View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

English as a Heritage Language in Japan: Writing Development from Late Childhood to Adolescence

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: English as a Heritage Language in Japan: Writing Development from Late Childhood to Adolescence
Language: English
Authors: Janice Nakamura (ORCID 0000-0003-3268-6556), Suzanne Quay (ORCID 0000-0002-0178-4834)
Source: Reading Research Quarterly. 2026 61(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Descriptors: English (Second Language), Second Language Learning, Native Language, Bilingual Students, Japanese, Writing (Composition), Writing Skills, Language Tests, Writing Ability, Written Language, Scores, Family Literacy
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Test of Written English
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.70080
ISSN: 0034-0553
1936-2722
Abstract: Focusing on an understudied age range (9-15 years), this study explores the longitudinal writing development of English as a heritage language (HL) in 19 simultaneous Japanese-English bilingual children. Annual assessments with the Test of Written Language (TOWL) over 3 years showed increasing scores, demonstrating that high levels of HL writing are attainable and sustainable in late childhood and adolescence. Parental interviews and questionnaires indicate that reading practices at home contributed to writing development, highlighting the relationship between reading and writing. Stronger writers often read independently, while others continued reading with their parents. Preparation for English exams also encouraged additional literacy activities that further improved writing. While weekend instruction helped establish HL literacy, home literacy practices became more important at older ages, as shown by six children who improved their writing scores even after discontinuing weekend school. These findings highlight the home as a crucial site for HL literacy development, offering best practices for parents to help older children maintain their HL literacy ability.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1494489
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwERm11HSSJD8QzyDOplgqt6AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCvviw-NSkGFVf4GaQIBEICBm_-SkAKNWfIs6lZnHgG9X03Kdvri6ci1RAqYZzfuxNAB2PvrT36qSnqF8lU-4nkykVidJRB9EQJAuWp5ezKYUI8KSSl3Lu10L_umKHI6yp-6fXIglYyaefT_7MgZfWGeDecnAm592nDcQNIrtl8bzMDi0dKcm28eAMVEy75fbvNGwpDuorgQB4iaI50B3muYqlYIlv8_C2kbDdw6
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191105820;[nrnu]01jan.26;2026Jan28.02:53;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191105820-1">English as a Heritage Language in Japan: Writing Development From Late Childhood to Adolescence </title> <p>Focusing on an understudied age range (9–15 years), this study explores the longitudinal writing development of English as a heritage language (HL) in 19 simultaneous Japanese–English bilingual children. Annual assessments with the Test of Written Language (TOWL) over 3 years showed increasing scores, demonstrating that high levels of HL writing are attainable and sustainable in late childhood and adolescence. Parental interviews and questionnaires indicate that reading practices at home contributed to writing development, highlighting the relationship between reading and writing. Stronger writers often read independently, while others continued reading with their parents. Preparation for English exams also encouraged additional literacy activities that further improved writing. While weekend instruction helped establish HL literacy, home literacy practices became more important at older ages, as shown by six children who improved their writing scores even after discontinuing weekend school. These findings highlight the home as a crucial site for HL literacy development, offering best practices for parents to help older children maintain their HL literacy ability.</p> <p>Bilingual children and adolescents can develop strong writing skills in their heritage language. In a three‐year study of Japanese–English bilinguals in Japan, English writing scores matched or exceeded those of same‐age U.S. peers and improved each year. Writing development was supported by both home literacy practices and weekend schools. However, home literacy practices played a larger role.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70080-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70080-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105820-3">Introduction</hd> <p>Childhood bilingualism often involves acquiring a heritage language (HL), defined as a non‐societal language "spoken at home or otherwise readily available to young children" (Rothman [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref1">53</reflink>], 156)—along with the simultaneous or sequential acquisition of the societal language. While HLs have "a particular family relevance" (Fishman [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref2">21</reflink>], 81), this personal connection can be interpreted more broadly in a globalized world. Fluent L2‐ or even L3‐speaking parents may use that language in the family, thereby making it their children's HL, as seen in cases of parental use of English in Japan (see our participants' background for examples). Although bilingual children's HL abilities are comparable to monolingual peers in early childhood (Armon‐Lotem et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]), they often become increasingly dominant in the societal language (Quay and Montanari [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref4">50</reflink>]). HL outcomes comparable to L1 children require literacy instruction, as written texts provide richer grammar and vocabulary than conversation (Kupisch and Rothman [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref5">29</reflink>]; Paradis [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref6">47</reflink>]). Accordingly, strong literacy skills are linked to higher proficiency (e.g., Bayram et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Without instruction in school, HL literacy must be fostered through home literacy practices and community‐based HL programs, but these often clash with schoolwork and extracurricular activities, leading older children to drop out and risk language loss (Bylund and Díaz [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref8">6</reflink>]; Shen and Jiang [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref9">58</reflink>]). Childhood bilingualism research often ends around ages six to eight, while HL studies typically begin at age 18, leaving late childhood to adolescence largely understudied (Kupisch and Rothman [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref10">29</reflink>]). This paper addresses the age gap by examining writing—often the most difficult skill to acquire—in 19 simultaneous bilingual children in Japan, aged 9–12 at the start of the study. Their HL is English, as they were raised in English‐speaking bicultural families. Although English is prestigious, it functions as a HL for English‐speaking minorities in Japan. It is not widely spoken and is taught only as a foreign language (FL), previously beginning in Grade 7 and, since 2020, from Grade 5. Unlike HL learners with some functional proficiency, FL learners typically start with none (Valdés [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref11">62</reflink>]). For example, monolingual Japanese fifth graders learn to recognize English (Roman) alphabets, a skill already too rudimentary for bilingual children who can already read in English. Hence, bilinguals must access level‐appropriate learning outside of school. Perhaps due to informal learning, heritage individuals are often characterized as low‐literacy bilinguals. Yet, individual variation in literacy, particularly at higher levels, offers new insights into HL development (Ortega [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref12">45</reflink>]). This study examines two major factors that contribute to HL development: home literacy practices and community‐based programs, which we conceptualize as distinct but interconnected in supporting bilingual children in becoming proficient writers in their HL.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-4">Developing HL Literacy in the Home</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105820-5">The Role of Parents</hd> <p>Within a sociocultural framework, the home functions as a micro‐social system where children acquire literacy through guided interactions with adults (Gregory et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]; Leseman and De Jong [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref14">32</reflink>]). Parents foster HL literacy through formal practices (e.g., teaching the alphabet) and informal ones such as shared reading (Sénéchal and LeFevre [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref15">56</reflink>]) with the latter proven to be more effective (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref16">35</reflink>]). Shared reading develops early awareness of print and book conventions (Parkes [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref17">48</reflink>]), phonological skills (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref18">35</reflink>]; Sénéchal and LeFevre [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref19">56</reflink>]), and vocabulary. It also supports those with limited oral proficiency and fosters reading habits (Batini and Toti [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]; O'Brien et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref21">44</reflink>]; Parkes [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref22">48</reflink>]). Parents also facilitate learning by discussing stories (Leseman et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref23">33</reflink>]), encouraging retelling (Sénéchal and LeFevre [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref24">56</reflink>]), and role‐playing (Cheung and Quay [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>]). Even as children grow older, shared reading remains valuable for exposing them to more complex texts (Collins and Svensson [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref26">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Parents who speak, read, and write in the HL promote a positive attitude towards the HL (Li [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref27">34</reflink>]). Children with high literacy skills often have parents who are avid readers (Collins and Svensson [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref28">16</reflink>]; Leseman and De Jong [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref29">32</reflink>]; O'Brien et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref30">44</reflink>]). Parents' literacy routines, shaped by their educational and occupational backgrounds, influence both their children's literacy habits and the support they provide (Minkov and Aram [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref31">40</reflink>]). Parents are also responsible for preparing a literacy‐rich HL home environment. Access to HL books contributes to greater HL use and vocabulary, but they must be engaging and developmentally appropriate to be effective (Li [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref32">34</reflink>]; Rydland and Grøver [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref33">54</reflink>]; Shen and Jiang [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref34">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Not all parents prioritize HL literacy, but those who do have strong "impact beliefs", that is, a conviction that they can affect their children's language and literacy outcomes (De Houwer [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref35">18</reflink>]). Impact beliefs are strengthened when HL parents are supported by their spouses and community members (Nakamura [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]). Beyond impact beliefs, a positive attitude towards the HL and bilingualism is also necessary for fostering children's bilingualism and biliteracy (Cangelosi et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref37">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-6">The Role of Children</hd> <p>Young children actively shape their HL literacy through curiosity, independent engagement with texts, and early writing (O'Brien et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref38">44</reflink>]). As parents cannot always read to children, independent reading becomes increasingly important with age. Reading offers an enjoyable pathway to HL literacy. Taniguchi ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref39">61</reflink>]) observed that Japanese returnee children maintained English literacy through recreational reading, while Cho and Krashen ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref40">14</reflink>]) linked the practice to adult Korean HL proficiency. Independent reading can be nurtured through shared reading, as children who re‐read books with parents internalize the role of an experienced reader (Parkes [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref41">48</reflink>]). Greater access to HL books, self‐selection of titles, and no accountability tasks (e.g., book reports) encourage independent reading (McQuillan [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref42">39</reflink>]). Reading enjoyment instills good habits, including frequent and longer reading sessions, and fosters reading abilities beyond age‐appropriate levels (Clark [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref43">15</reflink>]; Sun et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref44">59</reflink>]). Therefore, reading does not require external incentives. Children who read independently and voluntarily in the HL, without rewards, showed higher literacy skills than those who were rewarded (Quay and Nakamura [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref45">52</reflink>]). Thus, agency, autonomy, and enjoyment in reading contribute to HL literacy development.