . . You’re like a little seed, and you can grow up in that
language.” Informed by this belief, Vanessa encouraged Jayden to use both his Spanish and English if it
232 L. SÁNCHEZ ET AL.

helped him communicate what he was learning. She also encouraged him to use whatever Spanish he
was learning each day with his mother when she called each night. In addition, she made sure she
“didn’t drill him” but instead emphasized that she wanted him to “embrace this language.”
We also found that not all guardians stayed stagnant in their beliefs and practices, which may have
been influenced by their participation in our workshops which promoted dynamic bilingualism and
biliteracy processes. For example, although Mingwei initially focused on correctness in pronunciation
and grammar with her son, she began to view language as developmental after they attended the family
workshop. As she described this new viewpoint:
I think the language is a natural thing. Don’t push your children to learn it quickly. I think they have their own
pace. Keep on talking and reading. They are learning all the time. And one day they will repeat the sentence
listened. I found this moment again and again.
She also explained that she began to encourage her son to draw and write more as he read rather than
focusing on just the words.
What these examples show is that guardians viewed their children’s language learning as an
ongoing commitment they wanted to intentionally develop. As Vanessa articulated, “It’s a family
affair. It’s not just one single person.” While many of the guardians wished the school could have
increased their personal knowledge of the target languages, they did not let this delay their decisions to
contribute to their children’s language development. They sought to shape their children’s language
learning in ways they thought were best for them and wanted to be involved in the process.
Investing in the long run that bilingualism matters
Through the interviews, the guardians cited several transformative changes they had already begun to
observe in their children’s development (e.g., socially, emotionally, academically) as young bilinguals.
These dynamics seemed to carry great weight in their beliefs on how bilingualism could continue to
unfold and influence their children’s futures. Vanessa, for example, described Jayden’s language
learning as an “education toolbox” which enabled him to “be unique” and “have a lot of things in
his toolbox.” For Vanessa, bilingualism translated into more than her son learning a new language but
implied skillsets and knowledge that could create a different footpath altogether for him. She believed
bilingualism provided Jayden a new sense of self-confidence he could take with him wherever he went.
Jenna also shared observations on how bilingualism provided her son, Timothy, intra- and inter-
personal increases in confidence. For example, she shared how Timothy had exhibited serious reading
struggles in his early elementary years, but that
Learning a second language, having to articulate different things and articulate different sounds, helped him learn
his words he was reading [in English] . . . I can definitely see how it has helped him . . . making the sounds and
putting it together and him seeing it visually . . . it helped him go back to those basic skills of reading in the
English to break the words down and things like that and blend the sounds.
From Jenna’s perspective, Spanish language skills aided Timothy in both language contexts but made
a particular strong imprint on his first language. She had not anticipated this outcome, but it brought
her tremendous relief because she had been worried about his reading difficulties for a long time. She
was thrilled to see him transfer what he had gained about the inner workings of the Spanish language
with those of English.
Similar to Vanessa, Mingwei and Qiaoyan reflected on how bilingualism enriched their children’s
social skills. They both described instances on how language helped their children gain comfort and
confidence to play with other kids. They both noted how over time their sons became more outgoing
and spoke Chinese and English to various playmates. Qiaoyan even remarked how “Xiaolong some-
times plays with the kids in the Spanish program, and he learned a few Spanish words.” In this way,
Mingwei poignantly expressed, “The new language changed my son.” Both mothers also spoke about
how their children’s bilingualism helped them express their feelings differently. For instance, Mingwei
BILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 233

shared how Heyu started using more affectionate phrases such as “Mommy, I love you,” “Please hug
me,” and “I want to kiss you.” As Mingwei explained, “I was surprised because, in Chinese, we never
said that.” In fact, upon recounting these interactions during the interview, she described them as “the
biggest change” for her son and family.
