thesis about bilingual education

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Bilingual education for young children: review of the effects and consequences

Ellen bialystok.

Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Bilingual education has been an educational option in many countries for over 50 years but it remains controversial, especially in terms of its appropriateness for all children. The present review examines research evaluating the outcomes of bilingual education for language and literacy levels, academic achievement, and suitability for children with special challenges. The focus is on early education and the emphasis is on American contexts. Special attention is paid to factors such as socioeconomic status that are often confounded with the outcomes of bilingual education. The conclusion is that there is no evidence for harmful effects of bilingual education and much evidence for net benefits in many domains.

In the US, bilingual education has been a controversial topic almost since the founding of the nation, and from the beginning, the discussions were imbued with political rhetoric (for reviews see Nieto 2009 ; Ovando 2003 ). The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 recognized the situation of minority children with limited proficiency in English and created funding for programs that would assist these children to succeed in American schools and develop their proficiency in both English and their home language. The act was largely focused on Spanish speakers, but subsequent groups, such as Chinese speakers, brought about amendments to the act to expand its scope ( Lau vs. Nichols, 1974 ). Other countries have had a different experience with bilingual education and a different set of political and social associations with these programs. A prime example is Canada, where the social, demographic, and political situations were different from those in the US. Although Canada is officially a bilingual country, there is not a single language that defines most bilinguals as there is in the US, because the majority of bilinguals in Canada speak one of the official languages (English or French) and a heritage language. Surprisingly, few citizens are actually proficient in both official languages. In the 2011 census, about 17% of respondents stated they could conduct a conversation in both English and French, a considerable increase from the estimate of 12% who could achieve this in 1961 ( Lepage and Corbeil 2013 ), although still below what would be expected in a bilingual society. One factor that may be responsible for the growth in French-English bilingualism over the 50-year period is the impact in the past generation of popular French immersion programs in which children who would otherwise have had little exposure to French became very proficient and in many cases, fully bilingual.

In Europe, attitudes to languages, educational systems, and bilingualism in general, to name a few factors, are very different from those in North America. Garcia (2011) makes a strong case for the widespread appropriateness of bilingual education globally, but the context in which education takes place is crucial; there is no universal prescription for bilingual education and no universal outcomes. As Baker (2011) points out, the perspective on bilingual education depends largely on the point of view, and studies conducted in one context may have little relevance for bilingual education in another context. Therefore, this review will focus primarily on North American contexts and address some of the central issues regarding the efficacy of bilingual education for that region, in particular for the US.

Finally, the review will focus on the early school years because they are the foundation for academic outcomes. Education is a long-term process and results continue to influence outcomes throughout life. However, the early years are crucial for establishing basic skills and attitudes toward education, so the examination of bilingual education in the present review will focus on the first three years of schooling. To summarize, the review is restricted in that it selectively reviews studies whose empirical properties are considered sufficiently reliable to form conclusions, with a focus on primary education in the context in the US, and addressing specific questions, namely, language outcomes, cognitive outcomes, and generalized appropriateness of the programs.

Bilingual education is an umbrella terms that encompasses a range of education programs that have been designed for an even wider range of children and a host of special circumstances. Essentially, bilingual education refers to any school program in which more than one language is used in the curriculum to teach non-language academic subject matter or the language of schooling does not match the language of the home or community, but the reasons for incorporating the languages, the specific languages chosen, the structure of the program, and the relation between the school languages and the community vary widely and influence educational outcomes. Over-riding all this is the distinction between ‘bilingual education’ and the ‘education of bilingual children’, concepts that are importantly different from each other. Consider the following two definitions for bilingual education. Genesee (2004 , 548) defined bilingual education as ‘education that aims to promote bilingual (or multilingual) competence by using both (or all) languages as media of instruction for significant portions of the academic curriculum’. In contrast, Rossell and Baker (1996 , 7) defined bilingual education as ‘teaching non-English-speaking students to read and write in their native tongue, teaching them content in their native tongue, and gradually transitioning them to English over a period of several years’. Clearly these definitions are describing different situations and carry different goals.

This distinction between bilingual education and the education of bilingual children is part of the historical difference between the development of bilingual education in the US and elsewhere. For bilingual education of minority language students in the US, the motivation was to create an educational program for children who were at-risk of academic failure because of low proficiency in English, the language of schooling, by engaging them in the education process through the use of their home language (e.g. including Spanish in the education of Hispanic children). The success of these programs was judged primarily by proficiency in English (the majority language), with the main criterion being English language literacy. For bilingual education in Canada, in contrast, the motivation was to offer an educational alternative designed to make majority language children (i.e. English speakers) bilingual. Thus, success of these programs was judged by the extent to which children mastered the minority language while maintaining proficiency in the majority language. Similar immersion programs were developed for children to gain proficiency in both national (e.g. children of Finnish immigrants in Sweden, Troike 1978 ) and heritage languages (e.g. Hawaiian programs in the US, McCarty and Watahomigie 1998 ; Navajo programs in the US, Rosier and Holm 1980 ; Maori programs in New Zealand; Durie 1998 ; May and Hill 2005 ). All these programs fall under the general rubric of bilingual education but are importantly different from each other. A more complete range of the diversity of bilingual education programs is described by Fishman (1976) and more recently by Mehisto and Genesee (2015) .

In spite of substantial differences between them, the two goals of educating bilingual children and creating programs to make children bilingual are interrelated. In the US, there is large overlap between them because the largest number of bilingual education programs was developed to educate bilingual or limited English proficient (EP) students, primarily Spanish-speaking, who were otherwise at-risk for school failure. The present review will focus on bilingual education in general and not on the specific issues involved in the education of this particular group of children (for a detailed discussion of this issue, see August and Shanahan 2006 ). Ultimately, it is important to know if education through two languages is viable, if young children can learn in this kind of an environment, and if the outcomes of these programs meet the needs of all children. The present paper reviews evidence relevant for those judgments.

Development of language and literacy in bilingual education

Evaluation of the effectiveness of bilingual education on language and literacy outcomes requires well-controlled research. The clearest evidence for the unique contribution of bilingual education programs to these outcomes would come from randomized control trials, but such a design is almost impossible to achieve (but see Genesee and Lindholm-Leary 2012 , for discussion). The closest design to this methodological ideal is in studies that investigate bilingual education programs for which spaces are allocated by lottery because of over-demand so that comparisons can be made between children who were admitted to the program and those who were not. Children in this latter group generally enter regular classrooms and may remain on a waiting list. Even here, however, there is the possibility of bias in terms of who enters the lottery. The results of the few studies that have had the opportunity to compare these populations (e.g. Barnett et al. 2007 ) are largely consistent with the majority of the literature in which children in bilingual or single language programs are compared on critical outcome measures.

The primary goal of early schooling is to establish the foundational skills upon which children will build their educational futures. The most important of these abilities are language and literacy competence. Not surprisingly, therefore, the majority of research that has evaluated bilingual education programs has focused on children’s development of these crucial linguistic abilities. The research is complicated because the type of education program is only one of many factors that shape these emerging abilities so clear evidence for the role of the education program as distinct from other sources of variance in the child’s background requires carefully controlled designs. For example, children who are Hispanic but are native speakers of English have education outcomes in terms of dropout rates and academic failure that are similar to Hispanic children who are Spanish-speaking, ruling out English proficiency as the explanation ( Forum for Education and Democracy 2008 ). Just as English proficiency alone cannot explain school outcomes, neither can the educational program.

In part for this reason, conclusions regarding the development of language and literacy through bilingual education in the US is complicated by the confounding of ethnicity and social class with Spanish proficiency and bilingualism (for discussion see Francis, Lesaux, and August 2006 ). Nonetheless, two studies by Lindholm-Leary and colleagues have provided reasonably clear results on these issues. In one study, Lindholm-Leary and Block (2010) assessed the English and mathematics achievement of 659 Hispanic students attending either mainstream English or various types of bilingual programs in California. In the bilingual schools, the proportion of instruction shifted from predominantly Spanish to predominantly English over the period from kindergarten to fourth grade. Students were classified as EP or English Language Learner (ELL) prior to the study. The main result was that standard scores on the English proficiency test were higher for both ELL and EP students who were in the bilingual programs than they were for children in the mainstream English programs. Similar results were found for scores on the mathematics test. Overall, students in the dual language program in this low socioeconomic status (SES) community achieved at least as well and in some cases better in both English and mathematics than did comparable students in a program in which all instruction was in English. Students in the bilingual programs also made more rapid progress across the grades in these tests than did students in the English program and, therefore, were more advanced in their trajectory to close the achievement gap with statewide norms for these tests.

In a similar study that included children in kindergarten through second grade, Lindholm-Leary (2014) assessed 283 low SES Hispanic children in either English or bilingual programs. Children entering the English kindergarten programs had higher language scores than those entering the bilingual programs, but these differences disappeared within one or two years and then reversed, with children in the bilingual program outperforming the English-only instruction group in both English and Spanish test scores by the end of second grade. Not surprisingly, children in the English program showed significant loss of Spanish proficiency, making them in fact less bilingual, a topic that will be discussed below.

Barnett et al. (2007) compared performance of low SES preschool children (3 and 4 years old) in bilingual or English-only programs, but importantly, children were assigned to these programs by lottery, thereby controlling to some extent for pre-existing differences among the children or their families. The programs were in a school district in which 76% of the children qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The outcome measures were largely experimental tasks that assessed phonological awareness and language knowledge (primarily vocabulary), but the results were consistent with those reported in other studies. Specifically, children in both programs made comparable progress in skill development in English, but children in the bilingual program also developed these skills in Spanish, indicating that dual language instruction did not impede development of English, the L2.

In these examples, bilingual instruction had long-term benefits for children’s language and literacy proficiency in both languages. In a review and meta-analysis of this literature, Francis, Lesaux, and August (2006) concluded that ‘bilingual education has a positive effect on English reading outcomes that are small to moderate in size’ (392). Thus, overall, bilingual education for Hispanic children in the US leads to English outcomes that are equivalent to those found for children in mainstream English programs, with better outcomes for Spanish.

These results are broadly consistent with those found for bilingual education programs serving other communities, with other languages, in other countries, where students are more likely to belong to majority language groups than minority language, as in the US. Thus, the outcomes obtained with children at risk for educational failure produce patterns of results similar to those found for children with entirely different linguistic and demographic backgrounds. The most studied of these programs is Canadian French immersion in which Anglophone children in Canada are educated through French. Results of studies over the past 50 years have shown that English outcomes are equivalent to or better than those found for children in English programs (even though most instruction is in French in the primary grades) and French outcomes are moderate to high, although below levels found for native-speaking French children ( Genesee 1983 , 2004 ; Hermanto, Moreno, and Bialystok 2012 ; Swain and Lapkin 1982 ).

Three further examples with similar results come from bilingual programs operating in Italian and English, Mandarin and English, and Hebrew and Russian. Assessment of the Italian-English program was a small-scale study in which 60 children attending this program in California were evaluated from first through third grades for language and literacy ability in English and Italian ( Montanari 2013 ). Results showed that these children developed strong literacy skills in both Italian and English by first grade, even though instruction was exclusively in Italian. The second program, also implemented in California, provided instruction through Mandarin beginning in kindergarten to children who either had Mandarin exposure at home or were only English speaking ( Padilla et al. 2013 ). Like the Italian-English program, this was a small-scale study. The results showed that all children gained proficiency in both English and Mandarin and importantly achieved at least equivalent and sometimes greater than state levels on standardized tests of English, math, and science in spite of being educated through Mandarin. Finally, two studies investigated language and literacy development in Russian-Hebrew bilingual 4-year-olds who were attending either bilingual Hebrew-Russian or Hebrew schools in Israel, where Hebrew is the majority language. Again, the results showed that children in the bilingual programs developed language proficiency ( Schwartz 2013 ) and narrative skills ( Schwartz and Shaul 2013 ) in Hebrew, the majority language, at least as well as did children in the Hebrew only programs and at the same time maintained higher levels of Russian. Across all these studies, therefore, the majority language of the community was mastered whether or not it was the primary language of instruction, but the minority language required environmental support to reach high proficiency levels.

The studies that compared English-only and bilingual education in Hispanic children were generally conducted with low SES populations, but that is not the case for the non-Spanish programs: children in the Italian-English program were described as ‘middle class’; children in the Mandarin-English program were described as ‘upper middle class’; and children in the Hebrew-Russian program were described as ‘mid-level socioeconomic’. Thus, even though none of the students was at-risk in the manner generally understood for Hispanic children in Spanish-English bilingual programs, the patterns of language and literacy outcomes were similar, even if the absolute levels of achievement were different. Therefore, there is no evidence that education through two languages impedes progress in the development of language and literacy skills in the majority language and has the added benefit of developing and sustaining these skills in the minority language. This generalization about positive outcomes is confirmed by a study in which at-risk low performing children attending bilingual education or majority language English-only programs were compared for their English language and literacy performance ( Lopez and Tashakkori 2004 ). There was no evidence of additional burden on the development of English skills for children in the bilingual program.

