THE EFFECTS OF DUAL IMMERSION PROGRAMS ON

THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH LEARNERS

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty

of

California State University, Stanislaus

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

of Master of Arts in Education

By

Jorge Pinedo

May 2014

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

THE EFFECTS OF DUAL IMMERSION PROGRAMS ON

THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH LEARNERS

by

Jorge Pinedo

Dr. John Borba

Professor of School Administration

Dr. Chet Jensen

Professor of Education

Date

Date

Signed Certification of Approval page

is on file with the University Library

© 2014

Jorge Pinedo

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iv

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my wonderful wife, Rachel Pinedo. Her hard work,

love, and support for me have given me the strength and determination while we

travel in our life together. Her continuous hard work in keeping up with our busy

lives is an example of true determination in balancing work and family. Therefore, I

am ever so grateful to have her in my life.

This work is also dedicated to my daughter, Lexi Pinedo. She has given me

the strength and will to further my education. She has been a great companion and

listener, and continues to strive for greatness in her education as well. I love her with

all my heart. As a family, we will always have the encouragement to pursue our

dreams and persevere.

Finally, this work is dedicated to all my family and friends who have given

me love, support, and encouragement when needed while traveling on this journey. I

have the most love and respect for each and every one who has been part of my life.

Without all of you, it would have been more difficult to reach this goal. Thank you

for caring!

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to start by thanking both Dr. Vargas and Mrs. Romo for their

generosity and time for providing me with the student data that were needed for my

project. Their caring and understanding has made the completion of this endeavor a

positive experience. Mrs. Villaseñor and Mrs. Hay, thank you for taking time out of

your busy schedules to provide me with the student lists. Mr. Navarro, thank you for

your generosity and kindness for providing me with the information that I needed.

You are a great person and colleague!

To Dr. Borba, thank you for your time and guidance in seeing me through the

completion of my challenging journey. It has been a positive experience and

commitment in fulfilling this project. Dr. Jensen, thank you for taking time out of

your busy schedule to comment on my thesis. I am truly thankful for all your support.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Dedication ................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... v

List of Tables .............................................................................................. viii

Abstract ....................................................................................................... ix

Chapter

I. Introduction ....................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ................................................................ 2

Research Questions and Null Hypothesis ....................................... 2

Significance of the Study ................................................................ 3

Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................... 3

Definition of Terms......................................................................... 4

Summary ......................................................................................... 4

II. English Language Development History ......................................... 6

Two-Way Immersion Introduction ................................................. 9

Characteristics of the Two-Way Immersion Programs ................... 10

Types of Program Models ............................................................... 12

Studies on Dual Immersion Programs ............................................ 14

Summary of Literature .................................................................... 21

III. Methodology ................................................................................... 22

Introduction ..................................................................................... 22

Sample............................................................................................. 22

Instrumentation ............................................................................... 23

Statistical Analysis .......................................................................... 23

Summary ......................................................................................... 24

IV. Results of the Study ........................................................................ 25

Introduction ..................................................................................... 25

Description of the Sample ............................................................... 25

Findings Related to Hypothesis 1 ................................................... 26

Findings Related to Hypothesis 2 ................................................... 27

vii

Summary ......................................................................................... . 28

V. Summary, Conclusions and Implications, and Recommendations .. 29

Introduction ..................................................................................... 29

Summary ......................................................................................... 29

Conclusions and Implications ......................................................... 31

Recommendations for Further Research ......................................... 32

References ................................................................................................... 34

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. CST Scores of Group A and Group B .............................................................. 27

2. CELDT Scores of Group A and Group B ......................................................... 27

ix

ABSTRACT

This study examined data during the 2012-2013 academic school year from two

Central Valley elementary schools located in California. Both of these schools are

located within the same district. One school has a dual immersion program; the other

does not. The school that has a dual immersion program has a total student population

of 710. This school uses the 90/10 model. Over the course of the primary grades, the

percentage of instruction in the minority language decreases, while the percentage of

instruction in English gradually increases. The school consists of 364 male and 346

female students. The school’s ethnic composition consist of 89% Hispanic or Latino,

7% White, and 1% other. The other school does not have a dual immersion program.

This school has a total student population of 578, 315 males and 263 females. The

school’s ethnic composition consists of 72% Hispanic or Latino, 19% White, 4%

African/American, 1% Asian, and 1% other. The third-grade English learners were

selected from Power School reports for the 2012-2013 school year. All of the third-

grade English learners (36) from the school that does not have a dual immersion

program and all of the third-grade English learners (40) from the school with a dual

immersion program participated in this study. The results of a t-test for independent

samples showed no significant difference in the California English Language

Development Test (CELDT) and California Standards Test (CST) in English

language arts scores between the two groups of students.