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-7">Developing HL Literacy Through Community‐Based Programs</hd> <p>Community‐based HL programs, such as weekend and complementary schools, provide structured learning opportunities for literacy development. While not exhaustive, Table 1 summarizes studies across countries by age and assessment type. Some reported limited effectiveness: Kim and Pyun ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref46">26</reflink>]) found no link between Korean HL writing scores and years of attendance, while Papastergiou and Sanoudaki ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref47">46</reflink>]) reported that weekly lessons maintained but did not advance Greek HL vocabulary and grammar skills. Zhu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref48">64</reflink>]) compared Chinese‐American children taught by grandparents, parents, or weekend schools. Grandparent‐taught children scored highest in Chinese listening, reading, and speaking, supported by their grandparents' limited English and availability, while weekend schools proved less effective due to untrained teachers, weak classroom management, and frequent English use.</p> <p>1 TABLE HL assessments of participants attending community‐based HL programs.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Study</th><th align="center">Country</th><th align="center">Language</th><th align="center">No. of participants</th><th align="center">Age (years)</th><th align="center">Type of assessment</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Self or parental reports</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mattheoudakis et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2017</xref>)</td><td align="center">Greece</td><td align="center">Albanian</td><td align="center">202</td><td align="center">9–10</td><td align="center">Parent‐reported four‐skill proficiency</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lao and Lee (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2009</xref>)</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">Khmer, Chinese</td><td align="center">93</td><td align="center">18–36</td><td align="center">Self‐reported four‐skill proficiency</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Language assessments</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Papastergiou and Sanoudaki (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2022</xref>)</td><td align="center">UK</td><td align="center">Greek</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="center">5–11</td><td align="center">Receptive/expressive vocabulary, receptive grammar</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Literacy assessments</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Zhu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">2020</xref>)</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">Chinese</td><td align="center">30</td><td align="center">6–8</td><td align="center">Standardized listening, reading and speaking test</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Chen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2018</xref>)</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">Chinese</td><td align="center">258</td><td align="center">7–11</td><td align="center">Receptive and expressive vocabulary, Chinese character recognition</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Shen and Jiang (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2021</xref>)</td><td align="center">Australia</td><td align="center">Chinese</td><td align="center">30</td><td align="center">10–11</td><td align="center">Four‐skill proficiency test</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nakamura and Quay (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2023</xref>)</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">English</td><td align="center">17</td><td align="center">9–13</td><td align="center">Standardized writing test</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Quay and Nakamura (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2023</xref>)</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">English</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="center">9–14</td><td align="center">Standardized writing test</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kim and Pyun (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2014</xref>)</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">Korean</td><td align="center">56</td><td align="center">10–24</td><td align="center">Personal essay</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bylund and Díaz (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2012</xref>)</td><td align="center">Sweden</td><td align="center">Spanish</td><td align="center">54</td><td align="center">17–18</td><td align="center">Written grammaticality judgment and cloze tests</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Other studies suggested benefits: Using self‐ or parent‐reports, Mattheoudakis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref49">38</reflink>]) and Lao and Lee ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref50">30</reflink>]) found higher HL proficiency among participants who had received HL instruction, and lower ratings among those who had not. Chen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref51">12</reflink>]) found that HL instruction predicted Chinese‐American children's receptive and expressive vocabulary and character recognition 2 years later. Quay and Nakamura ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref52">52</reflink>]) found high English writing proficiency among Japanese–English bilinguals attending weekend school with stronger writers enjoying it more. Moreover, online lessons did not hinder HL learning, as participants maintained or even improved their writing over 2 years (Nakamura and Quay [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref53">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>The benefits of community‐based programs may depend on continued attendance; Bylund and Díaz ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref54">6</reflink>]) found students who stopped taking Spanish HL lessons scored lower on grammar tests than peers who continued. Instructional gains may also depend on individual factors; Chinese‐Australian children who scored highest on a four‐skill Chinese test in Shen and Jiang ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref55">58</reflink>]) appreciated their lessons for deepening their linguistic and cultural knowledge of Chinese. Low achievers, however, disliked them, finding lessons boring and difficult. Overall, these findings suggest that quality, consistency, integration with home practices and individual factors determine the effectiveness of community‐based HL programs.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-8">Learning Heritage Languages in Japan</hd> <p>Japan's language‐in‐education policy lacks provisions for HL education (Majima and Sakurai [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref56">37</reflink>]), so HL instruction is typically offered through weekly "mother tongue" classes (<emph>bogo kyōshitsu</emph>). Local governments and NGOs organize these classes in rented spaces such as community centers in areas with sizable foreign populations. Held after school or on weekends, these classes vary depending on educators' and parents' expectations and children's proficiency, but their effectiveness is often constrained by limited resources, reliance on volunteers, brief instructional time, diverse student ability, and learner motivation (Saito [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref57">55</reflink>]; Takahashi [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref58">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Independent weekend schools also exist, where HL‐speaking parents handle administration, from hiring teachers and collecting fees to sometimes teaching themselves (Pauly and Yamane [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref59">49</reflink>]). Studies primarily document English weekend schools (Nakamura [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref60">41</reflink>]; Nakamura and Quay [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref61">42</reflink>]; Quay and Nakamura [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref62">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref63">52</reflink>]), although schools for other languages may also exist. English‐speaking parents organize weekend schools to provide their children with literacy instruction matched to their proficiency level. Many are highly motivated to foster English literacy (Nakamura [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref64">41</reflink>]), as high proficiency constitutes a form of institutionalized cultural capital that can enhance future educational and career prospects (Bourdieu [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-9">Developing Writing in the Heritage Language</hd> <p>Writing emerges later in language learning and takes longer to master (Shanahan [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref66">57</reflink>]) as children learning to write acquire secretarial skills (e.g., spelling) alongside authorial skills for organizing ideas (e.g., text and sentence structure) (Mackenzie et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref67">36</reflink>]). Early writing begins with scribbles, progressing to letters, words, and short sentences with partially plausible spelling (Latham [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref68">31</reflink>]). As secretarial skills automate, independent writing develops, often chaining simple or compound sentences with basic connectives. Children then gradually use complex sentences with main and subordinate clauses. By upper elementary grades, writing becomes cohesive, with clear paragraphs, deliberate word choice, and adaptation to purpose and audience.</p> <p>HL learners often draw from their oral knowledge when they begin to write (Camus and Adrada‐Rafael [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref69">7</reflink>]). Mastering writing without formal HL instruction is difficult, as writing practices (e.g., copying words or drafting letters) are more explicit and harder to replicate at home than reading practices like shared reading. Nevertheless, reading is the foundation for writing development, as one must be able to read in order to write. Both share cognitive processes and knowledge bases (Fitzgerald and Shanahan [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref70">22</reflink>]). Reading skills predict writing ability (e.g., Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref71">27</reflink>]). Word recognition predicts orthography, sentence reading predicts sentence construction, and reading fluency predicts writing fluency (Ahmed et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>HL writing does not develop naturally with age or exposure (Kim and Pyun [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref73">26</reflink>]), remaining as a skill that many HL learners most wish to develop in adulthood (Carreira and Kagan [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref74">9</reflink>]). Adult HL writers are often perceived as weaker writers who tend to be outperformed by L2 writers (Camus and Adrada‐Rafael [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref75">7</reflink>]). However, some studies challenge this view, showing that adult Spanish HL writers tend to write more fluently and accurately than L2 learners (Camus and Adrada‐Rafael [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref76">7</reflink>]; Elola and Mikulski [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]). Gatti and O'Neill ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref78">23</reflink>]) found that most Chinese, Korean and Spanish HL writers scored at the Intermediate High or Advanced Low level, with stronger proficiency linked to frequent book reading and texting. Likewise, Kim and Pyun ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref79">26</reflink>]) found that Korean HL learners' writing proficiency was predicted by the frequency of literacy‐related activities, highlighting the importance of individual efforts at home. While most studies focus on US college‐age learners of Chinese, Korean, or Spanish, research on younger HL learners in other sociocultural contexts and using a longitudinal design could provide new insights into the level of HL writing that they can attain.