bilingual instruction research paper

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Worldwide trends in bilingual education research: a half-century overview.

1. Introduction

2. bilingual education: concept and types.

• What is the evolution of the scientific production of bilingual education worldwide in the last 50 years in terms of the number of publications, document types, countries, affiliations, funding sponsors, cooperation relation networks, the level of internationalisation of authors, the impact of publications, and sources?
• What is the evolution of the scientific production on bilingual education worldwide in the last 50 years in terms of research topics (i.e., keywords), both overall and in the most productive countries and affiliations of bilingual education research?

3. Materials and Methods

4.1. time evolution of the publications, 4.2. publication distribution per type of document, 4.3. publication distribution per country, 4.4. publication distribution per affiliation, 4.5. publication distribution per funding sponsor, 4.6. cooperation relation networks, 4.7. level of internationalisation of authors, 4.8. impact of the publications on the research community and the general public, 4.9. publication distribution per source, 4.10. publication distribution per keyword, 4.10.1. distribution of main keywords per country, 4.10.2. distribution of main keywords per affiliation, 5. discussion and conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest, abbreviations and acronyms.

• García, O. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective ; Basil/Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L. Scientometrics in a changing research landscape: Bibliometrics has become an integral part of research quality evaluation and has been changing the practice of research. EMBO Rep. 2014 , 15 , 1228–1232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Bornmann, L.; Marx, W. How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations. Scientometrics 2014 , 98 , 487–509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cobo, M.J.; Martínez, M.A.; Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M.; Fujita, H.; Herrera-Viedma, E. 25 years at knowledge-based systems: A bibliometric analysis. Knowl. Based Syst. 2015 , 80 , 3–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Holden, G.; Rosenberg, G.; Barker, K. Tracing thought through time and space: A selective review of bibliometrics in social work. Soc. Work. Health Care 2015 , 41 , 1–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Padilla, F.M.; Gallardo, M.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Global trends in nitrate leaching research in the 1960–2017 period. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018 , 643 , 400–413. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hood, W.W.; Wilson, C.S. The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics 2001 , 52 , 291–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hammarfelt, B. Beyond Coverage: Toward a Bibliometrics for the Humanities. In Research Assessment in the Humanities ; Ochsner, M.M., Hug, S., Daniel, H.D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 115–131. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker, C. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism ; Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummins, J. Bilingual education and content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Research and its classroom implications. Rev. Padres Y Maest. J. Parents Teach. 2013 , 349 , 6–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok, E. Bilingual education for young children: Review of the effects and consequences. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2018 , 2 , 666–679. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cummins, J. Empowering Minority Students ; California Association for Bilingual Education: Sacramento, CA, USA, 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummins, J.; Swain, M. Bilingualism in Education: Aspects of Theory, Research and Practice ; Longman: London, UK, 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lambert, W.E.; Tucker, G.R. Bilingual Education of Children: The St. Lambert Experiment ; Newbury House Publishers: Rowley, MA, USA, 1972. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lapkin, S.; Hart, D.; Swain, M. Early and middle French immersion programs: French language outcomes. Can. Mod. Lang. Rev. 1991 , 48 , 11–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coyle, D. Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2007 , 10 , 543–562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fortanet, I.; Ruiz-Garrido, M.F. Sharing CLIL in Europe. In Content and Language Integrated Learning: Leveraging Cultural Diversity ; Carrió Pastor, M.L., Gimeno, A., Eds.; Peter Lang: Bern, Switzerland, 2009; pp. 47–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• May, S. Bilingual/Immersion education: What the research tells us. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education ; Cummins, J., Hornberger, N.H., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2008; pp. 19–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baetens Beardsmore, H. European Models of Bilingual Education ; Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK, 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gorter, D.; Cenoz, J. Multilingual education for European minority languages: The Basque Country and Friesland. Int. Rev. Educ. 2011 , 57 , 651–666. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• De Mejia, A. Power, Prestige and Bilingualism: International Perspectives on Elite Bilingual Education ; Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramírez, J.; Yuen, S.; Ramey, D. Final Report: Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language-Minority Children ; Aguirre International: San Mateo, CA, USA, 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Christian, D. Two-way immersion education: Students learning through two languages. Mod. Lang. J. 1996 , 80 , 66–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Howard, E.R.; Christian, D. Two-Way Immersion: Designing and Implementing a Two-Way Immersion Education Program at the Elementary Level ; Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence: Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris, S.; Devlin, B. Bilingual programs involving aboriginal languages in Australia. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education ; Cummins, J., Corson, D., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cenoz, J. Towards Multilingual Education. Basque Educational Research from an International Perspective ; Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fortanet, I. Multilingualism in Higher Education: Towards a Multilingual Language Policy ; Multilingual Matters: London, UK, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dalton-Puffer, C. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms ; John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirss, L.; Säälik, Ü.; Leijen, Ä.; Pedaste, M. School Effectiveness in Multilingual Education: A Review of Success Factors. Educ. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Macaro, E. English Medium Instruction ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman, J. English-medium teaching in European higher education. Lang. Teach. 2006 , 39 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Coyle, D.; Hood, P.; Marsh, D. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pérez Cañado, M.L. CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2012 , 15 , 315–341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanchez-Perez, M.M. Teacher Training for English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education ; IGI-Global PE: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valcke, J.; Wilkinson, R. Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education: Perspectives on Professional Practice ; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanchez-Perez, M.M. Predicting content proficiency through disciplinary-literacy variables in English-medium writing. System 2021 , 97 , 102463. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dafouz, E.; Smit, U. ROAD-MAPPING English-Medium Education in the Internationalised University ; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gavel, Y.; Iselid, L. Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Inf. Rev. 2008 , 32 , 8–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miguel, S.; De Oliveira, T.E.F.; Cabrini, M.C. Scientific production on open access: A worldwide bibliometric analysis in the academic and scientific context. Publications 2016 , 4 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kulczycki, E.; Engels, T.C.E.; Pölönen, J.; Bruun, K.; Dušková, M.; Guns, R.; Noworniak, R.; Petr, M.; Sivertsen, G.; Starčič, A.I.; et al. Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: Evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics 2018 , 116 , 463–486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hamel, R.E. The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science. AILA Rev. 2007 , 20 , 53–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garrido-Cárdenas, J.A.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. The metagenomics worldwide research. Curr. Gen. 2017 , 63 , 819–829. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Aksnes, D.W.; Langfeldt, L.; Wouters, P. Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories. Sage Open 2019 , 9 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ullmann, M. History and Geography through French: CLIL in a UK secondary school. In Learning Through a Foreign Language. Models, Methods and Outcomes ; Masih, J., Ed.; Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research: London, UK, 1999; pp. 96–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gao, X.; Ren, W. Controversies of bilingual education in China. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2019 , 22 , 267–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evans, S. The evolutionary dynamics of postcolonial Englishes: A Hong Kong case study. J. Socioling. 2014 , 18 , 571–603. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evans, S. The making of a colonial school: A study of language policies and practices in nineteenth-century Hong Kong. Lang. Educ. 2008 , 22 , 345–362. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simpson, J.; Caffery, J.; McConvell, P. Gaps in Australia’s Indigenous Language Policy: Dismantling Bilingual Education in the Northern Territory. 2009. Available online: www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/DP242009Simpson.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2020).
• Gibbons, J. Australian bilingual education. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education ; Cummins, J., Corson, D., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 209–215. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo Bianco, J.; Slaughter, Y. Bilingual education in Australia. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education ; García, O., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 347–358. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bekerman., Z.; Shhadi, N. Bekerman. Z.; Shhadi, N. Palestinian-Jewish bilingual education in Israel: Its Influence on cultural identities and its impact on intergroup conflict. J. Multiling. Multic. Develop. 2003 , 24 , 473–484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Banda, F. The dilemma of the mother tongue: Prospects for bilingual education in South Africa. Lang. Cult. and Curric. 2000 , 13 , 51–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aikman, S. Language, literacy and bilingual education: An Amazon people’s strategies for cultural maintenance. Int. J. Educ. Develop. 1995 , 15 , 411–422. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joya, M.; Cerón, A. Reflections on the Process of Bilingual Education in Latin America: A Perspective from Globalization. Gist. Educ. Learn. Res. J. 2013 , 7 , 230–244. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, X.W.; Liu, D.; Ding, K.; Wang, X.R. Science funding and research output: A study on 10 countries. Scientometrics 2011 , 91 , 591–599. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bruck, M. Language impaired children’s performance in an additive bilingual programme. App. Psycholing. 1982 , 3 , 45–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Sánchez-Pérez, M.d.M.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Worldwide Trends in Bilingual Education Research: A Half-Century Overview. Educ. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 730. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110730

Sánchez-Pérez MdM, Manzano-Agugliaro F. Worldwide Trends in Bilingual Education Research: A Half-Century Overview. Education Sciences . 2021; 11(11):730. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110730

Sánchez-Pérez, María del Mar, and Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro. 2021. "Worldwide Trends in Bilingual Education Research: A Half-Century Overview" Education Sciences 11, no. 11: 730. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110730

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Bilingual/Immersion Education: What the Research Tells Us

• Reference work entry
• pp 1483–1498
• Cite this reference work entry

• Stephen May 3  

3420 Accesses

13 Citations

Introduction

This chapter explores key research findings about bilingual/immersion education and the related efficacy of various approaches to teaching bilingual students. When this research is examined, and taken seriously, the picture of what constitutes an effective educational approach for bilingual students can be clearly ascertained. However, this clarity is not yet reflected in wider public and policy debates, where strongly polarised positions both for and against bilingual/immersion education remain commonplace.

A key reason why wider public and policy debates on bilingual/immersion education continue to be so contested rests with the widely different understandings among commentators of what such an education actually constitutes. At one end of the continuum are those who would classify as bilingual any educational approach adopted for, or directed at bilingual students, irrespective of their educational aims (fostering bilingualism or monolingualism) or the role (if any) of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Andersson, T. and Boyer, M.: 1970, Bilingual Schooling in the United States: Vol. 1, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin, TX.

Google Scholar  

Baetens B.H. (ed.): 1993, European Typologies of Bilingual Education , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Baker, C.: 2006, Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (fourth edition) , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Baker, C. and Prys, J.S.: 1998, Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Baker, K. and de Kanter, A.: 1981, Effectiveness of Bilingual Education: A Review of the Literature , US Department of Education, Washington, DC.

