sysnthesis of research on bilingual education - kenjih akuta & laurie j. gould

8/7/2019 SYSNTHESIS OF RESEARCH ON BILINGUAL EDUCATION - KENJIH AKUTA & LAURIE J. GOULD

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sysnthesis-of-research-on-bilingual-education-kenjih-akuta-laurie-j-gould 1/7

3 .' -*= KENJIHAKUTAAND LAURIEJ. GOULD

Synthesis of Researchon Bilingual Education

Substantial research supports teachinglanguage-minority children in their native

language and suggests that bilingualism is acognitive asset.

dents in New HailenS bilingual program learn a variew of skills in Spanisb ulbile prepm'ng to enter all-EngIisbc k e s . The appnwcb is

ze d on research indicating that a strong natiw-languagefoundation makes learning English easier and faster,



assions run high in the debateon bilingual educ ation. Unfonu-P nately, political static has often

)locked the lines of communicationletween researchers and educators.duch confusion persists over both the)henomenon of bilingualism itself

md the goals and method s of bilingual:ducation. Until the terms of the de-)ate are clarified, the poliq. debatevi11 cont inue to be dominated by po-itical rhetoric and folk notions.

What Is Bilingual Education?:ontrary to popular perceptions, thee rm bilingual education en co m -lasses a broad rang e of programs. Tolegin with, there is a great variety inhe extent to which the first languages used in the classroom. In somex e s , the first few years of instructionire conducted in the native languagevith English introduced only gradual-y. In other cases, language-minority/imited-English proficient (LM/LEP)thildren ar e placed imm ediately in all-lnglish classrooms (an approach usu-.Ily called submenion). This tremen -lous variation in programs can bevitnessed in a study d on e by Develop-nent Associates for the U.S. Depart-nent of Education (Development As-

,ociates, Inc., and Research Trianglenstitute 1984). This stud!. classifiedIrograms for LM/LEP students in theirst grade by the amo unt o f time theyised th e first language. Table 1 showsheir results. Ninety-three percent ofM E P first-graders receive at least aubstantial proportion of their instruc-ion in English; 26 percent receive

only English instruction.While these programs differ sub-

stantially in the role of the first lan-guage, they differ significantly less interms of their goals. In the Develop-ment Associates study, every d&trt’ct

sumeyed listed as a goal the develop-ment of the students’ English to thelevel of participation in all-Englishclassrooms. Ninety-one percent listed

as a goal the development of otheracademic skdls concurrently with thestudents’ la’nguage deve lopm ent. O nly

15 percent listed as a goal the mainte-nance of the students’ first langua ge.

In addition to these broad program-matic variations, the re a re grea t differ-en ces i n t e ach i n g m e t h o d o l o g y .McLaughlin (1985) discusses the rangeof second-language instructional prac-tices used with non-English-spealungstudents. Englkb as a Second Lun-quzge (ESL) programs often run as asupport for submersion programs;they traditionally em phas ize dialoguesand drills on grammatical structures(although most teachers expand onthese methods). Following the exam-ple of certain fairly successful Canadi-an efforts to teach French to childrenFrom the majority English-spealungbackgrounds, through a total immw-sion approach, som e programs for lan-guage-minority students in the U.S.

have developed their own version.Like submers ion , immers ion pro-grams give instruction only in English.4n immersion classroom, however, iscomposed of only M E P students.[Unlike the Canadian programs thatintroduce instruction in the native lan-

guage after several years of immer-sion, however, the U.S. immersionprograms do not include a native-language compone nt.)

Recently, researchers and educatorshave begun to emphasize indivdual-

ized instruction, in view of the hetero-geneo us array of English levels in thetypical bilingual classroom. Someteachers have expe rim ente d with atotalpbysicul response technique, de-signed to develop English co mpreh en-sion ability through physical activity.