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-10">The Present Study</hd> <p>How older bilingual children and adolescents sustain HL literacy development at home and through community‐based programs remains an underexplored area of research. Nordstrom et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref80">43</reflink>]) scoping review highlighted critical gaps, calling for research that extends beyond identity‐focused studies of widely examined HLs (e.g., Chinese in Western contexts) towards more diverse HLs, non‐Western settings, and mixed or quantitative methods. In particular, assessment‐based, literacy‐focused work is scarce, despite the central role of assessment in HL instruction and student learning (Kondo‐Brown [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref81">28</reflink>]). This study addresses these gaps by examining Japanese–English bilingual children and adolescents learning English as a HL in Japan. Unlike prior research that focused mainly on grammar, vocabulary, or reading, we investigated writing, a demanding skill that develops slowly and reflects both reading and writing abilities (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref82">27</reflink>]). Over 3 years, we assessed secretarial and authorial skills to evaluate HL writing comprehensively. Parental interviews and questionnaires complemented these assessments, illuminating how home literacy practices and weekend school jointly support HL literacy. Our research questions are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How does HL writing proficiency develop during late childhood to adolescence?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent do home literacy practices and weekend school attendance affect HL writing development?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0191105820-11">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105820-12">Participants' Family Background</hd> <p>Nineteen Japanese–English bilingual children (11 boys, 8 girls) participated in this longitudinal study, which was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the second author's institution. They are listed by pseudonyms in Table 2, ordered from youngest to oldest. Six were only children, six were firstborns, six were second‐borns, and one was the third and youngest child. We initially had a larger pool of participants (Quay and Nakamura [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref83">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref84">52</reflink>]) but not all participated longitudinally. This paper represents the final synthesis of our longitudinal project beyond the preliminary two‐year results on 17 children's pandemic‐related online learning in Nakamura and Quay ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref85">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>2 TABLE Children's background.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Child</th><th align="center">Sex</th><th align="center">Birth order</th><th align="center">Y1 age<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></th><th align="center">Y2 age<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></th><th align="center">Y3 age<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></th><th align="center">Y4 age<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></th><th align="center">Mother</th><th align="center">Father</th><th align="center">Setting</th><th align="center">Weekend school (months)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>NIE</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">9;0</td><td align="center">9;11</td><td align="center">10;11</td><td align="center">11;11</td><td align="center">Australia</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">OPOL</td><td align="center">72</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>KAT</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">9;1</td><td align="center">10;1</td><td align="center">11;2</td><td align="center">12;1</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">More ENG</td><td align="center">22</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>YUK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">9;1</td><td align="center">10;1</td><td align="center">11;1</td><td align="center">12;1</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">Indonesia</td><td align="center">JPN–ENG</td><td align="center">71</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>HUG</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">O</td><td align="center">9;4</td><td align="center">10;4</td><td align="center">11;5</td><td align="center">12;9</td><td align="center">Australia</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">OPOL</td><td align="center">44</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>EMS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">9;6</td><td align="center">10;5</td><td align="center">11;5</td><td align="center">12;5</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">OPOL</td><td align="center">84</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>JOG</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">O</td><td align="center">9;8</td><td align="center">10;8</td><td align="center">11;8</td><td align="center">12;8</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">OPOL</td><td align="center">33</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>KEK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">9;8</td><td align="center">10;8</td><td align="center">11;8</td><td align="center">12;8</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">More JPN</td><td align="center">37</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>LUM</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">9;9</td><td align="center">10;9</td><td align="center">11;9</td><td align="center">12;9</td><td align="center">Australia</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">OPOL</td><td align="center">58</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>LUH</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">9;9</td><td align="center">10;10</td><td align="center">11;11</td><td align="center">12;11</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">Australia</td><td align="center">OPOL</td><td align="center">60</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>SAK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">10;2</td><td align="center">11;2</td><td align="center">12;3</td><td align="center">13;4</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">JPN–ENG</td><td align="center">30</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>KAN</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">10;3</td><td align="center">11;2</td><td align="center">12;2</td><td align="center">13;2</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">Indonesia</td><td align="center">JPN–ENG</td><td align="center">82</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>JAS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">O</td><td align="center">10;11</td><td align="center">12;0</td><td align="center">13;0</td><td align="center">14;0</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">OPOL</td><td align="center">67</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>HAK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">11;0</td><td align="center">12;1</td><td align="center">13;2</td><td align="center">14;1</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">More JPN</td><td align="center">15</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>SHO</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">O</td><td align="center">11;0</td><td align="center">12;4</td><td align="center">13;4</td><td align="center">14;3</td><td align="center">Thailand</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">More JPN</td><td align="center">89</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>MOH</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">O</td><td align="center">11;1</td><td align="center">12;2</td><td align="center">13;2</td><td align="center">14;2</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">Canada</td><td align="center">More ENG</td><td align="center">69</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>GER</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">11;3</td><td align="center">12;3</td><td align="center">13;3</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">More ENG</td><td align="center">10</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>AMS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">O</td><td align="center">11;6</td><td align="center">12;5</td><td align="center">13;5</td><td align="center">14;7</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">UK</td><td align="center">More ENG</td><td align="center">40</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>ARS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">12;0</td><td align="center">13;0</td><td align="center">14;0</td><td align="center">15;0</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">More ENG</td><td align="center">34</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>LIS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">12;10</td><td align="center">13;10</td><td align="center">14;10</td><td align="center">15;10</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">OPOL</td><td align="center">120</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> Birth order: Only child (O); Setting: One‐Parent‐One‐Language (OPOL), More English (More ENG), More Japanese (More JPN); Use of Japanese and English by both parents (JPN–ENG); Weekend school (months): Length of attendance at Y1.</p> <p>2 a Child's age (year;month) on assessment date.</p> <p>Seven children had non‐Japanese mothers, and ten had non‐Japanese fathers. Many of the 17 non‐Japanese parents were from the USA (<emph>N</emph> = 8) and Australia (<emph>N</emph> = 4), while others were from Canada, the UK, Thailand, and Indonesia. While Thailand and Indonesia are considered non‐English speaking countries, the Thai and Indonesian parents speak English fluently to their Japanese spouses and children, making it a common language in the home. KEK (#7) and HAK (#13) are siblings whose two Japanese parents spoke fluent English. As shown in Table 3, all parents have at least an undergraduate degree with many involved in language‐related professions (e.g., teaching). The children heard English from birth or infancy (see Table 2 for individual details). Eight were exposed to One‐Parent‐One‐Language (OPOL). Five heard more English (More ENG) at home because their Japanese parent (JP) also spoke some English, and three heard more Japanese (More JPN) because their English‐speaking parent also used Japanese. Three children heard both parents use a mix of Japanese and English (JPN–ENG). Writing assessments were conducted four times (with written informed consent obtained from parents before every writing assessment) from Years (Y)1–4, except for GER (#16) who participated up to Y3.</p> <p>3 TABLE List of interviews conducted with parents in Y3.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Child</th><th align="center">Parent</th><th align="center">Country</th><th align="center">Age<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></th><th align="center">Education</th><th align="center">Years in Japan<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></th><th align="center">Occupation</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>EMS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Mother<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">42</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">23</td><td align="center">Teacher</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>JOG</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Father</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">53</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">23</td><td align="center">Actor</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>LUM</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Mother<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">Australia</td><td align="center">45</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">23</td><td align="center">Translator</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>YUK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Mother<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">45</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">Homemaker</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>KEK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Mother<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">46</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">Homemaker</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>KAT</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Father</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">44</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">9</td><td align="center">Manager</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>NIE</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Mother<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">Australia</td><td align="center">48</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">Translator</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>HUG</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Mother</td><td align="center">Australia</td><td align="center">53</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">22</td><td align="center">Writer</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>SAK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Mother</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">39</td><td align="center">MA</td><td align="center">17</td><td align="center">Translator</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>KAN</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Father, Mother</td><td align="center">Indonesia, Japan</td><td align="center">44, 44</td><td align="center">BA, BA</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="center">Engineer, Homemaker</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>HAK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Mother<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">44</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">Homemaker</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>SHO</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Father</td><td align="center">Japan</td><td align="center">58</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">Manager</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>AMS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Father</td><td align="center">UK</td><td align="center">40</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="center">Writer</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>LIS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Mother</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">42</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">23</td><td align="center">Teacher</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>LUH</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Father</td><td align="center">Australia</td><td align="center">59</td><td align="center">Ph.D.