Baker, K. and de Kanter, A. (eds.): 1983, Bilingual Education: A Reappraisal of Federal Policy , Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Barnard, R. and Glynn, T.: 2003, Bilingual Children's Language and Literacy Development: New Zealand Case Studies , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Cloud, N., Genesee, F., and Hamayan, E.: 2000, Dual Language Instruction: A Handbook for Enriched Education , Thomson Heine, Boston.

Crawford, J.: 1989, Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory and Practice , Crane Publishing Co., Trenton NJ.

Crawford, J.: 2000, At War with Diversity. US Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Cummins, J.: 1979, ‘Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children’, Review of Educational Research 49(2), 222–259.

Cummins, J.: 1996, Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society , California Association for Bilingual Education, Toronto.

Cummins, J.: 2000, Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Cummins, J.: 2003, ‘Bilingual education’, in J. Bourne and E. Reid (eds.), Language Education: World Yearbook of Education , Evans Bros, London, 3–19.

Danoff, M., Coles, G., McLaughlin, D., and Reynolds, D.: 1978, Evaluation of the Impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish/English Bilingual Education Program , American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, CA.

de Courcy, M.: 2002, Learners’ Experiences of Immersion Education: Case Studies in French and Chinese , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

de Mejia, A.: 2002, Power, Prestige and Bilingualism: International Perspectives on Elite Bilingual Education , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Dicker, S.: 2003, Languages in America (second edition), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Fishman, J.: 1976, Bilingual Education: An International Sociological Perspective , Newbury House, Rowley MA.

Fishman, J.: 1992, ‘The displaced anxieties of Anglo‐Americans’, in J. Crawford (ed.), Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy , University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 165–170.

Freeman, R.: 1998, Bilingual Education and Social Change , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Freeman, R.: 2004, Building on Community Bilingualism , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Genesee, F., Lindholm‐Leary, K., Saunders, B., and Christian, D.: 2006, Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence , Cambridge University Press, New York.

Hakuta, K., Butler, G., and Witt, D.: 2000, How Long Does it Take Learners to Attain English Proficiency? , University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, Santa Barbara, CA.

Hamers, J. and Blanc, M.: 2000, Bilinguality and Bilingualism , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Heller, M.: 1999, Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography , Longman, London.

Hinton, L. and Hale, K.: 2001, The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice , Academic Press, San Diego.

Hornberger, N.: 1988, Bilingual Education and Language Maintenance: A Southern Peruvian Quechua case , Mouton, Berlin.

Hornberger, N.: 1991, ‘Extending enrichment bilingual education: Revisiting typologies and redirecting policy’, in O. García (ed.), Bilingual Education: Focusschrift in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman , John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

Johnson, R. and Swain, M. (eds.): 1997, Immersion Education: International perspectives , Cambridge Applied Linguistics, Cambridge.

Jones, B. and Ghuman, P.: 1995, Bilingualism, Education and Identity , University of Wales Press, Cardiff.

King, K.: 2001, Language Revitalization Processes and Prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Lindholm‐Leary, K.: 2001, Dual Language Education , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

May, S.: 1994, Making Multicultural Education Work , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

May, S.: 2001, Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language , Longman, London and New York, Reprinted by Routledge, 2007.

May, S.: 2005, ‘The politics of homogeneity: a critical exploration of the anti‐bilingual education movement’, in J. Cohen, K. McAlister, K. Rolstad, and J. MacSwan (eds.) ISB4:Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism , Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, 1560–1566.

May, S. and Hill, R.: 2005, ‘Maori‐medium education: current issues and challenges’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8(5), 377–403.

May, S., Hill, R., and Tiakiwai, S.: 2004, Bilingual/Immersion Education: Indicators of Good Practice. Final Report to the Ministry of Education , Ministry of Education, Wellington. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm ?layout = document&documentid = 9712&data = l on 20 August 2006.

McCarty, T.: 2002, A Place to be Navajo: Rough Rock and the Struggle for Self‐Determination in Indigenous Schooling , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

McGroarty, M.: 2002, ‘Evolving influences on education language policies’, in J. Tollefson (ed.), Language Policies in Education: Critical issues , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 17–36.

McGroarty, M.: 2006, ‘Neoliberal collusion or strategic simultaneity? On multiple rationalse for language‐in‐education policies’, Language Policy 5, 3–13.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pérez, B.: 2003, Becoming Biliterate: A Study of Two‐Way Bilingual Immersion Education , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Ramírez, J., Yuen, S., and Ramey, D.: 1991, Final Report: Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early‐Exit and Late‐Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language‐Minority Children , Aguirre International, San Mateo, CA.

Ricento, T.: 1996, ‘Language policy in the United States’, in M. Herriman and B. Burnaby (eds.), Language Policies in English‐Dominant Countries , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, England, 122–158.

Rossell, C. and Baker, K.: 1996, ‘The effectiveness of bilingual education’, Research in the Teaching of English 30, 7–74.

Skutnabb‐Kangas, T.: 1981, Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Skutnabb‐Kangas, T.: 2000, Linguistic Genocide in Education‐or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Thomas, W. and Collier, V.: 1997, School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students , National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, Washington, DC.

Thomas, W. and Collier, V.: 2002, A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students’ Long‐Term Academic Achievement , Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence (CREDE), Santa Cruz.

Tollefson, J. and Tsui A. (eds.): 2004, Medium of Instruction Policies: Which agenda? Whose Agenda? , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Valdés, G., Fishman, J., Chávez, R., and Pérez, W.: 2006, Towards the Development of Minority Language Resources , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Wiley, T.: 2001, ‘On defining heritage language education and their speakers’, in J. Peyton, D. Ranard, and S. McGinnis (eds.), Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a national resource , Delta Systems, McHenry, IL.

Willig, A.: 1985, ‘A meta‐analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education’, Review of Educational Research 55, 269–317.

Willig, A.: 1987, ‘Examining bilingual education research through meta‐analysis and narrative review: A response to Baker, Review of Educational Research 57, 363–376.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand

Stephen May

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, 19104-6216, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Nancy H. Hornberger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry.

May, S. (2008). Bilingual/Immersion Education: What the Research Tells Us. In: Hornberger, N.H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_113

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_113

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-32875-1

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-30424-3

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says

Krista byers-heinlein.

Concordia University

Casey Lew-Williams

Northwestern University

Many children in North America and around the world grow up exposed to two languages from an early age. Parents of bilingual infants and toddlers have important questions about the costs and benefits of early bilingualism, and how to best support language acquisition in their children. Here, we separate common myths from scientific findings to answer six of parents’ most common questions about early bilingual development.

Bilingual parents are vocal in their desire to raise proficient, dynamic bilingual children. They have questions, and they want answers. But there is a complicated history of positive and negative press about raising children in bilingual households, to the point where some pediatricians—even today—recommend against exposing children to two languages. Attitudes against early bilingualism are often based on myths and misinterpretations, rather than scientific findings. Here, we aim to address the most frequently asked questions about childhood bilingualism using research findings from a variety of scientific fields including developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, education, linguistics, and communication sciences and disorders. This article is intended for parents and the many people who parents turn to for advice about fostering successful bilingual development: preschool teachers, elementary teachers, pediatricians, and speech-language pathologists.

Bilingualism refers to the ability to use two languages in everyday life. Bilingualism is common and is on the rise in many parts of the world, with perhaps one in three people being bilingual or multilingual ( Wei, 2000 ). Contact between two languages is typical in regions of many continents, including Europe (Switzerland, Belgium), Asia (India, Philippines), Africa (Senegal, South Africa), and North America (Canada). In the United States, a large (and growing) number of bilinguals live in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Arizona, and New Mexico. In California, for example, by 2035, it is expected that over 50% of children enrolled in kindergarten will have grown up speaking a language other than English ( García, McLaughlin, Spodek, & Saracho, 1995 ). Similarly, in some urban areas of Canada such as Toronto, up to 50% of students have a native language other than English ( Canadian Council on Learning, 2008 ).

Despite the prevalence of bilingualism, surprisingly little research has been conducted on the topic, particularly on the foundations of bilingual language learning in infants and toddlers. The science of bilingualism is a young field, and definitive answers to many questions are not yet available. Furthermore, other questions are impossible to answer due to vast differences across families, communities, and cultures. But with an accumulation of research studies over the last few decades, we are now equipped to partially answer some of parents’ most pressing questions about early bilingualism.

There are few venues for communicating scientific findings about early bilingualism to the public, and our goal is to distill bilingual and developmental science into practical, accessible information. We are researchers who study bilingual infants and children, and as such, we interact with bilingual families regularly. When we give community talks to preschools and nonprofit organizations about language development in early childhood, the question-and-answer period is invariably dominated by questions about early bilingualism. The consistency in questions is astonishing. Are bilingual children confused? Does bilingualism make children smarter? Is it best for each person to speak only one language with a bilingual child? Should parents avoid mixing languages together? Is earlier better? Are bilingual children more likely to have language difficulties, delays, or disorders? This article is organized around these six common questions.

1. Are bilingual children confused?

One of the biggest concerns that parents have about raising children in a bilingual household is that it will cause confusion. But is there any scientific evidence that young bilinguals are confused? The first question to ask is what confusion would look like. Except in the case of neurological disorders ( Paradis, 2004 ), fluently bilingual adults can speak whatever language they choose in the moment, and are clearly not confused. But what about bilingual children and infants?

One misunderstood behavior, which is often taken as evidence for confusion, is when bilingual children mix words from two languages in the same sentence. This is known as code mixing. In fact, code mixing is a normal part of bilingual development, and bilingual children actually have good reasons to code mix ( Pearson, 2008 ). One reason some children code mix is that it happens frequently in their language communities—children are just doing what they hear adults around them do ( Comeau, Genesee, & Lapaquette, 2003 ). A second reason is that, just like young monolinguals, young bilinguals are sometimes limited in their linguistic resources. Similarly to how a monolingual 1-year-old might initially use the word “dog” to refer to any four-legged creature, bilingual children also use their limited vocabularies resourcefully. If a bilingual child does not know or cannot quickly retrieve the appropriate word in one language, she might borrow the word from the other language ( Lanza, 2004 ). Rather than being a sign of confusion, code mixing can be seen as a path of least resistance: a sign of bilingual children’s ingenuity. Further, bilingual children do not seem to use their two languages haphazardly. Even 2-year olds show some ability to modulate their language according to the language used by their conversational partner ( Genesee, Boivin, & Nicoladis, 1996 ). There is also evidence that children’s early code mixing adheres to predictable grammar-like rules, which are largely similar to the rules that govern adults’ code mixing ( Paradis, Nicoladis, & Genesee, 2000 ).

