KENJI HAKUTA AND LAURIE J. GoULD

Synthesis of Researchon Bilingual Education

Substantial research supports teachinglanguage-minority children in their native

language and suggests that bilingualism is acognitive asset.

Sndents mi New Haven s bigual pram loean aa vl'ety o°f as in Spari wuliep*g to enter all-EngIsb cw. 7 at rpmoazc isbsed on resewrch r.cattnag tat a stno, narlegufoundiai f maies keam Englsb eers and far.

38 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHrI

assions run high in the debateon bilingual education. Unfortu-nately, political static has often

blocked the lines of communicationbetween researchers and educators.Much confusion persists over both thephenomenon of bilingualism itselfand the goals and methods of bilingualeducation. Until the terms of the de-bate are clarified, the policy debatewill continue to be dominated by po-litical rhetoric and folk notions.

What Is Bilingual Education?Contrary to popular perceptions, theterm bilingual education encom-passes a broad range of programs. Tobegin with, there is a great variety inthe extent to which the first languageis used in the classroom. In somecases, the first few years of instructionare conducted in the native languagewith English introduced only gradual-ly. In other cases, language-minority/limited-English proficient (LM/LEP)children are placed immediately in all-English classrooms (an approach usu-ally called submersion). This tremen-dous variation in programs can bewitnessed in a study done by Develop-ment Associates for the U.S. Depart-ment of Education (Development As-sociates, Inc., and Research TriangleInstitute 1984). This study classifiedprograms for LM/LEP students in thefirst grade by the amount of time theyused the first language. Table 1 showstheir results. Ninety-three percent ofLM/LEP first-graders receive at least asubstantial proportion of their instruc-tion 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 dirsiasurveyed listed as a goal the develop-ment of the students' English to thelevel of participation in all-Englishclassrooms. Ninety-one percent listedas a goal the development of otheracademic skills concurrently with thestudents' language development. Only15 percent listed as a goal the mainte-nance of the students' first language.

In addition to these broad program-matic variations, there are great differ-ences in teaching methodology.McLaughlin (1985) discusses the rangeof second-language instructional prac-tices used with non-English-speakingstudents. English as a Second Lan-guage (ESL) programs often run as asupport for submersion programs;they traditionally emphasize 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-speakingbackgrounds, through a total /nmer-sion approach, some programs for lan-guage-minority students in the U.S.have developed their own version.Like submersion, immersion pro-grams give instruction only in English.An immersion classroom, however, iscomposed of only LM/LEP 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 component)

Recently, researchers and educatorshave begun to emphasize indtidual-ized instruction, in view of the hetero-geneous array of English levels in thetypical bilingual classroom. Someteachers have experimented with atotal pbsical reponse technique, designed to develop English comprehen-sion ability through physical activity.Others have tried the natural ap-proach, trying to create a nonpres-sured environment, to help students"absorb" English much as they ab-sorbed their first language. Still othershave taken a fncional approach,helping students to develop specificatlly those English skills that are neces-sary for success in an academic setting.Although some small attempts havebeen made to evaluate these method-ologies, no systematic review has em-braced the entire range of program-matic or instructional variations.

Evaluation ResearchSeveral attempts have been made toevaluate the effectiveness of bilingualeducation 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 smallerevaluation studies. Many researchershave criticized these studies, which

MARcH 1987 39

MARcH 1987 39

Newt nn aa d-ffdas awr oon ber Spa- s -radf sl Ws and rpiay maer aie

have generally concluded that bilin-gual programs are no more effective inpromoting English language and otherschool skills than alternative programs(McLaughlin 1985 provides an even-handed and thorough review of thecriticisms). These evaluations typicallycompared bilingual programs withsubmersion programs (which includ-ed, perhaps, a few hours a week of ESLhelp). As we have already seen, how-ever, an extreme diversity of instruc-tional methodology exists widbin pro-grams that are labeled "bilingual."Some classrooms in "bilingual pro-grams" looked very similar to some"submersion" 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 weaknessesin the studies themselves, rather thanin the bilingual education programsthey sought to evaluate.

Another problem with the evalua-tion research is the selection of thecomparison 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 who had themselvesformerly been in bilingual programs,thus biasing the results in the direc-tion of the comparison group (sincestudents who exit from bilingual pro-grams early tend to be the more aca-demically gifted students).