Guardians like Qiaoyan also expressed visions for how bilingualism would continue to open up
explorations to exist in the world differently. As she described, “If [Xiaolong] could speak three
languages, then he can access different worlds. In other words, he could break his own wall and find
out his weakness. He could learn from others and improve himself.” From this perspective, Qiaoyan
believed bilingualism would allow Xiaolong to control his own destiny and provide him valuable
opportunities to grow. She further noted, “We also saw the lives of others through this language. The
different performance of others for us is like seeing a different world.” Qiaoyan clearly held onto
a vivid vision for how language could help Xiaolong perceive and engage the world and others
different and lasting ways.
Each of the guardians seemed to invest in the belief that no matter where in the world their children
would live or travel, they would obtain greater fulfillment through their bilingual capabilities. In this
sense, bilingualism would not just positively influence how their children communicated with others
in the world but would help them inhabit a different world altogether. The guardians expressed with
much clarity they were indeed motivated by an ideology that bilingualism would carve out a different
and better pathway of life-changing possibilities for their children
Discussion
The guardians in our study expressed several important ideological investments which influenced how
they supported their children – choosing an asset-based stance on bilingualism, viewing language and
culture as interrelated, valuing their role as pertinent to shaping their children’s linguistic develop-
ment, and conceiving bilingualism as having long-lasting impact. As part of these investments, each
guardian was proactive in finding a language program for their child and dedicating time and
resources in nurturing skillsets and mind-sets for their children to develop bilingually and biculturally.
While we recognize the families highlighted in this article may not be representative of families in
other schooling contexts, they do represent a diversity of experiences from diverse linguistic, cultural,
and national heritages and backgrounds that are important to understand.
To reiterate, it is remarkable to consider how each of the families in our study was able to hold onto
such an affirming stance toward bilingualism while co-existing in a society that yields less openness
and initiative toward multilingual individuals (Ee, 2018b). The guardians made it clear to us it was
worth the struggles. Even so, their decisions should not be taken lightly and schools should bear this in
mind as they work with families. These children are not operating in society or school “per normal” in
English-dominant settings as English-only speaking children as many of their counterparts. These
differences do not just impact life differently for the children while they are within the school walls, but
our research shows how deeply families are impacted by and involved in creating different pathways
for their children. In fact, the guardians in our study provide important counter-narratives to the
pervasive deficit views which are typically attached to parents with children in Title I school settings.
As we reflect on the voices of our guardians, they made it quite clear they did not just leave their
children’s bilingual learning up to the schools; rather, they were involved, committed, and driven.
The guardians’ investments also do not mean that schools do not have a role to play in
supporting the guardians. They have a responsibility to build on the depth and breadth of the
reach and impact these guardians have in their children’s lives. All the guardians, for example,
shared they wished the school would share more information about how they could further help
their children at home. This plea reifies the argument some researchers have made that schooling
structures in the U.S. (such as limiting the role that guardians can play) contribute to a more
arduous path toward fully supporting bilinguals (Kwon, 2017; Peets et al., 2022). Following suit, it
is clear from our study the guardians did not see the school as the only resource for learning target
234 L. SÁNCHEZ ET AL.

languages and cultures. For this reason, it is imperative schools make the effort to learn about the
networks and resources guardians utilize so that schools can contribute to and expand the
guardians’ networks as necessary. Schools should work to supplement guardians’ efforts, especially
where resource gaps exist.
One suggestion is for schools with bilingual programs to create a parent committee (if one does not
exist) for parents to have ongoing conversations with their school about their needs, experiences, and
opportunities for contribution. This should involve interfacing with building leadership across the
different phases of the DLI programming so that parent voices provide a continual thread of
communication throughout their child’s schooling tenure. Another goal for this advocacy group
should be to send a survey at the beginning of each year to all program parents, which might reveal
different topics than those the committee is aware of, which can help uncover the diverse beliefs,
needs, and interests undergirding parents’ experiences. This would also support the school to
approach their work with parents from an expansive viewpoint rather than cookie-cutter, uniform
approaches of “professional development” for parents.
