Language diversity is a reality in Germany, not least due to increased dynamics of migration since the 1990s. It plays a key role in common explanations of achievement gaps between immigrant and autochthonous students being continually uncovered through large-scale research, such as the PISA studies (OECD 2010). For Germany, the attainment gap between migrants and non-migrants is particularly large (Klieme et al., 2010; Pant et al., 2013). Speaking a language other than German at home is identified as a significant risk factor for attainment. At the same time, research shows that multilingual language proficiencies yield advantages for the acquisition of third or additional languages and also for cognitive development and learning in general (Bialystok, 2009; Bialystok & Poarch, 2014).

Literacy encompasses a person’s ability to read and write. An explicit definition and a shared general theoretical model comprising the receptive and productive partitions of language proficiency is still missing (Jude, 2008). Educational research on language proficiencies refers mainly to receptive competences. For migrant students their relatively poorer German language competences, measured through reading literacy assessments, are regarded as main obstacles for educational attainment (Stanat et al., 2002; Klieme et al., 2010).

On the other hand, we lack adequate data for productive language skills: Until recently, in large-scale studies the assessment of writing proficiencies has been of minor interest only, despite their presumably crucial and pivotal role for educational attainment. In part this is due to the difficult and time-consuming task to construct adequate test formats and coding routines for quantitative analyses of language production.

There is considerable doubt, whether the assumption of an invariant relation between reading and writing skills is justified. The empirical evidence for partial covariation of reading and writing skills (Heller, 1999; Langer & Flihan, 2000) is challenged by findings that suggest a multi-dimensional structure of language competences (Shanahan, 1984; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; for a review see Jude, 2008). If language skills are acquired in the context of migration the relation of language subskills can be assumed as even more complex. Evidence for an interaction of language skills between a majority and heritage languages has already been provided for specific language domains: Bilinguals’ lexical knowledge, for instance, is partially and unevenly distributed across their languages (Oller et al., 2007: 191); furthermore, there is an overlap between concepts, meaning that bilinguals sometimes possess words for certain concepts only in one language (Allman, 2005: 75); as for writing skills it could be shown that bilingual writers make use of their knowledge of writing strategies by transferring skills from one language to another (Lanauze & Snow, 1989: 337).

International research also pleads for the development of heritage language competences as an additional resource and a basis for the acquisition of the majority language as well as foreign languages (Bialystok, 2002; Bialystok and Poarch, 2014; Cummins, 2000, 2013; Leseman et al., 2009; Verhoeven, 1994). A crucial condition for children to successfully utilize these resources seems to be the ability to read and write in their heritage language.

The overview of research state of the art shows that as yet there is no satisfactory insight in the development of students’ multilingual literacy. The current paper aims to fill the methodological gap mentioned above and to investigate the complex nature of students’ multilingual reading and writing abilities.

This paper will address the following research questions:

1. What is the relation between students’ reading and writing skills in the heritage language and in the majority language?
2. What is the relation between students’ reading skills and specific dimensions of writing (i.e. pragmatic, syntactic, lexical) in both languages?

Allman, B. (2005). Vocabulary Size and Accuracy of Monolingual and Bilingual Preschool Children. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, and J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 58-77). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Bialystok, E. (2002). Acquisition of Literacy in Bilingual Children: A Framework for Research. Language Learning 52(1), 159-199. Bialystok, E. & Poarch, G. (2014). Language experience changes language and cognitive ability. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft ZfE 17(3), 433-446. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power, and Pedagogy. Bilingual children in Crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2013). Immigrant students’ academic achievement: Understanding the intersections between research, theory and policy. In Gogolin, Ingrid; Lange, Imke; Michel, Ute & Reich, Hans. H. (eds.): Herausforderung Bildungssprache und wie man sie meistert [FörMig Edition 9]. Münster: Waxmann, 19-41. Jude, N. (2008). Zur Struktur von Sprachkompetenz. Frankfurt am Main: www.dissonline.de Klieme, E., Artelt, C., Hartig, J., Jude, N., Köller, O., Prenzel, M., Schneider, W. & Stanat, P. (Hrsg.) (2010). PISA 2009. Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt. Lanauze, M., & Snow, C. (1989). The relation between first- and second-language writing skills: Evidence from Puerto Rican elementary school children in bilingual programs. Linguistics and Education, 1(4), 323-339. Langer, J. & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and Reading Relationships: Constructive Tasks. In Indrisano, Roselmina and Squire, James R. (eds): Perspectives on Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 112-139 Leseman, P. P. M.; Scheele, A.F.; Messer, M. H. & Mayo, A.Y. (2009). Bilingual development in early childhood and the languages used at home: Competition for scarce resources? In Gogolin, Ingrid & Neumann, Ursula (eds): Streitfall Zweisprachigkeit- The Bilingualism Controversy. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 289-316. Oller DK, Pearson BZ, Cobo-Lewis AB. (2007). Profile effects in early bilingual language and literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28,191–230. Pant, H. A., Stanat, P., Schroeders, U., Roppelt, A., Siegle, T. & Pöhlmann, C. (Hrsg.). (2013). IQB-Ländervergleich 2012. Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen am Ende der Sekundarstufe I. Münster: Waxmann. Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,76, 466-477. Shanahan T. & Lomax RG (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading–writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 116–123. Stanat, P., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M., Prenzel, M., Schiefele, U., Schneider, W., Schümer, G., Tillmann, K.-J. & Weiss, M. (2002). PISA 2000: Die Studie im Überblick – Grundlagen, Methoden und Ergebnisse. Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung. Verhoeven, L. T. (1994). Transfer in Bilingual Development: The Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis Revisited. Language Learning 44(3), 381-415.