Bilingualism and the

language classroom
Positive and negative effects of bilingual education
programme and early bilingualism:
review of selected studies
 Negative effects of bilingual education
(Madrid and Hughes, 2011: 32)

 Rossell and Baker (1996): the results of bilingual programmes are inferior to total
immersion programmes offered in the USA for ethnic minority groups
 Glen (1997): it is better for students to participate in sink-or-swim programmes than
in bilingual ones

Some difficulties and problems:

• Abandonment of the L1 in favour of the L2
• The mixture of L1 and L2 in a single system: problems of interference, particularly in
children

2
• Possible negative linguistic and cognitive development
• Difficulties in linguistic expression due to phonetic, semantic, lexical
and morphosyntactical interference from the L1 and L2
• Written expression in L2 is often influenced by L1 as a result of lack of
competence in the second language
• Anxiety, insecurity or frustration in oral communication in L2 with
negative effects in acquisition of written skills
• Does learning an L2 at a young age have a negative effect on
acquisition of L1 or native language?
• Does learning an L2 affect intellectual development or
intelligence?

4
 Goddard (1917)

• Distributed Binet intelligence test (English version) to 30

Jewish adult immigrants at Ellis Island
• Findings: Word-fluency – less than half could provide 60
English words (average 11-year olds know 200 words)
Steinberg’s counter-arguments: 1) knowledge of language
was not a fair measure of intelligence; and 2) language
content of many intelligence tests was culturally biased

5
 Smith, Madorah (1939)

• Comparative data on the language of pre-school children in

Iowa & Hawaii
• Iowa kids – white, monolinguals (English)
• Hawaii kids – ethnically diverse, bilinguals (English + 1L)
• Finding: more errors in English speech among the bilinguals
• Methodological flaws – inadequate matching of participants in
terms of family SES and educational background

6
 Benefits of bilingual education
(Madrid and Hughes, 2011: 33-36)

• Peal and Lambert (1962) found a positive correlation between

bilingualism and high intelligence quotient, bilingualism helped
mental agility and the formation of abstract concepts.
• Byalistok (1991) and Diaz and Klingler (1991): positive relationship
between bilingual individuals and thought processes, organisation
skills, reasoning and visual and spatial skills.
• Considerable cognitive advantages (Cenoz 2003, Lasagaster 2000,
Siguán 1986, 1992, 1996) and near native performance levels after
6-7 years of immersion.

7
• The competence in subjects taught in the L2 are similar to those acquired in L1 and there are no
significant differences.
• The level of knowledge in L1 has a strong influence in the results obtained in L2 instruction
(linguistic Interdependence hypothesis) (Chiswick 1991, Cummins 2000)
• Better intercultural education over the long term (González,Guillén,Vez 2010, Riagáin/Lüdi 2003)
• It helps the learning of a third language (Lasagabaster 2007)
• Greater metalinguistic capacity than monolinguals (Galambos,Goldin-Meadow 1990)
• Greater attitudinal competence (savoir-être) towards languages than monolinguals
 Linguistic interdependence hypothesis

- Based on the relationship between the development of L1 and L2

- Proposed by Vygotsky (1934, 1986) and Cummins (1978)
- Competence in L2 depends in part on the level of competence already acquired in
L1
- The higher the level of development in L1 the easier it will be to develop the L2

9
 Bruck et al. (1976)
• Long-term study with native English-speaking children in
a French immersion programme
• Findings: by the fourth (and some fifth) grade their
French skills were as good as the native French-speaking
children
• The immersion group performed better than the English
monolingual control group on creativity tests
• Their mathematics and science scores were also higher

10
 Bain & Yu (1980)
• Compared monolingual and bilingual children in different parts of the world
(Canada, France, and Hong Kong)
• Children were raised either monolingually or bilingually under the guidance
of the researchers (to control for extraneous variables)
• By the time the children were 4, the researchers ran cognitive performance
tests - involved puzzles and verbal instructions
• Findings: bilingual children outperformed the monolingual children

11
 Some fundamental interacting variables in bilingual education

 Students’ motivation and commitment

 Students general skills and L1 development
 Positive family, social and cultural environment
 Teachers’ adequate training and incorporation of L2 native teachers
 The teachers’ characteristics and approach
 Quality of the programme offered
 Available resources
 The L2 should be used for at least 50% of class time
 Additive bilingual environment: students study L2 without jeopardising performance in
L1.