Related, by unearthing parents’ ideological investments, it creates opportunities for schools to build
on important standpoints the parents already possess. For example, in our study, the guardians held
onto meaningful viewpoints that culture and language learning should exist hand-in-hand, whereas
even in schools, at times, educators can lean toward a “tourist approach” of culture and/or de-
emphasize explicit cultural learning in their classrooms. It would be beneficial for schools and parents
alike to work on identifying bicultural proficiencies for the children and deepen the kinds of
experiences that schools and families can engage in to achieve those goals.
This same approach can be taken toward other parents’ ideological investments. For example, some
of the guardians in our study held onto appropriate viewpoints of language development while others
held onto rigid or narrow understandings of development. Unfortunately, this can be true for
educators as well within bilingual programs, given they receive diverse training and degree experi-
ences. However, by exploring these kinds of understandings for both educators and parents, then
collective growth can occur for both stakeholder groups. And, in cases when educators and/or parents’
viewpoints need to be shifted to avoid reinforcing misguided beliefs or practices on language devel-
opment, for example, schools and parents can engage in open-minded dialogue to explore insights and
practices that fuel better bilingual learning outcomes for their children.
We also contend that schools should assume parents are already looking for and finding
solutions to challenges. In several cases, the guardians in our study leaned on family members
and friends and leveraged everyday scenarios to increase their children’s learning. They also
looked to after-school workshops such as those we offered as part of our larger research study.
Even so, there were parent challenges that went unmet. In our case, the school, for example, could
have played a role in providing online learning resources and materials on “beginning basics” to
help guardians form the language foundation they requested from the school. Additionally, the
school could have helped advocate for adult language programs to exist in their affiliated com-
munities or even within the school site. The overarching point is that it should become part
a school’s mission to be aware of the ways parents support children out of school so that schools
can utilize this capital to examine the barriers parents experience and then strategize with them on
how to alter those constraints.
Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all approach schools should use to approach parents. Just as the
guardians in our study showed overlaps in their investment practices, they also displayed diverse ways
they lived out their beliefs. In this vein, it is necessary schools do not view parents within the same
language program as having identical needs and in need of the same support. Schools must remember
that parents are not a monolithic group just as the children are not. Even if families are tied to similar
racialized and linguistic dynamics that operate out of longstanding historical realms, families possess
distinctive differences and agency that may differ from family to family. What may connect them
together is that they hold onto important understandings of bilingualism and work hard to live out
those understandings in powerful ways.
BILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 235

Conclusion
Much can be gained when bilingual and bicultural efforts are taken in tandem across home-school
settings. Much more can be achieved when constituents strive for like-minded goals. Nevertheless,
schools and families must be vigilant to not let the quest for common ground lead into deficit
orientations of language and culture. For example, much would be lost if children’s parents and
schools jointly approached language from a grammatical and/or standardized approach of language,
which would impede the complexities and livelihood of language learning. Rather, at the heart of their
“mission,” parents and schools should view themselves as having a role in altering the larger politics
that promote monolingual and monocultural demands placed upon educational and familial spaces.
For this to happen, parent-school partnerships should be centered on building opportunities to
examine the ideological underpinnings of their investment practices and determine how these
practices work toward inclusion/exclusion within these spaces of support for their children.
Specifically, we invite these partnerships to consider if they are leveraging practices which invite
pluralistic and culturally sustaining ways of viewing and engaging the world.