What about bilingual infants? Again, the research is clear: bilingual infants readily distinguish their two languages and show no evidence of confusion. Languages differ on many dimensions—even if you don’t speak Russian or Mandarin, you can likely tell one from the other. Infants are also sensitive to these perceptual differences, and are particularly attuned to a language’s rhythm. Infants can discriminate rhythmically dissimilar languages like English and French at birth ( Byers-Heinlein, Burns, & Werker, 2010 ; Mehler et al., 1988 ), and by age 4 months they can tell even rhythmically similar languages like French and Spanish apart ( Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés, 1997 , 2001 ; Nazzi, 2000 ). Bilingual infants may be even more sensitive than monolinguals when it comes to discriminating languages. Recent research has shown that 4-month-old monolingual and bilingual infants can discriminate silent talking faces speaking different languages ( Weikum et al., 2007 ). However, by 8 months of age, only bilinguals are still sensitive to the distinction, while monolinguals stop paying attention to subtle variations in facial movements ( Sebastián-Gallés, Albareda-Castellot, Weikum, & Werker, 2012 ; Weikum et al., 2007 ). Instead of being confused, it seems that bilingual infants are sensitive to information that distinguishes their languages.

2. Does bilingualism make children smarter?

Popular books such as The Bilingual Edge ( King & Mackey, 2009 ), and articles such as The Power of the Bilingual Brain ( TIME Magazine ; Kluger, 2013 ) have touted the potential benefits of early bilingualism. One of the most important benefits of early bilingualism is often taken for granted: bilingual children will know multiple languages, which is important for travel, employment, speaking with members of one’s extended family, maintaining a connection to family culture and history, and making friends from different backgrounds. However, beyond obvious linguistic benefits, researchers have investigated whether bilingualism confers other non-linguistic advantages ( Akhtar & Menjivar, 2012 ).

Several studies have suggested that bilinguals show certain advantages when it comes to social understanding. In some ways, this is not surprising, as bilinguals must navigate a complex social world where different people have different language knowledge. For example, bilingual preschoolers seem to have somewhat better skills than monolinguals in understanding others’ perspectives, thoughts, desires, and intentions ( Bialystok & Senman, 2004 ; Goetz, 2003 ; Kovács, 2009 ). Young bilingual children also have enhanced sensitivity to certain features of communication such as tone of voice ( Yow & Markman, 2011 ).

Bilinguals also show some cognitive advantages. In particular, bilinguals appear to perform a little bit better than monolinguals on tasks that involve switching between activities and inhibiting previously learned responses ( Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2012 ). Although these advantages have been mostly studied in bilingual adults ( Costa, Hernández, & Sebastián-Gallés, 2008 ) and children ( Bialystok & Martin, 2004 ), new evidence suggests that even bilingual infants ( Kovács & Mehler, 2009a , 2009b ) and toddlers ( Poulin-Dubois, Blaye, Coutya, & Bialystok, 2011 ) show cognitive advantages. Additionally, there is some evidence that bilingual infants are advantaged in certain aspects of memory, for example generalizing information from one event to a later event ( Brito & Barr, 2012 ).

Research has not been able to determine exactly why these advantages arise, but there are several possibilities. Bilingual adults have to regularly switch back and forth between their languages, and inhibit one language while they selectively speak another. Some researchers suspect that this constant practice might lead to certain advantages by training the brain ( Green, 1998 ). Amongst infants, the need to constantly discriminate their two languages could also play a role ( Sebastián-Gallés et al., 2012 ). However, it is important to note that bilingualism is not the only type of experience that has been linked to cognitive advantages. Similar cognitive advantages are also seen in individuals with early musical training ( Schellenberg, 2005 ), showing that multiple types of enriched early experience can promote cognitive development. Regardless of origin, it should be noted that the “bilingual advantage” has sometimes been overplayed in the popular press. So far, bilingual cognitive advantages have only been demonstrated using highly sensitive laboratory-based methods, and it is not known whether they play a role in everyday life. Thus, the reported advantages do not imply that bilingualism is an essential ingredient for successful development.

3. Is it best for each person to speak only one language with a bilingual child?

One popular strategy for raising bilingual children is “one-person-one-language,” a strategy first recommended over 100 years ago ( Ronjat, 1913 ). Theorists originally reasoned that associating each language with a different person was the only way to prevent bilingual children from “confusion and intellectual fatigue.” While appealing, this early notion has been proven false. As discussed above, there is no evidence that bilingual children are confused by early bilingualism, and the cognitive benefits associated with bilingualism run counter to the notion of “intellectual fatigue.”

It is still important to consider what strategies families can use to promote early bilingual development. Research has shown that a one-person-one-language approach can lead to successful acquisition of the two languages ( Barron-Hauwaert, 2004 ), but that it does not necessarily lead to successful acquisition of the two languages ( De Houwer, 2007 ). Further, children who hear both languages from the same bilingual parent often do successfully learn two languages ( De Houwer, 2007 ). A one-person-one-language approach is neither necessary nor sufficient for successful bilingual acquisition.

Several other factors have proven to be important to early bilingual development. These factors might lead some families to use a one-person-one-language strategy, and other families to use other strategies. First, it is important to remember that infants learn language through listening to and interacting with different speakers. Infants need to have a lot of exposure to the sounds, words, and grammars of the languages that they will one day use. Both quality and quantity matter. High quality language exposure involves social interaction—infants do not readily learn language from television ( DeLoache et al., 2010 ; Kuhl, Tsao, & Liu, 2003 ), and low-quality television viewing in infancy has been linked to smaller vocabulary sizes in bilingual toddlers ( Hudon, Fennell, & Hoftyzer, 2013 ). Opportunities to interact with multiple different speakers has been linked to vocabulary learning in bilingual toddlers (Place & Hoff, 2010).

Quantity can be measured by the number of words that children hear per day in each language. Quantity of early exposure has a profound effect on children’s ongoing language development: hearing more words gives children a greater opportunity to learn a language, which leads to later advantages in school performance ( Hart & Risley, 1995 ). For bilingual children, it is important to consider the quantity of their exposure to each language. While a bilingual’s two languages do influence each other to a certain degree ( Döpke, 2000 ), in many ways they travel on independent developmental paths. Bilingual children who hear a large amount of a particular language learn more words and grammar in that language ( Hoff et al., 2012 ; Pearson & Fernández, 1994 ), and show more efficient processing of that language ( Conboy & Mills, 2006 ; Hurtado, Grüter, Marchman, & Fernald, 2013 ; Marchman, Fernald, & Hurtado, 2010 ). Bilingual parents thus need to ensure that their children have sufficient exposure to the languages they want their children to learn. We return to this topic in the next sections.

Relatively balanced exposure to the two languages is most likely to promote successful acquisition of both of the languages ( Thordardottir, 2011 ). In situations where each parent spends equal time with a child, one-parent-one-language can be a great way to ensure equal exposure. Conversely, exposure to a second language only when grandma and grandpa visit on the weekend, or when a part-time nanny visits on a few weekdays, or when a language class meets on Thursday nights, will not lead to balanced exposure. Imagine an average infant who sleeps about 12 hours a day, and so is awake 84 hours per week. A single afternoon (~ 5 hours) is only about 6% of the child’s waking life, and this exposure alone is unlikely to lead to acquisition of a language. Similarly, in homes where one parent is the primary caregiver, a one-parent-one-language is unlikely to lead to balanced exposure.

Unfortunately, providing perfectly balanced exposure in the early years will not necessarily ensure later bilingualism. As children become older, they become more aware of the language spoken in the community where they live, and are likely to use this language at school. This is known as the majority language, while other languages that are not as widely spoken are known as minority languages. Even if initially learned in preschool, minority languages are much more likely than majority languages to be lost as development continues ( De Houwer, 2007 ). Many experts recommend providing slightly more early input in a minority than in a majority language, and where possible providing children with opportunities to play with other kids in that language ( Pearson, 2008 ). Raising a bilingual child in communities that are largely bilingual such as Miami (Spanish-English), Montreal (French-English), and Barcelona (Catalan-Spanish) provides fewer challenges for ensuring the ongoing use of the two languages.

So what language strategies should parents use? The best answer is that parents should use whatever strategy promotes high-quality and high-quantity exposure to each of their child’s languages. This could include structured approaches such as using different languages as a function of person (one-person-one-language), place (one language at home, one language outside), or time (alternating days of the week, or mornings/afternoons). Some parents insist on speaking only one language with their child, even if they are able to speak the other ( Lanza, 2004 ), to ensure exposure to a particular language. Other families find that flexible use of the two languages, without fixed rules, leads to balanced exposure and positive interactions. Each family should consider the language proficiency of each family member as well as their language preference, in conjunction with their community situation. Families should regularly make an objective appraisal of what their child is actually hearing on a daily basis (rather than what they wish their child was hearing), and consider adjusting language use when necessary.

4. Should parents avoid mixing languages together?

Many parents of bilingual children are bilingual themselves ( Byers-Heinlein, 2013 ). Code mixing—the use of elements from two different languages in the same sentence or conversation—is a normal part of being a bilingual and interacting with other bilingual speakers ( Poplack, 1980 ). Code mixing is relatively frequent amongst bilingual parents as well ( Byers-Heinlein, 2013 ), and even parents who have chosen a one-parent-one-language strategy still code mix from time to time ( Goodz, 1989 ). But what effects does hearing code mixing have on the development of bilingual children?

Research on the impact of code mixing on bilingual children’s development is still quite limited. One study of 18- and 24-month-olds found that high amounts of code mixing by parents was related to smaller vocabulary sizes ( Byers-Heinlein, 2013 ). However, other studies have found no relationship between code-mixed language and early language development ( Place & Hoff, 2011 ). Further, studies are beginning to reveal that bilingual children as young as 20-months are able to understand code-mixed sentences, and show similar processing patterns as bilingual adults ( Byers-Heinlein, 2013 ). This would suggest that bilinguals are able to cope with code mixing from an early age. It has also been suggested that while code mixing might make word learning initially difficult, it is possible that practice switching back and forth between the languages leads to later cognitive benefits ( Byers-Heinlein, 2013 ). Unfortunately, the jury is still out on whether exposure to code mixing has developmental consequences for bilingual children, but we are currently working on several research projects that will help answer this question.

It is important to note that considerations of code mixing also have important social implications. In some communities, code mixing is an important part of being bilingual and being part of a bilingual community. For example, code mixing is the norm in some Spanish-English communities in the U.S., and Afrikaans-English code mixing is the norm in some parts of South Africa. Different communities have different patterns of and rules for code mixing ( Poplack, 1984 ), and children need exposure to these patterns in order to learn them.