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of dual immersion

programs versus non-dual immersion programs and the achievement of English

learners. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 requires all elementary

students to demonstrate grade-level proficiency on the California Academic Content

Standards. Each year, teachers in California work strategically with their students to

achieve proficiency on grade-level standards. Therefore, this research will be

conducted in two elementary schools located in Central California. The participants

will be chosen from two third-grade classrooms, each made up of thirty students. The

academic achievement of English learners will be based on the California English

Language Development Test (CELDT) and California Standards Test (CST) scores

for the 2012-2013 academic year.

In the state of California, students are required to take the CST and to be

proficient in English language arts and mathematics. Although public elementary

school English learners in California have made some growth on the CST, more than

half of them are not demonstrating proficiency in English language arts and

mathematics (California Department of Education, 2011). The grade level standards

address language fluency, reading comprehension and mathematics. As teachers and

administrators brainstorm effective strategies, English learners continue to make

2

some growth; however, they still produce lower scores than their English speaking

peers.

Statement of the Problem

It has been estimated that 4,512,560 English learners attend public schools in

the USA, and approximately 34% are enrolled in California, according the United

States Department of Education (2010). In addition, according to the California

Department of Education (2010), California serves more English learners in the

Central Valley than any other region. Also, 80% of the elementary schools in

California are low-performing and designated as Program Improvement (PI) because

of English learners. While the lack of English learner academic achievement has been

studied, there is still a need for further research (California Department of Education,

2011). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine whether dual immersion

has the potential to expedite the achievement of English learners.

Research Question and Null Hypothesis

Research Question

What are the effects of dual immersion programs on the academic achievement of

English learners?

Null Hypothesis

1. There is no significant difference in achievement in English language arts between

third-grade English learners who participated in a dual immersion program and third-

grade English learners who have never participated in a dual immersion program.

3

2. There is no significant difference in English proficiency between third-grade

English learners who participated in a dual immersion program and third-grade

English learners who have never participated in a dual immersion program.

Significance of the Study

One way to improve the academic achievement of English learners may be

through a dual immersion (Two-Way Bilingual Immersion) program. The Bilingual

Education Act of 1968 stated that special assignments may vary from one district or

school to another; however, all special assistance programs are required to give

language minority students “full access to the learning environment, the curriculum,

special services and assessment in a meaningful way (Schugurensky, 2002). Dual

Immersion may help English learners increase English proficiency and academic

achievement.

Limitations and Delimitations

Limitations

This study will be limited to 40 third-grade English learners who are enrolled

at a dual immersion school, and 36 third-grade English learners enrolled at a

traditional school for 2012-2013.

Delimitations

For the purpose of this study, student background information, teacher

experience, and instructional materials were not taken into consideration.

4

Definition of Terms

California Standards Test (CST). A test that is administered annually to students in

grades 2 through 11. Questions are developed to measure students’ proficiency level

on California Academic Content Standards in English language arts, writing,

mathematics, science, and social studies.

English Learner (EL). A student whose native language is another language other

than English.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Legislation that underscored the theories of

standards-based education reform. NCLB was created to ensure that all children have

a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach,

at a minimum, proficiency on state academic content standards and assessments.

Program Improvement (PI). A multistep plan to improve the performance of

students in schools that do not make Adequate Yearly Progress under No Child Left

Behind for two years. Only failing schools that receive federal Title I funds are

required to participate in Program Improvement.

Two-Way Bilingual Immersion (TWBI). A program that involves bilingual and

biliteracy instruction and learning in English and a second language by integrating

English learners with English speakers (proficient in English).

Summary

Chapter I introduces a study regarding the effectiveness of a dual immersion

program on the academic achievement of English learners. This study is designed to

compare the academic achievement of two groups of English learners from two

5

schools, one that has implemented a dual immersion program and the other school

that does not have a dual immersion program.

6

CHAPTER II

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, stated that the

academic achievement gap between ethno-linguistic minority students and other

students as determined by test scores, dropout rates, and college admissions and

completion rates, leads the challenges public schools face nationwide (O’Connell,

2008). Aquila stated that one of the largest segments of minority students consists of

those who are not fully proficient in English (as cited by the California Department of

Education, 2010). The United States Department of Education (2010) estimated that

4,512,560 English learners are enrolled in public schools throughout the United

States. It is believed that one in every four students is an English learner and

California has one of the largest English learner populations along with seven other

states.

Title I of NCLB specifically addresses the educational needs of low-achieving

children who attend schools with the most poverty, limited-English-proficient

speaking children, migrant children, children with disabilities, neglected or delinquent

children, and children who are in need of learning, especially in reading. During the

last twenty years of the 20th century, a negative attitude towards bilingualism and

bilingual education grew in the United States (as cited by the California Department

of Education, 2010). The numbers of immigrants increased dramatically. Their

children who speak a language other than English enrolled in the public schools.