Willig re-analyzed the same set ofstudies used in Baker and de Kanter'sreport. By employing a more rigorousmethod of analysis that systematicallytook into account the quality of theindividual studies, she was able toderive conclusions that relied morestrongly on higher quality research. Incontrast to Baker and de 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 submersionstrategies, there have been few at-tempts to evaluate the use of immer-sion programs for minority students inthe United States. SRA Technologies isconducting a Department of Educa-tion-funded study comparing studentsin immersion programs with studentsin "early-exit" or transitional bilingualprograms, and children in "late-exit"

or maintenance programs. Althoughthe study has not yet been completedor released, in the first year of thefour-year study, researchers found thatstudents in bilingual programs withgreater native-language componentsdid considerably better on tests inreading, language arts, and mathemat-ics (Crawford 1986, reporting in Edu-cation Week). Contrary to the expecta-tions of the researchers conductingthe study, the third group, which hadthe least exposure to English, madethe greatest progress in both Spanishand English. These results, togetherwith Willig's findings, suggest that pro-grams with substantial native-languagecomponents may be very effective.

Cognitive and LinguisticResearchLess often quoted, but no less relevant,in the debate on bilingual education isthe body of research on the cognitiveeffects of bilingualism and on the pro-cesses involved in language learning.The following are some of the broadissues addressed 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.)

The nature of language proficiency.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 ofabilities. Most important, it seems thatlanguage used for conversational pur-poses is quite different from languageused for school learning, and thatthe former develops earlier than thelatter (C. E. Snow 1983, Cummins1984b).

In the context of bilingual educa-tion, this means that children becomeconversationally fluent in English be-fore they develop the ability actually touse English in academic situations.Bilingual programs are commonlycriticized for keeping students toolong, even after their English is "ade-quate." But Cummins (1984b), for ex-ample, found evidence that while chil-dren may pick up oral proficiency inas little as two years, it may take five toseven years to acquire the "decontex-tualized" language skills necessary to

E{DucAITOnAL LEADERSHIP

function successfully in an all-Englishclassroom. A child's English skill maybe judged as "adequate" in an infor-mal conversation, or even on 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 the risk ofbeing diagnosed as slow, disabled, oreven retarded because of their lan-guage handicap.

7he relatiorship of the aus lan-guages. One major argument oftenleveled against bilingual education isthat it does not develop English rapid-ly enough because of its emphasis onthe native language. However, researchoverwhelmingly refutes the majorpremise of this argument--that thetime spent in the classroom using thenative language is wasted or lost. First,a strong native language foundationacts as a support in the learning ofEnglish, making the process easier andfaster (Cummins 1984b). Second, mostof the learning that goes on in thenative language transfers readily toEnglish (Goldman et al. 1984; Cum-mins 1981, 1984c; Lambert and Tucker1972; Stern et al. 1976; Genesee et al.1977; Swain 1978; Genesee 1979). Thisis true not only for content areas likemath, science, and social studies, butalso for language 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 "three times eight equals fourtimes six." Similarly, the child whoknows how to write a topic sentenceor look up a word in the dictionary inPortuguese or Chinese will be able touse 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.

7The relationsbp of language andgeneral mentalfunaioning. There ex-ists a persistent belief that for minoritychildren, bilingualism confuses themind and retards cognitive develop-ment (see reviews by Arsenian 1937,Jensen 1962, Diaz 1983). This beliefhas its roots in some early attempts to

explain why immigrants from south-ern and eastern Europe were perform-ing poorly on IQ tests (Hakuta 1986).However, research now shows thatthere is no such thing as retardationcaused by bilingualism; if anything, thedevelopment of a second language canhave positive effects on thinking skills.A number of studies have shown thatbilingual children may gain somemeasure of cognitive flexibility (Pealand Lambert 1962, Bain and Yu 1980,Hakuta and Diaz 1984), particularlywhere the bilingualism is additive (i.e.,where the first language is maintained,rather than replaced). Bilingualism isdefinitely not an intellectual handicap;quite possibly, it is a cognitive asset.