</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">Editor</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>JAS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Father</td><td align="center">USA</td><td align="center">53</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">17</td><td align="center">Communications officer</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>MOH</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Father</td><td align="center">Canada</td><td align="center">46</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="center">Teacher</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>ARS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Father, Mother</td><td align="center">USA, Japan</td><td align="center">43, 43</td><td align="center">BA/BA</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="center">Teacher/Teacher</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>GER</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Father, Mother</td><td align="center">USA, Japan</td><td align="center">46, 46</td><td align="center">BA/BA</td><td align="center">15</td><td align="center">Teacher/Teacher</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 a Parents with more than one child participating in the study.</item> <item>4 b Parents' age at Y3.</item> <item>5 c English‐speaking non‐Japanese parents' years in Japan at Y3.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0191105820-13">Weekend School</hd> <p>The children learned English as a HL at two weekend schools in Tokyo or Yokohama, managed by their English‐speaking parents in rented public facilities. Each school typically had about 40 children, divided into four or five classes by age and ability, ranging from preschool to middle school. Lessons, lasting 60–90 min, were taught by certified American teachers with experience in international or Japanese schools. The curriculum emphasized reading, writing, vocabulary, and grammar, using US language arts materials. Weekly homework was assigned, but no formal assessments were conducted. Lessons were taught in person, except during the COVID–19 years (2020–2022), when emergency online learning was implemented. In‐person classes resumed after the pandemic, except for middle school students, whose classes remained online. The children attended weekend school for an average of approximately 55 months, or 4.5 years. Table 2 shows LIS attended the longest (120 months) and GER the shortest (10 months). All but six children attended weekend school through Y1–Y4; LUH, HUG, JAS, MOH, and ARS stopped after Y3, and GER stopped after Y2.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-14">Data Collection</hd> <p>We used the Test of Written Language (TOWL, 4th ed.; Hammill and Larsen [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref86">25</reflink>]) to assess English writing ability, as it provides age‐adjusted scores for children and adolescents aged 9–17, allowing cross‐age comparisons of writing development. The 90‐min paper‐based assessment comprises seven subtests, assessing "contrived" tasks (vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, logical sentences, sentence combining) and "spontaneous" tasks (story composition, conventions). We tested the children annually over 3 years from Y1 to Y4, alternating between Forms A and B each year. To ensure inter‐rater reliability, both researchers independently scored the writing samples and resolved discrepancies through discussion. We also obtained data from children's English‐speaking parents on HL literacy learning at home and at weekend school as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Y1: A questionnaire on family background and language history, along with 52 Likert‐type items</item> <p></p> <item> Y2: Semi‐structured questionnaire</item> <p></p> <item> Y3: Semi‐structured questionnaire (same as in Y2) and follow‐up semi‐structured interview (see Appendix 1 for interview questions)</item> <p></p> <item> Y4: A final semi‐structured questionnaire that encouraged reflection on their child(ren)'s progress in HL writing (see Appendix 2 for questionnaire)</item> </ulist> <p>Y3 follow‐up interviews were audio‐ and video‐recorded, each lasting 45–60 min. After discussing their child's writing, parents were asked about home literacy practices, and field notes were recorded during and immediately after these interactions. Interviews were transcribed using CLOx, a tool for orthographic transcription (Wassink et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref87">63</reflink>]) and then segmented and edited by a research assistant. The current paper draws on interview and follow‐up questionnaire data from Y3 to Y4 to examine factors contributing to the children's longitudinal writing scores.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-15">Data Coding and Analysis</hd> <p>Parental interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref88">11</reflink>]), which involved three stages: initial coding (line‐by‐line), focused coding (combining initial codes into larger categories), and axial coding (sorting focused codes into conceptual categories). We document this process in Table 4 and illustrate it with an interview excerpt from HUG's mother:</p> <p>HUG and my mom would read with each other once a week. He will read to her, and she would talk with him about it.</p> <p>4 TABLE Examples from the coding process.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Initial code</th><th align="center">Focused code</th><th align="center">Axial code</th><th align="center">Conceptual categories</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Reading online with grandmother once a week</td><td align="center">Shared reading</td><td align="center">Home reading practices</td><td align="center">Home literacy practices</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Subscribing to newsletters of independent bookstores</td><td align="center">Curating books</td><td align="center">Selection of books</td><td align="center">Home literacy environment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Feeling a need to put in more effort</td><td align="center">Strong impact beliefs</td><td align="center">Impact beliefs</td><td align="center">Parental factors</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Finding books at home and entertaining self with reading</td><td align="center">Independent reading</td><td align="center">Interest in reading</td><td align="center">Child factors</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Losing interest in weekend school</td><td align="center">Quitting weekend school</td><td align="center">Attendance</td><td align="center">Weekend school factors</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The first step, line‐by‐line coding, generated the initial code, "reading with grandma once a week," as shown in Table 4. Next, this initial code was combined into a larger focused code, that is, "shared reading." Subsequently, this focused code was sorted into axial codes with specific properties. "Shared reading" was categorized under the axial code "home reading practices." MAXQDA, a qualitative analysis software, was used to manage this multi‐tiered coding process. The final conceptual categories included <emph>home literacy practices</emph>, <emph>home literacy environment</emph>, <emph>parental factors</emph>, <emph>child factors</emph>, and <emph>weekend school</emph>. Theoretical sampling was used to explore and elaborate on the links between these categories.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-16">Methodological Limitations</hd> <p>A limitation of this study is the attrition of participants over the three‐year period. While 31 children participated in the first assessment (Quay and Nakamura [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref89">51</reflink>]), some did not continue after the first, second, or third year. Attrition arose mainly from two factors: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>) children who entered private secondary schools with English programs were excluded since our focus is on home and weekend school learning, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref91">2</reflink>) after starting secondary school, some children became occupied with extracurricular activities or lost interest in HL learning. While these losses are natural in longitudinal research, they may introduce some bias. However, the data from the children who discontinued weekend school were retained to explore the effect of discontinuance, and these findings are included in this study.</p> <p>Furthermore, due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, most individual TOWL assessments, particularly from Y2 onwards, were conducted online via video conferencing. While we followed the TOWL examiner's manual and ensured a consistent testing environment for all participants, this method differed from in‐person assessments. The response sheets were mailed to the children and opened only at the start of the session. We gave instructions via camera and monitored the participants remotely, checking their responses as needed. Completed assessments were returned immediately by mail. No significant differences emerged between online and in‐person assessment scores, and consistent longitudinal results indicate the online format did not compromise data validity.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-17">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105820-18">Longitudinal Writing Development</hd> <p>Most participants performed well on their annual TOWL assessments, demonstrating writing ability that was comparable to US peers and showing consistent improvement from Y1 to Y4. Table 5 presents their age‐adjusted writing composite index scores along with their descriptors. Analysis of their longitudinal performance revealed three distinct groups. Group 1 comprises five children with very high English writing ability, whose scores rose to the <emph>Superior</emph> or <emph>Very Superior</emph> range by Y4 with an average increase of 15 points. Group 2 consists of three children whose scores improved to the <emph>Above Average</emph> range by Y4, with an average gain of 11 points. The 11 children in Group 3 showed <emph>Average</emph> writing performance, whose scores increased by an average of 7.4 points.</p> <p>5 TABLE Longitudinal age‐adjusted composite index scores.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Group</th><th align="center">Child</th><th align="center">Y1</th><th align="center">Y2</th><th align="center">Y3</th><th align="center">Y4</th><th align="center">Score increase/decrease from Y1 to Y4</th><th align="center">Average score increase from Y1 to Y4</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Score & descriptor</th><th align="center">Score & descriptor</th><th align="center">Score & descriptor</th><th align="center">Score & descriptor</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1 (N = 5)</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>LIS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">124</td><td align="center">S</td><td align="center">137</td><td align="center">VS</td><td align="center">139</td><td align="center">VS</td><td align="center">142</td><td align="center">VS</td><td align="center">+18</td><td align="center">+15.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>EMS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">109</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">123</td><td align="center">S</td><td align="center">129</td><td align="center">S</td><td align="center">136</td><td align="center">VS</td><td align="center">+27</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>LUH</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">119</td><td align="center">AA</td><td align="center">123</td><td align="center">S</td><td align="center">131</td><td align="center">VS</td><td align="center">134</td><td align="center">VS</td><td align="center">+15</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>SAK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">123</td><td align="center">S</td><td align="center">117</td><td align="center">AA</td><td align="center">112</td><td align="center">AA</td><td align="center">121</td><td align="center">S</td><td align="center">−2</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>HUG</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">115</td><td align="center">AA</td><td align="center">139</td><td align="center">VS</td><td align="center">126</td><td align="center">S</td><td align="center">143</td><td align="center">VS</td><td align="center">+28</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2 (N = 3)</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>SHO</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">100</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">99</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">108</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">118</td><td align="center">AA</td><td align="center">+18</td><td align="center">+11.