Other academic and cognitive achievements

However important language and literacy are for children’s development, they are not the only outcomes that need to be considered in evaluating educational options for children. The impact of education through a weak or non-proficient language on children’s academic success has long been a concern. Dire warnings about harmful effects of these programs were expressed by Macnamara (1967) in his evaluation of children attending an Irish immersion program in Ireland. He reported that children in the Irish program performed more poorly in mathematics than did children in regular English programs, but he neglected to point out that the differences were found only in mathematics ‘word’ problems and not in mathematical operations. Unsurprisingly, children’s knowledge of Irish at that point was weak and interfered with their comprehension of the test questions; in tests of arithmetic calculations, there were no differences between groups. These challenges have been known for a long time (e.g. Cummins and Macnamara 1977 ) but the research remained influential. More recent research demonstrates that even simple arithmetic calculation is faster and easier in the language in which it was taught ( Spelke and Tsivkin 2001 ) and engages different parts of the brain than when the same calculations are performed in the non-school language ( Mondt et al. 2011 ), but the Irish proficiency of the children in Macnamara’s (1967) study may have been too weak to show this effect.

Other studies have generally found no academic cost for children studying in a bilingual program. In the Mandarin-English bilingual education program described above ( Padilla et al. 2013 ), for example, children in the dual language immersion and the English programs performed equivalently on standardized tests of mathematics until third grade, but immersion children began outperforming non-immersion children in fourth grade. Thus, these program effects sometimes take time to demonstrate. For tests of science achievement, there were no differences between children in the two programs.

There is evidence that bilingualism alone, aside from bilingual education, may be beneficial for aspects of academic achievement. Han (2012) conducted a longitudinal study in the US of a national cohort of over 16,000 children in kindergarten and followed their academic progress until fifth grade. Because of national education policies requiring standardized testing on English literacy and math scores, large data bases are available for such investigations. In the study by Han (2012) , the children included in the analyses were Hispanic, Asian, or non-Hispanic native-born White and outcome variables were results on standardized reading and math achievement scores. Although the analyses did not explicitly control for the effect of education program, the quality of education was defined in terms of the resources and interventions for English support available in the school program, quality of the teachers, and other such factors and included in the analyses. The results were based on a complex classification of children according to their language abilities. Most relevant is a group called ‘mixed bilingual’, referring to children who spoke a non-English language at home to a high degree of fluency. Although these children entered kindergarten with limited English proficiency and obtained initial scores on both English and math tests that were lower than native English-speaking children, they fully closed the math gap by fifth grade, an achievement that the Han attributes to bilingualism. Nonetheless, English scores still lagged by fifth grade. The focus of the analyses were on quality of school programs, availability of resources, and quality of school personnel, all of which contributed significantly to children’s success. The study was not designed to evaluate the effectiveness of bilingual education but the results are consistent with the conclusion that children’s bilingualism can be a positive factor in school achievement.

Much of this research has focused on children in low SES environments, but Marian, Shook, and Schroeder (2013) extended the question to investigate whether these results would be similar for Spanish-speaking low SES children and monolingual English-speaking middle-class children who were in Spanish-English bilingual programs and were instructed through Spanish from kindergarten. The numbers of children in each of the relevant groups defined by language and social background, grade, and education program were vastly different (ranging from 6 to 624), so non-parametric analyses were used and results need to be interpreted cautiously. The analyses of children’s performance on standardized tests of reading and mathematics showed better outcomes for children in bilingual programs than monolingual programs for both minority Spanish and majority English-speaking children, although there were differences in the size and timing of these effects for children from the two language backgrounds. Thus, all children profited from the bilingual education program, although not surprisingly their progress depended as well on other factors known to affect education outcomes.

One explanation that Marian and colleagues offer for the better mathematics outcomes for children in the bilingual programs is that the bilingualism achieved in these programs led to higher levels of executive function and that better executive function was the mechanism for the improvement in math performance. Several studies of young children in the early grades have demonstrated a direct relationship between children’s executive functioning and mathematics achievement ( Blair and Razza 2007 ; Bull, Espy, and Wiebe 2008 ) and a large body of research has established that bilingualism promotes the development of executive function in young children (see Barac et al. 2014 for review; Adesope et al. 2010 for meta-analysis). Importantly, children’s level of executive functioning predicts academic success ( Best, Miller, and Naglieri 2011 ; McClelland, Morrison, and Holmes 2000 ), and academic success predicts long-term health and well-being ( Duncan, Ziol-Guest, and Kalil 2010 ). Therefore, bilingual education may have a serendipitous effect in that it not only promotes bilingualism but also enhances a crucial aspect of cognitive performance.

There is a large and growing literature investigating the relation between bilingualism and executive functioning in young children, but three studies are particularly relevant. The first study is interesting because the results were unexpected. Mezzacappa (2004) used the children’s Attention Network Task ( Fan et al. 2002 ) to assess executive functioning in 6-year-old children who varied in SES (middle-class or low) and ethnicity (White, African-American, or Hispanic). In addition to expected effects of SES, he found that Hispanic children outperformed the other groups, particularly on the most difficult condition. Although he did not collect information about children’s language proficiency or level of bilingualism, he noted that 69% of the Hispanic children spoke Spanish at home, making them at least somewhat bilingual. Mezzacappa proposed that this bilingualism was responsible for the superior executive function performance by children in that group.

The second study was a relatively small-scale study that examined children from low SES communities in which about 90% of children received free or reduced-price lunch. Esposito and Baker-Ward (2013) administered two executive function tasks to children in kindergarten, second grade and fourth grade who were in a bilingual education or English-only program. Their results showed that children in second and fourth grades in the bilingual program outperformed children in the English program on the trail-making task, an executive function task that has previously been shown to be performed better by bilingual than monolingual 8-year-olds ( Bialystok 2010 ). There were no differences between children in the two kindergarten programs, but all these children found the task to be difficult. Because of the small sample size, the results need to be considered more suggestive than definitive, but they point to the possibility that even limited exposure to bilingual education improves children’s executive function.

Another small-scale study conducted with a population of middle-class children from kindergarten through second grade produced somewhat different results. Kaushanskaya, Gross, and Buac (2014) examined the effects of classroom bilingualism on executive functioning as measured by task shifting as well as measures of verbal memory and word learning. For task switching, they used the Dimensional Change Card Sorting Task ( Frye, Zelazo, and Palfai 1995 ), a task previously found to be performed better by bilingual than monolingual preschool children ( Bialystok 1999 ). There were no performance differences between children in the two programs on the executive function shifting task, but the task was arguably too easy for the children since it is typically used with younger children, or on a test of verbal short-term memory. However, tests of verbal working memory and word learning were performed better by the children in the bilingual education program.

In these three examples, children who were assigned to groups either because of ethnicity ( Mezzacappa 2004 ) or education program ( Esposito and Baker-Ward 2013 ; Kaushanskaya, Gross, and Buac 2014 ) were compared to controls for their performance on executive function tasks. A different approach is to use exposure to bilingual education as a scaled variable to determine if it is associated with executive function performance and thereby avoid between-groups comparisons. Two studies by Bialystok and Barac (2012) investigated the relation between the amount of time young children had spent in an immersion program and performance on executive function tasks. Children from monolingual English-speaking homes who were attending schools in which instruction was either in Hebrew (Study 1) or French (Study 2) were administered executive function and metalinguistic tasks. The tasks were different in both studies, but the results were the same: performance on the metalinguistic task was related to children’s verbal ability and intelligence but performance on the executive function task was related to the length of time children had spent in the bilingual program and their degree of bilingualism. Similar results were reported in two studies by Nicolay and Poncelet (2013 , 2015 ) showing better performance on executive function tasks for children in French immersion programs. In these studies, children were followed longitudinally, ruling out initial differences in ability. Thus, the results show that children’s level of executive function performance is related to their degree of bilingualism and experience with bilingual education.

Is bilingual education for everyone?

There have always been questions about whether bilingual education programs were appropriate for all children or whether they were an exclusive option best suited for high-achieving students with strong family support (see review and discussion in Cummins and Swain 1986 ). Equally, some have argued that bilingualism itself is difficult and should be reserved as a ‘privilege’ for children who face no additional burdens from linguistic or other cognitive challenges, a position strongly disputed by Kohnert (2007) . Unsurprisingly, the answer is not simple, but the evidence that exists supports Kohnert’s view that bilingualism adds no further cost to children’s achievement regardless of their initial levels of language and cognitive ability.

Consider first the role of intelligence, a variable on which all children differ. In one of the first studies on this issue, Genesee (1976) examined the role of IQ as measured by a standardized test on the development of French second-language abilities for children who were learning French either through immersion or foreign language instruction in school. The main result was that IQ was related to reading ability and language use for all children, but there was no association between IQ and overall communication ability; children at all levels of intelligence communicated with similar effectiveness. Importantly, there were no interactions with the type of program in which children were learning French: low IQ children in the immersion and foreign language program performed similarly to each other on all language and cognitive measures, in both cases performing more poorly than children with higher IQ scores in both programs. Thus, there was no evidence of any negative effect of participation in an immersion program for children whose measured intelligence was below average.

More serious than low IQ, however, is the possible role that a learning disability, such as specific language impairment (SLI), might play in children’s response to bilingual education. The limited evidence for this question is similar to that found for IQ, namely, that the deficit associated with SLI is not further exacerbated by bilingual education and has the additional consequence of imparting at least some measure of proficiency in another language. Few studies have investigated this question in the context of bilingual education, perhaps because children with language impairment are widely discouraged from attending bilingual education programs, but an early study by Bruck (1982) assessed language and cognitive outcomes for children in kindergarten and first grade in French immersion programs, some of whom had been diagnosed with language impairment. These were Anglophone children being educated through French, and linguistic measures for both French and English were included. The crucial comparison was the progress found for language-impaired children in the French immersion program and similar children in a mainstream English instruction program. There were no significant differences between these groups. Even though these children struggled, they did not struggle more than they would if they were in the bilingual program. This issue of selecting the appropriate comparison is central to the debate. Trites (1978) , for example, argued against placing children with learning disabilities in French immersion programs, but his comparison was based on children without learning disabilities in those programs rather than children with learning disabilities in monolingual English programs.

Aside from the role of bilingual education in children’s language development, it is difficult to compare skills in the two languages for children with SLI because the areas of linguistic difficulty associated with this disorder vary across languages ( Kohnert, Windsor, and Ebert 2009 ). With this caveat in mind, a few studies have examined the effect of SLI on language development for children who grow up bilingually. Korkman et al. (2012) compared monolingual Swedish speakers and Swedish-Finnish bilingual children who were 5–7 years old on a range of language assessments in Swedish. About half of the children in each language group were typically developing and half had been diagnosed with SLI. As expected, children with SLI performed more poorly than typically developing children on these linguistic measures, an outcome required by definition, but there was no added burden from bilingualism and no interaction of bilingualism and language impairment. Bilingual children also obtained lower scores on some vocabulary measures, but this occurred equally for bilingual children in the typically developing and SLI groups and is consistent with large-scale studies comparing the vocabulary of monolingual and bilingual children ( Bialystok et al. 2010 ).

Paradis et al. (2003) took a different approach to investigating syntactic proficiency in children with SLI. Rather than comparing children with SLI to typically developing children, they compared three groups of 7-year-old children, all of whom had been diagnosed with SLI: monolingual English speakers, monolingual French speakers, and English-French bilinguals. The sample was small and consisted of only 8 bilingual children, 21 English monolingual children, and 10 French monolingual children, so data were analyzed with non-parametric tests and results must be interpreted cautiously. The results showed no significant differences between the three groups of children in their mastery of morphosyntax; in other words, no additional delay to language acquisition could be attributed to bilingualism for children with SLI.

The most salient risk factor generally considered in this literature is not individual differences in children’s ability to become bilingual but rather low SES, a situation that applies to many bilingual Hispanic children in the US. Although it was discussed above in the context of testing outcomes of bilingual education, the issue is sufficiently important to warrant further consideration.

The main concern for Hispanic children from Spanish-speaking homes in the US is whether they will acquire adequate levels of English language proficiency and literacy to function in school and beyond. Although there is some controversy over this question, the majority of studies have shown improved outcomes with bilingual education ( Genesee and Lindholm-Leary 2012 ). This conclusion is supported by two major reviews and meta-analyses conducted first by Willig (1985) and then by Rolstad, Mahoney, and Glass (2005) for papers published after the Willig review. In a later review and meta-analysis, Francis, Lesaux, and August (2006) came to a broader and more emphatic conclusion: ‘there is no indication that bilingual instruction impedes academic achievement in either the native language or English, whether for language-minority students, students receiving heritage language instruction, or those enrolled in French immersion programs’ (397). The most persuasive evidence on this point comes from the large-scale longitudinal study and review conducted by Collier and Thomas (2004) that included every variety of bilingual education; the authors decide unequivocally for the superiority of bilingual education in developing the skills and knowledge of Hispanic and other at-risk children.