In our study, it was most encouraging that we observed instances of families disrupting dominant
norms and deficit perspectives of language learning in Title 1 settings. Undoubtedly, this work is
difficult and mired in complexity, but we are inspired by the guardians in our study who each
continuously worked to move beyond the borders placed in front of them to pursue linguistic and
cultural equity. Efforts must continue to be taken to broaden the dialogue of “who” counts as bilingual
so that parents and children alike have access to bilingual programs. Our hope is that all parents can be
provided opportunities to champion bilingual success for their children. As Cynthia noted, “We’re
raising [Melissa] to go out and flourish.” We know many parents work hard to accomplish this goal,
and schools do as well. Yet, we cannot help but wonder what more could be accomplished if schools
and parents worked in unison to help all children go out and flourish.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Lenny Sánchez http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6624-1179
Eurydice Bouchereau Bauer http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0479-5835
Yang Wang http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2699-2397
Wenyu Guo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6993-7174
Ling Hao http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1947-6861
Kyungjin Hwang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7664-8503
References
American Councils Research Center. (n.d.). 2021 canvass of dual language and immersion (DLI) programs in US public
schools. https://www.americancouncils.org/sites/default/files/documents/pages/2021-10/Canvass%20DLI%20-%
20October%202021-2_ac.pdf
Bauer, E., & Harris, D. (2015). Parental perspectives on dual language classrooms: The role of African American parents.
In P. Smith & A. Kumi-Yeboah (Eds.), Handbook of research cross-cultural approaches to language and literacy
development (pp. 139–157). IGI.
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective. Continuum International.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.).
Pearson.
Cervantes-Soon, C. G. (2014). A critical look at dual language immersion in the new Latin@ diaspora. Bilingual Research
Journal, 37(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.893267
Chaparro, S. (2020). School, parents, and communities: Leading parallel lives in a two-way immersion program.
International Multilingual Research Journal, 14(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1634957
236 L. SÁNCHEZ ET AL.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (1st ed.). Sage
Publications.
Chung, M. F. (2020). “I call them my little Chinese kids”: Parents’ identities and language ideologies in Mandarin-
English dual language immersion schools. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 3(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/
10.46303/jcve.2020.19
Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 35, 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000191
Ee, J. (2017). Two dimensions of parental involvement: What affects parental involvement in dual language immersion?
Bilingual Research Journal, 40(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1306598
Ee, J. (2018a). Exploring Korean dual language immersion programs in the United States: Parents’ reasons for enrolling
their children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(6), 690–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13670050.2016.1208144
Ee, J. (2018b). Understanding parents’ expectations and concerns for a dual-language program through the lens of
community cultural wealth. The Korean Language in America, 21(2), 218–249. https://doi.org/10.5325/korelangamer.
21.2.0218
Ee, J. (2021). Are parents satisfied with integrated classrooms?: Exploring integration in dual language programs.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.
1862751
Feinauer, E., & Whiting, E. F. (2014). Home language and literacy practices of parents at one Spanish-English two-way
immersion Charter school. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(2), 142–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.
934969
Gee, J. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203944806
Glesne, C. (2015). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.). Pearson.
Khandkar, S. H. (2009). Open coding. University of Calgary. http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/wiki/uploads/CPSC681/
opencoding.pdf
Kroskrity, P. V. (2007). Language ideology. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 496–517).
Wiley-Blackwell.
Kwon, J. (2017). Immigrant mothers’ beliefs and transnational strategies for their children’s heritage language main-
tenance. Language and Education, 31(6), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2017.1349137
Lee, M., Shetgiri, R., Barina, A., Tillitski, J., & Flores, G. (2015). Raising bilingual children: A qualitative study of parental
attitudes, beliefs, and intended behaviors. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 37(4), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0739986315602669
Li, G., & Sun, Z. (2019). Asian immigrant family school relationships and literacy learning: Patterns and explanations. In
The Wiley handbook of Family, School, and Community Relationships in Education (pp. 29–51). John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
López, M. M. (2013). Mothers choose: Reasons for enrolling their children in a two-way immersion program. Bilingual
Research Journal, 36(2), 208–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2013.818595
Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition. Manchester University Press.
Magnusson, E., & Marecek, J. (2015). Doing interview-based qualitative research: A learner’s guide. Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107449893
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Morales, P. Z. (2016). Transnational practices and language maintenance: Spanish and Zapoteco in California. Children’s
Geographies, 14(4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2015.1057552
Norton, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.
2307/3587803
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Multilingual Matters.