5. Is earlier better?

Many people are familiar with the concept of a “critical period” for language acquisition: the idea that humans are not capable of mastering a new language after reaching a certain age. Researchers disagree about whether a critical period exists at all, and they disagree about when this critical period may occur—proposals range from age 5 to 15 ( Krashen, 1973 ; Johnson & Newport, 1989 ; Lenneberg, 1967 ). Disagreement aside, research on bilingualism and second language learning converges robustly on a simple take-home point: earlier is better. There may not be a sharp turn for the worse at any point in development, but there is an incremental decline in language learning abilities with age ( Birdsong & Molis, 2001 ; Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003 ).

This point is best understood as an interaction between biological and environmental factors. Researchers have argued that biological change during the first two decades of life results in a reduced capacity for learning and retaining the subtleties of language ( Johnson & Newport, 1989 ; Weber-Fox & Neville, 2001 ). In other words, our brains may be more receptive to language earlier in life. But importantly, our environment is also more conducive to language learning earlier in life. In many cultures and in many families, young children experience a very rich language environment during the first years of life. They hear language in attention-grabbing, digestible bundles that are targeted skillfully at their developmental level ( Fernald & Simon, 1984 ). Caregivers typically speak in ways that are neither too simple nor too complex, and children receive hours and hours of practice with language every day. This high-quality and high-quantity experience with language—a special feature of how people communicate with young children—often results in successful language learning. It gives children rich, diverse, and engaging opportunities to learn about the sounds, syllables, words, phrases, and sentences that comprise their native language. But beyond the first years of life, second language learning often happens very differently. Older children and adults do not usually have the same amount of time to devote to language learning, and they do not usually experience the advantage of fun, constant, one-on-one interaction with native speakers. Instead, they often find themselves in a classroom, where they get a small fraction of the language practice that infants and toddlers get ( Lew-Williams & Fernald, 2010 ). In classrooms, words are defined for them and grammar is described to them. Defining and describing can be effective, but they are not as powerful as discovering language from the ground up.

Applied to bilingualism, these maturational and environmental differences between younger and older learners indicate that it is most advantageous to learn two languages early on in life. Bilinguals who learn two languages from birth are referred to as simultaneous bilinguals, and those who learn a first language followed by a second language—whether as toddlers or as adults—are referred to as sequential bilinguals. The evidence points to fairly robust advantages for simultaneous bilinguals relative to sequential bilinguals. They tend to have better accents, more diversified vocabulary, higher grammatical proficiency, and greater skill in real-time language processing. For example, children and adults who learn Spanish as a second language typically struggle to master Spanish grammatical gender (e.g., “is it el gato or la gato ?”), while people who learn Spanish and English from birth show reliable and impressive ease in using grammatical gender ( Lew-Williams & Fernald, 2007 , 2010 ).

However, parents should not lose hope if they have not exposed their children to each language from birth. Infants’ brains and learning environments are special and non-recreatable, but there are many other ways to foster bilingual development. Here we overview two possibilities. First, some parents (particularly those who can afford childcare) choose to hire bilingual nannies or send children to bilingual preschools, in order to maximize their children’s exposure to another language. This can certainly result in increased bilingual proficiency, but it is essential to provide continued opportunities to practice each language once the child is older. Parental expectations should be quite low if children do not have opportunities to continue learning and using a language throughout development. However, keep in mind that bilingual exposure does not necessarily translate to being a bilingual who is able to understand and speak a language fluently. Researchers generally consider a child to be bilingual if he or she receives at least 10–25% of exposure to each language ( Byers-Heinlein, under review ; Place & Hoff, 2011 ; Marchman et al., 2010 ; Marchman, Martínez-Sussmann, & Dale, 2004 ), but this level of exposure by no means guarantees functional bilingualism ( De Houwer, 2007 ).

Second, there are language immersion programs in elementary schools in many of the world’s countries, including the U.S. and Canada. Their goal is to promote bilingualism, biliteracy, and multicultural proficiency among both language-majority and language-minority students. In the U.S., hundreds of immersion programs have been established in the last four decades in such languages as Spanish, French, Korean, Cantonese, Japanese, Mandarin, Navajo, and Hebrew. There are currently 434 or more immersion programs in 31 U.S. states ( Center for Applied Linguistics, 2011 ). French immersion programs are available in all 10 Canadian provinces, with enrolment ranging from 2–32% of students depending on the province ( Statistics Canada, 2000 ). Immersion programs confer advantages over other formats of language instruction that are typical in high school and college classrooms. In immersion programs, the second language is not necessarily a topic of instruction, but a vehicle for instruction of other curriculum subjects. In terms of the quantity of language exposure, immersion classrooms do not rival infants’ language environments. However, they often foster functional bilingualism, and equip children with language skills that help them in later educational and professional contexts.

The take-home messages about bilingual language exposure are clear: more is better, and earlier is better. If you are 75 years old and you have always wanted to learn Japanese, start now. Language learning becomes more challenging with time, for both maturational and environmental reasons, but for those who are motivated ( Gardner & Lambert, 1959 ), it is never too late to learn a new language.

6. Are bilingual children more likely to have language difficulties, delays, or disorders?

Bilingual children are not more likely than monolingual children to have difficulties with language, to show delays in learning, or to be diagnosed with a language disorder (see Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2010 ; Petitto & Holowka, 2002 ). Parents’ perceptions are often otherwise—they feel that their child is behind due to their bilingualism—revealing an interesting disconnect from scientific findings. Science has revealed an important property of early bilingual children’s language knowledge that might explain this misperception: while bilingual children typically know fewer words in each of their languages than do monolingual learners of those languages, this apparent difference disappears when you calculate bilingual children’s “conceptual vocabulary” across both languages ( Marchman et al., 2010 ). That is, if you add together known words in each language, and then make sure you don’t double-count cross-language synonyms (e.g., dog and perro ), then bilingual children know approximately the same number of words as monolingual children ( Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1993 ; Pearson & Fernández, 1994 ).

As an example, if a Spanish/English bilingual toddler knows 50 Spanish words and 50 English words, she will probably not appear to be as good at communicating when compared to her monolingual cousin who knows 90 English words. However, assuming 10 of the toddler’s Spanish words are also known in English, then the toddler has a conceptual vocabulary of 90 words, which matches that of her cousin. Even so, knowing 50 vs. 90 English words could result in noticeably different communication abilities, but these differences are likely to become less noticeable with time. This hypothetical example about equivalence in vocabulary is supported by research showing that bilingual and monolingual 14-month-olds are equally good at learning word-object associations ( Byers-Heinlein, Fennell, & Werker, 2013 ). This offers some reassurance that young bilinguals—like young monolinguals—possess learning skills that can successfully get them started on expected vocabulary trajectories. There is also evidence that bilingual children match monolinguals in conversational abilities; for example, when somebody uses a confusing or mispronounced word, or says something ambiguous, bilingual children can repair the conversation with the same skill as monolinguals ( Comeau, Genesee, & Mendelson, 2010 ).

Just like some monolingual children have a language delay or disorder, a similar proportion of bilinguals will have a language delay or disorder. Evidence that one bilingual child has a language difficulty, however, is not evidence that bilingualism leads to language difficulties in general. The challenge for pediatricians and for speech-language pathologists is to decide if a bilingual child does have a problem, or whether her errors are part of normal development and interaction between the sounds, words, and grammars of her two languages. If parents are worried that their bilingual child does have a delay, they should first consult their pediatrician. Pediatricians sometimes have a tendency to say, “Don’t worry, her language is completely normal.” This statement will end up being false for some children who will end up diagnosed with language difficulties, but it is more likely than not to be true, especially considering that parents can be inaccurate when estimating their bilingual child’s language skills. In some other cases, health care providers with concerns about language impairment may recommend against raising a child in a bilingual environment. This recommendation is not supported by the science of bilingualism. Bilingual children with specific language impairments ( Paradis, Crago, Genesee, & Rice, 2003 ), Down syndrome ( Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2005 ), and autism spectrum disorders ( Peterson, Marinova-Todd, & Mirenda, 2012 ) are not more likely to experience additional delays or challenges compared to monolingual children with these impairments.

If parents do not feel comfortable with a pediatrician’s opinion, they should find (or ask for a referral to) a speech-language pathologist with expertise in bilingualism, if at all possible. Early intervention increases the likelihood of a positive outcome. The problem is that few clinicians receive quality training about the learning needs of bilingual children, which in some cases leads to a misdiagnosis of bilingual children as having delayed or disordered language ( Bedore & Peña, 2008 ; Kohnert, 2010 ; Thordardottir, Rothenberg, Rivard, & Naves, 2006 ). The time is past due to eliminate such simple misunderstandings in clinical settings. A bilingual clinician, or an individual who has training in bilingualism, will take care in assessing language skills in both languages, in order to measure the child’s entire language profile. Parents should keep in mind that clinicians have a very difficult job when it comes to assessing bilingual children. They have to (1) accurately assess a bilingual child’s language abilities in each of her languages, (2) integrate the child’s problematic and unproblematic abilities in terms of sounds, words, grammar, and conversation in each language into a coherent whole, (3) evaluate whether the child is delayed and/or disordered in one or both languages, (4) weigh the child’s linguistic/cognitive capacities in comparison to typically and atypically developing monolingual children and, when possible, bilingual children of the same age, and (5) develop an effective intervention that targets subareas of linguistic/cognitive competence in one and/or both languages. This is a tangled landscape for intervention, but one that can be assessed thoughtfully. Regardless of whether parents pursue intervention, they can help children gain bilingual proficiency by using both languages as regularly as possible in enriching and engaging contexts. Furthermore, parents should keep in mind that both monolingual and bilingual children can best show off their skills when using language that matches their daily experiences ( Mattock, Polka, Rvachew, & Krehm, 2010 ).

In summary, if you measure bilinguals using a monolingual measure, you are more likely to find false evidence of delay. Fortunately, researchers and clinicians are now developing bilingual-specific measures that paint a more accurate picture of bilinguals’ global language competence.

Conclusions

In this article, we have reviewed what the science says about six of parents’ most commonly asked questions about early bilingualism. Research demonstrates that we need to reshape our views of early bilingualism: children are born ready to learn the language or languages of their environments without confusion or delay ( Werker & Byers-Heinlein, 2008 ). To promote successful bilingual development, parents raising bilingual children should ensure that their children have ample opportunities to hear and speak both of their languages. As children get older, interacting with monolingual speakers (especially other children) is important for motivating ongoing language use, especially for minority languages not widely spoken in the community ( Pearson, 2008 ). Teachers, pediatricians, and speech language pathologists play an important role in dispelling common myths, and in communicating science-based information about early bilingualism to parents.