Contrary to this conclusion, Rossell and Baker (1996) argued that the effectiveness of bilingual education is inconclusive. As stated earlier, Rossell and Baker defined bilingual education narrowly and considered only programs that provided instruction through the first language for limited EP children, in other words, Spanish-speaking children in the US (although curiously they included some studies of Canadian French immersion in their analyses). However, this is only one of the many incarnations of bilingual education so while an evaluation of its effectiveness is important, that evaluation does not necessarily generalize to the broader concept, a point that Rossell and Baker acknowledge. Their review began with a list of 300 studies and then excluded 228 of them for a variety of methodological reasons, so the final sample of 72 studies that entered the meta-analysis may not be representative of this literature. However, Greene (1997) conducted a follow-up study from the same database using different inclusion criteria and reported that a meta-analysis found positive outcomes for bilingual education. The decision about inclusion or exclusion of specific studies is obviously crucial to the outcome; Rossell and Baker acknowledge that Willig’s (1985) positive conclusion can be traced to her choices on this important decision. However, it is impossible to adjudicate between these two conclusions regarding whether bilingual education is the most effective way to promote English language skills in limited English proficiency children ( Willig 1985 ) or not ( Rossell and Baker 1996 ) because the conclusions were based on different evidence. Yet, whether or not there are advantages, the evidence is clear that there is no cost to the development of English language skills in bilingual programs. What is completely uncontroversial is that bilingual education additionally maintains and develops Spanish skills in these children, an outcome that Rossell and Baker note but dismiss as irrelevant.

A different way of considering the impact of bilingual education on school outcomes for low SES Hispanic children in the US is to use data on the reclassification of children from ELL to EP, a decision made on the basis of English language and literacy test scores. In that sense, reclassification is an indication that adequate levels of English proficiency have been achieved. Lindholm-Leary and Block (2010) note that the probability of these children being designated as EP after 10 years of essentially mainstream English classrooms is only 40%, so the standard is low. However, Umansky and Reardon (2014) compared this reclassification rate for Hispanic students enrolled in either bilingual or English-only classrooms and found that these rates were lower in elementary school for children in bilingual programs than in English classrooms, but that the pattern reversed by the end of high school at which time children in bilingual programs had an overall higher rate of reclassification and better academic outcomes. As with some of the studies based on test scores, English proficiency takes several years to develop, but according to the reclassification data, it developed sooner in the bilingual programs.

In a review of studies that have examined the effect of various risk factors on children’s response to bilingual education, Genesee and Fortune (2014) found no case in which the bilingual education program contributed to lower academic outcomes for these children than for similar children in monolingual programs. Children with language disability, for example, will always find language tasks to be difficult; the important outcome of this research is that they do not find such tasks to be any more difficult in two languages than they are in one.

Evaluation of bilingual education for young children

In most evaluation research for educational programs, the conclusion tends to converge on a binary answer in which the program is considered to be either effective or not, or more or less effective than a control or alternative program. Given the complexity of bilingual education, such binary conclusions are inadequate. One reason is that independently of the quality of the program, bilingual education to some extent will almost inevitably help children to become bilingual or maintain bilingualism, an outcome that in itself is valuable but rarely considered in strict program evaluations. Some research has shown that even at early stages of bilingual education the cognitive advantages of bilingualism can be detected. Therefore, beyond the possible cognitive benefits of bilingualism described above are the intangible benefits of bilingual education such as potential to connect to extended family, increased opportunity for employment in a global economy, facilitation of travel and broadening of social spheres, and enrichment from widened horizons from language, arts, and culture. When successful, bilingual education offers a unique opportunity to impart the resources to sustain a valuable lifestyle asset. As one example, recent research has shown that lifelong bilingualism contributes to cognitive reserve and delays the onset of symptoms of dementia (reviews in Bak and Alladi 2014 ; Bialystok et al. 2016 ).

These consequences of bilingualism, however, should not bias the interpretation of the evidence regarding the educational efficacy of bilingual education. To undertake that assessment, it is necessary to return to the distinction between bilingual education and the education of bilingual children. The first is a general question about the feasibility of educating children through a language in which they may not be fully proficient; the second is a specific question about the appropriateness of this option for children whose circumstances and abilities may mitigate those educational outcomes.

Both questions can be considered in terms of two factors that permeate many of these studies: the type of outcome measured and the demographic profile of the children in the program. Regarding the first, the main distinction is whether the studies assessed language proficiency or some other cognitive or academic outcome. Most studies included an evaluation of language proficiency in the majority language (English for Hispanic children in the US, French immersion children in Canada, community language for indigenous language programs in the US and elsewhere) and some included assessments of proficiency in the minority language, which is often the language of instruction (e.g. Spanish in the US, French in Canada, Maori in New Zealand). Fewer studies examined assessments of other educational outcomes, such as mathematics, subject curricula, cognitive ability, retention rates, attitudes, or enrollment in higher education. The second factor is whether the children assessed in these studies were at risk of academic failure for any number of reasons, such as low SES, poor language proficiency, or individual difficulty from learning, language, or social challenges. This combination of factors creates four categories for which there are three possible outcomes: (a) no measurable difference between bilingual and standard programs, (b) some advantage for participation in a bilingual program, or (c) hardship for students in bilingual programs that leads to poorer outcomes than would be obtained in traditional programs. If we consider that all bilingual programs additionally support some degree of bilingualism, then the only negative outcome would be (c).

Regarding language assessments, most studies show that proficiency in the majority language is comparable for children in bilingual and mainstream classes, providing that an appropriate comparison group is used and sufficient time is allowed. Children in Canadian French immersion programs develop English language skills that are at least comparable to those of other middle-class children in English programs (and sometimes higher but there may be other factors involved because of the selectivity of French immersion, see Hutchins 2015 ), and Hispanic children in US bilingual education programs eventually develop English language skills that are comparable to those of similar Hispanic children in English programs, although it takes several years to reach that level. Proficiency in the minority language is inevitably lower than is found for a native speaker of those languages, even when it is the language of instruction, but is invariably higher than levels obtained by children in English programs who have had little exposure to that language. For language proficiency, therefore, there is no evidence of a cost to the development of either language, although it may take several years to establish desired levels.

For other subject material, outcomes depend in part on the language of testing. As Macnamara (1967) showed long ago, the extent to which a weak language is used to conduct achievement tests can make the test equally a test of language proficiency, impeding children’s demonstration of proficiency in the tested content. In many cases, studies that assess academic achievement provide inadequate information about the potential involvement of language proficiency so the test results are sometimes indeterminate. At the same time, Mondt and colleagues (2011) demonstrated that simply by teaching a subject through a particular language makes proficiency in that subject more fluent when tested in the language of schooling. Thus, there are reciprocal relationships between academic achievement and the language of school instruction, and these relationships are flexible.

The second factor is the characteristics of the children themselves. Children entering school with any learning or language disability or social disadvantage will struggle to succeed, so an evaluation of bilingual education needs to hold constant these abilities and select the appropriate comparison group. Thus, the relevant question is whether children struggle disproportionately more if they are in a bilingual education program. Here, too, the evidence seems clear: there is no additional burden for children with specific challenges in bilingual programs than in single language programs if the appropriate comparison is made. But even if there were additional effort required by bilingual education, it needs to be evaluated in terms of the potential benefits for that child – the possibility of acquiring a heritage language, the opportunity to develop at least some proficiency in another language, and the potential for attaining the cognitive benefits of bilingualism.

Bilingual education is not perfect and it is not one thing. At the same time, the quality of the research is uneven and it is difficult to determine how much weight should be assigned to contradictory outcomes. The research generally pays inadequate attention to the social context in which these complex processes play out, such as home literacy, parental education, children’s levels of language proficiency, ability of parents to support children’s education in that language, and numerous other factors. Rossell and Baker (1996) claim that the research is inconclusive, and although there is still much to be learned, the weight of evidence is firmly on the side of bilingual education. In this brief review of a small portion of bilingual education programs in different countries and aimed at educating different kinds of children, there is no evidence that it creates measurable obstacles to children’s school achievement. Some studies show no advantage of bilingual education over other programs, but those need to be interpreted in terms of the benefits of learning another language and gaining access to the cognitive advantages of bilingualism. Ultimately, a proper evaluation of bilingual education requires detailed description of the structure of the program, the quality of the teaching, and the match between children’s needs and abilities and the specific educational program being offered.

There is no single factor that can override the deep complexity of children’s development and prescribe a solution for an individual child, let alone a solution for all children. For both gifted children who are certain to excel and children who face challenges, the education program they follow, including participation in a bilingual program, may not fundamentally change their school experience. There is no credible evidence that bilingual education adds or creates burden for children, yet it is incontrovertible that it provides the advantage of learning another language and possibly the cognitive benefits of bilingualism. The over-riding conclusion from the available evidence is that bilingual education is a net benefit for all children in the early school years.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health [grant number R01HD052523].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