7

In order to better understand the history of Bilingual Education in the United

States and California, it is helpful to examine how congressional changes occurred

over time (Mora, 2012). The Bilingual Education Act amendments of 1968 and 1974

are also known as Title VII. This legislation was designed to provide supplemental

funding to meet the “special educational needs” of large numbers of children of

limited English speaking ability in the United States. With the funding, these

amendments mandated that schools provide Bilingual Education programs. The

Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) issued an interpretation of the

Title VII regulations, which became known as the 1970 Memorandum. This

prohibited the denial of access to educational programs because of a student’s limited

English proficiency. In 1974, the Equal Educational Opportunity Act was passed by

Congress. The act provided definitions of what constituted denial of equal educational

opportunity. For example, if a school district fails to provide students with the

appropriate instructional program or equal access to learn, then legal action may be

taken to address such violations.

In California, Governor Ronald Reagan signed Senate Bill (SB) 53 in 1967.

This allowed the use of other languages of instruction in California’s public schools.

This bill overturned the 1872 law that required English-only instruction in the

classroom. The Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act in 1974 was

passed by the California legislature and required schools to follow federal guidelines

for identification, program placement and reclassification of students as fluent

English proficient (RFEP).

8

In 1994, Proposition 187 was passed in California to deny illegal immigrants

health care, social services, and public education. Three days after the election, the

proposition was immediately challenged and brought to a halt. Eventually the

proposition was declared unconstitutional. Proposition 227 was passed in 1998 and

required all California students be taught in English as rapidly as possible. This

proposition placed non-English speaking students in a short-term English immersion

program. Proposition 227 required that all public education be conducted in English

for all English learners and severely restricted the use of their native language while

receiving instruction in English. Bilingual programs could be offered only through a

parent waiver program.

In 2001, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act replaced and re-authorized a

number of federal education programs, including the Bilingual Education Act. This

act mandated that every state must measure each public school student’s progress in

reading and mathematics from the third grade through the eighth grade, and at least

once between the tenth and twelfth grade. Last, this act required that all teachers

teaching in Bilingual Education programs be fluent in English and any other language

used in the classroom. It also gave parents the choice to enroll their children in a

Bilingual Education program. However, there was a time limit of 3 years during

which English learners could be enrolled in bilingual programs. After a student has

been in school for three consecutive years, English-only instruction commences,

regardless of the student’s English proficiency (Cerda & Hernandez, 2006).

9

After Proposition 227 was passed by the voters, the California State Board of

Education eliminated the re-designation criteria formerly in place for classification of

limited English proficient (LEP) students to Fluent English Proficient (FEP).

Therefore, each of the approximately 1,000 school districts in California was required

to set its own criteria for classifying students as fluent English speakers. A state-

sponsored English Language Development test aligned to the English Language

Development Standards (ELD) was developed and implemented (Mora, 2012).

History shows that there is always constant change in education and new ideas

emerge. Baker (2002) stated, “Change will always occur in bilingual education policy

and provision. Nothing is static. While there will be periods when bilingual

education is criticized, forbidden and rejected, there will be reactions, with the

possibility of more positive, accepting periods ahead” (pp. 189-192).

Two-Way Immersion Introduction

Two-way immersion is an educational approach that integrates native English

speakers and native speakers of another language (usually Spanish) in the same

classroom. There is documentation of other two-way programs that involve languages

other than Spanish, such as Ecole Bilingue, a French-English program in

Massachusetts; Cupertino Language Immersion Program, a Mandarin-English

program in California; and Korean-English Dual Immersion Program, a Korean-

English program also in California (Howard & Christian, 2002). Two-way programs

have become more popular in recent years. Initially, the number of new programs

remained relatively low in the United States, with only 30 known programs in the

10

mid-1980s (Lindholm, 1987). Over the last 20 years, two-way immersion programs

have significantly increased. There are 422 TWI programs documented in the United

States and the majority are Spanish-English programs in public elementary schools

(Directory of Two-Way Bilingual Immersion Programs in the U.S., 2014).

The popularity of two-way immersion is apparent for two reasons. Research

has proven that the model for both native English speakers and native Spanish

speakers is effective. Students have done well or better than their peers in traditional

programs. Secondly, policy makers and educators see the importance of learning

another language other than English in order to be well prepared for the global

economy (Lindholm, 1987).

Characteristics of Two-Way Immersion Programs

Typically, TWI programs share the same common characteristics.

1. The programs must include fairly equal numbers of two groups of students:

language majority students, who in the United States are native English

speakers; and language minority students, who in the United States are native

speakers of another language, such as Spanish, Korean, or Chinese. For this

reason, two-way immersion education is distinct from other forms of dual-

language education (such as developmental bilingual education or foreign

language immersion), because it is two-way in two ways: Two languages are

used for instruction and there are two groups involved, including native

English speakers and language minority students from a single language

background, usually those who speak Spanish.

