Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Copy of Monolingual v. Bilingual Education Program Effectiveness Based on Academic Outcomes

L441 Issue Paper

Andy Doane

on 4 June 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Copy of Monolingual v. Bilingual Education Program Effectiveness Based on Academic Outcomes

Monolingual v. Bilingual Education Program Effectiveness Based on Academic Outcomes
According to Rossell and Baker (1996), “critics of transitional bilingual education allege that children emerge from these programs not knowing English, while supporters claim that the alternative - all-English instruction in a regular classroom - stunts a Limited English Proficient (LEP) child's intellectual development and self-esteem” (p. 7).
Through strong bilingual education, ELLs can reach higher academic proficiency, which will lead to further advanced education, higher-status jobs, economic success, and societal stability.
Monolingual View
Baker (2006) says, “fostering the minority language and ethnic differences might provoke conflict and disharmony” among students and in the learning environment (p. 385).
View the minority language as “a handicap to be overcome by the school system” (Baker, 2006, p. 385).
“Research shows it [bilingual education] is ineffective; There is a better option: immersion, People succeed without it; and Even if it works, it will only work when the writing systems are in the two languages” (Krashen, 1996, p. 57).
Support for Mainstreaming/Structured Immersion

Study: Compared Berkeley mainstreamed LEP children’s performance on the California Assessment for Progress (CAP) tests to LEP students from exemplary bilingual programs.

Results: showed no significant difference between the groups in reading scores (Krashen, 1996, p. 61).

Study: Compared structured immersion to bilingual education students at the end of 2nd grade

Results: Gersten (1985) found that “more students in ‘structured immersion’ scored at or above grade level on standardized tests than children in bilingual education” (Krashen, 1996, p. 64).

Analysis: Rossell and Baker (1996, p.7) analyzed 72 studies on bilingual v. monolingual education outcomes pertaining to language skills.

Conclusion: "In the case of English reading comprehension, transitional bilingual education was superior in 22% of the studies, worse in 33%, and there was no difference in 45%

"The research evidence does not support bilingual education as a superior form of instruction for LEP children."
(Krashen, 1996, p.58)

Study: Collier (1992) compared ELLs schooled using the L1 versus those schooled using the L2.

Results: “In the first two or three years of a program, children schooled monolingually in L2 appear to make faster gains in L2 than comparable children being schooled bilingually” (p 194).

Thresholds Theory

“suggests that there are children who may derive detrimental consequences from their bilingualism” (Baker, 2006, p. 171)

Baker (2006) discusses one study that found that “as competency in two languages increased, so did deductive reasoning skills in mathematics. Limited competence in both languages appeared to result in negative cognitive outcomes” (p.173).

Weak forms of bilingual education may actually hurt or disrupt the level of cognitive and academic proficiency in ELLs.
Social/Economic Issues
Baker (2006) states that the “minority language is often connected with problems of poverty, underachievement in school, minimal social and vocational mobility and with a lack of integration into the majority culture” (p. 385).

could be a prejudiced perception
Kids need to be able to function in the United States, and they need to learn how to do it fast.

Baker (2006) says “mainstreaming and transitional bilingual education aim to develop competent English language skills in minority language children as quickly as possible so they are on par with English first language speakers in the mainstream classroom” (p.385).
Concluding that...
Mainstreaming and submersion is the better form of education because it produces ELLs who can function in society and school, have the same or higher academic outcomes, and it costs less than bilingual education programs.
Bilingual View
Support For Dual-Language/Immersion

Study: Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass (2005) compared academic outcomes of students in bilingual education, long-term DBE, short-term TBE, SI (Structured Immersion), and ESL.

Results: “Empirical evidence considered here indicates that bilingual education is more beneficial for ELL students than all-English approaches such as ESL and SI. Moreover, students in long-term DBE [Dual Bilingual Education] programs performed better than students in short-term TBE [Transitional Bilingual Education] programs” (p.590).

Study: Collier (1992) longitudinally compared students who did and did not use the L1 in school over a period of 4 years.

Results: "The greater the amount of L1 instructional support for language-minority students, combined with balanced L2 support, the higher they are able to achieve academically in L2 in succeeding academic year, in comparison to matched groups being schooled monolingually in L2” (p. 192-3).
“in the first two or three years of a program, children schooled monolingually in L2 appear to make faster gains in L2 than comparable children being schooled bilingually. But typically around the third or fourth year (sometimes the fifth year), the bilingually schooled children begin to catch up in L2 to the monolingually schooled children”
language acquisition lag is natural

After 5 or more years in the bilingual program, ELLs"reduce the gap between their performance and the norm group performance on standardized tests, achieving as high or higher than 50 percent of native speakers on a given test” (p.194)

ELLs in the monolingual program “appear to do well in the early grades, but their performance fails to match that of the norm and gains go down as they reach upper elementary and especially secondary schooling” (p. 194).

Study: Looked at patterns of gains across time in three programs: immersion-strategy, early-exit, and late-exit bilingual education. Compared the achievement of students in each of these programs to a “norm” group of native English speaking students.

Results: ELLs who “began their schooling with substantial amounts of instruction in their primary language and were exposed to the gradual introduction of English for instruction realized the greatest growth in skills” (Collier, 1992, p. 193).

“Immersion-strategy students were not likely ever to catch up to the norm; whereas the late-exit students demonstrated the ability to close the gap eventually between native speakers’ performance and language-minority students’ performance over time (p. 192).
Concluding that...
Bilingual forms of education are the most effective for building on ELLs' L1 knowledge, maintaining L1 resources and cultural identity, closing the gap between ELLs and native speakers, and producing ELLs with higher long-term academic outcomes than those educated monolingually.
Social Issues
ELLs who learn monolingually might lose touch with their cultural identity.
Long Term View
Bilingual education programs produce ELLs with higher long-term academic outcomes.

Higher academic outcomes lead to better job placement, economic success, and higher SES.

In the end, we want all our students to succeed, and according to the research results, ELLs need educational support through the L1 to achieve high outcomes in content and L2 proficiency.
Parents of ELLs in monolingual programs might be encouraged to "simplify" the language process by dropping the L1 at home.
This could cause feelings of neglect and confusion in the ELL, when the language of home, comfort, and love, is no longer spoken.
Educational Implications
The CLIL model
“CLIL is a dual-focused teaching and learning approach in which the L1 and an additional language or two are used for promoting both content mastery and language acquisition to pre-defined levels”.
incorporates multiple languages
high support for ELLs
possible to incorporate CLIL strategies even if I don't teach in a dual-language or immersion school

If no funding, implement SIOP model
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
high visual and grouping support for ELLs
comprehensible input
allow ELLs to use L1, but respond in L2
ELLs work with a native speaking buddy for modeling and support
address linguistic needs I believe ELLs' have based on bilingual education outcomes
can target these L1 needs using additional resources when I can't actually teach using the L1

In conclusion,

Bilingual education programs are shown in research to produce ELLs with higher long-term academic outcomes.

These give ELLs tools to succeed in society using the L1 and L2.

This leads to greater hireability, more economic success, higher SES, and the ability to give back to the community.

Research tell us ELLs need to learn in their L1 to reach high academic outcomes, so not providing them with this type of education is knowingly robbing them of future success.
Which program leads to better academic success for ELLs?
Full transcript