Language immersion, or simply immersion, is a technique used in bilingual language education in which two languages are used for instruction in a variety of topics, including math, science, or social studies.The languages used for instruction are referred to as the L1 and the L2 for each student, with L1 being the native language of the student and L2 being the second language to be acquired through immersion programs and techniques. There are different contexts for language immersion, such as age of students, class time spent in the L2, subjects taught, and the level of participation by the native L1 speakers.

1. Two-way bilingual immersion programs are not replacing English with another language, but provide the students the opportunity to acquire a second language. Two-way bilingual immersion programs are additive programs in that a second language is acquired while maintaining the first language of the students.
2. 2016-11-29  6 Potential Brain Benefits Of Bilingual Education. Schooling is what's often called dual-language or two-way immersion programs. In English-only classrooms or in one-way immersion.

Number of dual-language (two-way) immersion programs in the U.S. Today (6) Languages commonly taught in two-way immersion programs include Spanish, French, Chinese and Korean, but there are also programs for Italian, Japanese, Swedish and Danish, among others.

Although programs differ by country and context, most language immersion programs have the overall goal of promoting bilingualism between the two different sets of language speakers. In many cases, biculturalism is also a goal for speakers of the majority language (i.e. the language spoken by the majority of the surrounding population) and the minority language (i.e. the language that is not the majority language). Research has shown that these forms of bilingual education provide students with overall greater language comprehension and production of the L2 in a native-like manner; in addition to, greater exposure to other cultures and the preservation of languages, particularly heritage languages.

• 3Type of Instruction
• 7Cases by Country
  • 7.2United States

Background[edit]

Bilingual education in the U.S. and around the world has taken on a variety of different approaches outside of the traditional sink-or-swim model of full submersion in an L2 without assistance in the L1. According to the Center for Applied Linguistics, in 1971, there were only three immersion programs within the United States. As of 2011, there were 448 language immersion schools in the U.S. with the three main immersion languages of instruction being Spanish (45%), French (22%), and Mandarin (13%).^[1]

Bilingual education started from 3000 BC, it began with traditional language instruction in which target language was taught as a subject in schools. The first language immersion program in which target language was taught as an instructional language started in Quebec, Canada, in 1965.^[2] Since the majority language in Quebec is French, English speaking parents wanted to ensure that their children could achieve a high level of French as well as English in Quebec. Since then, French immersion has spread across the country. It led to the situation of French immersion becoming the most common form of language immersion in Canada so far. According to the survey by CAL (the Center for Applied Linguistics) in 2011, there are over 528 immersion schools in the US. Besides, language immersion programs have spread to Australia, China, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Hong Kong that altogether they offer more than 20 languages. The survey by CAL in 2011 has shown that Spanish is the most common immersion language in language immersion programs. There are over 239 Spanish language immersion programs in the US due to large number of immigrants from Spanish speaking countries. The other two common immersion language programs in the US are French and Mandarin which have 114 and 71 language immersion programs respectively.^[3]

Types of learners[edit]

Types of language immersion can be characterized by the total time students spend in the program and also can be characterized by the student's age.

Types that are characterized by learning time:

• Total immersion: In total immersion, the language of instruction is the students' L2, meaning that students spent 100% of the school day in their L2. The main problem with this type of language immersion is that students feel that it is hard to understand more abstract and complex concepts if they are taught only via their L2.^{[citation needed]}
• Partial immersion: In partial immersion programs, the class time is shared between the students' L1 and L2. In most cases this is an even split of time between the two languages. This type of language immersion is more acceptable for students.^[4]
• Two-way immersion: This type, which is also called bilingual immersion, is a way to integrate both students of the minority language and students of the majority language into the same classroom with the goal of academic excellence and bilingual proficiency for both student groups. In this type of language immersion, the instructional languages can be two languages but only one language is used at a time. Students learn languages by the interaction with their peers and teachers. This method of language immersion is popular language in America.^[5]

Types that are characterized by age:

• Early Immersion: Students start learning their second language at five years old or six years old.
• Middle immersion: Students start learning their second language around nine years old or ten years old.
• Late immersion: Students start learning their second language after the age of 11.^[6]

Type of Instruction[edit]

• In foreign language experience or exploratory (FLEX) programs, students are exposed to a different language(s) and culture(s) in the classroom. A small percentage of class time is spent sampling one or more languages and/or learning about language; therefore, proficiency in the target language is not the primary goal.^[7] The goals of the program are to develop careful listening skills, cultural and linguistic awareness, and interest in foreign languages for future language study, as well as to learn basic words and phrases in one or more foreign languages.^[7][8]
• In foreign language in the elementary schools (FLES) programs, students focus on listening, reading, writing and speaking in the target language.^[7] In contrast to FLEX programs, proficiency in the target language is the primary goal, whereas a secondary goal is to expose students to the foreign language’s culture.^[7][8]
• In submersion programs, bilingual students generally receive all of their instruction in their L2. These programs are often referred to sink-or-swim programs because there is little support for the students' L1.^[9]
• In two-way immersion programs, also called dual- or bilingual immersion, the student population consists of speakers of two or more languages. Two-way immersion programs in the United States promote L1 speakers of a language other than English to maintain that language as well learning English as a second language (ESL).^[10] In addition, these programs allow L1 speakers of English to be immersed in a “foreign language acquisition environment.”^[7]
• In early-exit programs, bilingual students transition from a bilingual program to a mainstream classroom at an early age (around 7 or 8 years old).^[9] These programs are supported by the belief that bilingual children will benefit the most from transitioning into a mainstream classroom at the earliest age possible.^[9]
• In late-exit programs, bilingual students transition from a bilingual program to a mainstream classroom at a later age (around 10 or 11 years old).^[9] These programs are supported by the belief that bilingual children will do better academically from being supported in both languages.^[9]

Location[edit]

People can also relocate temporarily to receive language immersion. This type of immersion occurs when a person moves to a place within their native country or abroad where their native language is not the majority language of that community. For example, Canadian anglophones go to Quebec (see Explore and Katimavik) while Irish anglophones go to the Gaeltacht. Many times this involves a homestay with a family who speaks only the target language. Children whose parents immigrate to a new country also find themselves in an immersion environment with respect to their new language. Another method is to create a temporary environment where the target language predominates, as in linguistic summer camps like the 'English villages' in South Korea and parts of Europe.

Study abroad can also provide a strong immersion environment to increase language skills. However, there are a variety of factors that can affect immersion during study abroad, including the amount of foreign language contact during the program.^[11] In order to positively impact competence in the target language, Celeste Kinginger notes that research about language learning during study abroad suggests 'a need for language learners' broader engagement in local communicative practices, for mindfulness of their situation as peripheral participants, and for more nuanced awareness of language itself.”^[12]

The stages of language acquisition by the way of language immersion[edit]

• Pre-production: It is also called “the silent period”. They are new L2 learners, this period will last 10 hours to 6 months in language immersion environment. They may have about 500 receptive word in their mind but can’t speak yet. This is a mimicking period. Students likely to repeat everything that they heard in class. They can respond to pictures and ‘yes or no’ questions by using their gestures like nod or shake head. The class needs to integrate pictures and physical response methods ^[6]
• Early Production: In early production stage, students can master about 1000 receptive and active words. This stage will last 6 month after pre-production stage. They can answer simple questions, like ‘Yes or no’ question, ‘are you hungry, Yes’ . They also can repeat and know how to use two word phrase like, put down. They maybe can not use the pattern correctly, but they can discover the problem. This is a self-discovery period.^[13]
• Speech Emergence: In this stage, students will have about 3000 active words. It will last 1 years after early production stage. They can answer simple questions and use three or more words simple phrase and patterns. They can understand the general idea of a story with pictures. They may not can use the patterns correctly, but they can correct some by themselves. This is also called a self-correcting period. Teachers will focus on conversations part in class in this stage.^[13]
• Intermediate Fluency: In this stage, students will have nearly 6000 active vocabulary. This stage will last 1 years after speech emergence. English language learners at the intermediate fluency stage have a vocabulary of 6000 active words. They start to use complex sentences in their speaking and writing. They also know how to respond others’ questions. It is not hard for them to use the target language to learn math and science subject. They are beginning to use more complex sentences when speaking and writing and are willing to express opinions and share their thoughts. They will ask questions to clarify what they are learning in class. More culture and literature stuffs will be taught in this stage.^[13]
• Advanced Fluency (Continued Language Development): It is also called continued language development.^[14] It requires students know most all content area vocabulary. This stage will last from 4–10 years. It is an achievement of cognitive academic language proficiency in the target language. Students second language ability arrived at near native level.^[13]