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>AMS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">102</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">117</td><td align="center">AA</td><td align="center">107</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">115</td><td align="center">AA</td><td align="center">+13</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>KAT</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">109</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">111</td><td align="center">AA</td><td align="center">102</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">111</td><td align="center">AA</td><td align="center">+2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3 (N = 11)</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>HAK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">95</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">87</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">105</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">+2</td><td align="center">+7.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>JOG</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">79</td><td align="center">P</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">94</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">+18</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>JAS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">100</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">87</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">107</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">103</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">+3</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>MOH</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">95</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">95</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">95</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">100</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">+5</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>KAN</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">102</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">100</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">108</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">108</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">+6</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>ARS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">95</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">98</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">100</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">107</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">+12</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>LUM</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">101</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">99</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">102</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">107</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">+6</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>YUK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">95</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">93</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">93</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">+2</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>KEK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">86</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">83</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">78</td><td align="center">P</td><td align="center">85</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">−1</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>NIE</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">91</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">99</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">101</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">110</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">+19</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>GER</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">96</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">86</td><td align="center">BA</td><td align="center">95</td><td align="center">A</td><td align="center">N/A</td><td align="center">N/A</td><td align="center">−1<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 <emph>Note:</emph> Descriptors: VS = Very Superior (> 130), S = Superior (121–130), AA = Above Average (111–120), A = Average (90–110), BA = Below Average (80–89), Poor (70–79), and Very Poor (< 70).</item> <item>7 a Score difference from Y1 to Y3.</item> </ulist> <p>To illustrate the longitudinal development of HL writing, we present spontaneous samples from a Group 3 child, KAN, collected in Y2 and Y4 using Form B with the same picture stimulus depicting a student driver hitting a fire hydrant while swerving to avoid a dog. The task was assessed for story composition and contextual conventions. Although KAN's story composition scores remained unchanged, her contextual convention scores improved from 20 to 26 in Y4. Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate that from Y2 to Y4 her spelling improved, with fewer errors, more accurate spelling of longer words, and consistent capitalization of sentences and proper nouns, reflecting the automation of her secretarial writing skills. These two‐year gains enhanced the readability of her composition and illustrate how HL writing can develop over time through home literacy practices and weekend school.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70080-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70080-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Excerpt of KAN's spontaneous writing in Y2 (age 11;2)." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70080-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70080-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Excerpt of KAN's spontaneous writing in Y4 (age 13;2)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Six children aged 11–14 stopped attending weekend school, yet this had no adverse effect on their HL writing. Figure 3 shows their ages (year;month) and composite index scores during their final year of attendance and 12 months after discontinuing. HUG made huge progress even after discontinuing weekend school; his score increased by 17 points to an impressive 143 (<emph>Very Superior</emph>) points from Y3 to Y4. Another Group 1 child, LUH, also scored in the <emph>Very Superior</emph> range, recording a 3‐point increase. Other children from Group 3 also recorded higher scores despite the lack of HL instruction. The exception was JAS, whose Y4 scores declined by 4 points. However, they remained within the <emph>Average</emph> range. The next section examines interview and questionnaire data on factors shaping children's writing development, including those who discontinued weekend school.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70080-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70080-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Age‐adjusted composite index scores for children who discontinued weekend school." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105820-22">Parental Roles in Developing the Children's HL Literacy</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105820-23">Home Reading Practices</hd> <p>Shared reading, the most common practice, helped establish HL literacy at home. Many parents reported reading to their children regularly when they were young, and these practices cultivated an interest in reading. In Group 1 families, for example, LIS's mother even read to LIS before birth. LUH's father used to spend 45–60 min every evening reading to LUH from ages 2 to 8. HUG's mother also often read to HUG and even engaged HUG's grandmother to read remotely to him from Australia. Some Group 1 parents also enjoyed reading themselves and modeled the habit, which their children adopted (Collins and Svensson [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref92">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>As the children grew older, however, shared reading became harder to sustain. YUK's mother admitted she no longer had time to read to YUK, and children with siblings (e.g., KEK and NIE) or busy extracurricular schedules also spent less time reading with their parents. Still, this decline had little impact on Groups 1 and 2, as they read independently. LIS, EMS, and their mother set aside a specific time and space to read quietly together. SAK proceeded to the second Harry Potter volume after finishing the first independently, while KAT often read his favorite books independently each evening. Such practices supported their continued literacy development even without shared reading.</p> <p>However, Group 3 children read less independently, so parents read to them, took turns to read, or had them read aloud. JAS's father noted, "We might go through a couple of chapters, and he just never seems to catch on and then I give up." Consequently, many books were left unfinished. JOG's father asked questions after he read aloud, but JOG often struggled to answer, so his father had him re‐read the text to improve comprehension. These observations suggest that parents had to actively support Group 3 children. LUM's and NIE's mother lamented in her questionnaire response:</p> <p>Even though I read to my children consistently, I wish that they were more independent readers from an early age. I should have set aside time for reading alone for fun, and I wish I could have shown by example by reading novels myself.</p> <p>The mother of KAN also shared similar views: "I think we should have allocated time for reading English books and writing a diary at home." MOH's parent also regretted not instilling a reading habit when he was younger. These findings show that although independent reading supports higher English literacy, it was difficult for Group 3 parents to foster this habit.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-24">The Home Literacy Environment</hd> <p>Many families provided a literacy‐rich home environment, as few English books were available in public libraries. These books were often carefully curated by their parents; for example, Group 1 parents selected books with advanced language and engaging content (e.g., LUH's father chose Mark Twain books for him) and encouraged their children to self‐select titles at bookstores. In contrast, Group 3 parents struggled to find books that would hold their children's interest, often resorting to non‐fiction (e.g., JAS's father bought him books with fun facts or idioms) or other formats (e.g., MOH's father recommended podcasts). This suggests that the quality and relevance of books are as important as the quantity, as thoughtfully selected books encouraged reading enjoyment and independent reading.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-25">Home Writing Practices</hd> <p>Writing was harder to practice at home than reading and often required formal assignments or strong parental encouragement to be sustained. Few children wrote in English regularly, notable exceptions being LIS who kept a reading journal, HUG who corresponded with his grandmother, and KAT who responded to journal prompts. For many children, weekend school homework was their only writing practice, and only some parents encouraged additional writing using workbooks.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-26">Test Preparation</hd> <p>Preparation for the <emph>Eiken</emph>, a four‐skill English examination widely recognized in Japan, also supported literacy development. Many of our participants took the test, and their results, as shown in Table 6, aligned with their high TOWL scores. At age 11 or 12, many had already passed <emph>Eiken</emph> Level 2, the benchmark for high school graduates (Eiken [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref93">19</reflink>]). <emph>Eiken</emph> Level 2 corresponds to Level B1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref94">10</reflink>]), signifying a satisfactory ability to comprehend straightforward factual texts and produce coherent written texts by linking a series of shorter, distinct elements into a logical sequence.</p> <p>6 TABLE Highest Eiken English qualification.