11

2. The programs are integrated, which means that the majority-language and

minority- language students are grouped together for academic instruction for

most of the day.

3. Two-way immersion programs are designed to teach core academics to both

groups in both languages. This depends on which model is being provided,

90/10 model or 50/50 model. (Howard & Christian, 2002, pp. 2-3)

In addition to the common characteristics of TWI programs, there are four

central goals:

1. Students will be able to develop high levels of proficiency in their first

language. For example, English speakers will develop high levels of speaking,

listening, reading, and writing skills in English. On the contrary, the non-

English speakers will develop high levels of speaking, listening, reading, and

writing skills in their native language.

2. All students will develop high levels of proficiency in a second language. This

means for the native language speakers, they will have the opportunity to

increase levels of oral and written proficiency in a second language like

Spanish. As for the non-English speaking students, they will develop high

levels of oral and written skills in English, but will not lose any English

language proficiency since they will still be receiving instruction in their

native language.

12

3. Academic performance for both groups of students will be at or above grade

level. The academic curriculum is the same and doesn’t differ for either group

of students. The level of academic performance is expected for both.

4. All students will demonstrate positive cross-cultural attitudes and behaviors.

This means that all ethnic backgrounds will be integrated and respected

through instruction first hand. (Howard & Christian, 2002, pp. 2-3)

Types of Program Models

There are two program models for dual-immersion education that were

referred to as the 50/50 model and 90/10 model. “The ratios simply state the

percentage of instructional time each language receives at the beginning of the

program and not the student population” (Howard & Christian, 2002, p.11).

Depending on which model is being implemented, the time of language instruction

stays consistent throughout the year for that grade level. Because two languages are

used for instruction in TWI programs, the issue of how to distribute instruction across

two languages is another important decision.

To better understand the language distribution in the classroom and how it

plays out in practice, the following example is provided. Teacher A is the Spanish

teacher and Teacher B is the English partner teacher in the 50/50 model. Teacher A

gives instruction (in Spanish) in the morning to an integrated group of students who

are Spanish speakers and English speakers. Teacher B works with another integrated

group of Spanish speakers and English speakers who are receiving instruction in the

English language (Howard & Christian, 2002). After lunch, the two groups switch,

13

and group A goes to Teacher B where they will receive English instruction and group

B goes to Teacher A, where they will receive Spanish instruction for the remainder of

the day. Each teacher provides language arts instruction in his or her respective

language. After the two groups switch, the instruction given in the morning is

repeated in the afternoon by both teachers. This model is used for at least one week

and then the groups are switched back. In grades kindergarten through first, some

schools use the approach of half-week to half-week so that students do not become

overstressed due to their limited second language proficiency, (as per Howard &

Christian, 2002).

In the 90/10 model, 90% of the day’s instruction is in the minority language

(Spanish) during the first two years and 10% of the day is dedicated to the second

language (English). One misconception of this model is that students continue to

receive 90% of the instruction in their minority language throughout all grade levels.

This simply is not the case; rather, for each subsequent grade level, the majority

language (English) increases and the minority language decreases. By the time the

students reach fourth grade, the program model turns to 50% of instruction in each

language (Howard & Christian, 2002). This model may vary among schools.

The main difference between the two models is the amount of instructional time used

in each language during the primary grades (Howard & Christian, 2002). However,

this issue can become more complicated at upper grade levels where language

distribution decisions need to be made by the administration.

14

Studies on Dual Immersion Programs

Howard and Sugarman conducted a study on the growth of two-way

immersion programs in the United States. Howard & Sugarman based their

conclusions on the responses to a questionnaire completed by school administrators,

teachers, and staff representatives of TWI programs. The data were collected from

three states with similar schools with TWI programs, California (N=86), Texas

(N=34), and New York (N=20).

Of the 86 TWI programs in California, 8 were charter school programs and 22

were considered to be magnet schools. Only 32 were school-wide programs. About

three-quarters of the elementary school programs functioned as part of the two-way

immersion strand as did the secondary programs. Most of the TWI programs were in

Spanish-English. The others consisted of Chinese-English, French-English, Korean-

English, and Navajo-English. Therefore, the majority of students who were placed in

these programs were native home language speakers who received instruction in one

or both languages (Howard & Sugarman, 2003).

Usually the students in these programs were considered low or at risk

academically due to poverty. Howard and Sugarman (2003) found that “there are

more low-income language minority students than low-income native English

speakers enrolled in TWI programs” (p. 12). In California, 30 programs reported that

more than half of their language minority students (35%) received free or a reduced

price lunch.