Outcomes[edit]

Studies have shown that students who study a foreign language in school, especially those who start in elementary school, tend to receive higher standardized test scores than students who have not studied a foreign language in school. Students who study foreign languages also tend to have increased mental capabilities such as creativity and higher-order thinking skills (see Cognitive advantages of bilingualism), and have advantages in the workplace as employers are increasingly seeking workers with knowledge of different languages and cultures.^[15] Bilingual immersion programs are intended to foster proficiency or fluency in multiple languages and therefore maximize these benefits. Even cases in which fluency in the desired language is not fully attained, bilingual immersion programs provide a strong foundation for fluency later in life and help students gain appreciation of languages and cultures that are not their own.^{[citation needed]}

There are no long-term adverse effects of bilingual education on the learning of the majority language, regardless of whether the students' first language (L1) is a majority or a minority language or the organization of the educational program. Several observed outcomes of bilingual education are: the transfer of academic and conceptual knowledge across both languages, greater success in programs that emphasize biliteracy as well as bilingualism, and better developed second language (L2) literary skills for minority students than if they received a monolingual education in the majority language.^[16]

Language immersion programs with the goal of fostering bilingualism, of which Canada's French-English bilingual immersion program is one of the first, initially report that students receive standardized test scores that are slightly below average. This was true in Canada's program, but by the fifth grade there was no difference between their scores and the scores of students instructed only in English. The English spelling abilities matched with those of the English-only students not long after. Ultimately, students did not lose any proficiency in English and were able to develop native-like proficiency in French reading and comprehension; but, they did not quite reach native-like proficiency in spoken and written French. However, this immersion program is seen as providing a strong foundation for oral French fluency later in life,^[9] and other similar programs that might not fully reach their projected goals can also be seen in the same light.

Programs with the goal of preserving heritage languages, such as Hawaii's language immersion program, have also reported initial outcomes of below average test scores on standardized tests. However, it is possible that these low test scores were not caused by purely language-related factors. For example, there was initially a lack of curriculum material written in the Hawaiian language and many of the teachers were inexperienced or unaccustomed to teaching in Hawaiian. Despite initial drawbacks, the Hawaiian program was overall successful in preserving Hawaiian as a heritage language, with students in the program being able to speak the Hawaiian language fluently while learning reading, writing, and math skills taught in that language.^[17]

Partial immersion programs do not have an initial lag in achievement like Canada's and Hawaii's programs do, but partial immersion programs are not as effective as complete immersion programs and students generally do not achieve native-like proficiency in their L2.^[18]

Issues[edit]

• The design of exposure time for each language

The first issue is about the allocation of time given to each language. Educators thought that more exposure to the students’ L2 will lead to greater L2 proficiency,^[19] however it is hard for a student to learn abstract and complex knowledge only by L2. Different types of language immersion schools allocated different time to each language. There is still no evidence can prove that which way is the best.^[20]

• The challenge of curriculum, instruction, and instructors

In the United States, state and local government only provide curriculum for teaching students in only one language. There is no standard curriculum for language immersion schools.^[21]

Besides, states do not provide assistance in how to promote biliteracy. The research on bilingual teaching is insufficient. The report of the Council of the Great City Schools in 2013 has shown that half of city schools have a shortage of professional bilingual teaching instructor.^[22]

• Bilingual proficiency

There are challenges to developing high proficiency in two languages or balance in bilingual skills, especially for early immersion students. Children completed the development of their first language by 7 years old. L1 and L2 impact on each other during their language development.^[23] High levels of bilingual proficiency are hard to achieve. The one which were exposure more time will be better than the other one. For second language immersion schools, too young to immerse in a second language will lead to the students fail to proficient in their first language.

Cases by Country[edit]

Canada[edit]

As of 2009, about 300,000 Canadian students (or roughly 6% of national school population) were enrolled in immersion programs. In early immersion, L1 English speakers are immersed in French education for 2 to 3 years prior to formal English education. This early exposure prepares Canadian L1 English speakers for the 4th grade, the year in which they are instructed in English 50% of the time and French the other 50%.^[9]

United States[edit]

In the United States, and since the 1980s, dual immersion programs have grown for a number of reasons: competition in a global economy, a growing population of second language learners, and the successes of previous programs.^[24] Language immersion classes can now be found throughout the US, in urban and suburban areas, in dual-immersion and single language immersion, and in an array of languages. As of May 2005, there were 317 dual immersion programs in US elementary schools, providing instruction in 10 languages, and 96% of programs were in Spanish.^[25]

Hawaii [edit]

The 1970s marks the beginning of bilingual education programs in Hawaii. The Hawaiian Language Program was geared to promote cultural integrity by emphasizing native language proficiency through heritage language bilingual immersion instruction. By the year 1995, there were 756 students enrolled in the Hawaiian Language Immersion Program from grades K-8. This program was taught strictly in Hawaiian until grades five and six where English is introduced as the language of instruction for one hour a day. The Hawaiian Language immersion Program is still in effect today for grades K-12. With an emphasis on language revival, Hawaiian is the main medium of instruction until grade five when English is introduced, but does not usurp Hawaiian as the main medium of instruction.^[17]

Mexico[edit]

A study by Hamel (1995) highlights a school in Michoacan, Mexico that focuses on two bilingual elementary schools where teachers built a curriculum that taught all subjects, including literature and mathematics, in the children’s L1: P’urhepecha. Years after the curriculum was implemented in 1995, researchers conducted a study comparing L1 P’urhepecha students with L1 Spanish students. Results found that students who had acquired L1 P’urhepecha literacy performed better in both languages—P’urhepecha and Spanish—than students who were L1 Spanish literate.^[9]

New Zealand[edit]

New Zealand shows another instance of heritage bilingual immersion programs. Established in 1982, full Maori language immersion education has strictly forbidden the use of English in classroom instruction, even though English is typically the L1 of students entering the program. This has created challenges for educators because of the lack of tools and underdeveloped bilingual teaching strategy for the Maori language.^[9]

Malawi and Zambia[edit]

A study by Williams (1996) looked at the effects bilingual education had on two different communities in Malawi and Zambia. In Malawi, Chichewa is the main language of instruction and English is taught as a separate course. In Zambia, English is the main language of instruction and the local language Nyanja is taught as a separate course. Williams’ study took children from six schools in each country who were all in grade 5. Then, he administered two tests: an English reading test, and a mother-tongue reading test. One result showed that there was no significant difference in English reading ability between the Zambian and Malawian school children. However, there were significant differences in the proficiency of mother tongue reading ability. The results of the study showed that Malawian grade 5 students performed better in their mother-tongue, Chichewa, than Zambian children did in their mother tongue, Nyanja.^[9]

Benefits Of Two Way Bilingual Programs

See also[edit]

• Gaelscoileanna, Irish language immersion
• Kura Kaupapa Māori, Maori language immersion

References[edit]