• Adesope OO, Lavin T, Thompson T, Ungerleider C. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Cognitive Correlates of Bilingualism. Review of Educational Research. 2010; 80 :207–245. [ Google Scholar ]
• August D, Shanahan T. Developing Literacy in Second-language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bak TH, Alladi S. Can Being Bilingual Affect the Onset of Dementia? Future Neurology. 2014; 9 :101–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker C. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Stroud: Multilingual Matters; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barac R, Bialystok E, Castro DC, Sanchez M. The Cognitive Development of Young Dual Language Learners: A Critical Review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2014; 29 :699–714. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett WS, Yarosz DJ, Thomas J, Jung K, Blanco D. Two-way and Monolingual English Immersion in Preschool Education: An Experimental Comparison. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2007; 22 :277–293. [ Google Scholar ]
• Best JR, Miller PH, Naglieri JA. Relations Between Executive Function and Academic Achievement from Ages 5 to 17 in a Large, Representative National Sample. Learning and Individual Differences. 2011; 21 :327–336. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E. Cognitive Complexity and Attentional Control in the Bilingual Mind. Child Development. 1999; 70 :636–644. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E. Global-local and Trail-making Tasks by Monolingual and Bilingual Children: Beyond Inhibition. Developmental Psychology. 2010; 46 :93–105. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E, Abutalebi J, Bak TH, Burke DM, Kroll JF. Aging in Two Languages: Implications for Public Health. Ageing Research Reviews. 2016; 27 :56–60. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E, Barac R. Emerging Bilingualism: Dissociating Advantages for Metalinguistic Awareness and Executive Control. Cognition. 2012; 122 :67–73. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E, Luk G, Peets KF, Yang S. Receptive Vocabulary Differences in Monolingual and Bilingual Children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2010; 13 :525–531. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blair C, Razza RP. Relating Effortful Control, Executive Function, and False Belief Understanding to Emerging Math and Literacy Ability in Kindergarten. Child Development. 2007; 78 :647–663. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruck M. Language Impaired Children’s Performance in an Additive Bilingual Education Program. Applied Psycholinguistics. 1982; 3 :45–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bull R, Espy KA, Wiebe SA. Short-term Memory, Working Memory, and Executive Functioning in Preschoolers: Longitudinal Predictors of Mathematical Achievement at age 7 Years. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2008; 33 :205–228. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collier VP, Thomas WP. The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual Language Education for All. NABE Journal of Research and Practice. 2004; 2 :1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummins James, John Macnamara. Working Papers on Bilingualism, No. 13. Washington, DC: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse; 1977. Immersion Education in Ireland: A Critical Review of Macnamara’s Findings. Reply to Dr. Cummins. Reply to the Reply. http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED140666 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummins J, Swain M. Bilingualism in Education: Aspects of Theory, Research, and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan GJ, Ziol-Guest KM, Kalil A. Early-childhood Poverty and Adult Attainment, Behavior, and Health. Child Development. 2010; 81 :306–325. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Durie A. Emancipatory Maori Education: Speaking from the Heart. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 1998; 11 :297–308. [ Google Scholar ]
• Esposito AG, Baker-Ward L. Dual-language Education for Low-income Children: Preliminary Evidence of Benefits for Executive Function. Bilingual Research Journal. 2013; 36 :295–310. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan J, McCandliss BD, Sommer T, Raz A, Posner MI. Testing the Efficiency and Independence of Attentional Networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2002; 14 :340–347. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fishman J. Bilingual Education: An International Sociological Perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House; 1976. [ Google Scholar ]
• Forum for Education and Democracy. Democracy at Risk: The Need for a New Federal Policy in Education. Washington, DC: The Forum for Education and Democracy; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Francis DJ, Lesaux N, August D. Language of Instruction. In: August D, Shanahan L, editors. Developing Literacy in Second-language Learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2006. pp. 365–413. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frye D, Zelazo PD, Palfai T. Theory of Mind and Rule-based Reasoning. Cognitive Development. 1995; 10 :483–527. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia O. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. New York: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genesee F. The Role of Intelligence in Second Language Learning. Language Learning. 1976; 26 :267–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genesee F. Bilingual Education of Majority-language Children: The Immersion Experiments in Review. Applied Psycholinguistics. 1983; 4 :1–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genesee F. What Do We Know About Bilingual Education for Majority Language Students. In: Bhatia TK, Ritchie W, editors. Handbook of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2004. pp. 547–576. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genesee F, Fortune T. Bilingual Education and at-risk Students. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education. 2014; 2 :165–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genesee F, Lindholm-Leary K. The Education of English Language Learners. In: Harris K, Graham S, Urdan T, editors. APA Handbook of Educational Psychology. Washington, DC: APA Books; 2012. pp. 499–526. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene JP. A Meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker Review of Bilingual Education Research. Bilingual Research Journal. 1997; 21 :103–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Han WJ. Bilingualism and Academic Achievement. Child Development. 2012; 83 :300–321. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hermanto N, Moreno S, Bialystok E. Linguistic and Metalinguistic Outcomes of Intense Immersion Education: How Bilingual? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2012; 15 :131–145. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchins A. Just Say ‘Non’: The Problem with French Immersion. Macleans Magazine. 2015 http://www.macleans.ca/education/just-say-non-the-problem-with-french-immersion/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaushanskaya M, Gross M, Buac M. Effects of Classroom Bilingualism on Task-shifting, Verbal Memory, and Word Learning in Children. Developmental Science. 2014; 17 :564–583. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohnert K. Language Disorders in Bilingual Children and Adults. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohnert K, Windsor J, Ebert KD. Primary or ‘Specific’ Language Impairment and Children Learning a Second Language. Brain and Language. 2009; 109 :101–111. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korkman M, Stenroos M, Mickos A, Westman M, Ekholm P, Byring R. Does Simultaneous Bilingualism Aggravate Children’s Specific Language Problems? Acta Paediatrica. 2012; 101 :946–952. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563. 1974 [ Google Scholar ]
• Lepage JF, Corbeil JP. The Evolution of English–French Bilingualism in Canada from 1961 to 2011. Statistics Canada; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindholm-Leary K. Bilingual and Biliteracy Skills in Young Spanish-speaking Low-SES Children: Impact of Instructional Language and Primary Language Proficiency. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2014; 17 :144–159. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindholm-Leary K, Block N. Achievement in Predominantly Low SES/Hispanic Dual Language Schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2010; 13 :43–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopez MG, Tashakkori A. Narrowing the Gap: Effects of a Two-way Bilingual Education Program on the Literacy Development of at-risk Primary Students. Journal of Education For Students Placed At Risk. 2004; 9 :325–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macnamara J. The Effects of Instruction in a Weaker Language. Journal of Social Issues. 1967; 23 :121–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marian V, Shook A, Schroeder SR. Bilingual Two-way Immersion Programs Benefit Academic Achievement. Bilingual Research Journal. 2013; 36 :167–186. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• May S, Hill R. Maori-medium Education: Current Issues and Challenges. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2005; 8 :377–403. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCarty TL, Watahomigie LJ. Indigenous Community-based Language Education in the USA. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 1998; 11 :309–324. [ Google Scholar ]
• McClelland MM, Morrison FJ, Holmes DL. Children at Risk for Early Academic Problems: The Role of Learning-related Social Skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2000; 15 :307–329. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mehisto P, Genesee F, editors. Building Bilingual Education Systems: Forces, Mechanisms and Counterweights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mezzacappa E. Alerting, Orienting, and Executive Attention: Developmental Properties and Sociodemographic Correlates in an Epidemiological Sample of Young, Urban Children. Child Development. 2004; 75 :1373–1386. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mondt K, Struys E, Van den Noort M, Baleriaux D, Metens T, Paquier P, Van de Craen P, Bosch P, Denolin V. Neural Differences in Bilingual Children’s Arithmetic Processing Depending on Language of Instruction. Mind, Brain, and Education. 2011; 5 :79–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Montanari S. A Case Study of Bi-literacy Development among Children Enrolled in an Italian–English Dual Language Program in Southern California. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2013; 17 :509–525. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicolay A-C, Poncelet M. Cognitive Advantage in Children Enrolled in a Second-language Immersion Elementary School Program for Three Years. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2013; 16 :597–607. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicolay A-C, Poncelet M. Cognitive Benefits in Children Enrolled in an Early Bilingual Immersion School: A Follow Up Study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2015; 18 :789–795. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nieto D. A Brief History of Bilingual Education in the United States. Perspectives on Urban Education. 2009; 6 :61–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ovando CJ. Bilingual Education in the United States: Historical Development and Current Issues. Bilingual Education in the United States. 2003; 27 :1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Padilla AM, Fan L, Xu X, Silva D. A Mandarin/English Two-way Immersion Program: Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement. Foreign Language Annals. 2013; 46 :661–679. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paradis J, Crago M, Genesee F, Rice M. French-English Bilinguals with SLI: How Do They Compare with Their Monolingual Peers? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2003; 46 :113–127. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rolstad K, Mahoney K, Glass GV. The Big Picture: A Meta-analysis of Program Effectiveness Research on English Language Learners. Educational Policy. 2005; 19 :572–594. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosier P, Holm W. The Rock Point Experience: A Longitudinal Study of a Navajo School Program. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rossell CH, Baker K. The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Research in the Teaching of English. 1996; 30 :7–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz M. The Impact of the First Language First Model on Vocabulary Development among Preschool Bilingual Children. Reading and Writing. 2013; 27 :709–732. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz M, Shaul Y. Narrative Development among Language-minority Children: The Role of Bilingual Versus Monolingual Preschool Education. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 2013; 26 :36–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spelke ES, Tsivkin S. Language and Number: A Bilingual Training Study. Cognition. 2001; 78 :45–88. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swain M, Lapkin S. Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian Case Study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters; 1982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trites R. Learning Disabilities in Immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review. 1978; 5 :888–889. [ Google Scholar ]
• Troike RC. Research Evidence for the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. NABE Journal. 1978; 3 :13–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Umansky IM, Reardon SF. Reclassification Patterns among Latino English Learner Students in Bilingual, Dual Immersion, and English Immersion Classrooms. American Educational Research Journal. 2014; 51 :879–912. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willig A. A Meta-analysis of Selected Studies on the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Review of Educational Research. 1985; 55 :269–317. [ Google Scholar ]

Personal tools

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

• Legal Developments

The Civil Rights Project / Proyecto Derechos Civiles 8370 Math Sciences, Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 [email protected]

• Copyright Policy
• Accessibility

Copyright © 2010 UC Regents

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Bilingual education in China: a qualitative synthesis of research on models and perceptions

Bilingual education has become increasingly popular in China, with a subsequent growth in research, particularly research with a qualitative component that examines learners’ and teachers’ experiences and perspectives. These studies have mostly been conducted in individual classroom settings where contexts and learners differ, making findings less transferrable to other educational settings. To address this need, we conducted a qualitative synthesis of research that aims to provide a holistic and rich description of bilingual education in China. Our focus is on the implementation of bilingual education in different educational contexts, learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of bilingual education, and the research instruments used for the evaluation of bilingual education. Following a discipline-specific methodological framework for conducting qualitative research synthesis (Chong, Sin Wang & Luke Plonsky. 2021. A primer on qualitative research synthesis in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 55(3). 1024–1034), we identified suitable studies using a pre-determined search string within various databases. Search results were screened based on a set of inclusion criteria and relevant information was extracted from the included studies using a piloted data extraction form. The extracted data were synthesised using grounded theory to identify new themes and sub-themes. Our findings point to the need for more fine-grained classifications of bilingual education models, despite the fact that Chinese learners generally show positive attitudes towards bilingual education. The study ends with an analysis of limitations, as well as recommendations for future research and practice.

1 Introduction

Bilingual education refers to the use of two languages as the media of instruction ( García 2009 ). The reason bilingual education is prevalent nowadays is twofold: globalization creates needs for bilinguals who are proficient users of more than one language; bilingual education facilitates intercultural communication and widens the cognitive capacity of individuals ( Jawad 2021 ). The rise of Chinese bilingual education stemmed from its open-door policy in 1978 ( Gao and Wang 2017 ). At that time, English was taught as a subject, but learners were incapable of using the language in real-life contexts. Thus, there was growing dissatisfaction with the traditional methods of English language teaching in China, which predominantly used the first language (L1) of learners. Under the influence of bilingual education implementation in other countries, for example, immersion in Canada and dual-way bilingual education in the United States, China began to adopt and adapt various models of bilingual education. Simultaneously, the Ministry of Education (MOE) called for a reform in English language teaching in universities to improve the communication skills of university learners by promoting bilingual education in China ( MOE 2005 ). In 2021 , MOE amended the education law, which mentioned that schools and institutions in ethnic autonomous regions and ethnic minorities should use indigenous languages to implement bilingual education while the government would provide additional support for minority learners.

Although the implementation of bilingual education varies across China, research remains piecemeal, especially regarding learners’ and teachers’ experiences. Thus, there is a need for a qualitative synthesis of research findings that focuses on issues pertaining to implementation (how bilingual education is implemented by teachers and experienced by learners), perceptions (learners’ and teachers’ attitudes towards bilingual education), and evaluation (research tools used to evaluate the effectiveness of bilingual education) of bilingual education in China. These issues will be discussed in light of the synthesised findings.

2 Literature review

2.1 defining ‘bilingual education’.

García and Lin (2017) define bilingual education as the use of diverse languages to teach. Jawad (2021) put forward the Separate Underlying Proficiency and Common Underlying Proficiency models to refer to the interrelationship between the two languages used by bilinguals. The separate Underlying Proficiency model, which influenced the early development of bilingual education, posits that bilinguals’ proficiency and knowledge of the two languages are discrete entities, each with a limited capacity for storage, while the Common Underlying Proficiency model, representing a more dynamic view towards the confluence between the use of two languages by bilinguals, indicates that the two languages are inseparable from a cognitive perspective.

A few terms are usually confused with bilingual education, for example, trilingualism, multilingualism, monolingualism, and plurilingualism. Monolingualism refers to speaking only one language or having active knowledge of one language and passive knowledge of other languages ( Ellis 2006 ). Multilingualism could be seen as an individual’s ability and language use in society ( Edwards 2012 ). According to Cenoz (2013) , multilingualism can include bilingualism and trilingualism. Piccardo (2018) mentioned multilingualism refers to the knowledge of multiple languages in society. Plurilingualism means that individuals could acquire languages simultaneously from exposure to multiple languages, and it is also sometimes defined as individual multilingualism ( Cenoz 2013 ). Piccardo (2018) mentioned that plurilingualism is the interrelation between languages associated with dynamic language acquisition. In other words, a classroom with learners speaking different mother tongues is multilingual, while a class where teachers and learners adopt strategies that celebrate linguistic diversity to maximize communication is a plurilingual classroom ( Piccardo 2018 ). Trilingualism is a branch and extension of bilingualism ( Anastassiou et al. 2017 ), which refers to multilingual speakers gradually obtaining the ability to communicate in different languages. For example, people being exposed to three languages from birth and being able to use three languages in writing and orally can be called trilingual. Hoffmann (2001) mentioned that there is no clear distinction between bilingualism and multilingualism, and multilingualism can be seen as a variant of bilingualism. However, Aronin (2005) indicated that the notions of trilingualism and multilingualism are interchangeable. Dewaele (2015) indicated that people who learn a variety of languages may develop multicompetence. Specifically, grammatical and lexical competence of a learner may be influenced by multicompetence ( Dewaele 2015 ). In terms of cultural awareness, bilinguals and multilingual are more receptive to cultural differences than monolinguals.

2.2 Bilingual education practices in the U.S., Canada, and China

Whilst bilingual education is adopted in different ways in many countries around the world, the U.S. and Canada are the pioneers in bilingual education and their models serve as the foundation for various forms of bilingual education in other countries. In Canada, immersion refers to the creation of a learning environment that is rich in the target language; however, the use of L1 is still acceptable in immersion. Ultimately, immersion does not expect learners to develop native-like competence in the target language ( Beardsmore 1995 ). Dicks and Genesee (2017) discussed three forms of immersion in Canada: French immersion, heritage language programs, and indigenous language programs. French immersion is for both the majority of learners speaking English and learners with minority backgrounds ( Dicks and Genesee 2017 ). French immersion is popular in Canada because French and English are the official languages of the country and they are protected in the education system since the adoption of the Multiculturalism Act of 1988 ( Dicks and Genesee 2017 ).

Regarding bilingual education in the U.S., dual language immersion programs are usually adopted to provide equitable education for ethnic minorities ( Bybee et al. 2014 ; Collier 1995 ). Osorio-O’Dea (2001) compared different bilingual education programs in the U.S. including English as a second language immersion, and transitional and two-way bilingual education. In terms of bilingual education in China, Lin (1997) and Geary and Pan (2003) , investigated bilingual education policies and practices for Chinese ethnic minorities. Similarly, Gao and Wang (2017) discussed two types of bilingual education programs in China. They are the government-led bilingual education programs for ethnic minorities and the Chinese-English bilingual education programs ( Gao and Ren 2019 ; Gao and Wang 2017 ). However, the studies above about bilingual education in China only mentioned little about the preferences for bilingual education models. Although the number of studies on bilingual education in China has been on the rise in recent years, most of them only focus on a specific region (e.g., Shanghai in Wei 2013 ). It remains unclear how bilingual education is implemented in different regions in China. Equally, a thorough understanding of how Chinese teachers and learners think about bilingual education remains to be unravelled. Thus, our review intends to address these gaps and shed light on the preferences for bilingual education models, and perceptions of teachers and learners towards bilingual education in China.