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Group</th><th align="center">Child</th><th align="center">Highest level</th><th align="center">CEFR equivalent</th><th align="center">Age at the time of testing</th><th align="center">Grade at the time of testing</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1 (N = 5)</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>LIS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">C1</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="center">8</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>EMS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Pre‐1</td><td align="center">B2</td><td align="center">10</td><td align="center">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>LUH</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>SAK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Pre‐2</td><td align="center">A2</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>HUG</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">B1</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2 (N = 3)</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>SHO</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">B1</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>AMS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Pre‐1</td><td align="center">B2</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="center">8</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>KAT</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Pre‐1</td><td align="center">B2</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3 (N = 11)</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>HAK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">B1</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="center">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>JOG</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">B1</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="center">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>JAS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>MOH</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>KAN</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">B1</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>ARS</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Pre‐1</td><td align="center">B2</td><td align="center">15</td><td align="center">9</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>LUM</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">B1</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="center">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>YUK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">B1</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>KEK</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">Pre‐2</td><td align="center">A2</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="center">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>NIE</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">B1</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>GER</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">B1</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Formal recognition of this qualification for school admissions made learning more purposeful, encouraging extra reading and writing at home. ARS and GER (Group 3) participated in <emph>Eiken</emph> classes taught by their parents. KAT (Group 1) and his father prepared intensively for the <emph>Eiken</emph> during school breaks. KAT's father observed: "He worked very hard and this was quite an accomplishment for him and has given him confidence and motivation to improve." KAN's and YUK's parents realized home efforts and weekend school were not enough, so they hired online tutors for <emph>Eiken</emph> preparation. The examination's multi‐level structure encouraged ongoing test preparation, with some children continuing to higher‐level tests after passing a lower one. Only LUH, JAS, and MOH did not sit for the <emph>Eiken</emph>, as their parents saw it as unnecessary or burdensome.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-27">Parental Impact Beliefs and Children's Agency</hd> <p>All parents in our study demonstrated strong impact beliefs that they could foster HL literacy. However, Group 1 parents could take a less active role as their children grew older and read independently. LUH's father, for example, did not feel the need to "push him to read" by Y4 because LUH was already accessing videos and books on his own. Likewise, LIS's mother did little, as LIS enjoyed reading for pleasure. In contrast, Group 3 parents continued supporting their children's reading and writing, believing that they could affect their literacy. Nevertheless, they often felt their efforts were insufficient:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> JOG's father: "If I was completely hands off, I don't think that he would be at the level that he is now. If I was more hands on, I think his scores would be better. [...] I will continue to work with him on reading and writing going forward."</item> <p></p> <item> JAS's father: "I haven't been doing enough."</item> <p></p> <item> LUM's mother: "I feel that LUM hasn't had enough exposure and support from me."</item> </ulist> <p>Overall, parental roles evolved with their children's development: parents of strong readers could step back, while those of less motivated readers provided continued support, guided by their strong impact beliefs.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-28">The Role of the Weekend School in Developing the Children's HL Literacy</hd> <p>Many parents considered weekend school to be important for establishing HL literacy in childhood:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> LIS's and EMS's mother: "Weekend school was definitely a big factor. It is easy to teach oral skills through everyday home life but reading and writing require extra effort and practice. I am glad that English weekend school provided the support from such a young age."</item> <p></p> <item> MOH's mother: "When he was small, having people to talk to and going to weekend school helped."</item> <p></p> <item> SAK's mother: "Until junior high school, SAK was completing the weekend school homework consistently, which helped, but now she is too tired to do it."</item> <p></p> <item> KAN's mother: "Before junior high school, attending weekend school strongly supported her reading and writing development."</item> <p></p> <item> JAS' father: "Weekend school helped quite a bit in keeping him interested. However, once classes went online, the enthusiasm and need to use English dropped a bit."</item> </ulist> <p>Most children attended weekend school for a long time, averaging 4.5 years (see Table 2). While it provided the foundation for HL literacy, participation decreased as the children grew older. Increasing schoolwork and extracurricular activities in junior high school limited their engagement. Although some remained enrolled, attendance was less regular. Interest also declined following the shift to online lessons during the pandemic. While weekend schools later returned to in‐person instruction, adolescent classes remained online, making attendance more convenient but reducing opportunities for interpersonal interaction. Other than weekend school, two children attended public school in Australia during their summer breaks. HUG and NIE spent several weeks in their respective grades completing the same work as local fifth‐ and sixth‐graders and being immersed in their HL, which likely contributed to their higher Y4 scores. This was possible because they were still in elementary school, when time demands were lighter than in junior high.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-29">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105820-30">HL Literacy Development in Late Childhood to Adolescence</hd> <p>Our research demonstrated that the under‐investigated stages of late childhood to adolescence can be periods of continued literacy growth rather than decline as our participants achieved writing scores comparable to, or even exceeding, those of their US peers. Across four (three for GER) assessments over 3 years, their increasing age‐adjusted composite index scores demonstrate their strong and continually developing HL writing. These findings contribute to the debate on ultimate attainment in HL development, showing that high writing proficiency is achievable not only by sequential bilinguals who attended school in a majority‐HL country (Gatti and O'Neill [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref95">23</reflink>]), but also by simultaneous bilinguals who have only learned HLs in informal settings. By showing that high HL literacy is attainable by late childhood and adolescence, we highlight the importance of home‐ and community‐based literacy support, offering encouraging evidence for parents investing in these practices from early childhood and beyond.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-31">Reading in the HL Promotes HL Writing</hd> <p>The children achieved high writing scores primarily through reading, underscoring the strong link between reading and writing skills. Although writing is often harder to practice at home, our longitudinal results suggest that regular reading, rather than frequent writing, can effectively strengthen HL writing. Correlational analyses of Y1 writing scores and 22 literacy‐related factors (Quay and Nakamura [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref96">52</reflink>]) show strong positive links between writing and reading practices (including reading enjoyment, preference for English reading, independent and voluntary reading, and choosing one's own materials, as well as writing enjoyment) that align with our Y1–Y4 qualitative results.</p> <p>All five Group 1 children participated in plenty of shared reading, which fostered their enjoyment of reading and led to independent reading. Continued shared reading with parents also exposed them to increasingly difficult books, which contributed to their improved writing performance. Group 1 parents were also keen readers who engaged in recreational reading. These findings align with previous research on the importance of reading enjoyment (Sun et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref97">59</reflink>]), parental modeling of reading behavior (Collins and Svensson [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref98">16</reflink>]) and free voluntary reading for literacy development (Cho and Krashen [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref99">14</reflink>]). The children's reading habits were fostered in literacy‐rich home environments. While access to HL books is important (Rydland and Grøver [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref100">54</reflink>]), book‐loving Group 1 parents (or grandparents) were particularly attuned to the children's reading interests. HUG's books, for example, were curated by his mother, who perused newsletters from independent bookstores for interesting titles, and by his grandmother, a former librarian.</p> <p>In contrast, while children in Groups 2 and 3 engaged in shared reading with their parents, few read independently, even with access to a variety of books. This suggests that carefully tailoring books to a child's interests may be essential for promoting independent reading. Some Group 3 parents had their children re‐read books and checked their comprehension orally. While reading discussions are beneficial (e.g., Leseman et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref101">33</reflink>]; Sénéchal and LeFevre [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref102">56</reflink>]), making children accountable through comprehension questions may undermine their enjoyment (McQuillan [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref103">39</reflink>]). Consequently, Group 3 children seldom read without parental support. Shared reading in late childhood and adolescence became challenging as the children grew busier with school and extracurricular activities. Nonetheless, parents remained actively involved, reflecting strong impact beliefs that they can affect their children's English literacy learning. Their continued efforts helped maintain Group 3 children's writing scores within the <emph>Average</emph> range. Overall, these findings reveal two pathways to high HL literacy: children who become avid independent readers requiring minimal parental support, and those needing sustained parental involvement. The former yields stronger, more sustainable literacy outcomes. A key implication for parents is to foster reading enjoyment through shared reading, modeling, and thoughtful book selection to nurture independent HL readers. Teachers also play a role; the Tokyo weekend‐school teacher assigned 10 to 15 min of reading as daily homework to encourage reading.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-32">English Literacy as Institutionalized Cultural Capital</hd> <p> <emph>Eiken</emph> examinations provided formal recognition, encouraging children to read and write more in English, reflecting Bourdieu's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref104">5</reflink>]) concept of institutionalized cultural capital. Although HL instruction was absent in mainstream education, acknowledgment of HL skills in school and university applications and entrance examinations sustained learning. These findings suggest that recognition of HL qualifications can promote continued learning from late childhood to adolescence. However, this effect is largely limited to English, highlighting the need to recognize other HLs in similar ways to support their learning in Japan.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-33">The Role of English Weekend School in Late Childhood and Adolescence</hd> <p>Weekend school played a key role in establishing HL literacy in childhood, but became less central in adolescence, as children sustained their HL literacy independently. The fact that most children improved even after discontinuing weekend school supports research suggesting that home literacy practices outweigh community‐based HL programs' influence (Kim and Pyun [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref105">26</reflink>]; Zhu et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref106">64</reflink>]). The practical implication of this finding is that when children drop out of community‐based programs, their HL can still be supported through other means. These results highlight the importance of helping children reach a threshold of HL literacy early on, as shown by the six children who dropped out after an average of more than 6 years of weekend school yet were still able to sustain their literacy through individual effort and interest. Such results may not have been attainable had they dropped out of weekend school at younger ages with shorter periods of attendance. The experiences of HUG and NIE also highlight the value of authentic immersion opportunities, that is, temporary schooling in the HL country, which appear to enhance literacy development beyond what weekend school can provide. In sum, early exposure at weekend school may set a foundation, but long‐term development depends on home literacy practices and immersion opportunities.