1. ^Center for Applied Linguistics. (2011). Directory of foreign language immersion programs in U.S. schools. Retrieved April 1, 2017, from http://webapp.cal.org/Immersion/.
2. ^Zuidema, J. (2011). French-Speaking Protestants in Canada : Historical Essays. Leiden: Brill NV.
3. ^Center for Applied Linguistics. (2011). Directory of foreign language immersion programs in U.S. schools. from http://www.cal.org/resources/immersion/
4. ^Nanchen, Giliane (August 2017). 'Second language performances in elderly bilinguals and individuals with dementia: The role of L2 immersion'. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 43: 49–58. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.09.004.
5. ^Nascimento, F. C. (2017). Benefits of Dual Language Immersion on the Academic Achievement of English Language Learners. International Journal of Literacies, 24(1), 1-15.
6. ^ ^abCervantes-Soon, C. G. (2014). A Critical Look at Dual Language Immersion in the New Latin@ Diaspora. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(1), 64-82.
7. ^ ^abcdeHummel, Kirsten M. (2013). Linguistics in the World : Introducing Second Language Acquisition : Perspectives and Practices. Somerset, US: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 41–50. ISBN9780470658031.
8. ^ ^abAndrade, C., & Ging, D. (1988). 'Urban FLES models: Progress and promise.' Cincinnati, OH and Columbus, OH: Cincinnati Public Schools and Columbus Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292 337)
9. ^ ^abcdefghijCummins, J. (2009). Bilingual and Immersion Programs. The Handbook of Language Teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
10. ^Potowski, Kim (2007). Bilingual Education & Bilingualism S. : Language and Identity in a Dual Immersion School. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. pp. 1–11. ISBN9781853599446.
11. ^Wilkinson, Sharon (Fall 1998). 'On the Nature of Immersion During Study Abroad: Some Participant Perspectives'(PDF). Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad. 4 (2): 121–138.
12. ^Kinginger, Celeste (March 1, 2011). 'Enhancing Language Learning in Study Abroad'. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 31: 58–73. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000031. ISSN1471-6356.
13. ^ ^abcdHousen, A., & Pierrard, M. (2005). Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
14. ^Giacalone Ramat, A. (2003). Typology and Second Language Acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
15. ^Morris, Bernadette. 'Why Study a Foreign Language?'.
16. ^Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove; Phillipson, Robert; Mohanty (2009). Linguistic Diversity and Language Rights : Social Justice through Multilingual Education. Ajit. pp. 20–21. ISBN9781847691910.
17. ^ ^abPacific Policy Research Center. 2010. Successful Bilingual and Immersion Education Models/Programs. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools, Research & Evaluation Division
18. ^Campbell, Russell N.; Gray, Tracy C.; Rhodes, Nancy C.; Snow, Marguerite Ann (March 1, 1985). 'Foreign Language Learning in the Elementary Schools: A Comparison of Three Language Programs'. The Modern Language Journal. 69 (1): 44–54. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1985.tb02526.x. ISSN1540-4781.
19. ^Antoniou, M., Wong, P. M., & Suiping, W. (2015). The Effect of Intensified Language Exposure on Accommodating Talker Variability. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 58(3), 722-727. doi:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-14-0259
20. ^Duncan, T. S., & Paradis, J. (2016). English language learners' nonword repetition performance: the influence of age, L2 vocabulary size, length of L2 exposure, and L1 phonology. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, (1), 39. doi:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0020
21. ^Armstrong, D. G. (2003). Curriculum today. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Merrill Prentice Hall, c2003.
22. ^Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (2015). Research on Preparing Inservice Teachers to Work Effectively with Emergent Bilinguals. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Research on Preparing Inservice Teachers to Work Effectively with Emergent Bilinguals. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
23. ^Eckman, F. R. (1995). Second language acquisition : theory and pedagogy. Mahwah, N.J. : L. Erlbaum Associates, 1995.
24. ^Freeman, Yvonne (2005). Dual Language Essentials For Teachers and Administrators. Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH, 2005
25. ^Potowski, Kim (2007). Bilingual Education & Bilingualism S. : Language and Identity in a Dual Immersion School. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. ISBN9781853599446.

• Anderson, H., & Rhodes, N. (1983). Immersion and other innovations in U.S. elementary schools. In: 'Studies in Language Learning, 4' (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 278 237)
• Artigal, Josep Maria & Laurén, Christer (a cura di) (1996). Immersione linguistica per una futura Europa. I modelli catalano e finlandese. Bolzano: alpha beta verlag. ISBN88-7223-024-1
• California. Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education (1984). 'Studies on immersion education: a collection for United States educators'. The Department.
• Criminale, U. (1985). 'Launching foreign language programs in elementary schools: Highpoints, headaches, and how to's.' Oklahoma City, OK. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 255 039)
• Curtain, H., & Pesola, C.A. (1994). 'Languages and children-Making the match. Foreign language instruction in the elementary school.' White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
• Genesee, Fred (1987). Learning through two languages: studies of immersion and bilingual education. Newbury House Publishers.
• Lindholm-Leary, Kathryn J. (2001). 'Dual language education'. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. ISBN1-85359-531-4
• Maggipinto, Antonello (2000). Multilanguage acquisition, new technologies, education and global citizenship Paper given in New York (Congress of AAIS-American Association for Italian Studies). Published on Italian Culture: Issues from 2000.
• Maggipinto, Antonello et al. (2003). Lingue Veicolari e Apprendimento. Il Contesto dell'Unione Europea.. Bergamo: Junior. ISBN88-8434-140-X
• Ricci Garotti, Federica (a cura di) (1999). L'immersione linguistica. Una nuova prospettiva. Milano: Franco Angeli. Codice ISBN88-464-1738-0
• Shapson, Stan & Mellen Day, Elaine (1996). 'Studies in immersion education'. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. ISBN1-85359-355-9
• Swain, Merrill & Lapkin, Sharon (1982). 'Evaluating bilingual education: a Canadian case study'. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. ISBN0-905028-10-4
• Swain, Merrill & Johnson, Robert Keith (1997). 'Immersion education: international perspectives'. Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-58655-0
• Thayer, Y. (1988). 'Getting started with French or Spanish in the elementary school: The cost in time and money.' Radford, VA: Radford City Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 294 450)
• The Wingspread Journal. (July 1988). 'Foreign language instruction in the elementary schools.' Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation.
• Wode, Henning (1995).'Lernen in der Fremdsprache: Grundzüge von Immersion und bilingualem Unterricht'. Hueber. ISBN3-19-006621-3

Abstract

The effects of bilingual education on reading and math achievement were examined by comparing test scores across different elementary-school programs. Results revealed that bilingual Two-Way Immersion programs benefited both minority-language and majority-language students. Minority-language students in Two-Way Immersion outperformed their peers in Transitional Programs of Instruction, while majority-language students in Two-Way Immersion outperformed their peers in Mainstream monolingual classrooms. Bilingual Two-Way Immersion programs may enhance reading and math skills in both minority-language and majority-language elementary-school children.

Bilingual education policy in the United States is a subject of intense debate (Baker, 2011; Wiley & Wright, 2004). While those who oppose bilingual education continue to cite early evidence that educational instruction in a minority-language student’s native language is detrimental to academic success (Rossell, 1990; Rossell & Baker, 1996), there is increasing evidence that providing at least some instruction in the native language actually benefits academic performance (Greene, 1998; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005; Slavin & Cheung, 2005; Willig, 1985). In the present study, we investigated the effectiveness of bilingual education by examining whether a bilingual two-way immersion program could benefit academic performance in minority-language and majority-language elementary-school students.

Minority-language students often show a disadvantage in academic performance compared to their majority-language peers (Kindler, 2002; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000). Thus, two crucial issues for policy makers are whether bilingual education can improve minority-language students’ academic performance, and, if so, which bilingual education programs result in the largest improvements. Recently, Goldenberg (2008) addressed these issues by discussing the results of two large-scale reviews conducted by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005) and the National Literacy Panel (NLP; August & Shanahan, 2006), respectively. Consistent with earlier findings (Greene, 1998; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005; Slavin & Cheung, 2005; Willig, 1985), CREDE and NLP in their large-scale reviews suggested that bilingual education programs (most commonly, transitional bilingual education programs) lead to better performance on English literacy measures than submersion, structured immersion, and ESL programs. In addition to these two large-scale reviews, there is also recent evidence from long-term, randomized studies that transitional bilingual education programs result in successful academic performance in English while further developing students’ proficiency in their native language (Irby et al., 2010; Slavin, Madden, Calderon, Chamberlain, & Hennessy, 2011).

Moreover, while transitional bilingual education programs are known to be effective at educating minority-language students, dual-language two-way immersion programs may be even more effective (Lindholm-Leary, 2005; Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008; Thomas & Collier, 2002). For example, Collier and Thomas (2004) collected data from minority-language elementary students enrolled in a large school district in Texas and found that students in two-way immersion programs outperformed students in transitional bilingual education programs on both English and Spanish reading tests.¹

Because two-way immersion programs include not only minority-language students but also majority-language students (Christian, Howard, & Loeb, 2000), a complete evaluation of two-way immersion’s effectiveness should take into account majority-language students’ performance as well. Findings from studies assessing majority-language students’ performance indicate that majority-language students in two-way immersion programs outperform their peers in mainstream classrooms (e.g., Genesee, 1983; Thomas & Collier, 2002), but the evidence remains limited. If indeed two-way immersion programs lead to improved academic performance in majority-language students, it would suggest that two-way immersion can be utilized as an enrichment tool for both minority-language speakers and majority-language speakers.