3 Methodology

We adopted a qualitative synthesis of research as the methodology of this review ( Chong and Plonsky 2021 ; Chong and Reinders 2021 ; Chong et al. 2023 in this special issue). The rationale for its adoption is that the 16 included publications are small-scale studies, making findings in these studies less transferrable due to the limited number of interviews and the small sample size. Despite the insightfulness of the findings of these studies, their ability to shed new light on bilingual education within other contexts is limited. Additionally, qualitative synthesis of research is a systematic and rigorous methodology to provide a reliable representation of the state-of-the-art of a research topic using a systematic approach ( Chong and Reinders 2021 ). The rationale for synthesising qualitative data is that it can provide a rich description of the current situation of bilingual education in China, as well as on the perceptions of different stakeholders, such as teachers and learners.

To assure quality in the process of synthesis, the first author kept a researcher logbook to record the disagreements and how we resolved them, which not only shows reflexivity but also acts as a mechanism to ensure the quality in each stage (see Supplementary Material online). Reflexivity is what we intended to highlight in the process, which is concerned with what we disagreed, why we disagreed, and how we resolved the disagreement. A reflexive approach, in our opinion, is a much richer and more informative approach than calculating inter-coder reliability.

For the present study, we drew on a methodological framework for conducting qualitative research synthesis in TESOL ( Chong and Plonsky 2021 ; see Figure 1 ). The rationale for employing this framework is that it comprises multiple methodological stages that can be used to guide the review process, contributing to transparency and systematicity, and in the future, replicability, of the process of identifying, extracting, and synthesising relevant qualitative data.

A methodological framework for conducting qualitative research synthesis in TESOL ( Chong and Plonsky 2021 , p. 1027).

3.1 Design research questions

How is bilingual education implemented in China?

What do Chinese teachers and learners think about bilingual education?

How is bilingual education in China evaluated in research?

3.2 Keywords identified for conducting the literature search

Our focus is on “bilingual education”. As Chong and Plonsky (2021) mentioned, interchangeable words should be taken into consideration. Thus, “immersion”, “translanguaging” and “plurilingual*” were chosen as keywords. Based on these keywords, the following search string was developed and used to perform the search for this review:

(“bilingual education” OR “bilingual*” OR “translanguaging” OR “immersion” OR “plurilingual*”) AND (“China” OR “Chinese”)

3.3 Literature search conducted

We searched for studies in an exploratory way ( Chong and Reinders 2020 ). The search was conducted in the following databases in March 2022: Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC. The rationale for choosing these databases is twofold: (1) they can process the search strings verbatim; (2) Scopus and Web of Science allow for considerable length of the search queries to up to 1,000 terms ( Gusenbauer and Haddaway 2020 ). Thus, ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science are deemed appropriate databases to provide accurate and comprehensive search results.

The first author initially filtered the studies following the steps listed in Chong and Reinders (2020 ; see Figure 2 ). We selected ‘Title’ and ‘Abstract’, listed all relevant articles, browsed through all titles and abstracts, and included all articles that matched the inclusion criteria. In total, 384 articles were included (see Figure 3 ). One hundred and nine articles with irrelevant contexts (research in a country other than China), 103 articles with irrelevant topics, 94 duplicate articles, and 26 secondary studies were excluded in the pre-screening and screening stages. After excluding these 332 articles, four of the remaining 52 articles were inaccessible, resulting in 48 articles.

Searching and first-screening articles ( Chong and Reinders 2022 , p. 6).

Flow chart of study selection (based on Page et al. 2021 ).

3.4 Evaluate literature using inclusion criteria

The second screening followed the inclusion criteria in Table 1 . The search frame was between 2018 and 2022, which provides the latest primary research on bilingual education. Particularly, we focused on primary studies because we are interested in the implementation of bilingual education in China, not just the theories that underpin the concept of bilingual education. We only included publications written in English because we are affiliated with UK universities, and we can mainly access publications written in English. We acknowledge that there are some high-quality publications written in languages other than English that were excluded, which is one of the limitations of this review.

Inclusion criteria of the QRS.

Following the search process (see Figure 3 ), We downloaded all 48 articles, of which we excluded three articles that do not contain an explicit section that discusses bilingual education, 14 articles with irrelevant research questions, eight studies in areas other than in mainland China, one secondary study, one study about Chinese as a second language and foreign language respectively, and four duplicate articles. Sixteen studies were included in this qualitative synthesis of research.

3.5 Data extraction and synthesis

With the 16 included studies, information related to the research questions was extracted into a form adapted from Chong and Reinders’ (2022) (see Appendix I ). The first author analysed and categorised the articles (see Figure 4 ). Twelve of the 16 articles were about Chinese-English bilingual education, and the remaining four were about bilingual education in minority languages (e.g., Mongolian) and Chinese. After co-developing the data extraction form with the second author, who is experienced in conducting research synthesis in language education, the first author extracted three studies using the extraction form and they were checked by the second author to ensure accurate data were extracted. After receiving feedback, the first author began to extract the remaining studies. The completed 16 data extraction forms were reviewed by both authors independently. Queries related to the extracted information were discussed and resolved during a series of bi-weekly face-to-face meetings that spanned across two months. After completing the 16 extraction forms, we produced an overview form summarising the 16 studies (see Appendix II ), which consists of contexts, types of bilingual education (e.g., translanguaging, immersion), research methods, and findings to provide a holistic view of the included studies.

Analysis procedure of the 16 studies.

Based on the 16 extracted forms and the overview form, we synthesised the background information of 16 studies (e.g., research questions, methods, participants, locations) and the three research questions. The synthesis was conducted using grounded theory ( Thornberg et al. 2014 ), as it is an inductive analytical approach, building data-driven conceptual understanding, which accords with the purpose of this study; that is, to identify bilingual education models and stakeholders’ perceptions towards bilingual education in China. We collated data from included studies to extraction forms with different focuses (research questions, research methods, participants, locations) and developed concepts and categories for each term in an inductive way. The study generated descriptive and conceptual categories through initial, focused, and axial coding (see Appendix III ). In this study, the first author coded the 16 extraction forms line-by-line in the initial coding phase. Then, descriptive categories were developed to classify the extracted information in the focused coding phase. Finally, the related descriptive categories were combined into one conceptual category in the axial coding stage. The first author met with the second author bi-weekly to discuss every coding stage and at times they had discussions on the challenges the first author had. In the meetings, the second author also reviewed a sample of the coded data and offered feedback and suggestions when necessary. We have prepared a narrative summary of the meetings that we had concerning data extraction and synthesis, as well as photos of the notes that the second author took during the meeting (see Supplementary Material online).

4 Findings and discussion

4.1 background information of the 16 studies.

There are 41 research questions in the 16 studies, which are classified into two categories, internal and external focuses. Internal focus is endorsed by 27 research questions about teachers’ and learners’ perceptions, and bilingual practices. It consists of six conceptual categories. Of the six categories, there are 11 questions about perceptions and practices (e.g., Wang 2021 ). There are seven questions about the effectiveness of bilingual education for learners (e.g., Wang 2021 ), and four questions about the difference in learners’ performance under different bilingual practices (e.g., Yu et al. 2019 ). Three questions are about the adaptability of bilingual education in different contexts (e.g., Xiong and Feng 2018 ). Only one question is about the role of teachers in translanguaging ( Troedson and Dashwood 2018 ) and teaching or learning strategies in bilingual education respectively ( Zhou and Mann 2021 ).

On the other hand, the external focus of the research questions is about external environments or contexts (endorsed by 15 research questions), which consisted of five conceptual categories. Eight of the questions are about external factors that influence the implementation of bilingual education. For example, Yang (2018) referred to a question about the factors affecting the quality of bilingual teaching. There are three questions about reflections and recommendations for the implementation of bilingual education (e.g., Hiller 2021 ). It is closely followed by questions about the relationship between environment and achievement (endorsed by two research questions) ( Wang and Lehtomäki 2022 ). Unique characteristics in the Chinese context ( Xiong and Feng 2018 ) and the assessment of bilingual education ( *Yang 2018 ) were the research questions in two studies. Coding of research questions of the 16 studies is shown in Appendix III .

In terms of research methods, nine studies adopted mixed methods by conducting questionnaires, class observations, surveys, tests, documents, field notes, interviews, and focus groups (e.g., Wang 2021 ). Four studies used qualitative research methods such as classroom observations, videotaping, field notes, documents, and interviews (e.g., Guo 2022 ), while only three studies used quantitative research methods, that is, questionnaires (e.g., Wang et al. 2018 ).

As for participants in the 16 studies, 11 studies had mature language learners from higher education institutions (e.g., Wang 2021 ) who are able to provide more in-depth and accurate reflection on their own learning experiences. These were followed by learners in primary schools ( n  = 3) (e.g., Rehamo and Harrell 2018 ) [1] and secondary schools ( n  = 3) (e.g., Xiong and Feng 2018 ).

As for location, seven studies were conducted in eastern China. Notably, the seven studies conducted in eastern areas of China were all about English-Chinese bilingual education. Seven studies were conducted in western China, four of which were about minority languages and Mandarin. Western areas are usually less economically developed areas in China and the introduction of Mandarin remains a challenge. It is worth noting that Zuo and Walsh (2021) conducted the study in two schools located in an eastern city and a southwestern city respectively. *Wang and Curdt-Christiansen (2019) noted that the study was conducted in the central region of China. The remaining two studies did not mention the location.

4.2 Findings and discussion based on the research questions

4.2.1 rq1 – how is bilingual education implemented in china.

The included studies reported four conceptual categories (see Figure 5 ), including translanguaging ( n  = 7), immersion ( n  = 3), learner-centred bilingual education ( n  = 1), and five studies without specifying the type(s) of bilingual education. The coding scheme of the implementation of bilingual education is shown in Appendix IV .

Types of bilingual education in 16 studies.

Among the seven studies about translanguaging (see Figure 6 ), two studies are about ‘translanguaging with content-based instruction (CBI)’ ( Troedson and Dashwood 2018 ; Wang 2021 ), which emphasized the significance of understanding subject-specific content. CBI classes include the instruction of subject content and language-related activities, and teachers are required to teach both content knowledge and the second language (L2) ( Wang 2021 ). Similarly, complex content-based concepts were explained using two languages in Troedson and Dashwood (2018) . There are also two studies about ‘translanguaging in English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom’ ( Guo 2022 ; Zuo and Walsh 2021 ). One study is about ‘translanguaging in English for academic purposes (EAP)’ ( Hiller 2021 ), ‘translanguaging in content and language integrated learning (CLIL)’ ( Zhou and Mann 2021 ), and ‘translanguaging practices’ ( Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2019 ) respectively. Specifically, EAP teachers designed writing tasks that employed translanguaging; for example, a short paper for discussing an important Chinese cultural notion ( Hiller 2021 ). In CLIL classrooms, a theme-based reading course was conducted to develop learners’ language proficiency and content knowledge in Zhou and Mann (2021) . In this study, translanguaging was implemented with three strategies: explanatory strategies, attention-raising strategies, and rapport-building strategies . Explanatory strategies refer to the textbook content explained in a combination of English and Chinese; attention-raising strategies refer to translanguaging being employed to raise learners’ attention to important teaching points; Rapport-building strategies are usually adopted on two occasions: teachers intend to keep the natural flow of interaction when learners are unable to understand concepts; teachers participate in learners’ group discussions when they overwhelmingly rely on their L1 ( Zhou and Mann 2021 ).

Sub-types of bilingual education.

Similarly, four translanguaging practices were adopted by Wang and Curdt-Christiansen (2019) : bilingual label quest, simultaneous code-mixing, cross-language recapping, and dual-language substantiation . Bilingual label quest refers to adopting the labels in another language to show the concepts in one language ( Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2019 ). Simultaneous code-mixing refers to the use of Chinese and English in meaning-making ( Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2019 ). Cross-language recapping refers to repeating the course content in another language, which has been taught in one language ( Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2019 ). The major difference between cross-language recapping and bilingual label quest lies in the fact that the latter only focuses on concepts. The fourth practice is dual-language substantiation , referring to the co-construction of knowledge based on two languages ( Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2019 ).

Among the three studies about immersion ( Wang et al. 2018 ; Xiong and Feng 2018 ; Yao 2022 ; see Figure 6 ), one study is subsumed under ‘dominant use of English in class’, which means English is used as the medium of instruction while the use of Mandarin (L1) is allowed ( Xiong and Feng 2018 ); the other two studies are coded as ‘one-way immersion’. In one-way immersion classes, L1 is forbidden in the class, and teachers are only allowed to speak in English ( Fleckenstein et al. 2019 ; Yao 2022 ). Similarly, Chinese learners are also taught in English in Wang et al. (2018) .