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-34">Other Potential Factors Affecting HL Writing</hd> <p>Just as children may draw on the HL to learn the societal language, they can also leverage their societal language to support HL learning (Cummins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref107">17</reflink>]). Our participants' strong writing performance may likewise be partially explained by cross‐linguistic transfer from Japanese to English, as their Japanese literacy skills were well established through Japanese‐medium education from Grade 1. We confirmed through our Year 1 questionnaires that the children were receiving at least average grades in their Japanese language classes at school. This foundation may have enabled them to plan and produce coherent English stories within 20 min, despite limited practice. Nonetheless, further research is needed to clarify the mechanisms underlying this process.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-35">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study offers new insights into an underexplored period of HL literacy development by demonstrating that simultaneous bilinguals can attain high levels of HL writing proficiency from late childhood to adolescence, despite the absence of instruction in regular schools and competing academic and extracurricular demands. Most of our participants demonstrated consistent and increasing scores in four writing assessments across 3 years. Although both the home and weekend school contributed to the children's HL literacy, the home was particularly crucial, as more time was devoted to literacy practices there, allowing those who quit weekend school to continue improving their writing. The children achieved these results by reading more than writing in the HL, suggesting a strong connection between reading and writing. Those with higher writing proficiency tended to enjoy reading and engaged in independent reading. However, even less enthusiastic readers developed their writing because their parents sustained HL literacy practices with them. The formal recognition of English qualifications also motivated participants to prepare for English examinations, which further improved their HL writing. Given the limited participants and the uniquely high status of English, these findings cannot be generalized to children learning other HLs in Japan or elsewhere. Yet, they challenge the common assumption that HL speakers are low‐literacy bilinguals, paving the way for more positive research on HL literacy development.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-36">Funding</hd> <p>This research was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under the Grant‐in‐Aid for Scientific Research (C) (21K00740).</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-37">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>Research Ethics Committee of the second author's institution has approved our research procedures (no. 2020‐30).</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-38">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-39">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <hd id="AN0191105820-40">1 Appendix Year 3 Interview Questions</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What languages do you and your children speak at home? Has it changed in the past 2 years?</item> <p></p> <item> What kind of English books do you have at home? How are they chosen/bought?</item> <p></p> <item> How often do you and your child read either together or separately?</item> <p></p> <item> How has your child's English exposure changed over the past 2 years?</item> <p></p> <item> What other factors affected your child's literacy development over the past 2 years?</item> <p></p> <item> Are you happy with your child's English literacy development so far? Why or why not?</item> <p></p> <item> What are your expectations for your child in the future?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0191105820-41">2 Appendix Year 4 Questionnaire</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How satisfied are you with the development of your child's English oral skills over the past 3 years? Please circle.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"><p>Very dissatisfied</p></td><td align="center"><p>Dissatisfied</p></td><td align="center"><p>Somewhat dissatisfied</p></td><td align="center"><p>Somewhat satisfied</p></td><td align="center"><p>Satisfied</p></td><td align="center"><p>Very satisfied</p></td><td align="center"><p>Extremely satisfied</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How satisfied are you with the development of your child's English reading and writing skills over the past 3 years? Please circle.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"><p>Very dissatisfied</p></td><td align="center"><p>Dissatisfied</p></td><td align="center"><p>Somewhat dissatisfied</p></td><td align="center"><p>Somewhat satisfied</p></td><td align="center"><p>Satisfied</p></td><td align="center"><p>Very satisfied</p></td><td align="center"><p>Extremely satisfied</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Do you see a difference between the development of your child's English oral and literacy skills? Please elaborate if possible.</item> <p></p> <item> What factors helped to support your child's English reading and writing development?</item> <p></p> <item> Looking back, what would you have done differently for your child in terms of his/her English literacy learning?</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0191105820-42"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref72" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmed, Y., R. Wagner, and D. Lopez. 2014. " Developmental Relations Between Reading and Writing at the Word, Sentence, and Text Levels: A Latent Change Score Analysis." Journal of Educational Psychology 106 : 419 – 434. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035692.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Armon‐Lotem, S., K. Rose, and C. Altman. 2021. " The Development of English as a Heritage Language: The Role of Chronological Age and Age of Onset of Bilingualism." First Language 41, no. 1 : 67 – 89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723720929810.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Batini, F., and G. Toti. 2024. " Shared Reading Aloud to Enhance Language and Literacy." Education 3‐13 52, no. 7 : 946 – 962. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2024.2357055.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bayram, F., J. Rothman, M. Iverson, et al. 2017. " Differences in Use Without Deficiencies in Competence: Passives in the Turkish and German of Turkish Heritage Speakers in Germany." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22, no. 8 : 919 – 939. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1324403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref65" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bourdieu, P. 2011. Cultural Theory: An Anthology, edited by The forms of capital (1986), I. Szeman, and T. Kaposy, 81 – 93. Wiley‐Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref8" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bylund, E., and M. Díaz. 2012. " The Effects of Heritage Language Instruction on First Language Proficiency: A Psycholinguistic Perspective." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15, no. 5 : 593 – 609. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.676620.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref69" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Camus, P., and S. Adrada‐Rafael. 2015. " Spanish Heritage Language Learners vs. L2 Learners: What CAF Reveals About Written Proficiency." EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages 2, no. 2 : 32 – 51. https://doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.3.44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref37" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cangelosi, M., C. Borghetti, and P. Bonifacci. 2024. " How Parents' Perceived Value of the Heritage Language Predicts Their Children's Skills." Language 9, no. 3 : 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9030080.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref74" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Carreira, M., and O. Kagan. 2011. " The Results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for Teaching, Curriculum Design, and Professional Development." Foreign Language Annals 44, no. 1 : 40 – 64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> CEFR. 2020. "Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment." https://rm.coe.int/common‐european‐framework‐of‐reference‐for‐languages‐learning‐teaching/16809ea0d4#page=31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, S. H., Q. Zhou, and Y. Uchikoshi. 2018. " Heritage Language Socialization in Chinese American Immigrant Families: Prospective Links to Children's Heritage Language Proficiency." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 24, no. 8 : 1193 – 1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1547680.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, S. Y., and S. Quay. 2024. " Trilingual Development in Two Families from Hong Kong: The Path to Minority Language Maintenance in Japan." Japan Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism 30 : 1 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho, G., and S. Krashen. 2000. " The Role of Voluntary Factors in Heritage Language Development: How Speakers Can Develop the Heritage Language on Their Own." ITL—International Journal of Applied Linguistics 127 : 127 – 140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, C. 2019. Children and Young People's Reading in 2017/18: Findings From Our Annual Literacy Survey. National Literacy Trust.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins, F., and C. Svensson. 2008. " If I Had a Magic Wand I'd Magic Her Out of the Book: The Rich Literacy Practices of Competent Early Readers." Early Years 28, no. 1 : 81 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575140701844599.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummins, J. 2005. " A Proposal for Action: Strategies for Recognizing Heritage Language Competence as a Learning Resource Within the Mainstream Classroom." Modern Language Journal 89, no. 4 : 585 – 592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐4781.2005.00331.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Houwer, A. 1999. " Environmental Factors in Early Bilingual Development: The Role of Parental Beliefs and Attitudes." In Bilingualism and Migration, edited by G. Extra and L. Verhoeven, 75 – 95. Mouton de Gruyter.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eiken. 2024. "Overview of the Eiken Framework." https://<ulink href="http://www.eiken.or.jp/eiken/en/research/">www.eiken.or.jp/eiken/en/research/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elola, I., and A. Mikulski. 2016. " Similar and/or Different Writing Processes?: A Study of Spanish Foreign Language and Heritage Language Learners." Hispania 99, no. 1 : 87 – 102. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2016.0000.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fishman, J. 2001. " 300‐Plus Years of Heritage Language Education in the United States." In Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource, edited by J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, and S. McGinnis, 81 – 89. Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fitzgerald, J., and T. Shanahan. 2000. " Reading and Writing Relations and Their Development." Educational Psychologist 35, no. 1 : 39 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gatti, A., and T. O'Neill. 2017. " Who Are Heritage Writers? Language Experiences and Writing Proficiency." Foreign Language Annals 50, no. 4 : 734 – 753. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12291.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregory, E., S. Long, and D. Volk. 2004. " A Sociocultural Approach to Learning." In Many Pathways to Literacy: Young Children Learning With Siblings, Grandparents, Peers and Communities, edited by E. Gregory, S. Long, and D. Volk, 6 – 20. Routledge Falmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammill, D., and S. Larsen. 2009. Test of Written Language. 4th ed. Pro‐ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, C. E., and D. O. Pyun. 2014. " Heritage Language Literacy Maintenance: A Study of Korean‐American Heritage Learners." Language, Culture and Curriculum 27 : 294 – 315. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.970192.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y.‐S. G., A. Wolters, and J. Lee. 2023. " Reading and Writing Relations Are Not Uniform: They Differ by the Linguistic Grain Size, Developmental Phase, and Measurement." Review of Educational Research 94, no. 3 : 311 – 342. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231178830.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kondo‐Brown, K. 2021. " Heritage Language Assessment." In The Cambridge Handbook of Heritage Languages and Linguistics, edited by S. Montrul and M. Polinsky, 892 – 911. Cambridge University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kupisch, T., and J. Rothman. 2018. " Terminology Matters! Why Difference Is Not Incompleteness and How Early Child Bilinguals Are Heritage Speakers." International Journal of Bilingualism 22, no. 5 : 564 – 582. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916654355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lao, R. S., and J. S. Lee. 2009. " Heritage Language Maintenance and Use Among 1.5 Generation Khmer College Students." Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement 4 : 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.7771/2153‐8999.1094.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latham, D. 2002. How Children Learn to Write: Supporting and Developing Children's Writing in School. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leseman, P. P. M., and P. F. De Jong. 1998. " Home Literacy: Opportunity, Instruction, Cooperation and Social‐Emotional Quality Predicting Early Reading Achievement." Reading Research Quarterly 33, no. 3 : 294 – 318. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.3.3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leseman, P. P. M., A. F. Scheele, A. Y. Mayo, and M. H. Messer. 2007. " Home Literacy as a Special Language Environment to Prepare Children for School." Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 10, no. 3 : 334 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618‐007‐0040‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, G. 2006. " Biliteracy and Trilingual Practices in the Home Context: Case Studies of Chinese‐Canadian Children." Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 6, no. 3 : 355 – 381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798406069797.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, G., F. Zhen, Z. Lin, and L. Gunderson. 2023. " Bilingual Home Literacy Experiences and Early Biliteracy Development Among Chinese–Canadian First Graders." Education Sciences 13 : 808. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080808.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mackenzie, N., J. Scull, and L. Munsie. 2013. " Analysing Writing: The Development of a Tool for Use in the Early Years of Schooling." Issues in Educational Research 23, no. 3 : 375 – 391.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Majima, J., and C. Sakurai. 2021. " A Longitudinal Study of Emergent Bilinguals among Chinese Pupils at a Japanese Public School: A Focus on Language Policies and Inclusion." In Migration, Multilingualism and Education: Critical Perspectives on Inclusion, edited by L. Mary, A. Krüger, and A. S. Young, 93 – 111. Multilingual Matters.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mattheoudakis, M., A. Chatzidaki, and C. Maligkoudi. 2017. " Heritage Language Classes and Bilingual Competence: The Case of Albanian Immigrant Children in Greece." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 23, no. 8 : 1019 – 1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1384447.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McQuillan, J. 1998. " The Use of Self‐Selected and Free Voluntary Reading in Heritage Language Programs: A Review of Research." In Heritage Language Development, edited by S. Krashen, L. Tse, and J. McQuillan, 73 – 87. Language Education Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Minkov, M., and D. Aram. 2025. " Hebrew–Russian Bilingual Children's Early Literacy Skills: The Roles of the Home Literacy Environment and Mothers' Writing Support." Reading Research Quarterly 60 : e564. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.564.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nakamura, J. 2019. " Parents' Impact Belief in Raising Bilingual and Biliterate Children in Japan." Psychology of Language and Communication 23, no. 1 : 137 – 161. https://doi.org/10.2478/plc‐2019‐0007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nakamura, J., and S. Quay. 2023. " The Development of English Writing in Bilingual Children Attending Weekend School in Japan during the COVID‐19 Pandemic." Journal of Home Language Research 6 : 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.16993/jhlr.50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nordstrom, J., K. Cruickshank, and E. L. Bai. 2024. " Community Language Schools: A Scoping Review of Research, 2001 to 2023." Cambridge Journal of Education 54, no. 5 : 589 – 605. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2024.2409184.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Brien, B. A., A. Arshad, and S. C. Ng. 2024. " Bilingual Families and the Home Literacy Environment: An Examination of English and Ethnic Language Activities and Outcomes." Journal of Research in Reading 47 : 580 – 600. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12465.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ortega, L. 2020. " The Study of Heritage Language Development From a Bilingualism and Social Justice Perspective." Language Learning 70, no. Suppl 1 : 15 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12347.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papastergiou, A., and E. Sanoudaki. 2022. " Language Skills in Greek‐English Bilingual Children Attending Greek Supplementary Schools in England." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25, no. 8 : 2834 – 2852. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1980496.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paradis, J. 2023. " Sources of Individual Differences in the Dual Language Development of Heritage Bilinguals." Journal of Child Language 50, no. 4 : 793 – 817. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000922000708.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parkes, B. 2023. Read It Again! Revisiting Shared Reading. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pauly, M., and K. Yamane. 1999. " Satadē Sukūru No Un'ei: Te o Kunda Oyatachi No Kokoromi [Running a Saturday School: Efforts of Parents Working Together]." In Bairingaru No Sekai [A Bilingual World], edited by M. Yamamoto, 3 – 32. Taishuukan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quay, S., and S. Montanari. 2019. " Bilingualism and Multilingualism." In The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingualism, edited by A. De Houwer and L. Ortega, 544 – 560. Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316831922.028.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quay, S., and J. Nakamura. 2022. " Japanese‐English Bilingual Children's Literacy Development in Weekend Schools in Japan." Japan Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism 28 : 1 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quay, S., and J. Nakamura. 2023. " Factors Affecting Home Language Literacy Development in Japanese‐English Bicultural Children in Japan." Languages 8, no. 4 : 251. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8040251.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothman, J. 2009. " Understanding the Nature and Outcomes of Early Bilingualism: Romance Languages as Heritage Languages." International Journal of Bilingualism 13, no. 2 : 155 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909339814.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rydland, V., and V. Grøver. 2021. " Language Use, Home Literacy Environment, and Demography: Predicting Vocabulary Skills Among Diverse Young Dual Language Learners in Norway." Journal of Child Language 48, no. 4 : 717 – 736. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000920000495.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saito, H. 2005. " Nihon Kokunai No Bogo Keishōgo Kyōiku No Genjō to Kadai: Chiiki Oyobi Gakkō Ni Okeru Katsudō o Chūshin Ni [An Overview of Mother Tongue/Heritage Language Education: Programs Offered by Local Communities and Schools in Japan]." Studies in Mother Tongue, Heritage Language and Bilingual Education 1 : 25 – 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M., and J.‐A. LeFevre. 2002. " Parental Involvement in the Development of Children's Reading Skill: A Five‐Year Longitudinal Study." Child Development 73 : 445 – 460. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8624.00417.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan, T. 2006. " Relations Among Oral Language, Reading, and Writing Development." In Handbook of Writing Research, edited by C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, and J. Fitzgerald, 171 – 183. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shen, C., and W. Jiang. 2021. " Heritage Language Maintenance and Identity Among the Second‐Generation Chinese‐Australian Children." Bilingual Research Journal 44, no. 1 : 6 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2021.1890650.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, B., C. E. Loh, and X. L. Curdt‐Christiansen. 2020. " Leisure Reading in Multilingual Singapore: Reading Enjoyment, Habits and Preferences of Singaporean Children." Journal of Multilingual Theories and Practices 1, no. 2 : 313 – 339. https://doi.org/10.1558/jmtp.17610.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Takahashi, T. 2015. "Nippon No Bogo Kyōiku No Genjō to Kadai [Current Condition and Issues of Mother Language Education in Japan]." Proceedings of the Canadian Association for Japanese Language Education, 330–339.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taniguchi, J. 2021. Biliteracy in Young Japanese Siblings. Hituzi Syobo.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valdés, G. 2001. " Heritage Language Students: Profiles and Possibilities." In Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource, edited by J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, and S. McGinnis, 37 – 77. Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wassink, A. B., R. Squizzero, C. Fellin, and D. Nichols. 2018. "Client Libraries Oxford (CLOx): Automated Transcription for Sociolinguistic Interviews [Computer Software]." https://clox.ling.washington.edu.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhu, D., P. Hopper, and G. Kulaixi. 2020. " Heritage Language Maintenance Among Second‐Generation Chinese‐American Children in a Small Chinese Community." International Journal of Education, Culture, and Society 5, no. 5 : 100 – 114. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijecs.20200505.13.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Janice Nakamura and Suzanne Quay</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref107"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1494489
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: English as a Heritage Language in Japan: Writing Development from Late Childhood to Adolescence
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Janice+Nakamura%22">Janice Nakamura</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3268-6556">0000-0003-3268-6556</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Suzanne+Quay%22">Suzanne Quay</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-4834">0000-0002-0178-4834</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2026 61(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Native+Language%22">Native Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bilingual+Students%22">Bilingual Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Japanese%22">Japanese</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Skills%22">Writing Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Tests%22">Language Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Ability%22">Writing Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Written+Language%22">Written Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Literacy%22">Family Literacy</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Test+of+Written+English%22">Test of Written English</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.70080
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Focusing on an understudied age range (9-15 years), this study explores the longitudinal writing development of English as a heritage language (HL) in 19 simultaneous Japanese-English bilingual children. Annual assessments with the Test of Written Language (TOWL) over 3 years showed increasing scores, demonstrating that high levels of HL writing are attainable and sustainable in late childhood and adolescence. Parental interviews and questionnaires indicate that reading practices at home contributed to writing development, highlighting the relationship between reading and writing. Stronger writers often read independently, while others continued reading with their parents. Preparation for English exams also encouraged additional literacy activities that further improved writing. While weekend instruction helped establish HL literacy, home literacy practices became more important at older ages, as shown by six children who improved their writing scores even after discontinuing weekend school. These findings highlight the home as a crucial site for HL literacy development, offering best practices for parents to help older children maintain their HL literacy ability.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1494489
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1494489
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.70080
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Native Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bilingual Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Japanese
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Written Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test of Written English
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: English as a Heritage Language in Japan: Writing Development from Late Childhood to Adolescence
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Janice Nakamura
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Suzanne Quay
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0553
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1936-2722
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 61
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1