Others have tried the natura/ ap -proach, trying to create a nonpres-sured environment, to help students“absorb” English much as they ab-sor be d their first language. Still oth ershave taken a functionul approach,helping students to develop specifical-ly those English skills that are neces-sary for success in an ac adem ic setting.Although some small attempts havebeen made to evaluate these method-dogies , no systematic review has em -braced the entire range of program-matic or instructional variations.

Evaluation ResearchSeveral attempts have been made to

:valuate the effectiveness of bilingual-ducation programs, comparing themin most cases to submersion programs:possibly with a few hours of pull-outESL). Most notable are the often-citedlarge-scale study by the American In-

stitutes for Research (Danoff et al .1977a, b, 1978) and Baker and deKanter’s (1981) synthesis of smaller?valuation studies. Many researcherslave criticized these studies, which

b h C H 1987 39



New H a m third-padmdraw on [heirSpanish reading skills and rapid& m a s~e rtheprinciplesof EngIih

have generally concluded that bilin-gual programs a re n o m ore effective inpromo ting English language and oth erscho ol skills than alternative prog ram s(McLaughlin 1985 provides an even-handed and thorough review of th e

criticisms). The se evaluations typicallycompared bilingual programs withsubmersion programs (which includ-ed , perhaps, a few hou rs a week of ESLhelp). As we have already seen, how-ever, an extreme diversity of instruc-tional methodology exists within pro-grams that are labeled “bilingual.”Some classrooms in “bilingual pro-grams” looked very similar to some“subm ersion” classrooms. Without ac-tual classroom observation and de-scription of the instructional charac-teristics of the various programs, wedo not really know what was beingcompared with what. Quite possibly,the negative results reflect weaknessesi n the studies themselves, rather thani n the bilingual education programsthey sought to evaluate.

Another problem with the evalua-tion research is the selection of th ecomparison groups against which thebilingual education treatment groupswere assessed. As Willig (1985) pointsout, very few studies use the idealmethod of “random assignment.” Insome studies, the comparison group

included students wh o had themselvesformerly be en in bilingual. programs,thus biasing the results in the direc-tion of the comparison group (sincestudents wh o exit from bilingual pro-grams early tend to be the m ore aca-

demically gifted students).Willig re-analyzed the same set of

studies used in Baker and d e Kanter’sreport. By employing a m ore rigorousmethod of analysis that systematicallytook into account the quality of th eindividual studies, she was able to

derive conclusions that relied morestrongly o n high er quality research. Incontrast to Baker and d e Kanter, Willigfound evidence in favor of bilingualeducation programs. Most importantwas her finding that the better theresearch methodology used in thestudies, the greater was the effect infavor of bilingual programs.

While the studies discussed above,for the most part, compared variousbilingual approaches with subm ersionstrategies, there have been few at-tempts to evaluate the use of immer-sion program s for minority stud ents inthe United States. SRA Technologies is

conducting a Department of Educa-tion-funded study comparing studentsin immersion programs with studentsin “early-exit” o r transitional bilingual

programs, and children in “late-exit”

or maintenance programs. Althoughthe study has not ye t been completedor released, in the first year of thefour-year study, researchers found thatstudents in bilingual programs withgreater native-language components

did considerably better on tests inreading, language arts, and mathemat-ics (Crawford 1986, repo rting in Edu-cation Week).Contrary to the expecta-tions of the researchers conductingthe study, the third group, which hadth e least exposure to English, madethe greatest progress in both Spanishand English. These results, togetherwith W illig’s findings, suggest that p ro-gram s with substantial native-languageComponents may be very effective.

Cognitive and LinguisticResearchLess often quo ted, but n o less relevant,in the debate on bilingual education is

the body of research o n the cognitiveeffects of bilingualism and o n the pro-cesses involved in language learning.The following are some of the broadissues add ressed by this research. (Fora more in-depth discussion of bilin-gualism and second-language learn-ing, see Cummins 1984a, Grosjean1982, Hakuta 1986, McLaughlin 1984,1985.)