One study is grouped under ‘learner-centred bilingual education’ ( Figure 6 ) ( Yu et al. 2019 ). Yu et al. (2019) did not point out explicitly the type of bilingual education, but they introduced three teaching modes used in Mongolia for fluent bilinguals, limited bilinguals, and Mandarin monolinguals respectively. The reason these three teaching modes are labelled as ‘learner-centred bilingual education’ is that three teaching modes are implemented according to learners’ abilities and levels. Fluent bilinguals’ teaching mode refers to learners being taught in Mongolian and Chinese as a subject ( Yu et al. 2019 ). On the contrary, limited bilinguals’ teaching mode means learners being taught in Chinese, while the heritage language, Mongolian, is the subject. The teaching mode used for Mandarin monolinguals refers to Chinese being used as the only language in class ( Yu et al. 2019 ).

The above findings suggest that bilingual education is a rather loose pedagogical concept rather than specific approach(es) to language teaching. According to Wang (2010) , the definition of bilingual education is loose because the understandings of what bilingual education constitutes range widely. It is demonstrated in the fact that five studies (31.25%) did not mention the types of bilingual education (see Figure 6 ) but used the overarching term ‘bilingual education’ in the studies (e.g., Yang 2018 ). Specifically, two of these studies ( Li 2018 ; Wang and Lehtomäki 2022 ) described the pedagogical approach used to teach the target language without referring to a specific type of bilingual education, such as immersion. The other three did not mention how bilingual education was implemented in their studies at all ( Rehamo and Harrell 2018 ; Wang et al. 2021 ; Yang 2018 ). Additionally, a more well-refined categorisation should be applied in bilingual education because there are five studies that do not specify type(s) of bilingual education. According to Azzam (2019) , factors such as contexts and desired outcomes should be taken into consideration to define new types of bilingual education.

Bilingual education programs mentioned in the 16 studies were implemented for different durations ( Appendix V ) and using different materials ( Appendix VI ). Four studies mention the duration of the bilingual education program (e.g., Guo 2022 ), of which two studies implemented bilingual education for less than 50 h (i.e., 48 h in Guo 2022 , and 38 h in Li 2018 ) and the other two studies implemented bilingual education for over 50 h (i.e., a two-year period in Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2019 , and 13 days in Rehamo and Harrell 2018 ). The other 12 studies did not specify the duration of the bilingual education program. Regarding materials, three studies introduce the materials used in the programs, including the textbook Gogo Loves English in Guo (2022) , a Chinese textbook published in 2006 ( Li 2018 ), and a textbook with philosophical and scientific knowledge in Rehamo and Harrell (2018) . The other 13 studies did not mention any materials used (e.g., Wang 2021 ). From a practitioner’s perspective, teachers’ primary concern is the materials that can be used to teach bilingual classes and the duration of a bilingual program. However, such information is absent from the majority of the included studies. Similar to our earlier observation about types of bilingual education, researchers appear to adopt the term ‘bilingual education’ quite loosely without providing an operational definition that reflects how it is practised. Hew et al. (2019) , while focusing on research on educational technology, indicated that research that is under-theorised may have limited relevance to scholarship and practice.

4.2.2 RQ2 – How do the Chinese teachers and learners think about bilingual education?

Three studies report teachers’ view that learners benefit from bilingual education ( Guo 2022 ; Troedson and Dashwood 2018 ; Xiong and Feng 2018 ), and only one study reports that teachers think it is challenging to implement bilingual education ( Wang 2021 ), while the remaining 12 studies do not discuss teachers’ perspectives at all (e.g., Li 2018 ; Yang 2018 ). Among the three studies coded as ‘bilingual education benefits learners’, two studies are about how translanguaging helps learners to self-improve ( Guo 2022 ; Troedson and Dashwood 2018 ) and one study is about ways that immersion helps with learners’ performance ( Xiong and Feng 2018 ). Specifically, in Troedson and Dashwood (2018) and Guo (2022) , teachers indicate that translanguaging helps learners understand materials, develop critical thinking, and express themselves. Teachers in Wang (2021) find it difficult to insist on the use of English in group discussions or in-class activities among learners. Teachers mention that learners always revert from English to Chinese ( Wang 2021 ). To sum up, teachers’ perceptions toward bilingual education are largely ignored and learners are the main stakeholders in the included studies. It is important to consider the views of other stakeholders in future research to develop a more holistic understanding of bilingual education and other educational issues ( Bond et al. 2021 ). The coding scheme of teachers’ perceptions is presented in Appendix VII and the analysis of the teachers’ perceptions is shown in Figure 7 .

Teachers’ perceptions towards bilingual education.

As for learners’ perceptions, seven studies mention ‘approval of bilingual education’ (e.g., Wang 2021 ), while two studies show ‘disapproval of bilingual education’ ( Yang 2018 ; Yao 2022 ), and one study shows ‘the factor affecting usefulness of bilingual education’ ( Wang et al. 2018 ) and ‘mixed perceptions’ ( Zhou and Mann 2021 ) of learners respectively. The other five studies do not mention learners’ perceptions (e.g., Zuo and Walsh 2021 ). Bilingual education is conducive to learners in various ways. For example, learners benefit from better employment prospects, further study opportunities ( Troedson and Dashwood 2018 ), and better comprehension of content being taught ( Guo 2022 ). However, two studies show ‘disapproval of bilingual education’ ( Yang 2018 ; Yao 2022 ). Specifically, about 33% of learners in Yang (2018) have difficulties comprehending content in two languages and following teaching schedules; most learners in Yao (2022) indicate that bilingual education is costly and detrimental to their confidence. Aside from this, learners in Yang (2018) express that poor practices of bilingual teaching make language learning stressful. *Wang et al. (2018) points out that the English proficiency of learners affects bilingual education. Additionally, Zhou and Mann (2021) present mixed perceptions toward bilingual education, in which 72% of learners believe bilingual education negatively affects their language choice. The other five studies did not mention how learners perceive bilingual education (e.g., Zuo and Walsh 2021 ). The coding scheme of learners’ perceptions is shown in Appendix VIII , and the analysis of learners’ perceptions is shown in Figure 8 .

Learners’ perceptions towards bilingual education.

Focusing on learners’ perceptions, we investigated the benefits and challenges of bilingual education discussed in the 16 studies. Ten studies mentioned the benefits of bilingual education. Among the ten studies, five studies mentioned bilingual education is conducive to learners’ mastery of content and language (e.g., Wang 2021 ). Specifically, Wang (2021) mentioned that bilingual education can develop a deeper comprehension of the content without the pressure of using two languages simultaneously and facilitate learners’ acquisition of the target language. In a similar vein, learners in Troedson and Dashwood (2018) indicated that bilingual education can develop the target language. Wang and Curdt-Christiansen (2019) showed that bilingual education can facilitate disciplinary learning, and learners perform better than monolinguals ( Xiong and Feng 2018 ). Additionally, learners’ self-improvement was mentioned by three studies (e.g., Troedson and Dashwood 2018 ), in particular, cognitive development and confidence. Provision of resources ( n  = 2) ( Hiller 2021 ; Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2019 ) includes communicative resources and linguistic resources. Bilingual education helps learners maintain interactions between minority culture and mainstream society ( n  = 2) ( Wang and Lehtomäki 2022 ; Yu et al. 2019 ). Preserving heritage culture and language was mentioned by one study ( Rehamo and Harrell 2018 ). The remaining six studies did not mention the benefits of bilingual education (e.g., Yang 2018 ). The coding scheme of the benefits of bilingual education is shown in Appendix IX .

Challenges of bilingual education were divided into two categories: challenges resulted from contextual factors and learner factors. Among the 16 included studies, contextual factors were mentioned by five studies (e.g., Wang 2021 ). First, the dominance of monolingual education and stereotypical view towards bilingual education hamper the implementation of bilingual education ( n  = 2) ( Wang 2021 ; Yang 2018 ). The mismatch between bilingual education and societal needs ( n  = 3) ( Wang et al. 2018 ; Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2019 ; Yao 2022 ). The challenges of bilingual education are also caused by learner factors ( n  = 14). Firstly, learners’ needs in bilingual education are largely ignored ( n  = 3) ( Guo 2022 ; Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2019 ; Yang 2018 ). Then, bilingual education is expensive for learners from rural areas, which causes a financial burden on learners and their families ( n  = 2) ( Wang et al. 2018 ; Yao 2022 ). Other factors include that learners lack a solid language foundation and knowledge ( n  = 2) ( Rehamo and Harrell 2018 ; Wang et al. 2021 ), lack of confidence ( n  = 1) ( Yao 2022 ), and lack of incentives ( n  = 1) ( Rehamo and Harrell 2018 ). Additionally, the effectiveness of bilingual education is affected by teaching and learning factors, such as learners’ attitudes, teachers’ language proficiency level, assessment methods, and teaching methods ( n  = 2) ( Li 2018 ; Yang 2018 ). Learners’ insufficient communication in activities among peers ( n  = 2) (Wang 2018; Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2019 ), and insufficient teacher training ( n  = 1) ( Rehamo and Harrell 2018 ) are the other two challenges. The other seven articles did not introduce challenges of bilingual education (e.g., Troedson and Dashwood 2018 ). The coding scheme of the challenges of bilingual education is shown in Appendix X .

4.2.3 RQ3 – How is bilingual education in China evaluated in research?

There are 11 studies coded under ‘perceptual’ (e.g., Wang 2021 ), which refers to the use of evaluation tools that focus on the perceptions of participants. Two studies evaluate learners’ ‘performance’ (in language tests) ( Wang et al. 2021 ; Yu et al. 2019 ). The remaining three studies are about ‘perception and performance’ ( Li 2018 ; Rehamo and Harrell 2018 ; Xiong and Feng 2018 ). A possible reason for researchers to adopt more perceptual evaluation tools is that improvement in performance, as reflected in the scores in language tests, would not be noticeable in the short run. In the two studies that specify the duration of bilingual education, the practice was implemented for less than 50 h ( Guo 2022 ; Li 2018 ). This shows that bilingual education was implemented as a short-term practice rather than longitudinally. Another reason may be that 11 studies (68.75%) focus on university language learners (e.g., Wang 2021 ). Learners in higher education are more mature and can provide more accurate responses about their perceptions towards bilingual education. According to Bond et al. (2021) , the reason perceptions of stakeholders are usually evaluated in lieu of actual learning behaviour or grade differences is because the former is easier to be carried out. The associated coding scheme can be found in Appendix XI .

Eight studies adopted questionnaires (e.g., Wang 2021 ), followed by seven studies using interviews (e.g., Yao 2022 ). Questionnaires and interviews are the two tools most frequently used, which results in 11 studies focusing on participants’ perceptions. Six studies adopted class observation (e.g., Guo 2022 ) and four studies adopted tests (e.g., Li 2018 ). Particularly, among the eight studies that use questionnaires, Wang (2021) adopted open questions about the intersection between CBI and translanguaging. Similarly, Yang (2018) also included an open question in the questionnaire about the opinions about bilingual teaching. Interviews were carried out in Yang (2018) about the different attitudes toward bilingual education among learners with varied English levels. As for tests, Li (2018) adopted Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test and Gates-MacGinitie Vocabulary Test (pp. 902–903). They were used to measure learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge by providing short passages with multiple-choice questions and asking learners to identify target words among items with similar meanings. The findings of most of the included studies suggest that bilingual education in China is largely effective. However, the research tools used to gauge its effectiveness focus on specific language skills (e.g., reading) rather than learners’ holistic linguistic competence. As Gibb (2015) mentioned, assessment of the four language skills (i.e., listening, reading, writing, speaking) is critiqued because it reduces language to an individualised task where communication is largely ignored, that is, ignoring the integration of social conditions involved in the use of skills. Thus, assessment of holistic linguistic competence (e.g., communicative competence) is viewed to be more contextualised than assessment of the four language skills in isolation. The coding scheme of evaluation mechanism is presented in Appendix XII .

5 Conclusion

The findings show that translanguaging and immersion are the two types of bilingual education most prevalently implemented in the 16 studies focused on bilingual education in China. Learners’ and teachers’ perceptions are the two stakeholders most frequently mentioned, in which the former is largely positive while the latter is less mentioned among the 16 studies. Additionally, most studies focus on evaluating the effectiveness of bilingual education in relation to stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences, for instance, through semi-structured interviews.

Based on the reported findings and discussion, we offer recommendations to researchers and practitioners. For researchers, a more refined categorization of bilingual education needs to be adopted in future studies. To ensure future research on bilingual education in China is ecologically valid, it is crucial to clarify and define the type of bilingual education being studied in future studies. Equally important, researchers should strive to document how bilingual education is implemented including its duration, materials used, and lesson activities. Secondly, in addition to learners’ perspectives, researchers could focus more on the perceptions of teachers and other stakeholders including parents in future studies. The current research base emphasizes learners’ perceptions, while neglecting those of teachers and other stakeholders. In addition to teachers, other stakeholders should also be taken into consideration, such as, principals, and policymakers ( Bond et al. 2021 ). Other stakeholders’ opinions are vital to shedding a more comprehensive light on bilingual education. Third, longitudinal research and more diverse language proficiency tests can be adopted in future studies to evaluate the effectiveness of bilingual education. Most of the included studies are short-lived ( Guo 2022 ; Li 2018 ), which may affect the evaluation of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Additionally, the evaluation mechanism in current bilingual education studies in China focuses more on learners’ performance in reading in lieu of other language skills. A more holistic assessment of learners’ linguistic competence in the target language needs to be included to fully gauge the usefulness of bilingual education.

