11

A BRIEF GUIDE TO RESEARCH A BRIEF GUIDE TO RESEARCH

ON IMMERSION PROGRAMSON IMMERSION PROGRAMS

Fred GeneseeFred Genesee

McGill UniversityMcGill University

French Immersion in Manitoba ConferenceFrench Immersion in Manitoba Conference

WinnipegWinnipeg

Feb. 6, 2009Feb. 6, 2009

22

PERILS OF BILINGUALISMPERILS OF BILINGUALISM

33

IS BILINGUAL ACQUISITION IS BILINGUAL ACQUISITION EXCEPTIONAL?EXCEPTIONAL?

Chapters:Chapters:• Children with AutismChildren with Autism• Children with Down’s Children with Down’s

SyndromeSyndrome• Children with William’s Children with William’s

SyndromeSyndrome• Hearing-Impaired ChildrenHearing-Impaired Children• Children with Visual Children with Visual

ImpairmentImpairment• Hearing children of deaf Hearing children of deaf

parentsparents

Bishop & Mogford 1989

44

THE GLOBAL VILLAGETHE GLOBAL VILLAGE

55

ENGLISH IN THE GLOBAL VILLAGEENGLISH IN THE GLOBAL VILLAGE(Niall Ferguson, Los Angeles Times)(Niall Ferguson, Los Angeles Times)

66

COGNITIVE ADVANTAGESCOGNITIVE ADVANTAGES

BIALYSTOK BIALYSTOK (2004/2007)(2004/2007)

selective attention selective attention (executive functions of (executive functions of the brain)the brain)

focus on relevant task focus on relevant task information, screen out information, screen out irrelevant informationirrelevant information

a result of managing 2 a result of managing 2 languageslanguages

persists into adulthoodpersists into adulthood

77

CULTURAL UNDERSTANDINGCULTURAL UNDERSTANDING

88

ROAD MAPROAD MAP

brief review of Canadian Immersion programs

lessons from research:

1. value of content-based L2 instruction 2. age3. time4. students with learning challenges +5. simultaneous bilingualism

opportunities & challenges

99

PROGRAM MODELS: PROGRAM MODELS: early total immersionearly total immersion

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% t

ime

in e

ach

lan

gu

age

L2 L1

1010

PROGRAM MODELS: PROGRAM MODELS: delayed immersiondelayed immersion

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% ti

me

in e

ach

lan

guag

e

L2 L1

1111

PROGRAM MODELS:PROGRAM MODELS:Two-Year Late ImmersionTwo-Year Late Immersion

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% t

ime

in e

ach

lan

gu

age

L1

L2

1212

PROGRAM MODELS:PROGRAM MODELS:Double ImmersionDouble Immersion

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% t

ime

in e

ach

lan

gu

age

L2-b

L1

L2-a

1313

1. CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE 1. CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION IS EFFECTIVEINSTRUCTION IS EFFECTIVE

meaningful content & communicative use of language to promote L2/L3 acquisition:

• promotes acquisition of authentic language proficiency

• pedagogically efficient – 2 for the price of 1• takes advantage of children’s natural language

learning abilities• research evidence …

1414

Research evidenceResearch evidence (Genesee, 2004)(Genesee, 2004)

• English language development

• academic achievement

• French proficiency

1515

ENGLISH LANGUAGE OUTCOMESENGLISH LANGUAGE OUTCOMESSpeaking, Listening, Reading, WritingSpeaking, Listening, Reading, Writing

Immersion Students = Non-immersion students

• Students in enriched immersion scoreStudents in enriched immersion score betterbetter than students in than students in all- all- English programs on English language testsEnglish programs on English language tests

1616

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT mathematics, science, othermathematics, science, other

Immersion Students = Non-immersion students

1717

FRENCH PROFICIENCYFRENCH PROFICIENCY

Comprehension Skills (Listening & Reading):

Immersion = Native speakers > Non-immersion

Production Skills (Speaking & Writing):

Immersion < Native speakers > Non-immersion

1818

BUT…BUT…

content-based instruction alone is not optimal

Immersion students have significant gaps in their grammatical and communicative competence

language arts instruction is important

focus-on-form can enhance French language competence (Lyster, 2007)

1919

THE CHALLENGE…THE CHALLENGE…

to develop curriculum and pedagogical strategies that promote L2 learning – a curriculum that integrates content and language instruction systematically and explicitly (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000)

2020

2. EARLY L2 INSTRUCTION IS 2. EARLY L2 INSTRUCTION IS GOODGOOD

early exposure takes advantage of young students’ natural language learning ability

early socio-cultural openness

pedagogy and learning styles are compatible in early grades: learner-centered & interactive

2121

BUT…BUT…

early start does not guarantee higher levels of achievement than delayed start

delayed L2 exposure can be equally effective sometimes (Genesee, 2004): late immersion = early immersion sometimes

older students are faster learners

older learners have well developed L1 literacy skills that can transfer & facilitate L2 literacy development

2222

THE CHALLENGETHE CHALLENGE

to develop coherent grade-to-grade curriculum that ensures continuous language development (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000; Met, 1998)

2323

OPTIONSOPTIONS

schools and parents have choices – early or delayed focused on L2

possibility of late L3 instruction, even immersion (Cenoz & Genesee, 1998)

2424

3. TIME on TASK3. TIME on TASK

language acquisition is complex – extended exposure to L2 in immersion is good

more time in school creates more time outside school for L2 learning: expanding students’ repertoires through authentic language use in the community

BUT: no simple relationship between time & learning in school….