Thenatureof languugeproficimcy.People tend to think of language, likeintelligence, as a single, simple capaci-ty that can be easily measured by asingle test. However, recent researchindicates that language is not a unifiedskill, but a complex configuration of

abilities. Most important, it seems thatlanguage used for conversational pur-poses is quite different from languageused for scho ol learning,, and thatthe former develops earlier than thelatter (C. E. Snow 1983, Cummins1984b).

In the context of bilingual educa-tion, this m eans that children becom econversationally fluent in English be-fore they de velo p the ability actually to

use English in academic situations.Bilingual programs are commonlycriticized for keeping students toolong. even after their English is “ade-quate.” But Cummins (1984b). for es -

amp le, found evidence that while chil-dr en ma!. pick up oral profic iency inas little as two years, i t may take five to

seven years to acquire the “decontex-tualized” language skills necessary to

EDUCATIOSAL LEADER~HIP40



function successfully in an all-Englishclassroom. A child’s English skill maybe judged as “adequate” in an infor-mal conversation, o r eve n o n a simpletest; but this may not mean that thechild’s skills are adequate for under-

standing a teacher’s explanation, forreading a textbook, or for writing acomposition. Snow and Hakuta (inpress) point out that prematurelymainstreamed students run th e risk ofbeing diagnosed as slow, disabled, o reven retarded because of their lan-guage handicap.

7he relationship of the two lun-guages. One major argument oftenleveled against bilingual education is

that it does not d eve lop English rapid-ly enough because of its emphasis onthe native language. However, researchoverwhelmingly refutes the majorpremise of this argument-that th etime spent in the classroom using thenative language is wasted o r lost. First,a strong native language foundationacts as a support in the learning of

English, making th e proce ss easier aridfaster (Cum mins 1984b). Second, m ostof the learning that goes on in thenative language transfers readily to

English (Goldman et a]. 1984; Cuin-mins 1981, 1984c; Lambert an d Tucker1972; Stern et al. 1976; Ge nese e et al.

1977;Swain 1978; Ge nese e 1979).Thisis true not only for content areas likemath, science, and social studies, butalso for lang uage arts skills like speak-ing, reading, and writing. The childwho already understands why “trespor ocho es igual a cuatro por seis”will not need to be taught in Englishthat “t hre e times eight equals fourtimes six.” Similarly, the child who

knows how to write a topic sentence3r look up a word in the dictionary inPortuguese or Chinese will be ab le to

use these skills in the English class-

room. Becoming fluent in a secondlanguage does not necessarily meanlosing the first language, nor doesmaintenance of the first language re-tard the development of the secondlanguage.

me relationship of language and

zeneral nzentalfunctioning.There E‘X-

ists a persistent belief that fo r minoritychildren, bilingualism confuses themind and retards cognitive develop-ment (see reviews by Arsenian 1937,lensen 1962, Diaz 1983). This beliefhas i t s roots in some early attempts to

-M C H 1987

xplain why immigrants from south-rn and eastern Europe were perform-ig poorly on I Q tests (Hakuta 1986).lowever, research now shows that]ere is no such thing as retardationaused by bilingualism; if anything, the

evelopment of a seco nd language canave p ositive effects on thinking skdls.

number of studies have shown thatilingual children may gain someieasure of cognitive flexibility (Pealnd Lambert 1962 , Bain an d Yu 1980,Iakuta and Diaz 1984), particularlyrhere the bilingualism is additive (i.e.,rhere the first languag e is maintained,ither than replaced). Bilingualism isefinitely no t an intellectual handicap;uite possibly, it is a cognitive asset.7he dzffwences between individual