15

Only 29% of TWI programs reported that 100% of their teachers were

qualified or proficient in both languages. More than half (54%) of all TWI programs

responded that 100% of their teachers were proficient in both languages. In

California, 70% of the teachers in TWI programs were qualified or proficient. In

Texas, 44% were qualified or proficient and 22% in New York (Howard &

Sugarman, 2003).

Thomas and Collier (1997) tracked about 700,000 student records and the

long-term educational outcomes of English learners in five school districts. These

students participated in various types of programs such as ESL pullout (traditional),

ESL content (including content curriculum and English language arts), transitional

bilingual education, one-way developmental bilingual education, and two-way

developmental bilingual education. The purpose for conducting the study was to

gather information regarding perceptions and opinions of language minority students

who attend schools across the United States.

Thomas and Collier (1997) conducted a series of cross-sectional (investigating

different groups of students at one or more points across time) and longitudinal

analyses (following the same students across time). In addition to their cross-

sectional and longitudinal analyses, they were able to examine multiple cohorts of

students over several periods of time. The reason for this action was to ensure that the

language minority and native English speaking students received the same language

instruction experience as the students who were only English speaking. They wanted

to make sure they were concurrent and not comparing “apples and oranges.”

16

Thomas and Collier (1997) discovered that children raised bilingually since

birth benefit strongly from on-grade-level academic work in both of their two

languages, compared to children in traditional programs who are strong in English,

but lose their primary language proficiency. Also, children who are proficient in a

language other than English and are just beginning to develop their English language

skills when they initially enrolled in a U.S. school also benefitted from on-grade-level

work in two languages. Also, English-speaking parents who chose to enroll their

children in two way bilingual classes discovered that their children benefitted

strongly from academic work through two languages. So part of this research found

those children in well-implemented one-way and two-way bilingual classes seemed to

outperform their peers who attended traditional school programs. More importantly,

these students were able to sustain their grades as they continued their schooling in

middle and high school.

Thomas and Collier (1997) also found that it is important that teachers design

interactive lessons that require cooperative learning strategies for group work. For

example, using thematic units helps students explore the interdisciplinary nature of

problem-solving through cognitively complex on-grade-level tasks, and other

strategies that will stimulate hands-on learning. Lastly, oral and written language

should coincide with language and academic content as an ongoing development

process.

Finally, Thomas and Collier (1997) found that instructional goals must be set

for the English learners to experience the same type of supportive socio-cultural

17

context for learning two languages that the monolingual native English speakers

experience while learning English. When schools are created and integrated properly,

students succeed. Therefore, some schools have transformed the socio-cultural

context for language minority students by offering two-way bilingual classes. These

classes allow native-English speaking children to participate in bilingual classes along

with the language minority students; they are no longer considered two separate

groups of children at a school. Rather, this program brings unity to a school

community and is perceived as “enrichment” rather than remedial. Changes to the

socio-cultural context are not easy and take time. With careful planning and nurturing

from school staff and students, the school climate can be transformed into a warm,

safe, supportive learning environment that can improve academic achievement for all

students in the long term.

Gorman (2012) conducted a study to evaluate the impact of short-term

phonological awareness (PA) instruction presented in children’s first language

(Spanish) on gains in first language and second language (English) and to determine

whether relationships exist between vocabulary size, verbal working memory, and PA

in Spanish-speaking English learners. Gorman found that phonological awareness is a

stronger predictor of reading development than IQ, language proficiency, and other

reading readiness tests.

Gorman’s (2012) sample population included 25 kindergarten students, who

were Spanish-speaking English learners and recruited from transitional bilingual

education classrooms in central Texas and the Midwest, and 10 kindergartners used

18

as the control group. The language proficiency ratings were based on a scale of 1

(low) and 5 (high). Study participants had no reported speech, language, learning,

physical, or health issues. Spanish was the primary language spoken at home; English

was acquired after the age of three years. In order to evaluate the children’s

phonological awareness skills, they were given four subtests each. A repeated

measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) process was used to evaluate

the gains. Data were collected by utilizing a modified version of Receptive One-Word

Picture Vocabulary Test: Spanish-Bilingual Edition (ROWPVT-SB) (Brownell, 2001)

in Spanish and English to estimate the children’s vocabulary size in each language.

Standard scores were not reported due to modifications of standardized administration

and scoring procedures. The raw scores were used for subsequent analyses (Gorman,

2012).

The two goals of the study were to examine the impact of short-term PA

instruction presented in Spanish (L1) on English learners’ gains in both Spanish and

English (L2) and the relationships between vocabulary size, word memory, and PA in

both languages (Gorman, 2012). Gorman discovered that in the experimental group,

there was a significant effect for time, indicating that PA instruction in Spanish led to

a general increase in PA skills for both languages. For example, when children were

given these tests (initial sound matching, final sound matching, blending, and

segmenting) in Spanish and in English, there were significant gains in both languages.