For practitioners, our synthesised findings reveal that teachers need to receive adequate training to ensure effective implementation of bilingual education. The quality of bilingual education is determined by teachers’ understanding of bilingual education and their own experience as learners. Yang (2018) shows that learners are overburdened because the quality of bilingual education is unsatisfying, and Wang et al. (2018) indicated that the poor quality of bilingual education results from teachers’ limited language proficiency. Teacher training is conducive to teachers’ professional and language development, which are essential to improving the quality of bilingual education in China.

This research synthesis is not without limitations. The inclusion of only 16 studies may not fully capture the current situation of bilingual education in China. For example, the current study only focuses on primary studies about bilingual education rather than secondary studies, which may result in excluding other important work in this area of research. It also only includes studies indexed in three databases and, as the topic is on bilingual education in China, it is likely that some publications are published in Chinese, which is beyond the scope of this review. As a result, future studies could include more studies by setting a longer time frame and include publications in other languages.

Acknowledgement

This qualitative synthesis of research is based on the MSc TESOL dissertation written by QL. SWC was QL’s supervisor who oversaw the conception and implementation of the research process. Both QL and SWC were involved in the writing of this publication.

The references that are asterisked (*) are those that are included in this qualitative synthesis of research. Search in Google Scholar

Anastassiou, Fotini, Georgia Andreou & Maria Liakou. 2017. Third language learning, trilingualism and multilingualism: A review. European Journal of English Language, Linguistic and Literature 4(1). 61–73. Search in Google Scholar

Aronin, Larissa. 2005. Theoretical perspectives of trilingual education. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 171. 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2005.2005.171.7 . Search in Google Scholar

Azzam, Ziad. 2019. Dubai’s private K-12 education sector: In search of bilingual education. Journal of Research in International Education 18(3). 227–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240919892424 . Search in Google Scholar

Beardsmore, Hugo Baetens. 1995. European models of bilingual education: Practice, theory and development. In Policy and practice in bilingual education: A reader extending the foundations , 139–149. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.1080/01434632.1993.9994523 Search in Google Scholar

Bond, Melissa, Svenja Bedenlier, Victoria I. Marín & Marion Händel. 2021. Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 18(1). 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x . Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Eric Ruiz, Kathryn I. Henderson & Roel V. Hinojosa. 2014. An overview of US bilingual education: Historical roots, legal battles, and recent trends, 138–146. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/45900 . Search in Google Scholar

Cenoz, Jasone. 2013. Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33. 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X . Search in Google Scholar

Chong, Sin Wang. & H. Reinders. 2020. Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A qualitative research synthesis. Language, Learning and Technology 24(3). 70–86. Search in Google Scholar

Chong, S. W. & Hayo Reinders. 2021. A methodological review of qualitative research syntheses in CALL: The state-of-the-art. System 103. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102646 . Search in Google Scholar

Chong, Sin Wang & Hayo Reinders. 2022. Autonomy of English language learners: A scoping review of research and practice. Language Teaching Research . 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221075812 . Search in Google Scholar

Chong, Sin Wang & Luke Plonsky. 2021. A primer on qualitative research synthesis in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 55(3). 1024–1034. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3030 . Search in Google Scholar

Chong, Sin Wang & Luke Plonsky. 2023. A typology of secondary research in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review . https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/msjrh . Search in Google Scholar

Collier, Virginia P. 1995. Acquiring a second language for school. Directions in Language and Education 1(4). 3–14. Search in Google Scholar

Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2015. Bilingualism and multilingualism. In The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction , 1–11. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi108 Search in Google Scholar

Dicks, Joseph & Fred Genesee. 2017. Bilingual education in Canada. Bilingual and Multilingual Education 10. 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02324-3_32-1 . Search in Google Scholar

Edwards, John. 2012. Bilingualism and multilingualism: Some central concepts. In The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism , 5–25. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9781118332382.ch1 Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Elizabeth. 2006. Monolingualism: The unmarked case. Estudios de Sociolingüística 7(2). 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v7i2.173 . Search in Google Scholar

Fleckenstein, Johanna, Sandra Kristina Gebauer & Jens Möller. 2019. Promoting mathematics achievement in one-way immersion: Performance development over four years of elementary school. Contemporary Educational Psychology 56. 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.010 . Search in Google Scholar

Gao, Xuesong & Wei Ren. 2019. Controversies of bilingual education in China. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(3). 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1550049 . Search in Google Scholar

Gao, Xuesong & Wei Wang. 2017. Bilingual education in the People’s Republic of China. In Bilingual and multilingual education , 219–231. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_16 Search in Google Scholar

García, Ofelia. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective . Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Search in Google Scholar

García, Ofelia & Angel Lin. 2017. Extending understandings of bilingual and multilingual education. In Bilingual and multilingual education , 1–20. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_1 Search in Google Scholar

Geary, D. Morman & Yongrong Pan. 2003. A bilingual education pilot project among the Kam people in Guizhou Province, China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 24(4). 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630308666502 . Search in Google Scholar

Gibb, Tara. 2015. Regimes of language skill and competency assessment in an age of migration: The in/visibility of social relations and practices. Studies in Continuing Education 37(3). 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2015.1043986 . Search in Google Scholar

*Guo, Haojun. 2022. Chinese primary school students’ translanguaging in EFL classrooms: What is it and why is it needed? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher . 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00644-7 . Search in Google Scholar

Gusenbauer, Michael & Neal R. Haddaway. 2020. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods 11(2). 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378 . Search in Google Scholar

Hew, Khe Foon, Min Lan, Ying Tang, Chengyuan Jia & Chung Kwan Lo. 2019. Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology 50(3). 956–971. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12770 . Search in Google Scholar

*Hiller, Kristin E. 2021. Introducing translanguaging in an EAP course at a joint-venture university in China. RELC Journal 52(2). 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211014997 . Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Charlotte. 2001. Towards a description of trilingual competence. International Journal of Bilingualism 5(1). 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069010050010101 . Search in Google Scholar

Jawad, Najat A. Muttalib M. 2021. Bilingual education: Features & advantages. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 12(5). 735–740. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1205.12 . Search in Google Scholar

*Li, Miao. 2018. The effectiveness of a bilingual education program at a Chinese university: A case study of social science majors. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21(8). 897–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1231164 . Search in Google Scholar

Lin, Jing. 1997. Policies and practices of bilingual education for the minorities in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18(3). 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639708666314 . Search in Google Scholar

Ministry of Education. 2005. Recommendations on strengthening college undergraduate programmes and enhancing the quality of instruction and Notice of Minister Zhou Ji’s Speech at the Second National Conference on Undergraduate Teaching in General Higher Education Institutions. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A08/s7056/200501/t20050107_80315.html (accessed 6 August 2022). Search in Google Scholar

Ministry of Education. 2021. Education law of the People’s Republic of China. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_zcfg/zcfg_jyfl/202107/t20210730_547843.html (accessed 7 August 2022). Search in Google Scholar

Osorio-O’Dea, Patricia. 2001. Bilingual education: An overview. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 1–18. Available at: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1882/ . Search in Google Scholar

Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow & David Moher. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 10(1). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 . Search in Google Scholar

Piccardo, Enrica. 2018. Plurilingualism: Vision, conceptualization, and practices. Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education 207. 225. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44694-3_47 . Search in Google Scholar

*Rehamo, Aga & Stevan Harrell. 2018. Theory and practice of bilingual education in China: Lessons from Liangshan Yi autonomous prefecture. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 23. 1254–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1441259 . Search in Google Scholar

Thornberg, Robert, Lisa, M. & KathyCharmaz. 2014. Grounded theory. In Handbook of research methods in early childhood education research methodologies , vol. 1, 405–439. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. https://www.infoagepub.com/products/Handbook-of-Research-Methods-in-Early-Childhood-Education-vol1 . 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0003 Search in Google Scholar

*Troedson, David Andrew & Ann Dashwood. 2018. Bilingual use of translanguaging: Chinese student satisfaction in a transnational business degree in English. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives 17(4). 113–128. Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Hao. 2010. Application of bilingual education in Chinese ESL families, 1–37. Available at: http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/43697 . Search in Google Scholar

*Wang, Jiajia, Jijia Zhang & Zhanling Cui. 2021. L2 verbal fluency and cognitive mechanism in bilinguals: Evidence from Tibetan–Chinese bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50(2). 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-020-09730-7 . Search in Google Scholar

*Wang, Lijuan & Elina Lehtomäki. 2022. Bilingual education and beyond: How school settings shape the Chinese Yi minority’s socio-cultural attachments. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25(6). 2256–2268. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1905602 . Search in Google Scholar

*Wang, Lisong, Yatong Li, Zhongmei Wang, Shiyu Shu, Yun Zhang & Yulian Wu. 2018. Improved English immersion teaching methods for the course of power electronics for energy storage system in China. IEEE Access 6. 50683–50692. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2869325 . Search in Google Scholar

*Wang, Ping. 2021. A case study of translanguaging phenomenon in CBI classes in a Chinese university context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 31(1). 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12324 . Search in Google Scholar

*Wang, Weihong & Xiao Lan Curdt-Christiansen. 2019. Translanguaging in a Chinese–English bilingual education programme: A university-classroom ethnography. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(3). 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1526254 . Search in Google Scholar

Wei, Rining. 2013. Chinese-English bilingual education in China: Model, momentum, and driving forces. Asian EFL Journal 15(4). 184–200. Search in Google Scholar

*Xiong, Tao & Anwei Feng. 2018. Localizing immersion education: A case study of an international bilingual education program in south China. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 23. 1125–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1435626 . Search in Google Scholar

*Yang, Yuqian. 2018. An investigation on the students’ opinions of bilingual teaching in universities of western China. Journal of Education and Training Studies 6(12). 1–12. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i12.3594 . Search in Google Scholar

*Yao, Chunlin. 2022. Is a one-way English immersion teaching approach equitable to those Chinese non-English major students from rural areas? Education and Urban Society 54(4). 470–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245211027514 . Search in Google Scholar

*Yu, Hongyu, Nisha Yao, Jijia Zhang & Bing Gao. 2019. Time-course of attentional bias for culture-related cues in Mongolian-Chinese bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism 23(6). 1483–1501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006918808047 . Search in Google Scholar

*Zhou, Xiaozhou Emily & Steve Mann. 2021. Translanguaging in a Chinese university CLIL classroom: Teacher strategies and student attitudes. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 11(2). 265–289. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.2.5 . Search in Google Scholar

*Zuo, Miaomiao & Steve Walsh. 2021. Translation in EFL teacher talk in Chinese universities: A translanguaging perspective. Classroom Discourse . 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.1960873 . Search in Google Scholar

• Supplementary Material

This article contains supplementary material ( https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0194 ).

© 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Bilingual and Multilingual Education pp 35–49 Cite as

Bilingual Education Policy

• Munene Mwaniki 5 ,
• M. Beatriz Arias 6 &
• Terrence G. Wiley 6  
• Reference work entry
• First Online: 04 January 2017

5779 Accesses

3 Citations

Part of the book series: Encyclopedia of Language and Education ((ELE))

The chapter is a critical appraisal of bilingual education policy scholarship and practice against a backdrop of contestations that characterize determination and execution of bilingual education goals and the spread of the idea of linguistic human rights in education – and discourses attendant and consequent to these processes. A dominant and recurrent motif in bilingual education policy discourses is the assumed analogous relationship between language and the nation-state and the sometimes integrative, sometimes disruptive role of education in this relationship. Resultant bilingual education types have, in practice, manifested themselves in a range of programs. Invariably, these programs fall within a dyad of language policy orientations, these being promotion/tolerance and repressive/restrictive. These orientations influence types of educational programs and their outcomes. Nowhere are these dynamics more pronounced than in postcolonial contexts – which, from the critical perspective adopted in the chapter, include, apart from the “usual” contexts in the global south, western democracies with a colonial past. In these contexts, presumed “mother tongue,” local language, or minority language becomes both important and problematic in the conceptualization and implementation of bilingual education policies. In other instances, even when language-in-education policies are allegedly intended to increase opportunities for educational access and equity, in practice, they (re)produce, perpetuate, and entrench unintended outcomes largely inimical to the progressive goals of bilingual education policies. However, when effectively implemented, bilingual education policies remain potent tools for social, political, and economic inclusion of marginalized groups in postcolonial contexts, irrespective of whether these are in the global north or global south.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity and poverty . London: Profile Books.

Google Scholar  

Alexander, N. (2003). Language education policy, national and sub-national identities in South Africa . Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism . London: Verso.