Despite the promising research on two-way immersion programs, current policies severely restrict bilingual education programs in certain states that have many minority-language students, such as Arizona and California (Gándara & Orfield, 2012; Mackinney & Rios-Aguilar, 2012). The impact of these policies on students’ performance has been analyzed recently, and the results suggest that restrictive bilingual education policies can lead to ineffectual academic programs (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010; Rios-Aguilar, Canché, & Sabetghadam, 2012). Given the potential ineffectiveness of these current educational programs, along with the ongoing debate among educators and policymakers as to which programs best promote academic success, additional research is necessary.

Our aim in the current study was to examine whether two-way immersion programs benefit academic achievement in both minority- and majority-language students. We analyzed reading and math standardized test scores from third, fourth, and fifth grade students enrolled in various educational programs in a single school district. We compared the test performance of minority-language students enrolled in a two-way immersion program to that of minority-language students enrolled in a transitional program of instruction. Comparisons also were made between majority-language students participating in the two-way immersion program and majority-language students in the English-only mainstream classroom. Based on previous evidence that two-way immersion is a highly effective program of instruction (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Genesee, 1983; Thomas & Collier, 2002), we predicted that minority-language students in the two-way immersion program would outperform their peers in the transitional program of instruction, and that majority-language students in the two-way immersion program would outperform their peers in a mainstream classroom.

Methods

Participants

We obtained cross-sectional data from all 2,009 third, fourth, and fifth grade publicschool students² enrolled in a school district in the Chicago-land area (see Footnote 3 for ethnic and financial information about the district).³ Of the 2,009 students, 157 were minority-language Spanish-speaking students. In the group of 157 minority-language Spanish-speaking students, 134 were third (N=58), fourth (N=38), or fifth (N=38) grade students enrolled in the two-way immersion program (abbreviated as TWI-S for two-way immersion native Spanish-speaking students) and 23 were third (N=9), fourth (N=8), or fifth (N=6) grade students enrolled in a transitional program of instruction/English as a second language (abbreviated as TPI). The TWI-S program was available to any student whose parents listed Spanish on a home language survey and who qualified as a minority-language speaker as defined by performance on an English language proficiency test (ACCESS; Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State). Students who met these criteria were automatically enrolled in the TWI-S program; however, parents could waive this service if they preferred to place their child in the TPI program or a mainstream classroom. In the TWI-S group, 86.6% of students qualified for free or reduced price lunch and were therefore considered to be of low socioeconomic status (Caldas & Bankston, 1997; Sirin, 2005). In the TPI group, 47.8% of students qualified for free or reduced price lunch and were considered to be of low socioeconomic status. The TWI-S group had a significantly larger proportion of low SES students relative to the TPI group (χ²=19.1, p<.001); thus, if better performance in the TWI-S group is observed, it is unlikely to be attributable to increased social and economic resources. The TWI-S and TPI groups did not differ in gender distribution (51.5% females in the TWI-S group and 52.2% females in the TPI group; χ²=.004, p>.1).

There were 1,852 majority-language students whose native language was English. Of these, 75 were third (N=37), fourth (N=19), or fifth (N=19) graders enrolled in the two-way immersion program (abbreviated as TWI-E for two-way immersion native English-speaking students) and 1,777 were third (N=574), fourth (N=579), or fifth (N=624) graders enrolled in an English-only mainstream classroom setting (abbreviated as MC). Enrollment in the TWI-E program was determined through a lottery system. Information about the TWI-E program and the lottery process was provided at an orientation session held for parents of incoming kindergarten students. Parents entered their children into the lottery by completing an online form. On average, 17.4% of majority-language parents participate in the lottery each year. A subset of the students whose parents entered the lottery was randomly selected to enroll in the TWI program.⁴ English-native students who were not selected to enroll in the TWI-E program were placed in mainstream classrooms. The TWI-E group had a smaller proportion of low SES students (9.3%) than the MC group (37%; χ²=24.0, p<.001). Because the TWI-E group had fewer students in the low SES group, any performance advantages observed in the TWI-E group could be due in part to increased social and economic resources. Consequently, further analyses were done to match the TWI-E and MC group in SES (see Data Analysis Section below). The TWI-E and MC groups did not differ in gender distribution (48% females in the TWI-E group and 49.1% females in the TPI group; χ²=.04, p>.1).

Instructional Programs

All programs followed the same curriculum, and differed only in the language of instruction. The minority-language students in the two-way immersion program (i.e., the TWI-S students) were initially taught reading and writing in their native language (i.e., in Spanish in kindergarten through second grade) and then in their second language (i.e., in English in third grade through fifth grade). From kindergarten to third grade, TWI-S students were taught math in Spanish; in fourth and fifth grades, math was taught in English. Social studies and science were taught in Spanish from kindergarten through fifth grade. (For math, social studies, and science, minority-language students in the two-way immersion program were integrated with majority-language students in the two-way immersion program.)

The minority-language students in the transitional program of instruction (i.e., the TPI students) were placed in a mainstream classroom along with majority-language students and were taught reading, writing, math, social studies, and science in English in all grades. The students in the transitional program of instruction also received as-needed pull-out ESL instruction.

The majority-language students in the two-way immersion program (i.e., the TWI-E students) were taught reading and writing in English from kindergarten through second grade, and then in Spanish from third grade through fifth grade. These students received math instruction in Spanish from kindergarten through third grade and in English in fourth and fifth grades. Social studies and science were taught in Spanish from kindergarten through fifth grade. (The majority-language students in the two-way immersion program were integrated with minority-language students in the two-way immersion program for math, social studies, and science.) The majority-language students in the mainstream classroom completed a similar curriculum as majority-language two-way immersion students, but English was used exclusively during all class instruction. The percentage of time each program used English versus Spanish in the core subjects is presented in Tables 1 and ​and22.

4 service manual warranty the v.i.p. Bird gold and v.i.p. Bird sterling systems are warranted to be free from defects in material and workmanship and to meet the published specifications for two (2) years or 8,000 hours, whichever occurs first. Racesurg 2 years ago: 2 years ago User Manual. Can someone share our sell a copy of the User Manual (not the service manual) of the Bird VIP ventilator? Manual ventilador bird vipassana.

Table 1

Percentage of time minority-language students were exposed to English and Spanish in the core subjects (i.e., Reading, Writing, Math, Social Studies, and Science)

Table 2

Percentage of time majority-language students were exposed to English and Spanish in the core subjects (i.e., Reading, Writing, Math, Social Studies, and Science)

In all programs, the teachers met state-mandated standards. All teachers had completed a state-approved educational program, fulfilled a student teaching requirement, and passed the necessary Illinois Certification Testing System tests to obtain an Illinois Elementary teaching certificate. Teachers of two-way immersion classes also had a Transitional Bilingual certificate or bilingual approval or endorsement. The teachers in the district had an average of 13.1 years of teaching experience, all teachers had a bachelor’s degree, and 57.7% also had a master’s degree.

Measures

Performance in Reading and Math was measured using two state-mandated standardized tests, the State Measure of Annual Growth in English (taken by minority-language students enrolled in TWI-S and TPI programs) and the State Standards Achievement Test (taken by majority-language students enrolled in TWI-E and MC programs). The State Measure of Annual Growth had been administered since 1996 and the State Standards Achievement Test had been given since 1999. Both tests were based on state standards of academic performance. The measures of interest derived from these tests were the Scaled-Math and Scaled-Reading scores, which reflect a student’s overall performance based on a weighted average of several math and reading subtests. The State Measure of Annual Growth in English and the State Standards Achievement Test both consist of several measures of reading comprehension (e.g., short passages followed by multiple choice questions) and math knowledge (e.g., single-sentence, multiple-choice word problems, and simple arithmetic) and tap into the same academic abilities. The State Measure of Annual Growth in English test was designed for English language learners and therefore includes more simple language than that of the State Standards Achievement Test but addresses the same content.⁵ Questions on the State Measure of Annual Growth in English tended to contain higher-frequency words and less-complex sentence structures as compared to the State Standards Achievement Test. Sample math and reading items for both tests are provided in the Appendix.