5ildren.Documented cases

ofchil-ren who rapidly acquire a second

inguage do exist (see case studies inlatch 1978), but researc h show s theseases to be the exception rather thanle rule. There are tremen dous varia-ons in the rates at which children:am a second language, and th e proc-ss is not as painless as we might like

to believe. The rate of acquis it ion cbe influenced by many factors, incluing cultural background, the strengof the native langua ge, ho m e languaenviro nm ent, personality, attitude, alinguistic aptitude (see discussion

Hakuta 1986).B i li n g ua l e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m

should be adaptable to different chdren’s needs. I f individual and cultuf ac t o r s s u p p o r t s eco n d - l an g u aglearning, children may exit from bilgual programs fairly quickly. Othchildren, however, may ne ed bilinguinstruction for relatively long perioof time.

7he optimal age for second-la

gmge acquisition. Many people blieve that if children have not ma

tered the second language by earschool years, they never will. But thbelief that children are fast and effoless secon d-language learners has

basis in fact. Tee nage rs and adu lts amuch mo re efficient learners than ementary school children, and fourtto seventh-graders a re faster than firto third-graders (Snow and Hoefnag

51%

A11%

A B C D

40%

26% 25%

E A B C D

1%

E

51

Types of Instructional ServiceA. Primary language of instruction i s the native language, and students are taught

native language arts.B. Both the native language and English are used as the languages of instruction.C. Both the native language and English are used as the languages of instruction,

with a decrease over time in the use Qf the native language and a correspondingincrease in the use of English.

D. All instruction i s in English, with additional special instruction in English.E. All instruction is in English, but without special instruction in English.

*Column percentages do not add to 100becauseof rounding.

Adapted from Development Associates, Inc., and Research Triangle Institute. LE P

Students: CharacteristicsandSchool Services. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, 1984.



Hoh le 1977 and 1978). Research inCanada has shown that one year of

immersion in the second-languageclassroom at seventh grade is worththree years’ imm ersion starting at firstgrade (Genesee 1981). I t is important

to realize that, especially for primaryg r a d e c h i l d r e n , s e c o n d - l a n g u a g elearning is likely to be a very slow

process, but that it can still be suc cess-f u l if started much later than age fiveor six.

Bilingual programs should be de-signed with the expectation that youngschool-age children learn second lan-guages rather slowly and will needseveral years of learning before theirEnglish is as good as that of childrenwho have been speaking it since birth.Furthermo re, starting to speak Englisheven as late as high school is nobarrier to learning to speak it verywell. The common sense of urgencyabout introd ucing English immed iate-ly to L M E P children, and about main-streaming them as early as possible,has no basis in psycholinguistic fact.

Ldwaq. Perhaps the major task ofschools is teaching children to read.Although reading scores for Americanchildren i n general have improvedduring the last 15 years, the mostrecent results of the National Assess-

Highlights of Research on Bilingual Education

Contrary to the expectations of some researchers, recent findings suggest

that programs wit h substantial native-language components may be very

effective. The reason i s that a strong native-language foundation supports

the subsequent learning of English, and most of the learning that goes on

in the native language transfers readi ly in to English. Thus, rather than be-

ing an intellectual handicap, bilingualism may be a cognitive asset.

Nevertheless, the rates at which children learn a second language vary

widely; the process is not necessarily swift or painless. No evidence,however, supports the common sense of urgency about introducing chil-

dren to English early and mainstreaming them as soon as possible thereaf-

ter. It i s more important to offer basic literacy skills to children in their

home language.

Policymakers need to consider three implications of the research in

planning future directions.

The intricacy and beauty of the developing child ought not to be

overlooked i n favor of political or programmatic concerns.

No universal blueprint for bilingual education exists.

0 An ideal bilingual program would aim at fluency in both languages,

treating the non-English first language as an asset, rather than as a

handicap.

ment of Educational Progress indicatethat Hispanic children still lag far be-hind English-speaking children inreading achievement. Furthermore,the gap widens at higher grades; poo rreading skills handicap o lder childrenin all their school subjects.