Norton, B. (2018). Identity and investment in multilingual classrooms. In A. Bonnet & P. Siemund (Eds.), Foreign
language education in multilingual classrooms (pp. 237–252). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Oliveira, G., Chang-Bacon, C. K., Cho, E., & Baez-Cruz, M. (2020). Parent and teacher perceptions of a Brazilian
Portuguese two-way immersion program. Bilingual Research Journal, 43(2), 212–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15235882.2020.1773961
Olivos, E. M., & Lucero, A. (2020). Latino parents in dual language immersion programs: Why are they so satisfied?
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(10), 1211–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.
2018.1436520
Peets, K. F., Yim, O., & Bialystok, E. (2022). Language proficiency, reading comprehension and home literacy in
bilingual children: The impact of context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(1),
226–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1677551
Richins, M. L., & Balducci, B. (2021). Visualization ability and the elaborations that sustain product desire. Psychological
Mark, 38(9), 1591–1607. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21516
BILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 237

Rosa, J., & Burdick, C. (2017). Language ideologies. In O. Garcia, N. Flores, & M. Spotti (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
language and society. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190212896.013.15
Rubin, R., Abrego, M. H., & Sutterby, J. A. (2021). Engaging the families of ELs and immigrants: Ideas, resources, and
activities. Routledge.
Rucker, J. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2021). Toward an understanding of structural racism: Implications for criminal justice.
Science, 374(6565), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj7779
Ryan, È. (2023). Parents’ investment in a French-English dual language immersion program in the United States. Journal
of Language, Identity & Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1832497
Sawyer, B. E., Manz, P. H., & Martin, K. A. (2017). Supporting preschool dual language learners: Parents’ and teachers’
beliefs about language development and collaboration. Early Child Development and Care, 187(3–4), 707–726. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1163548
Shin, S. J. (2013). Transforming culture and identity: Transnational adoptive families and heritage language learning.
Language, Culture & Curriculum, 26(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2013.809095
Song, K. (2019). Immigrant parents’ ideological positioning on bilingualism. Theory into Practice, 58(3), 254–262.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1599228
Stake, R. (1994). The art of case study research. Sage Publications.
Steward, I., Flores, R. D., Riffe, T., Weber, I., & Zagheni, E. (2019). Rock, rap, or reggaeton? Assessing Mexican
immigrant cultural assimilation using Facebook data. In Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference
(WWW’19), May 13–17, 2019, San Francisco, CA, USA (pp.3258–3264). https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313409
Sung, K. (2020). Parent satisfaction and one-way Mandarin Chinese dual-language programs in Utah. Bilingual Research
Journal, 43(4), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2020.1825540
Sung, K., & Tsai, H. (2019). Mandarin Chinese dual language immersion programs. Multilingual Matters.
Surrain, S. (2021). ‘Spanish at home, English at school’: How perceptions of bilingualism shape family language policies
among Spanish-speaking parents of preschoolers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24
(8), 1163–1177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1546666
Valdez-Castro, P. A. (2021). Culturally responsive teaching and intercultural bilingual education: The United States and
Latin America’s proposals to cultural and linguistic diversity. Revista Caribeña de Investigación Educativa, 5(1),
133–147. https://doi.org/10.32541/recie.2021.v5i1.pp133-147
Wang, Y., Sánchez, L., Bauer, E., Guo, W., Hao, L., & Hwang, K. (2023). A new language, a new culture, and a new way of
thinking: Examining how parents navigate barriers to support their emerging multilingual learners. In V. J. Lee &
K. S. L. Grant (Eds.), Advancing culturally responsive and socially just approaches to multilingual family-school
partnerships. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781666910964/Advancing-Culturally-
Responsive-and-Socially-Just-Approaches-to-Multilingual-Family-School-Partnerships
World Population Review. (2021). [The location and link have been removed for blind review.]
Zheng, B. (2021). Neoliberal multilingualism and “humanitarian connections”: Discourses around parents’ experiences
with a Mandarin Chinese immersion school. Language and Education, 35(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09500782.2020.1828451
238 L. SÁNCHEZ ET AL.