The State Standards Achievement Test is regarded as a reliable and valid assessment of reading and math achievement. Reliability can be measured by calculating students’ consistency in performance across the different items on the test (known as internal consistency). Cronbach’s coefficient alphas were high for both reading and math in all three grades (reading in third grade=.91, fourth grade=.90, fifth grade=.91; math in third grade=.92, fourth grade=.92, fifth grade=.93), indicative of strong reliability. Analyses of construct validity and criterion-related validity can also be calculated. The term ‘construct validity’ refers to the extent to which a test measures what it is intended to measure. This type of validity can be assessed through measures of dimensionality (i.e., how many different dimensions the tests contains). Divgi values for both subjects in all grades were greater than 3, meaning that the tests assess only a single dimension – math or reading – as they intend to assess. A component of construct validity called internal construct can be quantified as well. Internal construct refers to whether performance on subscales of the test correlates with performance on the whole test. If the subscales tap into the dimension of interest (i.e., reading or math), then the subscales will be highly correlated with the whole test. For both subjects in all grades, correlations were at least .85, suggesting high construct validity. Finally, a type of criterion-related validity called concurrent validity was considered. This type of validity refers to whether the test in question correlates with other tests that are known to be valid assessments of the constructs of interest. Performance on the State Standards Achievement Test correlated highly with the reading and math portions of Tenth Edition of the Stanford Achievement Test (higher than .85 in all grades), providing evidence for the test’s concurrent validity. Taken together, these measures lend support to the notion that the State Standards Achievement Test is reliable and valid. Data regarding the reliability and validity of the State Measure of Annual Growth in English are not available but are likely similar to the State Standard Achievement test given that the State Measure of Annual Growth was designed to address the same content as the State Standard Achievement Test but with simpler vocabulary.

Of the students who completed the State Standards Achievement Test, 82% of the third graders in the current sample met or exceeded state standards in reading and 91% met or exceeded state standards in math. Among fourth graders, 81% met or exceeded state standards in reading and 91% met or exceeded state standards in math. Among fifth graders, 76% met or exceeded state standards in reading and 88% met or exceeded state standards in math. (These data are not available for the State Measure of Annual Growth in English.)

Data Analysis

The first set of analyses compared minority-language students in TWI-S and TPI groups on standardized test scores derived from the State Measure of Annual Growth in English. Specifically, TWI-S and TPI groups were compared at each grade level (third, fourth, and fifth graders) in each subject (Reading and Math) using the Mann-Whitney U test. This test was chosen over the parametric t-test due to a discrepancy in sample sizes between groups. In all comparisons, the scores were independent of each other and came from two samples, confirming the appropriateness of the Mann-Whitney U test. Moreover, the groups’ distributions were similar (as verified by non-significant Levene’s tests). Because of sufficient sample sizes (i.e., either N₁ or N₂ > 20), asymptotic p-values are provided for the Mann-Whitney U tests (Weinberg & Abramowitz, 2002). To supplement the Mann-Whitney U analyses, 95% confidence intervals and two types of effect size measurements are provided. Namely, the difference in mean ranks (Green & Salkind, 2008) and Pearson’s r are used to index the size of the effects. In addition to comparing the TWI-S and TPI groups at each grade, differences from grade to grade within each program were examined by conducting Kruskal-Wallis tests with follow-up Tamhane T2 tests. It is important to note that comparisons across grades were done on cross-sectional data with no pre-test, and therefore should be interpreted with caution.

The second set of analyses compared the majority-language students in TWI-E and MC on standardized test scores derived from the State Standards Achievement Test. Comparisons were made at each grade level (third, fourth, and fifth graders) in each subject (Reading and Math) with Mann-Whitney U tests. The Mann-Whitney U test was used because of unequal sample sizes between groups. The scores for the Mann-Whitney U test were independent of each other and came from two different samples. In the third and fourth grade samples, variance distributions differed between the groups (as reflected in significant Levene’s tests). The Mann-Whitney U test is sensitive to differing variances, but it is often less sensitive than its alternative, the t-test, and for that reason it is frequently used in cases of unequal variance (; Delis et al., 1991; ). Given the unequal sample sizes and unequal variances, the Mann-Whitney U test was deemed the most appropriate test for these analyses. For the Mann-Whitney U analyses, asymptotic p-values are provided. In addition to the Mann-Whitney U results, 95% confidence intervals, differences in mean ranks, and Pearson’s r effect sizes are included. Moreover, Kruskal-Wallis tests and follow-up Tamhane T2 tests were conducted to analyze differences between grades within each program.

We also conducted further comparisons between the TWI-E and MC groups in order to control for differences in SES. Because the MC group had more students with low SES, lower performance in this group could be attributable in part to the larger number of students who have limited economic or social resources. To address the potential confound of low SES in the MC group, we also conducted the analyses with the low SES students excluded from the two groups.

Results

Test Performance in Minority-Language Students Enrolled in TWI-S or TPI

The Reading and Math scaled-scores (mean and 95% confidence intervals) for minority-language students enrolled in the TWI-S and TPI programs are presented in Figure 1 (Reading), Figure 2 (Math), and Table 3 (both Reading and Math).

Reading scaled-scores for minority-language two-way immersion Spanish (TWI-S) and transitional program of instruction (TPI) students across grades 3, 4, and 5. Error bars signify 95% confidence intervals.

Math scaled-scores for minority-language two-way immersion Spanish (TWI-S) and transitional program of instruction (TPI) students across grades 3, 4, and 5. *Represents significance at p<0.05. Error bars signify 95% confidence intervals.

Table 3

Reading and Math Scaled-Scores in Minority-Language Students

In the sample of fifth graders, TWI-S students significantly outperformed their TPI peers in Math (U=39.5, p<0.01, difference in mean ranks=13.9, r=.38) but not in Reading (U=70, p>0.1, difference in mean ranks=7.94, r=.22). Fourth graders did not show significant differences in Reading (U=102, p>0.1, difference in mean ranks=4.7, r=.13) or Math (U=105, p>0.1, difference in mean ranks=6.5, r=.19) and similar performance was also observed among the third graders (Reading U=205, p>0.1, difference in mean ranks=2.7, r=.05; Math U=194, p>0.1, difference in mean ranks=8.0, r=.14).

Notably, the TWI-S students showed significant improvements across grade levels. Specifically, both Reading and Math scaled-scores were better in TWI-S students in the higher grades relative to students in the lower grades (Reading: χ2=31.0, df=2, p<0.001, η²=.24; Math: χ2=52.8, df=2, p<0.001, η²=.41), indicating significant growth in spite of the fact that the standardized tests were grade- and age-adjusted. The TPI group did not show such improvements across grades (Reading: χ2=0.42, df=2, p>0.05, η²=.02; Math: χ2=4.7, df=2, p>0.05, η²=.21). For the TWI-S students, standardized Reading scores were significantly better among fifth graders relative to fourth and third graders (post-hoc Tamhane T2, both ps<0.001). Standardized Math scores were significantly better among fifth graders relative to fourth and third graders and better among fourth graders relative to third graders (post-hoc Tamhane T2, all ps<0.01). These cross-sectional analyses suggest that the TWI program may lead to significant improvements across grades in minority-language students.

Test Performance in Majority-Language Students Enrolled in TWI or MC

The Reading and Math scaled-scores (mean and 95% confidence intervals) for majority-language students enrolled in TWI-E or MC are presented in Figure 3 (Reading), Figure 4 (Math), and Table 3 (both Reading and Math).

Reading scaled-scores for majority-language two-way immersion English (TWI-E) and mainstream classroom (MC) students across grades 3, 4, and 5. *Represents significance at p<0.05. Error bars signify 95% confidence intervals.

For each SobiPro section, you can have a different SobiPro template. Thus, you can design each section differently. Find here information about the installation and configuration process, and an idea how to modify our ready-made templates to your needs. Sony vegas intro templates download free 3d.

Math scaled-scores for majority-language two-way immersion English (TWI-E) and mainstream classroom (MC) students across grades 3, 4, and 5. *Represents significance at p<0.05. Error bars signify 95% confidence intervals.