While our focus here has been on language development, it is also important to recognize that early childhood is also a time of profound emotional, social, physical, and cognitive development. Bilingualism will be a priority or even a necessity for some families. Other families might choose to focus on other aspects of development. In some cases, where families are not fluent in a second language, early bilingualism might be unrealistic. Here, it is important to keep two things in mind: 1) bilingualism is only one way to promote successful early development, and 2) second language learning is possible at any age. Language—any language—is a window to the world. It is better for parents to provide plenty of input and interaction in a language they are comfortable in, than to hold back because they are not fluent or comfortable in the language.

When it comes to raising bilingual children, myths and misunderstandings are common, but facts are hard to come by. Together with researchers around the world, we are working hard to continue providing scientifically based facts addressing parents’ most important questions about early bilingualism.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants to Krista Byers-Heinlein from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada and the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Société et culture, and to Casey Lew-Williams from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation. Thank you to Alexandra Polonia for her assistance with proofreading, and to the many parents of bilingual children whose questions inspire and motivate us.

Biographies

Krista Byers-Heinlein (B.A., McGill University; M.A., Ph.D., University of British Columbia) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Concordia University. She directs the Concordia Infant Research Laboratory, and is a member of the Centre for Research in Human Development, and the Centre for Research on Brain, Language and Music. She is recognized internationally for her research on bilingualism in infancy, and has published extensively on the topics of bilingual infants’ speech perception and word learning.

Casey Lew-Williams (B.A., University of California, Berkeley; M.A., Ph.D., Stanford University) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at Northwestern University. He directs the Language Learning Lab, a research group devoted to studying first, second, and bilingual language learning. His work focuses in particular on understanding how different learning experiences shape language outcomes in diverse populations of infants, children, and adults.

Contributor Information

Krista Byers-Heinlein, Concordia University.

Casey Lew-Williams, Northwestern University.

• Akhtar N, Menjivar JA. Cognitive and linguistic correlates of early exposure to more than one language. In: Benson JB, editor. Advances in child development and behavior. Vol. 42. Burlington: Academic Press; 2012. pp. 41–78. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barron-Hauwaert S. Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parent-one-language approach. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bedore LM, Peña ED. Assessment of bilingual children for identification of language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2008; 11 (1):1–29. doi: 10.2167/beb392.0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E, Craik FIM, Luk G. Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2012; 16 (4):240–250. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E, Martin M. Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science. 2004; 7 (3):325–339. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00693.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E, Senman L. Executive processes in appearance-reality tasks: The role of inhibition of attention and symbolic representation. Child Development. 2004; 75 (2):562–579. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00693.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birdsong D, Molis M. On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language. 2001; 44 (2):235–249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bosch L, Sebastián-Gallés N. Native-language recognition abilities in 4-month-old infants from monolingual and bilingual environments. Cognition. 1997; 65 (1):33–69. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00040-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bosch L, Sebastián-Gallés N. Evidence of early language discrimination abilities in infants from bilingual environments. Infancy. 2001; 2 (1):29–49. doi: 10.1207/S15327078IN0201_3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brito N, Barr R. Influence of bilingualism on memory generalization during infancy. Developmental Science. 2012; 15 (6):812–816. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.1184.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byers-Heinlein K. Parental language mixing: Its measurement and the relation of mixed input to young bilingual children’s vocabulary size. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2013; 16 (01):32–48. doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000120. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byers-Heinlein K. Methods for studying infant bilingualism. In: Schwieter JW, editor. Cambridge handbook of bilingual processing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; (under review) [ Google Scholar ]
• Byers-Heinlein K, Burns TC, Werker JF. The roots of bilingualism in newborns. Psychological Science. 2010; 21 (3):343–348. doi: 10.1177/0956797609360758. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byers-Heinlein K, Fennell CT, Werker JF. The development of associative word learning in monolingual and bilingual infants. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2013; 16 (1):198–205. doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000417. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canadian Council on Learning. Understanding the academic trajectories of ESL students. 2008 Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/LessonsInLearning/Oct-02-08-Understanding-the-acedemic.pdf .
• Center for Applied Linguistics. Directory of Foreign Language Immersion Programs in U.S. Schools Summary of Data. 2011 Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/immersion/
• Comeau L, Genesee F, Lapaquette L. The modeling hypothesis and child bilingual codemixing. International Journal of Bilingualism. 2003; 7 (2):113–126. doi: 10.1177/13670069030070020101. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Comeau L, Genesee F, Mendelson M. A comparison of bilingual monolingual children’s conversational repairs. First Language. 2010; 30 (3–4):354–374. doi: 10.1177/0142723710370530. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conboy BT, Mills DL. Two languages, one developing brain: Event-related potentials to words in bilingual toddlers. Developmental Science. 2006; 9 (1):F1–F12. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00453. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa A, Hernández M, Sebastián-Gallés N. Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition. 2008; 106 (1):59–86. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.013. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Houwer A. Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2007; 28 (03):411–424. doi: 10.1017/S0142716407070221. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeLoache JS, Chiong C, Sherman K, Islam N, Vanderborght M, Troseth GL, et al. Do babies learn from baby media? Psychological Science. 2010; 21 (11):1570–1574. doi: 10.1177/0956797610384145. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Döpke S, editor. Cross-linguistic structures in simultaneous bilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernald F, Simon T. Expanded intonation contours in mothers’ speech to newborns. Developmental Psychology. 1984; 20 (1):104–113. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.20.1.104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García EE, McLaughlin B, Spodek B, Saracho ON. Yearbook in early childhood education. Vol. 6: Meeting the challenge of linguistic and cultural diversity in early childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gardner RC, Lambert WE. Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 1959; 13 (4):266–272. doi: 10.1037/h0083787. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Genesee F, Boivin I, Nicoladis E. Talking with strangers: A study of children’s communicative competence. Applied Psycholinguistics. 1996; 17 (4):427–442. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400008183. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goetz PJ. The effects of bilingualism on theory of mind development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2003; 6 (1):1–15. doi: 10.1017/S1366728903001007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodz NS. Parental language mixing in bilingual families. Infant Mental Health Journal. 1989; 10 (1) doi:10.1002/1097-0355(198921)10:1<25::AID-IMHJ2280100104> 3.0.CO;2-R. [ Google Scholar ]
• Green DW. Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 1998; 1 (02):67–81. doi: 10.1017/S1366728998000133. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hakuta K, Bialystok E, Wiley E. Critical evidence: A test of the critical-period hypothesis for second-language learning. Psychological Science. 2003; 14 (1):31–38. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.01415. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart B, Risley TR. Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoff E, Core C, Place S, Rumiche R, Señor M, Parra M. Dual language exposure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language. 2012; 39 (1):1–27. doi: 10.1017/S0305000910000759. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hudon TM, Fennell CT, Hoftyzer M. Quality not quantity of television viewing is associated with bilingual toddlers’ vocabulary scores. Infant Behavior and Development. 2013; 36 (2):245–254. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.01.010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hurtado N, Grüter T, Marchman VA, Fernald A. Relative language exposure, processing efficiency and vocabulary in Spanish–English bilingual toddlers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2013:1–14. doi: 10.1017/S136672891300014X. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson JS, Newport EL. Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology. 1989; 21 (1):60–99. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kay-Raining Bird E, Cleave P, Trudeau N, Thordardottir E, Sutton A, Thorpe A. The language abilities of bilingual children with Down syndrome. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2005; 14 :187–199. doi:1058-0360/05/1403-0187. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King K, Mackey A. The bilingual edge. Ontario, Canada: HarperCollins; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kluger J. TIME Magazine. 2013. Jul, The power of the bilingual brain. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohnert K. Bilingual children with primary language impairment: Issues, evidence and implications for clinical actions. Journal of Communication Disorders. 2010; 43 (6):456–473. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.02.002. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kovács ÁM. Early bilingualism enhances mechanisms of false-belief reasoning. Developmental Science. 2009; 12 (1):48–54. doi: 10.1111/desc.2009.12.issue-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kovács ÁM, Mehler J. Cognitive gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009a; 106 (16):6556–6560. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811323106. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kovács ÁM, Mehler J. Flexible learning of multiple speech structures in bilingual infants. Science. 2009b; 325 (5940):611–612. doi: 10.1126/science.1173947. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krashen S. Lateralization, language learning, and the critical period. Language Learning. 1973; 23 :63–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00097.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhl PK, Tsao FM, Liu HM. Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2003; 100 (15):9096–9101. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1532872100. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lanza E. Language mixing in infant bilingualism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenneberg EH. Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lew-Williams C, Fernald A. Young children learning Spanish make rapid use of grammatical gender in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science. 2007; 18 (3):193–198. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01871.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lew-Williams C, Fernald A. Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language. 2010; 63 (4):447–464. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.07.003. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marchman VA, Fernald A, Hurtado N. How vocabulary size in two languages relates to efficiency in spoken word recognition by young Spanish–English bilinguals. Journal of Child Language. 2010; 37 (4):817–840. doi: 10.1017/S0305000909990055. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marchman VA, Martínez-Sussmann C, Dale PS. The language-specific nature of grammatical development: Evidence from bilingual language learners. Developmental Science. 2004; 7 (2):212–224. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00340.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mattock K, Polka L, Rvachew S, Krehm M. The first steps in word learning are easier when the shoes fit: Comparing monolingual and bilingual infants. Developmental Science. 2010; 13 (1):229–243. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00891.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mehler J, Jusczyk PW, Lambertz G, Halsted N, Bertoncini J, Amiel-Tison C. A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. Cognition. 1988; 29 (2):143–178. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90035-2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nazzi T. Language discrimination by English-learning 5-month-olds: Effects of rhythm and familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language. 2000; 43 (1):1–19. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2698. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paradis M. A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paradis J, Crago M, Genesee F, Rice M. Bilingual children with specific language impairment: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2003; 46 :1–15. doi: 10.1017/S0142716407070300. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paradis J, Genesee F, Crago MB. Dual language development and disorders. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing Company; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paradis J, Nicoladis E, Genesee F. Early emergence of structural constraints on code-mixing: Evidence from French–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2000; 3 (03):245–261. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearson BZ. Raising a bilingual child. New York: Random House; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearson BZ, Fernández SC. Patterns of interaction in the lexical growth in two languages of bilingual infants and toddlers. Language Learning. 1994; 44 (4):617–653. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb00633.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearson BZ, Fernández SC, Oller DK. Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning. 1993; 43 (1):93–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb00633.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson J, Marinova-Todd SH, Mirenda P. Brief report: An exploratory study of lexical skills in bilingual children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2012; 42 (7):1499–1503. doi: 10.1007/s10803-011-1366-y. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petitto LA, Holowka S. Evaluating attributions of delay and confusion in young bilinguals: Special insights from infants acquiring a signed and an oral language. Sign Language Studies. 2002; 3 (1):4–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Place S, Hoff E. Properties of dual language exposure that influence two-year-olds’ bilingual proficiency. Child Development. 2011; 82 (6):1834–1849. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01660.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Poplack S. Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics. 1980; 18 :581–618. doi: 10.1515/ling-2013-0039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Poplack S. Contrasting patterns of code-switching in two communities; Presented at the Aspects of multilingualism.1984. pp. 51–77. [ Google Scholar ]
• Poulin-Dubois D, Blaye A, Coutya J, Bialystok E. The effects of bilingualism on toddlers’ executive functioning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2011; 108 (3):567–579. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.10.009. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ronjat J. Le développement du langage observé chez un enfant bilingue. Paris: Champion; 1913. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schellenberg EG. Music and cognitive abilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2005; 14 (6):317–320. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00389.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sebastián-Gallés N, Albareda-Castellot B, Weikum WM, Werker JF. A bilingual advantage in visual language discrimination in infancy. Psychological Science. 2012; 23 (9):994–999. doi: 10.1177/0956797612436817. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Statistics Canada. French Immersion 30 years later. 2000 Retrieved from www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/200406/6923-eng.htm .
• Thordardottir E. The relationship between bilingual exposure and vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism. 2011; 15 (4):426–445. doi: 10.1177/1367006911403202. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thordardottir E, Rothenberg A, Rivard M, Naves R. Bilingual assessment: Can overall proficiency be estimated from separate measurement of two languages? Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders. 2006; 4 (1):1–21. doi: 10.1080/14769670500215647. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber-Fox C, Neville HJ. Sensitive periods differentiate processing of open-and closed-class words: An ERP study of bilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research. 2001; 44 (6):1338–1353. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2001/104). [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wei L. Dimensions of bilingualism. In: Wei L, editor. The bilingualism reader. New York: Routledge; 2000. pp. 3–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weikum WM, Vouloumanos A, Navarra J, Soto-Faraco S, Sebastián-Gallés N, Werker JF. Visual language discrimination in infancy. Science. 2007; 316 (5828):1159. doi: 10.1126/science.1137686. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Werker JF, Byers-Heinlein K. Bilingualism in infancy: First steps in perception and comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2008; 12 (4):144–151. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yow WQ, Markman EM. Bilingualism and children’s use of paralinguistic cues to interpret emotion in speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2011; 14 (4):562–569. doi: 10.1017/S1366728910000404. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Language Teaching
• Bilingual Education