7be dr nes Iuveen indi'iu alaWildren. Documented cases of chil-dren who rapidly acquire a secondlanguage do exist (see case studies inHatch 1978), but research shows thesecases to be the exception rather thanthe rule. There are tremendous varia-tions in the rates at which childrenlearn a second language, and the proc-ess is not as painless as we might like

Percentage of Schools UsingEach Type of Instruction

51%

11%

A B C D EA a C D E

to believe. The rate of acquisition canbe influenced by many facms, indud-ing cultural bacdgound, the strengthof the native language, home ianguveenvironment, personality, k -ude, andlinguistic aptitude (see discussion inHakuta 1986).

Bilingual education programsshould be adaptable to dllfet cdll-dren's needs. If individual and culturalfactors support second-languagelearning, children may exit from biln-gual programs fairly quiddy. Otherchildren, however, may need bilingualinstruction for relatively long periodsof time.

Tbe opdnal age for seond4n-guage acuPitm. Many people be-lieve that if children have not mas-tered the second language by earlyschool years, they never will But thebelief that children are fast and effort-less second-language learners has nobasis in fact Teenagers and adults aremuch more efficient learners than ele-mentary school children, and fourth-to seventh-graders are faster than first-to third-graders (Snow and Hoefiiagel-

Percentage of LM-LEP StudentsReceiving Each Type ofInstruction'

A B C D

1%

E

Types of Instructional ServiceA. Primary language of instruction is 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 of the native language and a correspondingincrease in the use of English.

D. All instruction is 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 100 because of rounding.

Adapted from Development Associates, Inc., and Research Triangle Institute. LEPStudents: Characteristics andSchool Services. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, 1984.

MARCH 1987 41

Table 1Types of Instructional Programs

MARCH 1987 41

Hohle 1977 and 1978). Research inCanada has shown that one year ofimmersion in the secohd-languageclassroom at seventh grade is worththree years' immersion starting at firstgrade (Genesee 1981). It is importantto realize that, especially for primarygrade children, second-languagelearning is likely to be a very slowprocess, but that it can still be success-ful 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.Furthermore, starting to speak Englisheven as late as high school is nobarrier to learning to speak it verywell. The common sense of urgencyabout introducing English immediate-ly to LM/LEP children, and about main-streaming them as early as possible,has no basis in psycholinguistic fact.

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

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

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

I_

In Ihe San Diego City Sdool, a bfdguaL/bmnfion teacr ibtodcer a new Spanireading tea to ber kndOgwten sAden

where literacy is modeled, displayed,and valued; and where parents empha-size learning and school achievementtypically produce children who havelittle difficulty learning to read. Forchildren whose homes do not providethis kind of literacy support, learningto read is a difficult task. These chil-dren often don't really know "whatreading is all about"--the nature andpurpose of literacy. Such children areat serious risk for failure to learn toread. This risk is compounded if theproblem of reading is presented in alanguage they control poorly. Bilin-gual programs should concentrate onproviding literacy skills in the homelanguage, especially for those childrenwhose parents have little educationand poor literacy skills. Once the basicprinciples of reading are mastered inthe home language, reading skillstransfer quickly and easily to a secondlanguage (C. E. Snow 1986).

Social interactional factors in sec-ond-language acquisition. One criti-cism often leveled at bilingual pro-grams is that they isolate non-English-speaking children from the Englishspeakers who should be their friends,and who should be helping them tolearn the language. It is not the case,though, that merely playing with otherchildren contributes much to the kindof language skills needed for schoolsuccess. Young children can play, andhave fun, and even "talk" togetherwith rather little solid knowledge ofeach other's languages (Wong Fill-more 1976).

42 EDucATiONAL LEADERSHIP

i~~~I Ii

Furthermore, putting minority chil-dren in mainstream classrooms doesnot ensure interaction. Children, likeadults, only interact with people theylike or admire. If non-English-speak-ing children in mainstream class-rooms come from groups that arenegatively stereotyped by the Englishspeakers, interaction may be minimal(Genesee 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 peers, suchbilingual programs give an institution-al boost to minority-group children'sself-esteem (Inn 1983).

Conclusions and FutureDirectionsAlthough bilingual education policy-makers often claim that there is littleresearch to guide them, the 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 thatmany of the commonly stated con-cerns about bilingualism in childrenare unfounded. In general, the re-search supports the use of the nativelanguage in the instruction of lan-guage-minority children.