According to Gorman’s study, it is well-known that vocabulary supports children’s

word decoding and reading comprehension. Even before children read, strong

19

vocabulary skills appear to promote children’s PA development. Finally, effective

instruction requires using a variety of instructional strategies for enhancing the

vocabulary development of English learners, including reviewing and reinforcing new

words through read-alouds, story retells, word books, story maps, narration and

dramatization.

Lindholm-Leary and Borsato (2001) examined the impact of participation in a

two-way immersion program on the language achievement outcomes of former

program participants and their current schooling paths and college plans. The study

focused on three groups: 1) Hispanic students who began the two-way program as

ELLs, 2) Hispanic students who began the program as English-only or as English

dominant speakers, and 3) European-American students who entered the program as

monolingual speakers of English.

The study consisted of 142 high school participants who were enrolled in two-

way immersion programs, while they were enrolled in elementary school. The student

characteristics were considered with respect to their mothers’ educational level and

participation in the free lunch program. A small group was selected as a comparison

group for the Hispanic speakers. This group was composed of Hispanic students who

had entered kindergarten speaking Spanish but who did not participate in two-way

immersion. These two groups were administered a questionnaire to complete

regarding motivation, attitudes toward school, current schooling path and college

ambitions, attitudes toward bilingualism, two-way immersion, parental involvement,

20

and school environment. The questionnaire was rated on a five point Likert scale,

ranging from strongly disagrees to strongly agree.

The results of this study showed that the Hispanic students who attended a

two-way immersion program developed high levels of academic competence and

motivation, ambitions to go to college, knowledge about application to college, and

pride in bilingualism. Also the results revealed a sense of resiliency among the

Hispanic students, especially those learning English and those from low-income

families. These students expressed more self-esteem, motivation to study hard, belief

in academic competence, perceptions of a positive school environment and had

supportive families with high value for education. Thus, it is not surprising that most

of these students had ambitions to attend college and not drop out of school.

Thomas & Collier collected data from five school districts throughout the

United States. The records collected were of individual ELL students over a four year

period. The records identified those students who remained in longer-term language

support programs (5-6 years), shorter-term programs (1-3 years), and those who had

exited or never attended TWI programs. The findings of their analysis were based on

210,054 student records (as cited by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity

& Excellence, 2003).

The study was conclusive about academic achievement in a variety of learning

areas. In order to close the achievement gap between ELLs and the native English

speakers, language support programs must be well implemented, not segregated,

21

sustained for at least 5-6 years, and must demonstrate achievement gains for more

than the average yearly progress of the non-ELL group until the gap is closed.

Summary of Literature

The review of literature in Chapter II explained the history and progression of

the effects of two-way immersion programs on the achievement of English learners.

This chapter provided studies that compared the effectiveness of two-way immersion

programs. These studies revealed that students who attend two-way immersion

programs seemed to demonstrate positive attitudes compared to their peers who had

not attended two-way immersion programs or even spoken the Spanish language.

Therefore, Chapter III will examine the demographics, sample population, and

statistical analysis of this study.

22

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This study will determine whether there is a significant difference in academic

achievement and English proficiency between English learners who attended a dual

immersion program and English learners who did not attend a dual immersion

program. California Standards Test (CST) scores for English language arts and the

California English Language Development Test (CELDT) scores were used to

determine whether English learners were progressing academically.

This chapter will describe the demographics, instrumentation, and statistical

analysis used in this study.

Sample

This study examined data from the 2012-2013 academic school year from two

Central Valley elementary schools located in California. Both of these schools are

located within the same district. One school has a dual immersion program; the other

does not. The school that has a dual immersion program has a total student population

of 710. This school uses the 90/10 model. In a 90/10 model, 90% of instruction in the

first year or two is in the minority language (Spanish), and 10% is in English. Over

the course of the primary grades, the percentage of instruction in the minority

language decreases, while the percentage of instruction in English gradually

increases. By fourth grade, the percentage of instructional time in each language

23

reaches a 50/50 ratio and instruction in the two languages stays balanced throughout

the remaining elementary grades. The school’s gender demographics consist of 364

males and 346 females. The school’s ethnicity consists of 89% Hispanic or Latino,

7% White, and 1% other. The school that does not have a dual immersion program

has a total student population of 578. The school gender demographics consist of 315

males and 263 females. The school’s ethnicity consists of 72% Hispanic or Latino,

19% White, 4% African/American, 1% Asian, and 1% other.

The third-grade English learners were selected from Power School reports for

the 2012-2013 school year. All of the third-grade English learners (36) from the

school which does not have a dual immersion program, and all of the third grade

English learners (40) from the school with a dual immersion program were selected

for this study. These students were enrolled for the entire school year for this study to

be consistent.