Bilingual Education

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Last »
• Bilingualism Follow Following
• Multi- & Bilingualism & Biliteracy Follow Following
• CLIL Follow Following
• Multilingualism Follow Following
• Language Planning and Policy Follow Following
• Second Language Acquisition Follow Following
• Sociolinguistics Follow Following
• Applied Linguistics Follow Following
• Bilingualism and Multilingualism Follow Following
• Languages and Linguistics Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

TOP > Papers & Essays > Language Development & Education > Understanding Bilingual Education 2: Analyzing Types of Bilingual Education

Papers & Essays

Understanding bilingual education 2: analyzing types of bilingual education.

Understanding Bilingual Education 1. Analyzing Purposes of Bilingual Education 2. Analyzing Types of Bilingual Education (This paper) 3. Analyzing Cases of Bilingual Education

Introduction to this paper

Bilingual education, strictly speaking, involves teaching in two or more languages in schools, but for the reasons discussed in the previous paper, a bewildering variety of programs can claim a connection to the use of plural languages in education. Some school systems claim to practice bilingual education because their cultural minority students know another language aside from the one used in schools, but such programs with a monolingual medium of formal instruction do not actually represent a type of bilingual education at all. Their students may be bilingual for the time being despite, not because of, monolingual school systems that are designed to assimilate minorities.

Types of Bilingual Education

As can be seen in the extreme right column above, weak and strong forms are defined by the typical language outcomes among students, basically whether or not children become or remain bilingual. In strong forms of bilingual education, reading and writing are conducted in both languages, resulting in biliteracy. On the other hand, if classes are taught mainly in one language, it is not to the credit of the school system if some students are bilingual. Children of immigrants or minorities may simply be in transition from their endangered native language or languages to monolingualism in the dominant language of the society. Whereas majority or minority languages are defined from the viewpoint of the mainstream society, native languages (L1) and second or foreign languages (L2) should always be defined from the viewpoint of the learners involved.

  In the second column from the right, the various educational or societal aims of bilingual education are seen again in keywords. The middle column demonstrates the variety of possible language use patterns in school classes, particularly the medium of instruction. The ten types of bilingual education are thus defined by the language background of the students, the languages actually used in school, the aims of decision-making authorities, and the active linguistic repertoire of students upon leaving the school.

  Regarding particular types, submersion and transitional bilingual education serve the purpose of assimilating immigrant or minority children into the mainstream of society. Transitional programs start with considerable native language instruction, but it is gradually phased out. Submersion programs simply plunge students abruptly into classrooms where their native language is not seen as fit to use, and the medium of instruction is foreign to them, so they involuntarily sink or swim. Such programs are not called submersion, and they are usually believed to help students adjust to society as soon as possible so they can make a living in the future, but it tends to result in the cognitive damage of losing their native language proficiency. Then, for example in the U.S., they may still be stigmatized as limited English proficiency (LEP) speakers or of low intelligence according to standardized test results in their second language.

  The second type of submersion in the chart aims to soften the shock of changing the language use of children by teaching in sheltered or simplified English, or pulling language minority students out of classes to study the majority language or medium of instruction itself. Withdrawal classes take place in some Japanese cities as well, with a small number of language minority students pulled out of each school to study Japanese as a second language (JSL) in a central location. Among the drawbacks, they miss regular class content and are further isolated from mainstream students. When Vaipae went beyond questionnaire surveys to interview immigrant families, she found that "regardless of the length of residence or school attendance in Japan, none of the case study students reached academic achievement levels on par with their Japanese classmates" (2001, p. 228).

  Mainstream with Foreign Language Teaching, also a weak type of bilingual education, is the usual pattern where the mainstream language majority students study a foreign language several hours a week, which does not provide enough exposure and interaction in the L2 for students to become bilingual. Far removed from environments where it would be necessary and rewarding to use the foreign language, it is too little and started too late. Critical periods have passed where babies could distinguish all languages, children could attain native-like L2 pronunciation until about age eight, and languages could be acquired without much effort until around puberty (Glinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 1999, pp. 23-24, 138).  This is the usual predicament with English in Japan, various foreign languages taught in the U.S., and in other countries where one language is dominant.

  The two other weak forms of bilingual education, Segregationist and Separatist, can appear to be similar, as they tend to be minority groups isolated from the mainstream society and using their native languages in school, insofar as children can attend. But the key difference is whether they have the choice of their medium of instruction or not. In Segregationist situations the dominant social group excludes the minority group from the option of learning in languages of wider communication such as Swahili, Arabic, English, or French. In this way the dominant group keeps the minority groups down, monopolizing limited resources and economic opportunities for social advancement. Whereas in Separatist situations the minority group is deliberately trying to distance its members from the strong influence of the mainstream society in order to protect its native language, culture, and religion. For example, some American Indians find their children turning away from their native language and values because of the strong influence of the popular culture in English. They may therefore conduct their own education in their native language apart from American influences, although young people are liable to become native speakers of English regardless, because the mainstream language can hardly be avoided.

  Most of the weak forms of bilingual education were reserved for the children of immigrants and minorities except the Mainstream with Foreign Language Teaching model, which is ineffective and scarcely threatens to change the existing social order.

Turning to strong forms, a very successful model for majority language students is Immersion, usually in another language of high status, cultural prestige, and economic value. The difference between Immersion and Submersion (for minority students) is first of all a matter of choice, like diving into the deep end of a pool versus being pushed into it. The majority children or at least their parents choose an immersion bilingual education program for the utmost academic advancement, whereas submersion is a matter of circumstance, the conditions most minority families encounter in schools where the default national policy toward them is assimilation.

  Immersion originated in Canada, which has a majority of French speakers in the province of Quebec. Canada has developed a national policy of bilingualism, with English and French as official languages, and multiculturalism (Shapson & D'Oyley, 1984) in consideration of indigenous Inuit and other minorities. 40% of children in Toronto schools are foreign born (Ritchie, 2006). Immersion bilingual education has been implemented widely for many years in Canada and adopted by schools in other countries (Bostwick, 2004). There are several English immersion schools in Japan, with research showing its effectiveness at Kato Gakuen in Shizuoka Prefecture (Bostwick, 2001). Conversely, there are schools in the U.S. and Australia that have Japanese immersion programs.

In immersion bilingual education the regular curriculum is taught to some extent in the target language, which can also be called Content-Based Foreign Language Teaching. But if the L2 is used less than half the time over the school year, it is not considered immersion, strictly speaking, but rather enrichment (Genesee, cited in Bostwick, 2004). When it is much less than 50%, it is Mainstream with Foreign Language Teaching, as noted earlier among the weak forms. There has not been much research or attention to bilingual education beyond childhood, but Content-Based English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Teaching, for example at Osaka Jogakuin University, can be more or less than 50% in the target language. In response to the author's question at a public lecture, Fred Genesee answered that Content-Based EFL in higher education could be called "immersion-like."

If a program is called immersion, it may need to be confirmed that the curriculum meets the established criteria. There is a distinction between partial and total immersion, as the proportion of L1 and L2 used tends to change from year to year in the same bilingual school. It is further divided into early immersion when it starts in pre-school, middle immersion when it starts midway through elementary school, and late immersion when it starts around the beginning of junior high school.  It is a strict standard compared to most foreign language programs, but many studies have shown that immersion students did not lose any native level ability in L1 but rather gained academic (Bostwick, 2001) and cognitive benefits from effective bilingual education programs.

Maintenance or Heritage Language programs serve the purpose of preserving the ethnic identity, culture and language of minority group members. Immigrant communities in particular have a need to maintain communication channels with first generation immigrants and people in their country of origin. Through bilingual education their children can cope with the majority society without losing their roots. Korean (Cary, 2001) and Chinese schools in Japan are of this type. Since their students are mostly raised in Japan and hence native speakers of Japanese, with English also taught at least through secondary school, many of their graduates are bilingual or multilingual.