Cognitive research can also exposeand counterbalance the often danger-ously inaccurate labeling of the pro-gram evaluation studies. The concernof these studies is naturally with thedifferential impact of the programs,although little effort is made to findout what goes on in them. Evaluationresearch provokes political heat be-cause programmatic labels often rep-resent different partisan interests (e.g.,U.S. English groups arguing againstbilingual programs, or Hispanicgroups opposing efforts to reduce theuse of the native language). Basic re-search in which the unit of analysis isthe individual child reminds policy-makers that the intricacy and the beau-ty of the developing child should notbe overlooked in favor of program-matic and political concerns.

11 __TT_ 'f-

Bal ualh immesion rograms could be an tpo stqa m bie w7wn anddeelopment ofan imaluable naional resore lf hanuage and culture

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

1. Asessing each communi,'s lin-guistic needs. There is no universalblueprint for a successful bilingualeducation program. Each communityhas its own unique linguistic and cul-tural composition, and consequentlyits own unique educational needs.While every school district is requiredto collect data on English languageproficiency, few collect data on native-language proficiency, even though re-search has shown native-language pro-ficiency to be an important predictorof eventual English achievement. Few-er still collect data on the differentfunctions that the two languages mightserve in the bilingual community. Anassessment of a non-English-speakingpopulation's linguistic strengths maybe as important in designing an appro-priate program as an assessment oftheir linguistic weaknesses.

Children's cultural as well as theirlinguistic backgrounds should be con-sidered. Ethnographic research hasshown that classroom strategies aremost successful when matched withthe children's cultural style of interac-tion (McLaughlin 1985). Wong Fillmoreand McLaughlin (1986) report a studyon the effects of various classroom

factors on the oral English acquisitionof Hispanic and Chinese children.They found that children from thedifferent ethnic groups respondedbest to different kinds of educationalstrategies. The Hispanic students withthe poorest initial English skills, forexample, gained a great deal from theopportunity to interact with theirpeers in English, while their Chinesecounterparts benefited most from ex-tended interaction with the teacher.When designing bilingual educationprograms, then, teachers and adminis-trators should carefully consider theircommunities' cultural as well as lin-guistic features.

2. Tuwo-u, bilingual programs.Most of the bilingual education pro-grams in the United States are agentsof subtractive bilingualism-they aimto "replace" the child's first languagewith English. Yet, as we have seen, awell-maintained first language can bean important asset in the acquisition ofsecond-language skills, and it mighteven give the child an extra edge incognitive flexibility. These research re-sults suggest that an ideal bilingualeducation program would aim at flu-ency in both languages, treating a non-English first language as an asset, rath-er than as a handicap.

MARCH 1987 4:

II"Research in Canadahas shown that oneyear of immersionin the second-language classroomat seventh grade isworth three years'immersion startingat first grade."

Two-way bilingual programs seek tospread the benefits of bilingualismbeyond the language-minority popula-tion. Also called "bilingual immer-sion," these programs bring language-minority and language-majoritychildren together in the same class-room, with the intent of making allstudents functionally proficient inboth languages. This approach avoidsthe isolation of the minority group, 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-ity self-esteem and majority tol-erance. Such programs may go along way in encouraging interculturalunderstanding.

Bilingual immersion programs usethe second language as a medium aswell as an object of instruction. Insteadof explicitly presenting the formalrules of the second 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 other basic academicskills. In some schools the two groupsare kept separate through second orthird grade, and all students receivethis initial instruction in their ownnative 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 students have inAmerican society. By fourth or fifthgrade, instruction is divided equallybetween English and the minority lan-guage. All students are expected tobecome fully 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. Amodel bilingual immersion programin San Diego has also had positiveresults (Torrance 1982). Preliminaryresults show that by the end of ele-mentary school, both groups of stu-dents in this program equal 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 intellectualspheres. Senator Paul Simon (1980)describes the irony of the Americanlinguistic situation: "Because of ourrich ethnic mix, the United States ishome to millions whose first languageis not English.... Yet almost nothing isbeing 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-ful monitoring of these programs fromboth evaluation and cognitive perspec-tives will enhance not only our under-standing of program implementation,but also our appreciation of the gener-al capacity that humans have for bilin-gualism, given the right environmentalconditions.[

References

Arsenian, S. Bilingualism and Mental De-veopment. New York. Teachers CollegePress, 1937. Reproduced by AMS Press,New York, 1972.