Many factors influence a child’s de -velopment of reading skills, accordin gto the 1985 report of the Commissionon Reading. Homes where childrenhave access to time alone with adults,

I n ibe Sat1 Diego Cig.Scbook,a Dilinguallimmersion teacber innoduces a naci Spatiuh

readingtest

toIJW kinder-garteti

siudents.

42

where literacy is modeled, displayed,and valued; and where parents empha-size learning and school achievementtypically produce children who havelittle difficulty learning to read. For

children whose homes d o not providethis kind of literacy sup por t, learningto read is a dificult task. These chil-dren often don‘t really know “whatreading is all about”-the natu re andpurpose of literacy. Such children areat serious risk for failure to learn to

read. This risk is compounded if theproblem of reading is presented in alanguage they control poorly. Bilin-gual programs should concentrate onproviding literacy slulls in the homelanguag e, especially for thos e childrenwhose parents have little educationand po or literacy skills. Onc e the basicprinciples of reading are mastered inthe home language, reading skillstransfer quickly and easily to a sec ondlanguage (C . E. Snow 1986).

Social interactional factors in sec-

ond-languageacqubition.O ne criti-

cism often leveled at bilingual pro-grams is that they isolate non-English-speaking children from the English

speakers who should be their friends,an d who should be helping them tolearn the language. I t is not the case,thou gh, that merely playing with othe rchildren contributes much to the kindof language skills needed fo r schoolsuccess. Young children can play, andhave fun, and even “talk” togetherwith rather little solid krowledge ofeach oth er’s languages (Wong Fill-

more 1976).EDUCAT‘IOXALLEADERSHIP



Furthermore, putting minority chil-dren in mainstream classrooms doesnot ensure interaction. Children, likeadults, only interact with people theylike or admire. I f non-English-speak-ing children in mainstream class-

rooms come from groups that arenegatively stereotyped by the Englishspeakers, interaction may b e m inimal( G e n e s e e 1984, Giles and Byrne1982). Bilingual education can up-grade the status of previously stigma-tized languages and cultures if thoselanguages are used in the school andteachers and administrators from thatethnic background are hired. In addi-tion to facilitating social interactionbetween language-minority childrenand their English-speaking pe ers, suchbilingual programs give an institution-

al boost to minority-group children'sself-esteem (In n 1983).

Conclusions and FutureDirectionsAlthough bilingual education policy-makers often claim that there is l i t t l e

research to guid e them, th e deficiencyis in program evaluation research,rather than in research on the devel-opmental psychology of the bilingualchild. Basic psychological and linguis-tic research, while not directly ad-dressing the implementation of bilin-

gual education programs, shows that.many of the commonly stated con-cerns about bilingualism in childrenare unfounded. In gene ral , the re.-search su pports the use of the nativelanguage in the instruction of lamguage-minority children.

Cognitive research can also expo seand counterbalance the often danger-ously inaccurate labeling of the pro.gram evaluation studies. The concertiof these studies is naturally with th edifferential impact of the programs,although little effort is made to find

ou t what goe s on in them. Evaluationresearch provokes political heat be-.cause programmatic labels often rep--resent different partisan interests ( e g ,U S . English groups arguing againstb i l ingua l p ro g ra ms , o r H i spanic:groups opposing efforts to reduce theuse of the native language). Basic re.search in which the unit of analysis is

the individual child reminds policy-makers that the intricacy and the bea u-ty of the developing child should notbe overlooked in favor of program-matic and political concerns.

Bilingual immersion programs coirld he an iniportant step in the comemation anddetvelopnient of an iniialuable national resource of language and culture.

Two prom ising and interesting direc-tions build on our current knowledgeof research in bilingual education.