12
 Effective classroom techniques in bilingual education
(Snow 1990, Madrid y Hughes 2011, Madrid y Madrid 2013)

Integrated curricular design

• Maximum use of the L2/Ln and minimum use (or no use) of
the L1
• Helping the students construct their knowledge by
establishing connections between the new and the learnt
knowledge to favour its integration in the students’ cognitive
network
• Provision of rich contextual support (e.g. through
paralanguage, etc.).
• Reiteration of instructions and organisational guidelines.
Repetition of what is said and done in class.
• Use of graphs, conceptual maps, synthesis and summaries.
13
 Integrated curricular design
• The ample use of visual materials, realia, and resources which allow
the senses to engage in learning.
• Intensive group and cooperative work.
• The teacher becomes the linguistic model, so a careful pronunciation
and clear oral expression are vital.
• Variety of methods and learning tasks.
• The need for high levels of comprehensible input (Krashen 1985).
• Adequate error treatment
 Bilingual programmes in Spanish autonomous communities
(Madrid and Hughes, 2011: 40-49)

Autonomous Communities with co-official languages

 
• Bilingualism and trilingualism has been intensely
developed in the Spanish regions with a co-official
language (Muñoz 2005, Siguán 1992, Vila 1992).
• In Catalonia, the curriculum is taught predominantly
in Catalonian.

15
• In the Basque Country, three models of bilingualism have been
applied (see Bilbatua 1992, Cenoz 2005, Etxeberría, 2003,
Lasagabaster 2000, 2001, 2005):
• Teaching in Spanish with Basque being a separate language
subject;
• Teaching in Basque and Spanish;
• Teaching of the curriculum in Basque (predominant)
• Galicia has introduced Galescolas, though Spanish still holds an
important position within the education system (Sobrado 2004).
 Andalusia

• The Plan de Fomento del Plurilingüismo: Una política lingüística para la sociedad
andaluza was established to promote plurilingualism in 2005 (BOJA nº 65, de 5 de
abril).
• Aims to provide the Andalusian population with sufficient plurilingual competencies
to deal with the technological, social and economic changes of today’s society (see
Barrios 2007, 2010; Madrid 2005, 2006).
•  In June 2011), there were:
• 762 bilingual schools, 394 in the Primary sector and 368 in Secondary
Education.
• Most of them (693 schools) use English as a vehicular language for he
curriculum,
• 57 schools use French and 12 institutions use German.
• This means that 73560 students are receiving bilingual education in Andalusia.
• There are 4415 teachers implied in the project and 1234 native assistant
teachers.

17
 Effects and benefits of the Andalusian plurilingual programme
(Jaimez y López Morillas, 2011)

• Increase in the number of hours of language study in the school curriculum

• Greater coordination and teamwork of language and content teachers.
• Promotion of the integration of ICT in the teaching practice.
• Elaboration of the Andalusian Integrated Curriculum of Languages (CIL).
• Increase in participation in European programmes.
• Promotion of schools twinning and exchange visits.

18
• Increase in immersion courses for pupils and teachers.
• Creation of a specific training plan for teachers in Bilingual Schools,
including periods of Language Immersion.
• Expansion of the network of Official Language Schools.
• Expansion of distance language learning.
• Aid for the creation of curricular resources, and elaboration of CLIL digital
materials.
• Incorporation of the figure of the native-speaking teaching assistant.
• Training programmes for language teachers and on methodology, based on
the CEF, for teachers of non-language subjects
• Development of intensive L2/Ln courses for all teachers at the Official
Language Schools.