Two-Way or Dual Language bilingual education is similar to immersion, but schools try to gather about the same number of minority and majority language students in each class in the program, and usually team teach about half of the curriculum in the native language of the minority and half in the native language of the majority language students. This shows that both languages are equally valued, and students can learn from each other. Two examples are Seigakuin Atlanta International School (n.d.), in English and Japanese, and Vienna Bilingual Schools (Oka, 2003, pp. 51-52), in German and English.

The last strong form among the ten types of bilingual education is called Mainstream Bilingual. It includes international schools and the European Schools Movement (Baker, 2006, p. 227). It serves children like majority students or temporary residents whose native language is an international language such as English. Thus Baker's most recent edition also calls it Bilingual Education in Majority Languages. "Such schools are in societies where much of the population is already bilingual or multilingual (e.g. Singapore, Luxembourg) or where there are significant numbers of natives or expatriates wanting to become bilingual (e.g. learning through English and Japanese in Japan)" (Baker, 2006, p. 250). "Bilingual education in majority languages means that some curriculum content is learnt through a student's second language. In Europe, this is often called Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)" (p. 251).

Conclusion to this paper

This was the longest of the three papers analyzing bilingual education because of the many types that are found in the world. The types drew from the varying purposes for bilingual education outlined in the first paper. Particularly the charts of ten purposes and ten types in the first and second papers will also provide background information for the final article. The third paper adds a worksheet with ten criteria and a list of ten realistic cases in Japan and the world to classify into types of bilingual education. Putting all of these together, it will be possible to analyze the languages used in any educational system in the world in terms of bilingual education.

• Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Bostwick, R.M. (2001). Bilingual education of children in Japan: Year four of a partial immersion programme. In M.G. Noguchi & S. Fotos (Eds.), Studies in Japanese Bilingualism (pp. 164-183). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Bostwick, R.M. (2004). What is Immersion? Numazu, Shizuoka, Japan: Katoh Gakuen. Retrieved from http://bi-lingual.com/school/INFO/WhatIsImmersion.html
• Cary, A. (2001). Affiliation, not assimilation: Resident Koreans and ethnic education. In M.G. Noguchi & S. Fotos (Eds.), Studies in Japanese Bilingualism (pp. 98-132). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Glinkoff, R.M. & Hirsh-Pasek, K.H. (1999). How Babies Talk: The Magic and Mystery of Language in the First Three Years of Life. NY: A Plume Book.
• Oka, H. (1996). Bairingaru kyoiku to daini gengo shutoku [Bilingual education and second language acquisition]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
• Oka, H. (2003). Sekai no bairingarizumu [Bilingualism in the world]. In JACET Bilingualism SIG, (Ed.), Nihon no bairingaru kyouiku: Gakkou no jirei kara manabu [Bilingual education in Japan: Learning from case studies in schools], pp. 24-66. Tokyo: Sanshusha.
• Ritchie, M. (2006). Integrating children who speak a foreign language into English nursery schools in Toronto, Canada. Tokyo: Child Research Net. Retrieved from http://www.childresearch.net/papers/multi/2006_03.html
• Seigakuin Atlanta International School (n.d.). Parents' Guide to Our Two-Way Immersion School. Retrieved from http://www.seig.ac.jp/english/atlanta/img/Two%20Way%20Immersion(E).pdf
• Shapson, S. & D'Oyley, V. (Eds.). (1984). Bilingual and multicultural education: Canadian perspectives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Vaipae, S.S. (2001). Language minority students in Japanese public schools. In M.G. Noguchi & S. Fotos (Eds.), Studies in Japanese Bilingualism (pp. 184-233). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Yukawa, E. (2000). Bilingual education in Sweden. In S. Ryan (Ed.), The best of Bilingual Japan, (pp. 45-47). Osaka: Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT) Bilingualism SIG.

• Understanding Bilingualism 1: What it Means to Be Bicultural
• Understanding Bilingualism 2: Bilingualism Concepts and Viewpoints
• Understanding Bilingualism 3: Bilingual Child-Raising Possibilities in Japan
• Educational Support for Children with Foreign Backgrounds: Impact of Parents' Japanese Language Skills on Children's Japanese Proficiency and Future Careers
• Assessment of Lexical Development in Preschool Children with Brazilian Roots and Attempts to Support Language Development Based on Their Heritage Language
• Japanese Education for Children Who Cannot Speak Japanese

Latest Posts

• As We Enter 2024
• [Snuggling Up to Our Differences] Episode 6: Sitting in a Chair and Listening--Good Manners?
• [A Gentle World through the Perspective of Children with Developmental Disabilities] Episode 3: Takuya-kun Having Trouble with Friendships―The World Surrounding Children with ASD
• The Wannsee Conference
• [South Korea] Current Situation and Issues of Inclusive Education for Preschool Children in South Korea - II
• [Video] Thoughts on Inclusive Education (3)
• [Video] Thoughts on Inclusive Education (2)
• Promoting Children's Resilience for Nurturing Competent Citizens for the Future
• [Perspectives of Traditional Culture of the Matrilineal Mosuo of Lugu Lake] Part 6: Mosuo Women's Choice of Marriage in Different Times
• Social Sensitivity to Sexual Abuse
• Early Childhood
• Elementary, Junior High, High School, and University
• International Comparisons
• Digital Media and Children
• Children's Rights and Well-being
• New Directions
• Full Paper Archive
• Research Data
• Latest Children's Issues
• Childrearing and Education
• About this Project
• Interactive Activities
• CRN History
• Publications

× Indigenous People's Weekend: The Libraries will be closed from Saturday - Monday, October 12 - 14 . Sherrill Library and Moriarty Library will reopen on Tuesday, October 15 at 10am. Enjoy the holiday!

× sherrill library will be closed from may 18 - september 2 due to construction. services by appointment: research consultations, library instruction, pick up appointments moriarty library will be open through august 31, monday - friday from 10am-6pm. closed weekends and holidays. as always, our web resources are available 24/7. questions our chat and ask us services are available monday-friday, 10am-6pm., × the libraries will be closed for memorial day weekend from friday-monday, may 24-27. enjoy the holiday, × spring break: monday, 03/13/2023 - sunday, 03/19/2023: library pickups are by appointment. need an appointment email us at sherrill library: [email protected] or moriarty library: [email protected], × alert mm/dd/yyyy: something is broken please contact us with questions., × alert 12/14/2023: ebsco allsearch is unavailable. we are working to fix this as quickly as we can. in the meanwhile, please try searching for articles from our proquest central database and for ebooks and books from our flo catalog . we're very sorry for the inconveniance. --> × welcome back our remote services guide has everything you need to know about library services we're offering this semester, including research help, study spaces, and more for other campus plans, see the lesley university covid-19 response. any other questions ask us, × welcome back our remote services guide has everything you need to know about library services we're offering this semester, including research help, study spaces, and more any other questions ask us, bilingual education & english language learners.

• Lesley Faculty Authors
• Teaching Resources
• Starting Places
• Search Strategies

APA Format explained

Quick reference guides, need help formatting your paper, library & research help.

• Sherrill Library: 617-349-8850
• Moriarty Library: 617-349-8070
• Text: 617-340-8008
• Research Help:  Ask Us!
• Email:  [email protected]
• Art & Design Research Email: [email protected]

APA format is a style for formatting academic publications. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association —often referred to as the APA Style Guide —is used by authors at all levels. It provides guidance and direction in all aspects of the writing process.

Whether you are working on an annotated bibliography , a literature review , or a dissertation, you can use the guide to organize and share your ideas with the scholarly community.

The APA Style Format includes guidelines for how to:

• cite and accredit your sources
• structure your paper (eg. margins, headings, fonts, etc.)
• format your writing style (eg. how to present ideas, language tone, grammar, etc.)
• format writing elements (eg. tables, present data, use figures, use photographs, etc.)
• construct a bibliography

Check out the Tutorials to learn more about formatting your paper in APA.

You can view the apa 7th edition guide here ., a guide for apa 7th edition is currently being worked on. if you need further information about the new edition, please go here ..

• Elements of an APA Paper from The Purdue OWL A sample APA Paper with each element highlighted from the Purdue Online Writing Lab
• APA Visual Guide by Nancy Wolf, Lesley faculty Basic APA rules laid out graphically for visual learners!
• APA 6th Edition - Lesley Examples Quick reference for APA citation that includes how to cite works without authors, blogs, web pages, etc.
• Annotated Bibliography Guide by Lesley faculty member, Nancy Wolf Instructions on formatting an annotated bibliography.
• How to Write an APA Style Reference When Information Is Missing, by the American Psychological Association This chart helps you navigate how to cite a work when information is missing.
• DOI and URL Flowchart Learn when to use a DOI vs a URL when citing resource from the American Psychological Association.

Librarians are happy to answer questions about citations, but we do not proof-read citations for accuracy . Contact Lesley's Center for Academic Achievement for help with formatting APA, as well as writing papers and other academic challenges.

• online tutoring for students taking courses off-campus or during intensive residencies
• face-to-face tutoring for students taking courses on-campus.
• << Previous: Search Strategies
• Last Updated: Aug 23, 2024 12:19 PM
• URL: https://research.lesley.edu/bilingual

Moriarty Library

Porter Campus 1801 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 617-349-8070

Sherrill Library

South Campus 89 Brattle Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-349-8850

Iowa Reading Research Center

Research Article of the Month: September 2024

This blog post is part of our  Research Article of the Month series. For this month, we highlight “ Universal Screening in Grades K–2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Early Reading Curriculum-Based Measures ,” an article published in the Journal of School Psychology in 2020. Important words related to research are bolded, and definitions of these terms are included at the end of the article in the “Terms to Know” section.

Why Did We Pick This Paper?

A universal screener is a tool teachers use to identify students who may be at risk for literacy difficulties. It is an assessment given to all students several times a year to identify which students are below, at, or above a certain benchmark at a specific point in time. Screening helps teachers identify students who could benefit from additional support or accelerated instruction. It is especially important in early elementary grades so potential difficulties with reading can be identified and addressed as early as possible. 

One kind of assessment used for universal screening is a curriculum-based measure (CBM). CBMs are short, timed assessments that track an individual student’s progress toward a learning goal. Some CBMs measure a specific skill associated with reading ability, such as word identification or letter-sound knowledge. For example, a CBM that assesses letter-sound knowledge might require a student to produce the sounds associated with each letter from a list. 

Given the prevalence of CBM assessments in universal screening, it is important to understand the validity of these assessments—the extent to which these assessments measure the skill they are designed to measure. This includes concurrent validity (the extent to which student performance on one assessment is confirmed by their performance on another assessment designed to measure the same skill) and predictive validity (the extent to which student performance on one assessment predicts their performance on another assessment administered at a later time). Understanding the validity of CBMs can help educators select universal screening measures that accurately identify students who would benefit from additional support in reading. 