I . Aciessing each co?zznzuniyS lin-

guistic needs. There is no universalblueprint for a successfid bilingual

education program. Each conimunin.has its own uniq ue linguistic and cul-

tural composition, and consequentlyits own unique educational needs.While even.school district is requiredto collect data on English languageproficienq.. few collect data on native-language proficienq.. even though re-search has shonm native-language pro-ticienq. to be an important predictoro f eventual English achievement. Few-er still collect data o n the differentFunctions that th e n ~ olanguages mightserve i n the bilingual conmiunit\.. hiassessment o f ;I non-English-speakingpopulation's linguistic strengths maybe as important i n designing an appr o-priate program ;IS an assessment of

their linguistic weaknesses.Children's cultural as well as their

linguistic backgrounds sho uld b e co n-sidered Ethnographic research hasslionm that classroom strategies aremost successful n,hen matched withthe children's cultural style of interac-tion (McLaughlin 1985).Wong Fillmoreand McLaughlin (1986) report a stud!.on the effects of various classroom

factors o n the oral English acquisitionof Hispanic and Chinese children.They found that children from the

di fferent e thnic groups respondedbest to different kinds of educationalstrategies. The Hispanic students with

the poorest initial English skills, forexamp le, gained a great deal from theopportuni ty to interact with theirpeers i n English, while their Chinesecounterparts benefited most from ex-tended interaction with the teacher.When designing bilingual educationprograms, then, teachers and adm inistrators sh ould carefully consider theircommunities' cultural as well as lin-

guistic features .

2 . Tiioz~1ay bilingiml program-

Most of the bilingual education pro-

grams in the United States are agentsof suhtractii le biling ual ism-they aimto "replace" the child's first languagewith English. Yet, as we have se en, awell-maintained first language can bean important asset i n the acquisition of

second-language skills. and it mighteven give the child an extra edge i n

cognitive flexibilin.. The se res earch re -sults suggest that a n ideal bilingualeducation program would aim at flu-

ency i n both languages, treating a no n-English first language as an asset, rath-er than as a handicap.

MARCH 1987 43



Y ..Bc -

“Researchin Canada

has shown that oneyear of immersionin the second-language classroomat seventh grade isworth three years’immersion startingat first grade.”

Two-way bilingual program s see k tospread the benefits of bilingualismbeyond the language-minority popula-tion. Also called “bilingual immer-sion,” these p rograms bring language-m i n o r i t y an d l an g u ag e - m a j o r i t ychildren together in the same class-room, with the intent of malung allstudents functionally proficient inboth languages. This approach avoidsthe isolation of the minority gro up , aphenomenon often criticized as a by-product of bilingual education. Bygranting it official status within theschool, this approach adds prestigeto the minority language and cul-ture, thereby boosting both minor-i ty self-esteem and majority tol-

erance. Such programs may go along way in encouraging interculturalunderstanding.

Bilingual immersion programs use

the second language as a medium aswell as an object of instruction. Insteadof explicitly presenting the formalrules of the seco nd language, teachersuse that language to present the con-tent material in the standard schoolcurriculum. Typically, the first fewyears of such a program will reinforcethe students’ first language, develop-ing literacy and oth er basic academicskills. In so me sc hools the two groupsare kept separate through second or

third grade, and all students receivethis initial instruction in their own

native language. In other schools, all

students receive the first few years.ofinstruction in the minority language,to counterbalance the greater expo-sure to English that all stud ents ha ve inAmerican society. By fourth or fifthgrade, instruction is divided equally

between English and the minority lan-guage. All students are expected to

become fullv proficient in both lan-guages (M . A. Snow 1986).

Studies of the Canadian programsthat provided the inspiration for theseAmerican efforts show considerablesuccess with immersion programs forlanguage-majority students (Lambertand Tucker 1972). In addition to theirsecond-language skills, these studentsequaled or surpassed monolingualstudents in first-language skills. A

model bilingual immersion programin San Diego has also had positiveresults (Torrance 1982). Preliminalyresults show that by the end of ele-

mentary school, both groups of stu-dents in this program e qual or surpassestablished norms for oral languagedevelopment, reading, and math inboth languages.