Bain, B., and A Yu. "Cognitive Conse-quences of Raising Children Bilingually:'One Parent, One Language.'" Canadi-an Journal of Psycboogy 34 (1980):304-313.

Baker, K. A, and A A de Kanter. Efective-ness of Bilingual Education: A Review ofthe Literatre. Washington, D.C.: Officeof Planning, Budget, and Evaluation, U.S.Department of Education, 25 September1981.

Commission on Reading. Becoming a Na-hon of Readers. Washington, D.C.: Na-tional Institute of Education, 1985.

Crawford, J. "Immersion Method is FaringPoorly in Bilingual Study." EducationWeek, 23 April 1986.

Cummins, J. "The Role of Primary Lan-guage Development in Promoting Edu-cational Success for Language MinorityStudents." In Schooling and LanguageMinority Students A Theoretical Frame-uwork, edited by California State Depart-ment of Education. Los Angeles: Evalua-tion, Dissemination, and AssessmentCenter, California State University, 1981.

Cummins,J. Bilingualism and Special Edu-cation San Diego: College Hill Press,1984a.

Cummins, J. "Minority Students and Leam-ing Difficulties: Issues in Assessment andPlacement." In Ear/y Bilingualism andChildDevelopment, edited by M. Paradisand Y. Lebrun. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger,1984b.

Cummins, J. "Linguistic InterdependenceAmong Japanese and Vietnamese Immi-grant Children." In CommunicativeCompetence Approacbes to LanguageProficiency Assessment: Research andApplications, edited by C. Rivera. Avon,England: Multilingual Matters, 1984c.

Cummins, J., and M. Gulutsan. "BilingualEducation and Cognition" Alberta Jour-nal of Educational Research 20 (1974):259-269.

Danoff, M N., G. J. Coles, D. H. McLaughlin,and D. J. Reynolds. Evaluation of theImpact of ESEA Title VII Spanisb/EnglishBilingual Education Programs. PaloAlto, Calif: American Institutes for Re-search, 1977a and b, 1978.

Development Associates, Inc., and Re-search Triangle Institute. LEP StudentsCharacteristics and School Services. TbeDescriptve Pase Report of the NationalLongitudinal Eualuaon of the Elective-ness of Services for Language-MnorityLimited-Englisb Proficient Students.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, 1984.

Diaz, R "Thought and Two Languages: TheImpact of Bilingualism on Cognitive De-velopment" Review of Research in Edu-cation 10 (1983): 23-54.

Genesee, F. "Scholastic Effects of FrenchImmersion: An Overview After TenYears." Interchange 9 (1979): 20-29.

EDjcAnONAL LEADERSHIP

Genesee, F. "A Comparison of Early andLate Second Language Learning." Cana-dian Journal of Bebavioral Sciences 13(1981): 115-127.

Genesee, F. "Beyond Bilingualism: SocialPsychological Studies of French Immer-sion Programs in Canada." CanadanJournal ofBeavioral Science 16 (1984):209-224

Genesee, F., E. Polich, and M. H. Stanley."An FAperimental French ImmersionProgram at the Secondary School Lev-el-1969 to 1974." The Caradian Mod-ern Language Review 33 (1977): 318-332.

Giles, H., and J L. Byrne. "An IntergroupApproach to Second Language Acquisi-tion" Journal of Multilingual and Mul-ticulturalDevtelopment 3 (1982): 17-40

Goldman, S. R, M. Reyes, and C. K Vamrnha-gen "Understanding Fables in First andSecond Languages." Journal of the Na-tional Association for Bilingual Educa-tion (NABE) 3 (1984): 35-66.

Grosjean, F. Life with Two Languages AnIntroduction to Bilingualism. Cam-bridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,1982

Hlakuta, K. Mirror of Language: The Debateon Bilingualism. New York: BasicBooks, Inc., 1986

lHakuta, K, and R Diaz. "The RelationshipBetween Bilingualism and CognitiveAbility: A Critical Discussion and SomeNew Longitudinal Data." In Cbl¢en'sLanguage, vol. 5, edited by K E. Nelson.lIillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates, 1984

Hatch, E., ed Second Language Acquisi-tion: A Book of Readings Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House, 1978

Inn, Kalei. "Assessment of Self-Concept:Bilingual Asian-American Children." InAsian and Pacific-American Pergedtivesin Bilingual Education: ComparatieResearch, edited by Mae Chu-Chang.New York: Teachers College Press, 1983.