What Are the Research Questions or Purpose?

The researchers aim to evaluate the validity of early reading CBMs administered in Grades K – 2. The purposes of the study are as follows:

• Measure concurrent and predictive validity of early reading CBMs with other measures of reading outcomes. 
• Determine whether administration lag (the time lapse between the administration of the CBM and the administration of another assessment of student reading outcomes) affected the relationship between students’ performance on the CBM and another outcome measure.  

Note: The authors also intended to assess the classification accuracy of CBMs, but the majority of articles in this meta-analysis did not report the data necessary for this analysis, so the authors were unable to address this purpose of the study. To learn more about the classification accuracy of screeners, read our  January 2024 Research Article of the Month .

What Methodology Do the Authors Employ?

The authors conducted a meta-analysis of 53 empirical  studies that examined the impacts of teacher PD on student reading outcomes. To be included in the analysis, the studies needed to:

• Include an early reading CBM assessment as a predictor  of a reading outcome
• Focus on students in Grades K–2
• Report correlation coefficients or the figures necessary to calculate them
• Specify the timeframe in which the measures were administered
• Occur in a general education classroom
• Be published in English

For each of the included studies, researchers examined the students’ performance on a CBM and another student reading outcome measure (e.g., broad reading achievement, reading comprehension and vocabulary, language and listening, oral reading, phonics, or phonological and phonemic awareness).

Researchers also took into account other variables in the studies that could affect students’ reading outcomes. These variables included:

• Race and ethnicity
• Language status
• Free and reduced lunch status
• Special education status
• Publisher (FastBridge, DIBELS, easyCBM, aimsweb)
• Measure type (onset sounds, letter names, phoneme segmentation, word identification, nonsense words)
• Screening seasons (fall, winter, spring)
• Reading outcome measure (broad reading achievement, reading comprehension and vocabulary, language and listening, oral reading, phonics, phonological and phonemic awareness)
• Administration lag in months

The researchers conducted separate random effects models for concurrent and predictive validity to estimate the correlation between early reading CBMs and other reading outcome measures. The researchers calculated the correlation coefficients for each reading outcome separately, when possible. However, when there were insufficient data to support this kind of analysis, the outcome measures were aggregated to ensure more reliable results. 

For the purposes of this study, correlation coefficients were classified as concurrent when the reading outcome measure was administered less than a month after the CBM, and as predictive when the reading outcome measure was administered a month or more after the CBM. The researchers examined the extent to which this administration lag moderated the correlation between early reading CBMs and other reading outcome measures. 

What Are the Key Findings?

Alphabet knowledge.

In the studies included in this meta-analysis, there were two early reading CBMs that measured alphabet knowledge: letter sounds and letter naming. These CBMs were only administered in kindergarten and first grade. There was a large concurrent correlation (r = 0.552) between the letter sounds CBM and the composite outcome measure, consisting of phonics, oral reading, and broad reading. Similarly, there was a large concurrent correlation (r = 0.571) between the letter naming CBM and the aggregated outcome measure, consisting of phonics, broad reading, and oral reading. Concerning the abilities of these CBMs to predict students’ future performance, the letter sounds CBM had a large predictive association (r = 0.56) with complex reading skills (a composite of phonics, comprehension, and broad reading outcomes). Similarly, the predictive association between the letter naming CBM and other reading outcomes was also large, ranging from 0.52 for broad reading to 0.64 for oral reading. However, the predictive ability of the letter naming CBM was moderated by administration lag. For every month increase in the lag between the administration of the letter naming CBM and the administration of the outcome measure, the correlation coefficient decreased by 0.01. In other words, the more time that passes between the administration of both assessments, the less accurately the letter naming CBM predicts a student’s later performance. 

Phoneme Awareness

In the studies included in this meta-analysis, there were two early reading CBMs that measured phonemic awareness: onset sounds and phoneme segmenting. Onset sounds was only administered in kindergarten, whereas phoneme segmenting was administered in both kindergarten and first grade. The correlation coefficients of these CBMs were smaller than those of the alphabet knowledge CBMs. The onset sounds CBM had a medium concurrent correlation (r = 0.43) with more complex reading skills. Similarly, the phoneme segmenting CBM had a medium concurrent correlation with both phonics and phonological awareness (r = 0.43) and complex reading skills (r = 0.34). Concerning the predictive abilities of these CBMs, there was a medium predictive correlation (r = 0.424) between the onset sounds CBM and the aggregated outcome measure, consisting of phonics, oral reading, broad reading, and comprehension. Similarly, there was a medium predictive correlation between the phoneme-segmenting CBM and the other outcome measures, ranging from 0.350 for oral reading to 0.376 for phonics. These predictive correlations were not moderated by administration lag.

Two CBMs in the studies included in this meta-analysis measured decoding skills: nonsense words and word identification. The nonsense words CBM was administered across Grades K–2, whereas the word identification CBM was administered primarily in first grade. Concurrent associations between the nonsense words CBM and other reading skills were large, ranging from 0.60 for broad reading ability to 0.75 for oral reading. Similarly, the word identification CBM had a large concurrent association with complex reading skills (r = 0.70). Concerning the ability of these CBMs to predict students’ later performance, the nonsense words CBM had large predictive correlations with outcome measures, ranging from 0.52 for oral reading to 0.68 for broad reading. However, administration lag was a significant moderator for the nonsense words CBM. Predictive correlations between the word identification CBM and other reading outcomes were also large, ranging from 0.71 for broad reading and comprehension to 0.83 for oral reading. In contrast to the nonsense words CBM, administration lag was not significant for the word identification CBM. 

What Are the Practical Applications of Key Findings?

The study explores the validity of early reading CBMs in identifying at-risk students in Grades K–2.  One of the key findings is that CBMs can reliably predict later reading outcomes, particularly for skills including phonics, oral reading, and letter naming. Practically, these findings underscore the importance of timely and frequent assessments to accurately predict students’ later performance and shed light on their reading development. For teachers, this suggests that using CBMs frequently, such as multiple times per school year, can help them identify students who could benefit from additional support or early intervention. Additionally, schools can choose CBM tools that align closely with their instructional goals and refine their universal screening processes to identify early signs of potential reading difficulties. For example, if the goal is to predict decoding skills, CBMs that assess nonsense words and word identification have demonstrated strong predictive validity. These CBMs could support data-based decisions in the classroom and help ensure that students receive appropriate support in the early stages of reading development.

What Are the Limitations of This Paper?

Due to the lack of data reported in the included studies, the researchers were unable to explore how student demographic factors, such as race and ethnicity, socioeconomic background, or English Learner status might have influenced the findings. Thus, it is unclear whether CBMs perform comparably well for all student groups. Furthermore, it is difficult to know if these assessments might have different levels of accuracy or predictive validity for students from diverse backgrounds. Further research on these demographic factors would benefit educators and schools to ensure that CBMs are equitable and effective for all learners. Additionally, the study showed large variability, or heterogeneity, between the included studies, in terms of the sample sizes, regions, and specific CBM tools used. While a robust variance estimation method was used to account for this, the variability in how and when CBMs were administered across different contexts could affect the generalizability of the results. 

Terms to Know

• Validity: Validity refers to the extent to which an assessment measures what it was designed to measure. 
• Concurrent validity: Concurrent validity is the extent to which one measurement is confirmed by another measurement administered at roughly the same time. 
• Predictive validity: Predictive validity is the extent to which a student’s performance on one measure predicts their performance on another measure later. For example, if a student’s score on a nonsense word reading assessment predicts their later performance on a standardized state assessment, this nonsense word reading assessment would have predictive validity. 
• Classification accuracy:  Classification accuracy refers to the extent to which one measure (e.g., a universal screener) accurately identifies students as “at risk” or “not at risk” based on their performance on another measure (e.g., a standardized state assessment). An assessment with high classification accuracy minimizes false positives (i.e., proficient readers who are incorrectly identified as at risk) and false negatives (at-risk students who are incorrectly identified as proficient readers). Using screeners with high classification accuracy is important to ensure that time and resources are allocated efficiently and that students receive the appropriate level of support in reading.
• Empirical: Empirical  research is a way of gaining knowledge through observation or experience. Empirical research contrasts with theoretical research, which relies on systems of logic, beliefs, and assumptions. 
• Predictor: A predictor variable, is a factor that influences another variable in a correlational study. For example, the length of a reading intervention in total minutes (predictor variable) may forecast a student’s composite reading score. 
• Correlation coefficient:  A correlation coefficient is a measure of the strength of the relationship between two variables. A correlation between variables means that when one variable changes, another variable also changes in a specific direction. For example, if the length of intervention and reading comprehension are correlated, then when the length of reading intervention increases, student reading comprehension will also increase. A common correlation coefficient is Pearson’s correlation coefficient, which is represented by r. Pearson’s correlation coefficient ranges from -1 to 1. Negative values indicate a negative correlation between variables (as one variable changes, the other variable changes in the opposite direction); positive values indicate a positive correlation (as one variable changes, the other variable changes in the same direction). The absolute value, or distance from zero, indicates the strength of the relationship between the variables. A correlation coefficient of ±0.2 is generally considered a small correlation, ±0.3 a medium correlation, and ±0.5 a large correlation (Cohen, 2013). 
• Random effects model: A random effects model is a type of statistical model that measures how an independent variable affects a dependent variable across a number of different samples or studies. Unlike a fixed effects model, a random effects model accounts for variability between different groups in a dataset.
• Effect size: In statistics, effect size is a measure of the strength of the relationship between two variables in statistical analyses. A commonly used interpretation is to refer to effect size as small (g = 0.2), medium (g = 0.5), and large (g = 0.8) based on the benchmarks suggested by Cohen (1988), where “g” refers to Hedge’s g, a statistical measure of effect size.
• Moderator: Moderators are variables that affect the relationship between two other variables. For example, the relationship between the length of a reading intervention and reading comprehension may be stronger for students who are at risk for reading disabilities versus students who are not at risk. In this case, at-risk status would be a moderator.
• Generalizability: Generalizability refers to the extent to which the findings of one study can be extended to other people, settings, or past/future situations.

Cohen, J. (2013).  Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . Routledge.

January, S. A., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2020). Universal screening in grades K–2: A systematic review and meta-analysis of early reading curriculum-based measures. Journal of School Psychology , 82 , 103–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.08.007  

• literacy data
• Research Article of the Month
• universal screening

Research Article of the Month: August 2024

Research Article of the Month: January 2024

Research Article of the Month: June 2024