Among fifth graders, TWI-E students outperformed MC students in Math (U=4046.5, p<0.01, difference in mean ranks=100.5, r=.09), while no group differences were observed in Reading (U=5042.5, p>0.1, difference in mean ranks=47.8, r=.04). Similarly, in fourth graders, the TWI-E group performed better than the MC group in Math (U=3442, p<0.01, difference in mean ranks=111.8, r=.11) but not Reading (U=4248, p=0.09, difference in mean ranks=68.1, r=.07). Among third graders, the TWI-E students outscored MC students in both Reading (U=5692, p<0.001, difference in mean ranks=140.7, r=.19) and Math (U=5326, p<0.001, difference in mean ranks=151.7, r=.21).

Because the MC group had a larger proportion of low SES students than the TWI-E group, the comparisons were also done with all of the low SES students excluded from the analyses. The superior performance in the TWI-E group relative to the MC group persisted in both Reading (U=4879.5, p<0.01, difference in mean ranks=57.5, r=.14) and Math (U=4440, p<0.01, difference in mean ranks=71.9, r=.17) for third grade students. The TWI-E advantage in Math among fourth and fifth grade students followed the same pattern but did not reach significance (fourth grade: U=2635, p>0.1, difference in mean ranks=37.4, r=.07; fifth grade: U=2050.5, p>0.1, difference in mean ranks=43.09, r=.07).

Analyses were also conducted to examine differences among grade levels in each group. The analyses were performed with all students included as well as with low SES students removed. Both analyses yielded similar results; therefore, we only report the analyses with all students included. In the TWI-E group, students in higher grades did not differ from students in lower grades in grade-adjusted Reading scores (χ2=0.39, df=2, p>0.1) or Math scores (χ2=3.76, df=2, p>0.1). Because the TWI-E students were already excelling in the early grades, the similar performance across grades likely reflects maintenance of high test performance. In the MC group, students in the higher grades had better grade-adjusted scores that students in the lower grades in Reading (χ2=84.12, df=2, p<0.01) and in Math (χ2=148.71, df=2, p<0.01). For both Reading and Math, fifth graders performed better than fourth and third graders, and fourth graders performed better than third graders (all ps<0.01). As a result of the improved performance across grades, by fifth grade, the MC group performed similar to their TWI-E peers in Reading, but the MC group still had lower scores in Math.

Discussion

The results of the present study suggest that bilingual two-way immersion education is beneficial for both minority- and majority-language elementary students. In the minority-language students, standardized reading and math scores in the two-way immersion (TWI-S) group increased across grades, with students in higher grades performing better than students in lower grades. Conversely, in the transitional program of instruction (TPI), standardized reading and math scores did not increase across grades, as students in the higher grades did not perform significantly better than students in the lower grades. Moreover, in the oldest students (i.e., the fifth graders), the TWI-S group outperformed the TPI group in math. In the majority-language students, the two-way immersion (TWI-E) group outperformed the mainstream classroom (MC) students in math in third, fourth, and fifth grade and in reading in third grade. These results are consistent with previous research (e.g., Collier & Thomas, 2004; Genesee, 1983; Lindholm-Leary, 2005; Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008; Thomas & Collier, 2002) and suggest that two-way immersion programs can benefit reading and math performance in elementary-school children.

While both the majority-language and minority-language TWI students exhibited reading and math advantages over their non-TWI peers, these benefits manifested at different times in the two groups. The benefits were observed earlier in the majority-language TWI students (i.e., in the third graders) and later in the minority-language TWI students (i.e., in the fifth graders). Previous work suggests that it can take four to seven years for minority-language speakers to develop enough proficiency for successful academic performance (e.g., Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000). The minority-language students may therefore have not had sufficient English language proficiency in the early grades to perform successfully on the English-based tests, thereby delaying the benefits in minority-language students. In addition, the early emergence of academic advantages in the majority-language students may be due in part to their higher socioeconomic status. The majority-language TWI group had fewer low SES students (9.3%) than the minority-language TWI group (86.6%), and may therefore have had the necessary social and economic resources and support to benefit immediately from bilingual education.

A further explanation for why the benefits emerged earlier in the majority-language TWI students is that by third grade, majority-language TWI students may have had more bilingual experience than the minority-language TWI students. From kindergarten to second grade, students enrolled in the TWI program were taught math, science, and social studies in Spanish and reading and writing in their native language. In other words, minority-language native Spanish speaking students received all of their instruction in Spanish until second grade, while majority-language native English speaking students received more balanced exposure to both of their languages. If degree of bilingual experience plays a role in developing the observed advantages, then majority-language TWI students may outperform their mainstream peers early on while the minority-language students may not. However, as minority-language TWI students’ curriculum shifts to more language-balanced education in grades 3, 4, and 5, they begin to show improvements in math that are not found in the TPI students who undergo a less immersive bilingual experience. These results suggest that balanced-language instruction may promote academic achievement in both majority- and minority-language students.

As the minority-language TWI students begin to exhibit gains over their peers in the later grades, the early advantages observed in the majority-language TWI students may diminish to some degree. Indeed, among fifth grade students, the majority-language TWI students showed an advantage only in math and that advantage was not statistically significant when the low SES students were excluded. Nevertheless, the early benefits of two-way immersion education on reading and math performance should not be disregarded, as students are often tracked from early grades, and their performance in elementary school can determine whether they are placed in accelerated or remedial classrooms.

Two Way Dual Immersion Programs

A possible explanation for TWI students’ improved reading skills is that two-way immersion education may foster more direct attention to language use. That is, TWI students are more aware of their different languages, and they are encouraged to use both regularly. This intermixing of languages may result in increased metalinguistic knowledge, which has been shown to correlate with bilingualism (Bialystok, 1988; Campbell & Sais, 1995; Cromdal, 1999), and has also been shown to predict later reading skills (Dreher & Zenge, 1990). A second possible explanation is that the high transparency of Spanish orthography facilitated the acquisition of alphabetic principles in the TWI students.

In addition to enhancements in reading, the TWI groups also showed advantages on the math test. In fact, the strongest TWI advantages were observed in math. A potential explanation for increased math ability in TWI students comes from research on the non-linguistic, cognitive benefits of bilingualism (for a review, see Bialystok, 2007). Bilingual children have been shown to exhibit increased executive functioning skills (; ), which correlate with math performance (; ; ; ; ). For example, assessed third graders with executive functioning tasks (e.g., the Stroop task and the Wisconsin Card Sorting task) and with a mathematics test of addition and subtraction; through multiple regression analyses, the authors found that executive functioning ability reliably predicted math performance. Executive functioning may aid performance on math problems by allowing the student to hold the problem in working memory, to shift one’s focus between different aspects of the problem and different approaches to the problem, and to suppress a tendency to respond to salient but irrelevant elements of the problem (). Moreover, executive functioning can help students focus on mathematical lessons during class instruction, which could result in enhanced learning of mathematical principles and ultimately better performance on standardized math tests. Thus, potential enhancements in executive functioning for TWI students could lead to their advantages in math (and to some extent in reading as well).

The improved math and reading performance observed in minority-language TWI students may also be due in part to these students being taught academic concepts in their native language. In the earlier grades, the minority-language TWI students were taking reading and math class in Spanish, their native and likely stronger language; this may have increased comprehension of the lessons and enabled the students to learn the material more effectively. In contrast, the TPI students were learning about reading and math in English, their non-native language; this may have negatively impacted their ability to understand and subsequently learn the material. Thus, receiving instruction in the native language may account for the increased performance in TWI minority-language students, along with potential advantages in executive functioning and metalinguistic awareness.

While interpreting the reading and math enhancements observed in the TWI students, it is important to consider some limitations of the current study. Notably, students were not fully randomized to groups and were not tested before the start of the program. Therefore, there is a possibility that the superior performance of TWI students was driven by a selection bias, as students with higher social and economic resources may have been more likely to enroll in a TWI program and may have been advantaged from the outset. While potentially contributing to the results, a selection bias is not able to fully account for the TWI advantages. The minority-language TWI-S group actually had a higher proportion of low SES students than their TPI peers, and yet the TWI-S group still performed better than the TPI group. The majority-language TWI-E group had fewer low SES students than the MC group, but when comparisons were made with low SES students excluded, TWI advantages were still observed. Moreover, if a selection bias were driving the TWI advantages exclusively, then we would expect to see the same benefits in both math and reading measures, across all grades, but that was not the case. Thus, while a selection bias may have played a role in the results, it cannot fully account for the observed TWI benefits.