Americans are often frustrated bytheir failure to master foreign lan-

guages. Poor linguistic skills are clear-ly a disadvantage in diplomatic andcommercial as well as intellectual

spheres. Senator Paul Simon (1980)describes the irony of the Americanlinguistic situation: “Because of o u rrich ethnic mix, the United States ishome to millions who se first languageis not English. . . .Yet almost nothing is

being done to preserve the languageskills we have or to use this richlinguistic resource to train people inthe use of a language other than En-glish” (p. 4) . Bilingual immersion pro-grams could be an important step inthe conservation and development ofan invaluable national resource. Care-

fu l monitoring of these programs fromboth evaluation and cognitive persp ec-tives will enhanc e not on ly our un der -standing of program implementation,but also ou r appreciation of the gener-al capacity that hum ans have for bilin-gualism, given the right environm entalcondi t ions .0

Refmences

Arsenian, S. Bilingualism and Mental De-

velopment. N e w York:Teachers CollegePress, 1937. Reproduced by AMs Press,

N e w York, 1972.

Bain, B., an d A. Yu. “Cognitive Conse-quences of Raising Children Bilingually:‘One Parent, One Language.’” Canadi-

an Journal of P~cbology34 (1980):

Baker, K. A, , an d A. k de Kanter. Effective-

n e s ofBilingual Education:A Review of

the Literature. Washington, D.C.: Officeof Planning, Budget, and Evaluation,U S .

Department of Education, 25 September1981.

Commission on Reading. Becoming a Na-

tion of Readers. Washington, D.C.: Na-tional Institu te of Education, 1985.

Crawford,J. “Immersion Method is FaringPoorly in Bilingual Study.” Education

Week,23 April 1986.Cummins, J. “The Role of Primary lan-

guage Development in Promoting Edu-cational Success for Language MinorityStudents.” In Schooling and Language

MinoriQ Students;A iT;beoreticul Frame-

work, edi ted by California State Depart-ment of Education. Los Angeles: Evalua-tion, Dissemination, and AssessmentCenter, California State University, 1981.

Cummins,J.Bilingualism andspecia l Edu-

cation. Sa n Diego: College Hill Press,1984a.

Cummins,J. “Minority Students an d Learn-ing Difficulties: Issues in Assessment andPlacement.” In Early Bilingualism and

Child Development,edited by M. Paradis

and Y. Lebrun. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger,1984b.

Cummins, J. “Linguistic Interdepen denceAmong Japanese and Vietnamese Immi-

grant Children.” In Communicative

Competence Approaches to Language

Proficiency As eme n t : Research and

Applications,edited by C. Rivera. Avon,England:Multilingual Matters, 1984~.

Cummins,J., and M. Gulutsan. “BilingualEducation and Cognition.”AlbertaJour-nal of Educational Research 20 (1974):259-269.

Danoff,M. N., G.J . Coles,D. H. McLaughlin,and D. J. Reynolds. Evaluation of the

Impact of ESEA Title VII SpnisblEnglisb

Bilingual Education Programs. PaloAlto, Calif.: American Institutes for Re-search, 1977a and b, 1978.

Development Associates, Inc., and Re-search Triangle Institute. LEP Srudents:Characteristics and Scbool Seroices. TheDesmptive Phase Report of the National

Longitudinal Eualuationof theEffective-

ness of Sm‘cesf o r Language-Minority

Limited-English Proficient Students.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, 1984.

Diaz, R “Thought and Two Languages:TheImpact of Bilingualism on Cognitive De -velopment.”Review ofResearch in Edu-

cation 10 (1983): 23-54.Genesee, F. “Scholastic Effects of French

Immersion: An Overview After Ten

Years.” Interchange 9 (1979): 20-29.

304313.

44 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

sysnthesis of research on bilingual education - kenjih akuta & laurie j. gould

Documents