Jensen, J. V. "Effects of Childhood Bilin-gualism, , II." Elementary English 39(1962): 132-143, 358-366.

Lambert, W E., and G. R Tucker. BilingualEducation of Children: The St. LambertFpWeriment. Rowley, Mass.: NewburyHouse, 1972.

McLaughlin, B. Second-Language Acquisi-tion in Childbood Vol 1: Presbool Cil-dren. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, 1984.

McLaughlin, B. Second-Language Acquisi-tion in Gildhood. VoL 2 School.-AgeChildren. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates, 1985.

Peal, E., and W. E. Lambert. 'The Relation-ship of Bilingualism to Intelligence."Psychological Monographs 76, 27,Whole No. 546 (1962).

Simon, P. The Tongue-Tied American:Corionuing the Foreign Language Cri-

sis. New York: The Continuum Publish-ing Company, 1980.

Snow, C. E. '"The Critical Period for Lan-guage Acquisition: Evidence from Sec-ond Language Learning." ildDeeq-ment 49 (1978): 1114-1128.

Snow, C. E. "Language and Literacy: Rela-tionships During the Preschool Years."Harard EducationalReview 53 (1983):165-189.

Snow, C. E. The Devel/pment oDefinition-a Skill. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 1986.

Snow, C. E., and K Hakuta. "BilingualEducation: What's at Stake." PcoogvToday, in press.

Snow, C. E., and M. Hoefnagel-Hohle. "AgeDifferences in the Pronunciation of For-eign Sounds." Language and Speecb 20(1977): 357-365.

Snow, M. A Innovative Second LanguageEducation: Bilingual Immersion Pro-grams. Los Angeles: Center for LanguageEducation and Research, 1986.

Stem, H. H., M. Swain, and L D. McLean.Three Approaches to Learning rendh.Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation, 1976.

Swain, M. "French Immersion: Early, Lateor Partial?" Canadian Modern Lan-guage Retiew 34 (1978): 577-585.

Torrance, D. An Ewmplary Approacb toBilingual Education: A ConqfreensieHandbook for Implementing an Ele-mentary-Level Spanisb-English Lan-guage Immersion Program. San Diego:ESEA Title VII Bilingual DemonstrationProject, San Diego Unified School Dis-trict, 1982

Willig, A C. "A Meta-Analysis of SelectedStudies on the Effectiveness of BilingualEducation." Review of Educational Re-searb 55 (1985): 269-317.

Wong Fillmore, L. "The Second TimeAround: Cognitive and Social Strategiesin Second Language Acquisition." Doc-toral diss., Stanford University, 1976.

Wong Fillmore, L, and B. McLaughlin."Oral Language Learning in BilingualClassrooms: The Role of Cultural Factorsin Language Acquisition." Unpublishedmanuscript, School of Education, Uni-versity of California, Berkeley, 1986

Preparation of this article was supported inpart by the Center for Language Educationand Research (CLEAR) under contract 400-85-1010 from the U.S. Department of Edu-cation, Office of Educational Research andImprovement

Kenpi Hbko is Associate Professor, andLaurie J. Gould is Research Assistant,both at the Department of Psychology, YaleUniversity, Box 11 A Yale Station, New Ha-ven, CT 06520-7447.

The 4MATSystem

Bernice McCarthy's 4MAT ·System is a teaching methodfor all learners. Based onresearch in learning styles andbrain processing, 4MATrequires teachers to honorstudents' different approachesto learning.With 4MAT, teachers addressmotivation, the valuingcomponent, at the beginnngof each unit and the creativitycomponent at the end of eachlearning cycle.

These requirements are addedto the traditional content andcompetency approachesto form the complete cycle.

With 4MAT, all students gel toshine some of the time, whiledeveloping the critical thinkingskills necessary to complete theentire Learning Cycle.

The 4MAT System:Teaching to LearningStyles with Right/Left

Mode TechniquesA book that will change the

way you think about teaching.

To order, call Excel, Inc. at1-800-822-4MAT

or write to:Excel, Inc., Dept EL 3

200 W. Station St.Barrington, IL 60010

MARCH 1987

I

Copyright © 1987 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.