2525

TIME & acquisition of majority language TIME & acquisition of majority language

time does not matter so much for English language acquisition

early total immersion = partial immersion early total immersion = delayed immersion Immersion students = non-Immersion students

How is this possible?

Immersion in English outside school

AND

2626

COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCYCOMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY(from Cummins, 2000)(from Cummins, 2000)

2727

TIME & acquisition of minority languagesTIME & acquisition of minority languages

time matters

more time in French greater proficiency in French, generally:

total immersion > partial immersion

more support for L1 of minority language students greater L1 and English language competence

WHY? transfer of minority language literacy skills to English and French literacy

2828

BUT…BUT…

time is not a psycholinguistic variable:

two-year late immersion = early total immersion sometimes

simply providing extended immersion experience is not enough

time must be translated into effective learning opportunities (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000)

educators must have a long term*, coherent plan for spending time – how to link language learning to content over time

2929

4. IMMERSION FOR ALL?4. IMMERSION FOR ALL?

Research on majority language students has shown that it is effective and suitable for students (Genesee, 2004):

• with academic challenges

• with poor L1 skills

• from disadvantaged socio-economic families

• learning typologically different languages (Hebrew, Japanese, Mohawk)

Little research evidence on students with severecognitive, perceptual and socio-emotional challenges

3030

WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN WITH LANGUAGE or WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN WITH LANGUAGE or READING ACQUISITION DIFFICULTIES?READING ACQUISITION DIFFICULTIES?

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST (APRIL 2002)SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST (APRIL 2002)

……. . I am a psychologist working in English schools in a very I am a psychologist working in English schools in a very French environment. We are sometimes challenged with French environment. We are sometimes challenged with children who have been diagnosed with SLI and that children who have been diagnosed with SLI and that come from unilingual French homes. My knowledge of come from unilingual French homes. My knowledge of the problematic was leading me to believe that adding the problematic was leading me to believe that adding yet another language on a child having difficulty yet another language on a child having difficulty mastering his mother tongue could be putting mastering his mother tongue could be putting too much too much pressure and setting the child up for failure.pressure and setting the child up for failure.

Immersion students with poor L1 skillsImmersion students with poor L1 skills

☼ ☼ BruckBruck (1984) (1984)

• anglophone immersion students with L1 deficits = anglophone immersion students with L1 deficits = anglophone control students anglophone control students

☼ ☼ Erdos, Genesee Erdos, Genesee & Savage & Savage (2008)(2008)

• strong correlation between L1 and L2 reading skills strong correlation between L1 and L2 reading skills and precursors of reading and precursors of reading

3131

3232

FRENCH-ENGLISH BILINGUALS with FRENCH-ENGLISH BILINGUALS with LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT Paradis, Crago, Genesee & Rice (2003)Paradis, Crago, Genesee & Rice (2003)

French-English French-English bilingualsbilinguals with LI with LI**(8 years old)(8 years old)

Fr monos with L IFr monos with L I Eng monos with L IEng monos with L I

** Not in bilingual programsNot in bilingual programs

3333

RESULTSRESULTS

bilingual children with impairment had same patterns of impairment as monolingual children with impairment – in both English & French

bilingual children with impairment had same severity of impairment as monolingual children with impairment – in both English & French

children with language impairment were bilingual

3434

5. SIMULTANEOUS BILINGUALISM5. SIMULTANEOUS BILINGUALISMmyth of the monolingual brainmyth of the monolingual brain

3535

EVIDENCE: EVIDENCE: MONOLINGUAL MILESTONESMONOLINGUAL MILESTONES

word word first vocabulary word grammar/ first vocabulary word grammar/ segmentation babbling words spurt comb. communicat’nsegmentation babbling words spurt comb. communicat’n (7 mths)(7 mths) (10-12 m) (12mths) (18mths) (24mths) (beyond) (10-12 m) (12mths) (18mths) (24mths) (beyond)

bilingual milestones are the samebilingual milestones are the same

bilingual milestones are the samebilingual milestones are the same

3636

Educational ImplicationsEducational Implications

3rd language children and their parents should not be discouraged from using the heritage language at home

even if the child is suspected of having a language learning impairment

they should be encouraged to use it in ways that reinforce literacy skills

this provides a foundation for the acquisition of academic language and literacy in English & French

3737

LAST WORDSLAST WORDS

Immersion education is effective

it is suitable for diverse learner groups

effectiveness depends on many variables – “devil is in the detail”

research findings can guide our efforts in planning effective immersion programs

need more emphasis on professional development so that instruction continues to evolve with our growing understanding of what makes immersion work

3838

to learn more about bilingualismto learn more about bilingualism

fred.genesee@mcgill.cafred.genesee@mcgill.ca

3939

Thank YouThank You

4040

REFERENCESREFERENCES

Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F., (1998). Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2001). Bilingual education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Inc.Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). ). Dual Language Instruction: A Handbook for Enriched Education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinle & Heinle. Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students. In T.K. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds), Handbook of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism, pp. 547-576. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Genesee, F., & Nicoladis, E. (2006). Bilingual acquisition. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (eds.), Handbook of Language Development, 324-342. Oxford, Eng.: Blackwell.

Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2004). Dual language development and disorders. Boston: Brookes.Johnson, R.K., & Swain, M. (Eds., 1997), Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.Lindholm-Leary, K., & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic achievement. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds) Educating English language learners,

pp. 176-222. NY: Cambridge University Press. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Met. M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education, p. 35-63. Clevedon, Eng.: Multilingual Matters.