Instrumentation

The results of the English language arts section of the California Standards

Test for third grade and the California English Language Development Test for third

grade were analyzed for this study. The California Standards Test is aligned with the

California Academic Content Standards in English language arts.

Statistical Analysis

The test data were analyzed using an independent t-test for each hypothesis.

The mean scores of English learners who participated in a dual immersion program

24

were compared with the mean scores of the English learners who did not participate

in a dual immersion program. The alpha level was set at .05.

Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to provide the methodology and discuss the

process used to analyze the data. Results of this study will be reported in Chapter 4.

25

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness between dual

immersion programs for English learners and non-dual immersion programs for

English learners. Chapter 4 will be presented in the following order: (1) description of

the sample, (2) findings related to each hypothesis, and (3) summary.

Description of the Sample

This study examined data during the 2012-2013 academic school year from

two Central Valley elementary schools located in California. Both of these schools

are located within the same district. One school has a dual immersion program; the

other does not. The school that has a dual immersion program has a total student

population of 710. This school uses the 90/10 model. In a 90/10 model, 90% of

instruction in the first year or two is in the minority language, and 10% is in English.

Over the course of the primary grades, the percentage of instruction in the minority

language decreases, while the percentage of instruction in English gradually

increases. By fourth grade, the percentage of instructional time in each language

reaches a 50/50 ratio and instruction in the two languages stays balanced throughout

the remaining elementary grades. The school consists of 364 male and 346 female

students. The school’s ethnic composition consist of 89% Hispanic or Latino, 7%

White, and 1% other.

26

The other school does not have a dual immersion program. This school has a

total student population of 578, 315 males and 263 females. The school’s ethnic

composition consists of 72% Hispanic or Latino, 19% White, 4% African/American,

1% Asian, and 1% other.

The third-grade English learners were selected from Power School reports for

the 2012-2013 school year. All of the third-grade English learners (36) from the

school that does not have a dual immersion program and all of the third-grade English

learners (40) from the school with a dual immersion program participated in this

study. See Chapter 3.

The treatment group consisted of 40 students (Group A) who were identified

as English learners and attended a school with a dual immersion program. The control

group consisted of 36 students (Group B) who were identified as English learners and

attended a school that did not have a dual immersion program.

Findings Related to Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 - There is no significant difference in achievement in English

language arts between third-grade English learners who participated in a dual

immersion program and third-grade English learners who have never participated in a

dual immersion program

An independent t-test was used to determine if there is a difference in the

mean CST scores in English language arts between the treatment and the control

group. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in the CST scores

between the two groups (Table 1)

27

Table 1

CST Scores of Group A and Group B

Group N Mean CST Standard t p

Deviation

Group A 40 293.05 43.730 -1.558 .123

Group B 36 312.36 63.424

The results suggest that students who participated in a dual immersion

program did not perform higher in English language arts than students who did not

participate in a dual immersion program.

Findings Related to Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 - There is no significant difference in English proficiency

between third-grade English learners who participated in a dual immersion program

and third-grade English learners who never participated in a dual immersion program.

An independent t-test was used to determine whether there is a difference in

the mean CELDT scores in English proficiency between the treatment and the control

group. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in the CELDT

scores between the two groups (Table 2).

Table 2

CELDT Scores of Group A and Group B

Group N Mean CELDT Standard t p

Deviation

Group A 40 459.80 37.669 -1.614 .111

Group B 36 476.36 51.343

28

The results suggest that students who participated in a dual immersion

program did not achieve English proficiency quicker than students who did not

participate in a dual immersion program.

Summary

Chapter 4 revealed the results of the t-tests that were used to accept or reject

the null hypotheses of this study. The results for this study suggest that the students

who participate in a dual immersion program showed no significant difference in the

CELDT and CST scores when compared to the students who did not participate in a

dual immersion program. Chapter 5 will present a summary, conclusions, and

recommendations for further research.

29

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness between dual

immersion programs for English learners and non-dual immersion programs for

English learners. A t-test for independence was utilized to determine whether there

was a significant difference in achievement between students who participated in a

dual immersion program and students who did not participate in a dual immersion

program. Both groups in this study consisted of third- grade English learners located

in the Central Valley of California from two elementary schools within the same

district during the 2012-13 academic school year.

Chapter 5 summarizes this study, presents conclusions, and provides

recommendations for further research.

Summary

Since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 required that all

elementary students demonstrate grade-level proficiency on California Academic

Content Standards, many school districts have looked for ways to implement various

instructional programs to help increase student achievement for English learners. The

purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness between dual immersion

programs for English learners and non-dual immersion programs for English learners.

30

The information in this study may be helpful to educational leaders and policy makers

as they consider programs for English learners.