A second potential limitation is that minority-language students took the standardized test in their non-native language. Therefore, the test may have been testing language ability more so than conceptual understanding of the material, thus negatively impacting internal validity. Indeed, even math tests, which ostensibly have a reduced language processing load, can impose high demands on language comprehension skills (Abedi & Lord, 2001). However, it is important to reiterate that comparisons were made between two different minority-language groups (and not between minority-language groups and majority-language groups), and thus students who took the test in their non-native language were only compared to other students who also took the test in their non-native language. Moreover, it should be noted that although the test may have had reduced internal validity, this testing situation is common in educational settings, where students often have to take tests in their non-native language (thereby increasing external validity).

A third limitation to consider is the small sample size in some of the groups, particularly in the TPI groups. Because performance by the TPI students was based on fewer data points, there is a possibility that the data are not fully reflective of the program’s degree of effectiveness. The reduced sample sizes also limit the ability to detect significant differences between groups; yet the sample sizes were adequate for statistically significant differences to emerge, as the TWI-S group reliably outperformed the TPI group in the oldest grade. Nevertheless, follow-up studies with larger samples are necessary to verify the current findings.

In future work, researchers should also consider the effects of two-way immersion education on other aspects of cognitive functioning (apart from reading and math test performance), as two-way immersion may have far-reaching benefits. For example, two-way immersion may improve components of the executive function system, such as selective attention, inhibitory control, and task switching. Indeed, practice focusing on one language, suppressing the other language, and shifting between two languages has been shown to increase executive function ability in bilingual children and may have the same effect in two-way immersion students (e.g., ). To assess the effects of two-way immersion on executive function, in addition to reading and math standardized tests, reliable and valid measures of attention, inhibition, and switching, such as the Attentional Network Task, the Stroop task, and the Simon task, should also be administered. If two-way immersion benefits executive function, it could bring about improvements on several other components of cognitive performance, given that executive function is a domain-general process that is highly involved in a wide range of cognitive activities (; ). For example, as noted earlier, improved executive function may have contributed to the enhancements seen in reading and math, by helping students pay attention to the material taught during reading and math class. Furthermore, increased executive function skills could also lead to enhanced social reasoning, memory encoding and retrieval, and second and third language learning, among others (; Carlson, Moses, & Breton, 2002; Raj & Bell, 2010). If advantages in the aforementioned cognitive processes are observed on experimental tasks, further studies could be conducted to examine whether these benefits translate into noticeable real-world behaviors. To that end, researchers can administer more ecologically valid experimental tests along with subjective measures of academic and social functioning like peer, teacher, and parent evaluations of the students. Additionally, researchers should consider using longitudinal designs to determine whether these hypothesized effects of two-way immersion extend into later grades.

A second understudied topic to consider in future research is how learning academic concepts in one or both languages affects the ability to transfer knowledge to a non-academic context. For example, if certain social studies or science concepts are taught to majority-language students only in Spanish, will these students remember them as well when they are out of the classroom and in an English-speaking context? According to studies on language-dependent memory (e.g., ), remembering information is more difficult when the language context at retrieval is different from the language context at encoding (), so there is a possibility that in some cases, transferring knowledge may be less effective in two-way immersion students relative to mainstream classroom students (Marian & Fausey, 2006). On the other hand, since many of the concepts are likely taught in one language and later revisited in the other language, cases of mismatching linguistic contexts may be infrequent. Moreover, in situations where a concept is taught in both English and Spanish, memory for these concepts may be especially strong, as encoding in two different contexts may lead to deeper encoding and more retrieval routes. Thus, two-way immersion education may affect performance in and out of the classroom in many ways, and researchers should aim to understand these effects.

In closing, the results of the current study help to advance the debate surrounding the effectiveness of bilingual education programs. Our results are aligned with previous research (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Genessee, 1983, Lindholm-Leary, 2005; Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008; Thomas & Collier, 2002) and suggest that bilingual two-way immersion programs provide an effective instructional approach for both minority-language and majority-language elementary-school students. We found that minority-language and majority-language students enrolled in a TWI program show improved math and reading performance on standardized tests in English. Finally, beyond the direct focus of the current study, it is necessary to underscore another benefit of the TWI program. In addition to the potential improvements in academic performance, TWI students also stand to gain proficiency in both languages of instruction. This ability to communicate in two languages and interact with a larger proportion of the population is likely an asset for these students as they enter an increasingly globalized world. We conclude that two-way immersion models are beneficial in multiple ways and should be seriously considered when designing and implementing educational programs.

Table 4

Reading and Math Scaled-Scores in Majority-Language Students

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Steve Zecker for statistical advice, Dr. Margarita Kaushanskaya and Dr. Daphne Sajous-Brady for help with data entry and organization, and the Northwestern University Bilingualism and Psycholinguistics Research Group for helpful suggestions on the manuscript. We appreciate the generosity of the school district that shared the data to be included in the present analyses. The project was funded in part by Grant NICHD 1R01HD059858 to VM.

Appendix

Two-way Immersion Programs In Texas

1. Sample Third Grade Items from the State Standards Achievement Test

A. Reading

Would it be fun to be a fish? They are, after all, quite different from us. Fish have no ears as we do. Their bodies are covered with thin, flat plates called scales. The only sounds they know are what they feel using certain scales along their sides. These are special scales called lateral lines. We get oxygen from the air by using our lungs. Fish get oxygen from the water by using the gills on the sides of their heads. We can play in water and on land, but fish must stay in the water all the time. Fish never get hold or cold. They are called cold-blooded because they are always the same temperature as the water around them. That means they have no need for hot soup, or cold lemonade, or cozy blankets, or cool sandals. All in all, it’s probably more fun being us.

This story mainly tells –

1. how fish are different from people

2. how many kinds of fish there are

3. where fish can be found

4. how fish swim

Which question does the article answer?

1. Do fish have teeth?

2. How can I catch a fish?

3. Do fish sleep?

4. What does cold-blooded mean?

B. Math

• John bought 2 notebooks.

• Each notebook costs $1.80.

• John gave the clerk $5.00 to pay for the notebooks.

How much change should John receive?

1. $1.40

2. $2.40

3. $3.20

4. $3.60

2. Sample Third Grade Items from the State Measure of Annual Growth in English

Cal Dual Language

A. Reading

Marie and Robert were going to the store. They left Marie’s house and walked outside. The streets were not too busy until they got close to the store. Market Street was always busy. It was the last street they needed to cross. Robert and Marie checked for the “Walk” signal. Then they looked both ways for cars. When they were sure it was safe, they crossed Market Street quarter. After they left the store, Robert said, “Ask your dad if you can go to the park tomorrow. I’m going to call Jake when I get home and see if he can go too.” “Okay,” said Marie. “I think that sounds like a good idea. We usually have a good time when the three of us do things together.”

Where were Robert and Marie going?

1. To the movies

2. To the library

3. To the museum

4. To the park

5. To the store

How did Robert and Marie know it was safe to cross the street?

1. Because a police officer told them

2. Because the “Don’t Walk” sign was on

3. Because they looked both ways

4. Because they were crossing together

5. Because they looked for the “Walk” sign

B. Math

• John bought 2 notebooks.

• Each notebook costs $1.80.

• John gave $5.00 to pay for the notebooks.

How much change should John get?

1. $1.40

2. $2.40

3. $3.20

4. $3.60

Footnotes

¹One limitation of the Collier and Thomas (2004) study is that students were not randomly assigned to groups.

²All students, including those with special needs, were counted in the sample.

³With respect to the ethnic and racial composition of the district, 42% of students are Caucasian, 39.1% are African-American, 13.7% are Hispanic, 4.7% are Asian, 0.1% are American-Indian, and 0.4% are multi-racial. Regarding the financial and economic status of the district, the instructional expenditure per student in the district is $7,468.

Most people looking for Siemens s7 200 programming software downloaded: STEP 7 MicroWIN. 3.9 on 38 votes. SIMATIC S7-PLCSIM simulates a controller for functional testing of user blocks and programs for S7-300 and S7-400 on the programming device/PC. INAT OPC Server Ethernet. › Siemens s7 free. software download › Siemens s7. Siemens simatic s7-200 software free.

⁴All majority-language students were eligible to apply for the lottery; students did not have to meet any specific qualifications to be eligible.

Benefits Of Two Way Immersion

⁵Because the minority- and majority-language students were administered different tests, no direct statistical comparisons were made between these two tests and groups.

References

What Is A Two-way Immersion Programs

• Abedi J, Lord C. The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education. 2001;14(3):219–234.[Google Scholar]
• August D, Shanahan T, editors. Developing literacy in second-language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• Baker C. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. fifth ed. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters; 2011. [Google Scholar]
• Bartolotti J, Marian V. Language learning and control in monolinguals and bilinguals. Cognitive science. 2012;36(6):1129–1147.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bialystok E. Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental Psychology. 1988;24:560–567.[Google Scholar]
• Bialystok E. Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2007;10(3):210–223.[Google Scholar]
• Bialystok E, Martin MM. Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science. 2004;7(3):325–339. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bialystok E, Viswanathan M. Components of executive control with advantages for bilingual children in two cultures. Cognition. 2009;112:494–500.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Biederman J, Monuteaux MC, Doyle AE, Seidman LJ, Wilens TE, Ferrero F, Morgan C, Faraone SV. Impact of executive function deficits and attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on academic outcomes in children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2004;72:757–766. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bierman KL, Nix RL, Greenberg MT, Blair C, Domitrovich CE. Executive functions and school readiness: Impact, moderation and mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Development and Psychopathology. 2008;20:821–843.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Blair C, Razza RP. Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child development. 2007;78(2):647–663. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bull R, Espy KA, Wiebe SA. Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Developmental neuropsychology. 2008;33(3):205–228.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bull R, Scerif G. Executive functioning as a predictor of children’s mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching, and working memory. Developmental neuropsychology. 2001;19(3):273–293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Caldas SJ, Bankston III C. Effect of school population socioeconomic status on individual academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research. 1997;90:269–277.[Google Scholar]
• Campbell R, Sais E. Accelerated metalinguistic (phonological) awareness in bilingual children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 1995;13:61–68.[Google Scholar]
• Cardinal RN, Pennicott DR, Sugathapala CL, Robbins TW, Everitt BJ. Impulsive choice induced in rats by lesions of the nucleus accumbens core. Science. 2001;292(5526):2499–2501. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Carlson SM, Meltzoff AN. Bilingual experience and executive functioning in young children. Developmental Science. 2008;11(2):282–298.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Carlson SM, Moses LJ, Breton C. How specific is the relation between executive function and theory of mind? Contributions of inhibitory control and working memory. Infant and Child Development. 2002;11:73–92.[Google Scholar]
• Christian D, Howard ER, Loeb MI. Bilingualism for all: Two-way immersion education in the United States. Theory Into Practice. 2000;39(4):258–266.[Google Scholar]
• Collier VP, Thomas WP. The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice. 2004;2(1):1–20.[Google Scholar]
• Cromdal J. Childhood bilingualism and metalinguistic skills: Analysis and control in young Swedish-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics. 1999;20:1–20.[Google Scholar]
• Delis DC, Massman P, Butters N, Salmon DP, Cermak LS, Kramer JH. Profiles of demented and amnestic patients on the California Verbal Learning Test: Implications for the assessment of memory disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1991;1:19–26.[Google Scholar]
• Dreher MJ, Zenge SD. Using metalinguistic awareness in first grade to predict reading achievement in third and fifth grades. Journal of Educational Research. 1990;84(1):13–21.[Google Scholar]
• Gándara P, Hopkins M. Forbidden Language: English Learners and Restrictive Language Policies. Multicultural Education Series. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
• Gándara P, Orfield G. Why Arizona matters: the historical, legal, and political contexts of Arizona’s instructional policies and US linguistic hegemony. Language Policy. 2012;11(1):7–19.[Google Scholar]
• Genesee F. Bilingual education of majority-language children: The immersion experiments in review. Applied Psycholinguistics. 1983;4(1):1–46.[Google Scholar]
• Genesee F, Lindholm-Leary K, Saunders W, Christian D. English language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk. 2005;10(4):363–385.[Google Scholar]
• Goldenberg C. Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator. 2008;32:8–23. 42–44. [Google Scholar]
• Greene JP. A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal. 1998;21(2–3):103–122.[Google Scholar]
• Green SB, Salkind NJ. Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh (5th edition) Prentice Hall; 2008. [Google Scholar]
• Hakuta K, Butler YG, Witt D. How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy Report 2000–1. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California-Santa Barbara; 2000. [Google Scholar]
• Irby BJ, Tong F, Lara-Alecio R, Mathes PG, Acosta S, Guerrero C. Quality of instruction, language of instruction, and Spanish-speaking English language learners’ performance on a state reading achievement test. TABE. 2010;12(1):1–42.[Google Scholar]
• Kindler A. Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2000–2001 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition; 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Lindholm-Leary K. The rich promise of Two-way immersion. Educational Leadership. 2005;62(4):56–59.[Google Scholar]
• Lindholm-Leary KJ, Howard ER. Language development and academic achievement in two-way immersion programs. In: Fortune TW, Tedick DJ, editors. Pathways to Multilingualism: Evolving Perspectives on Immersion Education. Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 2008. pp. 177–200. [Google Scholar]
• Mackinney E, Rios-Aguilar C. Negotiating Between Restrictive Language Policies and Complex Teaching Conditions: A Case Study of Arizona’s Teachers of English Learners. Bilingual Research Journal. 2012;35(3):350–367.[Google Scholar]
• Marian V, Fausey CM. Language-dependent memory in bilingual learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2006;20:1–23.[Google Scholar]
• Marian V, Kaushanskaya M. Language context guides memory content. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2007;14(5):925–933. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Marian V, Neisser U. Language-dependent recall of autobiographical memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2000;129(3):361–368. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mazzocco MM, Kover ST. A longitudinal assessment of executive function skills and their association with math performance. Child Neuropsychology. 2007;13(1):18–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• McClelland MM, Cameron CE, Connor CM, Farris CL, Jewkes AM, Morrison FJ. Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology. 2007;43(4):947–959. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Passolunghi MC, Siegel LS. Short-term memory, working memory, and inhibitory control in children with difficulties in arithmetic problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2001;80(1):44–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Raj V, Bell MA. Cognitive processes supporting episodic memory formation in childhood: The role of source memory, binding, and executive functioning. Developmental Review. 2010;30:384–402.[Google Scholar]
• Rios-Aguilar C, Canché MSG, Sabetghadam S. Evaluating the impact of restrictive language policies: the Arizona 4-hour English language development block. Language Policy. 2012;11(1):47–80.[Google Scholar]
• Rolstad K, Mahoney K, Glass GV. The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy. 2005;19(4):572–594.[Google Scholar]
• Rossel CH, Baker K. The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English. 1996;30(1):7–74.[Google Scholar]
• Rossell CH. The effectiveness of educational alternatives for limited-English-proficient children. In: Imhoff G, editor. Learning in two languages. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers; 1990. pp. 71–121. [Google Scholar]
• Ruiz-de-Velasco J, Fix M. Overlooked & underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; 2000. [Google Scholar]
• Sanudo-Pena MC, Patrick SL, Patrick RL, Walker JM. Effects of intranigral cannabinoids on rotational behavior in rats: Interactions with the dopaminergic system. Neuroscience Letters 206. 1996:21–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Sirin SR. Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research. 2005;75(3):417–453.[Google Scholar]
• Slavin RE, Cheung A. A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction. Review of Educational Research. 2005;75(2):247–284.[Google Scholar]
• Slavin RE, Madden NA, Calderon M, Chamberlain A, Hennessy M. Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2011;33(1):47–58.[Google Scholar]
• Thomas WP, Coller VP. A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California at Santa Cruz, Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence; 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Weinberg SL, Abramowitz SK. Data analysis for the behavioral sciences using SPSS. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Wiley TG, Wright WE. Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the “age of accountability.” Educational Policy. 2004;18(1):142–168.[Google Scholar]
• Willig AC. A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of educational research. 1985;55(3):269–317.[Google Scholar]