Data were gathered from the CELDT and CST that were taken by third-grade

English learners during the 2012-13 academic school year. English learners were

assigned to group A if they attended a dual language immersion program. English

learners were assigned to Group B if they did not attend a dual language immersion

program.

English Proficiency

Hypothesis 1 - There is no difference in achievement in English language arts

between third-grade English learners who participated in a dual immersion program

and third-grade English learners who have never participated in a dual immersion

program.

Students’ CELDT scores were used in this analysis. The mean English

language proficiency test score of Group A (M=459.80, SD=37.669) was not

significantly different than Group B (M=476.36, SD=51.343). Hence, the null

hypothesis was accepted (p=.111).

Academic Achievement in ELA

Hypothesis 2 - There is no significant difference in English proficiency

between third-grade English learners who participated in a dual immersion program

and third-grade English learners who have never participated in a dual immersion

program.

31

Students’ CST scores were used in this analysis. The mean Academic

Achievement in ELA test scores of Group A (M=293.05, SD=43.730) was not

significantly difference than Group B (M=312.36, SD=63.424). Hence, the null

hypothesis was accepted (p=.123).

Conclusions and Implications

After analyzing the students’ CELDT and CST data, the study showed

no significant differences between Group A and Group B. The possibilities behind the

results obtained in this study may be due to students not having enough time in dual

immersion prior to assessment of program effectiveness. For an accurate assessment

of their learning it may be premature to evaluate students in third grade and instead it

may be more appropriate in fifth or sixth, after six or seven years of program

participation. Another reason for the results obtained in this study may be due to

different approaches taken by school districts to implement a dual immersion

program. Thomas and Collier (1997) collected data from five school districts

throughout the United States. The records collected were of individual ELL students

over a four year period. The study was positively conclusive about the components of

effective EL support programs. Many school districts may not offer language support

that is well implemented, not segregated, sustained for at least 5-6 years, and

demonstrates achievement gains equal to or higher than the average yearly progress

of non-ELL students.

Last, students who attend dual immersion programs are usually considered

low or at risk academically due to poverty. Howard and Sugarman found that “there

32

are more low-income language minority students than low-income native English

speakers enrolled in TWI programs” (p.12). Although social-economics was not taken

into consideration, it may serve an explanation for the results of this study. While the

lack of English-learner academic achievement has been studied, there is still a need

for further research (California Department of Education, 2011).

Recommendations for Further Research

Recommendations for continued studies in this area would include the

following:

Conduct research on a larger scale that would include regional, state, county,

and national comparisons.

Conduct research to determine the effects on English proficiency of other

types of dual immersion programs with different languages.

Conduct research to determine if differences between dual language

immersion programs and traditional ELD programs exist at the high school

level.

REFERENCES

34

REFERENCES

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Tonawanda,

NY: Library of Congress Cataloging.

California Department of Education. (2010). Improving education for English

learners: Research-Based approaches. Sacramento, Ca. Department of

Education.

California Department of Education. (2011). California two-way immersion program

overview, http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/ip/overview.asp

Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. (2003). A national study

of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long term academic

achievement. http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/ResBrief10.html

Cerda, N. & Hernandez, C.M. (2006). Bilingual education.

http://www.freewebs.com/cerdahda/legislationtimeline.htm

Gorman, B. K. (2012). Relationships between vocabulary size, working memory, and

phonological awareness in spanish-speaking english language learners.

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Vol. 21.

Howard, E. R. & Chirstian, D. (2002). Two-Way Immersion 101: Designing and

Implementing a Two-Way Immersion Education Program at the Elementary

Level. Santa Cruz, California: Center for Research on Education.

35

Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion

education: A Review of the Research. Baltimore, MD: Center for Applied

Linguistics.

Lindholm-Leary, K. (1987). Directory of two-way bilingual programs: Two-Way

bilingual education for language minority and majority students. Los

Angeles: University of California, Center for Language Education and

Research. [Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 291 241].

Lindholm-Leary, K. J. & Borsato, G. (2002). Impact of two-way immersion on

students’ attitudes toward school and college. San Jose University, California,

Center for Applied Linguistics. [ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and

Linguistics].

Mora, K. J. (2012). Legal history of bilingual education.

http://moramodules.com/Pages/HistoryBE.htm

Parkes, J., Ruth, T., Anberg-Espinoza, M., & DeJong, E. (2009). Urgent research

questions and issues in dual language education. http://www.dlenm.org

Thomas, W. P. & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority

students. NW Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual

Education.

Two-Way Immersion (2014). Directory of two-way bilingual immersion programs in

the united states. http://www.cal.org/jsp/TWI/SchoolListings.jsp

36

Watanabe, T. (2011). Dual-Immersion programs growing in popularity. Los Angeles

Times. http://www.articles.latimes.com/2011/may/08/local/la-me-bilingual-

20110508.