Arias, M. B., & Faltis, C. (2012). Implementing language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical, and current practices in SEI . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Arias, M. B., & Wiley, T. G. (2015). Forty years after Lau: The continuing assault on educational human rights in the United States with implications for linguistic minorities. In: Languages problems and language planning, 39 (3), 227–244.

Baker, C. (1996). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingualism . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Bamgbose, A. (1999). African language development and language planning. Social Dynamics, 25 (1), 13–30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Banda, F. (2009). Critical perspectives on language planning and policy in Africa: Accounting for the notion of multilingualism. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics PLUS, 20 (3), 1–11.

Blommaert, J. (1996). Language planning as a discourse on language and society: The linguistic ideology of a scholarly tradition. Language Problems & Language Planning, 20 , 199–222.

Bonfiglio, T. P. (2010). Mother tongues and nations: The invention of the native speaker . New York: De Gruyter Mouton.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bunyi, G. (2005). Language classroom practices in Kenya. In A. Lin & P. W. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 131–152). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Collier, V., & Thomas, W. (2012). English language learners- What really works for English language learners: Research-based practices for principals. In What every principal needs to know to create equitable and excellent schools (pp. 155–173). New York: Teachers College Press.

Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.

Crush, J. (1994). Post-colonialism, de-colonization, and geography. In A. Godlewska & N. Smith (Eds.), Geography and empire (pp. 333–350). Oxford: Blackwell.

Cummins, J. (1997). Introduction. In J. Cummins & D. Corson (Eds.) Bilingual education. Vol. 5. International Encyclopedia of Language and Education . (pp. xi–xiv). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Du Plessis, T. (2006). From monolingual to bilingual higher education: The repositioning of historically Afrikaans-medium universities in South Africa. Language Policy, 5 (1), 87–113.

Fishman, J. A. (1972). The sociology of language . Rowley: Newbury House.

Fishman, J. A. (1980). Bilingualism and biculturalism as individual and as societal phenomena. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1 , 3–5.

Furlong, A., & Cartmel, F. (2009). Higher education and social justice . Berkshire: Open University Press.

Gándara, P., & Orfield, G. (2010). Moving from failure to a new vision of language policy. In P. Gándara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 216–226). New York: Teachers College Press.

Garcia, E. E., Jensen, B. T., & Scribner, K. P. (2009). The demographic imperative. Educational Leadership, 66 (7), 8–13.

Gray, E. G., & Fiering, N. (2000). The language encounter: 1492–1800 . Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Heath, S. B. (1976). Colonial language status achievement: Mexico, Peru, and the United States. In A. Verdoodt & R. Kjolseth (Eds.), Language and sociology . Louvin: Peeters.

Henrard, K. (2001). Language rights and minorities in South Africa. International Journal of Multicultural Societies, 3 (2), 78–98.

Hutton, C. L. (1998). Linguistics and the third Reich: Mother-tongue fascism, race and the science of language . London: Routledge.

Jacobs, J. M. (1996). Edge of empire: Postcolonialism and the city . London/New York: Routledge.

Kaiwar, V., Mazumdar, S., & Barnes, A. E. (2009). Antinomies of modernity: Essays on race, orient, nation . Raleigh: Duke University Press.

Kamwangamalu, N. M. (1997). Multilingualism and education policy in post-apartheid South Africa. Language Problems and Language Planning, 21 (3), 234–253.

Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2001). The language planning situation in South Africa. Current Issues in Language Planning, 2 (4), 361–445.

Kenya Institute of Education. (1992). Primary education syllabus (Vol. 1). Nairobi: Republic of Kenya Ministry of Education.

Kloss, H. (1977). The American bilingual tradition . Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.

Macías, R. F. (2014). Spanish as the second national language of the United States: Fact, fiction, or future hope? Review of Research in Education, 38 , 33–57.

McClintock, A. (1992). The angel of progress: Pitfalls of the term “post-colonialism”. Social Text, 10 (2&3), 84–98.

Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local histories/global designs. Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mwangi, P. I. (2012). A case for the harmonization of Kikuyu, Kiembu and Kimbeere phonology and orthography. In N. O. Ogechi, J. A. N. Oduor, & P. I. Mwangi (Eds.), The harmonization and standardization of Kenyan languages: Orthography and other aspects (pp. 20–38). Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS).

Mwaniki, M. (2012). Language and social justice in South Africa’s higher education: Insights from a South African university. Language and Education, 26 (3), 213–232.

Mwaniki, M. (2014). Mother tongue education in primary teacher education in Kenya: A language management critique of the quota system. Multilingual Education, 4 (11), 1–17.

Ogechi, N. O., Oduor, J. A. N., & Mwangi, P. I. (2012). The harmonization and standardization of Kenyan languages: Orthography and other aspects . Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS).

Ostler, N. (2006). Empires of the word: A language history of the world . London: Harper.

Ostler, N. (2011). The last lingua franca . London: Pergamum.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Phillipson, R. (1996). Linguistic imperialism: African perspectives. ELT Journal, 50 (2), 160–167.

Radcliffe, S. A. (1997). Different heroes: Genealogies of postcolonial geographies. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space., 29 , 1331–1333.

Reagan, T. G. (1987). The politics of linguistic apartheid: Language policies in Black education in South Africa. The Journal of Negro Education, 56 (3), 299–312.

Ricento, T., & Wiley, T. G. (2002). Editor’s introduction. Language, identity, and education and the challenges of monoculturalism and globalization. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1 (1), 1–7.

Scotton, C. M. (1990). Elite closure as boundary maintenance. In B. Weinstein (Ed.), Language policy and political development (pp. 25–52). Norwood: Ablex.

Spring, J. (2000). The universal right to education. Justification, definition, and guidelines . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spring, J. (2008). Globalization of education: An introduction . London: Routledge.

Spring, J. (2012). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tollefson, J. (2013). Language policies in education: Critical issues . London: Routledge.

Trudell, B., & Piper, B. (2014). Whatever the law says: Language policy implementation and early-grade literacy achievement in Kenya. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15 (1), 4–21.

Venter, A. (2009). The context of contemporary South African politics. In A. Venter, & C. Landsberg (Eds.), Government and politics in South Africa (3rd ed., pp. 3–16), Fourth Impression. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Warfield, J. N., & Perino, G. H., Jr. (1999). The problematique: Evolution of an idea. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16 , 221–226.

Wiley, T. G. (2007). Accessing language rights in education: A brief history of the U.S. context. In O. García & C. Baker (Eds.), Bilingual education: An introductory reader (pp. 89–107). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Wiley, T. G. (2012). English-only movement. In The encyclopedia of applied linguistics . London: Wiley.

Wiley, T. G. (2013). Constructing and deconstructing “illegal” children. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 12 (3), 167.

Wiley, T. G., & Artiles, A. (2007). Editor’s introduction: The antinomies of global English and national pedagogies. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1 (2), 57–61.

Wiley, T. G., & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the “age of accountability”. Educational Policy, 18 (1), 142–168.

Willensky, J. (2000). Learning to divide the world: Education at empire’s end . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Wright, W. E., & Choi, D. (2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14 (13), 1–75.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Linguistics and Language Practice & Research Fellow - Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, Republic of South Africa

Munene Mwaniki

Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC, USA

M. Beatriz Arias & Terrence G. Wiley

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Munene Mwaniki .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, New York, New York, USA

Ofelia García

Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

Angel M. Y. Lin

Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Stephen May

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Mwaniki, M., Arias, M.B., Wiley, T.G. (2017). Bilingual Education Policy. In: García, O., Lin, A., May, S. (eds) Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_3

Published : 04 January 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-02257-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-02258-1

eBook Packages : Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Bilingual Education: Programs Support Essay

Argument in support of bilingual education programs.

More than three decades after its inception, bilingual education is still entangled in myriad controversies. Although the initial structure of bilingual education program has been changed severally, the debate about whether bilingual education should or should not be practiced is not likely to die away in the near future.

Most importantly, these conflicting parties have been unable to agree on whether bilingual education yields any considerable value for L2 English speakers. On one hand, the intransigent proponents of bilingual education argue that, the program provides a common ground upon which non-English speaking children can compete favorably with their English speaking counterparts in technical subjects such as science and mathematics.

Contrastingly, opponents argue that bilingual education system impede the acquisition and development of English language among L2 speakers; thus, delaying their assimilation into the American society. Furthermore, this debate has also attracted the attention of multiculturalists who perceive bilingualism as an effective method of preserving immigrants’ language and cultural identities.

Conversely, this perception has also been criticized in that, immigrants already in the United States should not retain their language, but should be assimilated into American society through exclusive English language teaching. Nonetheless, in spite of the inconclusive research findings about accrued benefits of bilingual education, this essay will explore these controversial presuppositions, with an aim of proving the worthiness of bilingual education.

To begin with, opponents of bilingual education argue that various people have succeeded without bilingual education (Duignan). The latter author underscores that, although the above claim have taken place under some special circumstances, the individuals owe their success to other second language inputs.

This implies that, whereas these individuals’ may not have been subjected to bilingual education per se, they experienced de facto bilingual programs. According to Cummins (255), proponents of this claim often cite Richard Rodriguez (1982) and Fernando de la Pena (1991) to support their argument against bilingual education. Rodriquez claimed that he succeeded to attain high level of English proficiency even though he never received bilingual education (Duignan).

However, Cummins (256) argues that Rodriquez claim is not entirely truthful because he had two crucial advantages that led to his success in English language proficiency. For instance, Rodriquez was not an immigrant and he grew alongside other English speaking peers in Sacramento, California. This interaction exposed him to informal English language inputs.

Apparently most immigrants’ children do not have this advantage as most of them rarely use English outside their school setting (Duignan). Moreover, Rodriguez had access to numerous English books, which further improved his English language skills. Therefore, his success should not be adopted to eradicate the essentiality of bilingual education.

On the same note, de la Pena allege that having immigrated into United States at the age nine, he succeeded to attain superior competency in English language without undergoing through the bilingual education system (Cummins 257). This occurred in spite of the fact that he did not have prior encounter with English language prior to immigrating to the United States.

However, his case is weakened by the fact that, back in Mexico he was in fifth grade, thus had a good grasp of Spanish language and advanced subject matter. Correspondingly, opponents of bilingual education base their argument on the fact the system has attracted augmented negative public opinion.

However, Cummins (262) accentuate that this negativity is as a result of biased questionnaires that are adopted during those surveys. The latter author highlight that these questionnaires are often subjective and most questions are confusing to the respondents. For instance, questions are constructed in a manner that portrays mother tongue education as a great hindrance to the pursuance of higher education, and that it reduces employability of such students (Duignan).

On the other hand, Cummins (261) accentuates that if the questionnaires were not biased most parents would support bilingual education. According to Cummins (262), prior research has positively indicated that most respondents concur that L1 provides a solid foundation for L2 acquisition. Furthermore, most respondents support the notion that bilingualism yields both economic and psycho-cognitive benefits (Garcia 128).

The above analysis implies that the number of those against bilingual education is much less than what is often depicted in the public opinion surveys. Apparently, most opponents are frustrated with some specific practices of bilingual education, but not the entire system (Cummins 262). Most importantly, some opponents could be opposed to some regulations associated with bilingual education, thus their opinion would be different if those regulations were to be modified (Duignan).

Furthermore, research has indicated that most academic publications supported bilingual education except for some newspapers and magazines articles, which have often expressed a negative opinion. Needless to say, the fact that some people hold a negative perception about bilingual education is fallacious and should not be adopted to downplay the essential benefits of bilingual education.

In his article, Garcia (pp. 126-129) supports bilingual education due to the numerous benefits associated with the program. The latter author underscore that opponents of bilingual education in California blame the program for poor academic achievements, yet international and national researches have indicated that bilingualism attract myriad psycho-cognitive advantages.

In addition, Garcia (127) cites previous studies conducted among Hispanic descent students, which showed that bilingual children who interacted with bilingual programs showed greater potential in academics than monolinguals who attended English only programs. Most importantly, the latter group was shown to have faired poorly on standardized tests, portrayed a poor school attendance trend and their drop out rate is slightly higher than those attending bilingual education programs.

Furthermore, Garcia (128) cites several other studies that have portrayed that first language is an essential tool in promoting academic excellence among children and adults with inadequate formal education background. As a matter of fact, first language accelerates the acquisition of second language and promotes its’ usage in academic activities (Garcia 126). Thus, bilingual education programs should be given the precedence it deserves due to the numerous societal benefits attached to its’ practice.

Similarly, the practice of bilingual education has often been criticized due of insufficient studies to support its’ effectiveness. Conversely, although some studies have supplied negative results about the effectiveness of bilingual education, most of these conclusions are not entirely against bilingual education, rather researchers are concerned with scanty bilingual education efficacy studies (Duignan).

However, this allegation against bilingual education is not convincing and more often than not the problem is mainly on semantics than the actual practice of bilingual education. Cummins (265) underscores that the concept of bilingual education is rather dynamic and the controversies could because the parties are discussing different forms of bilingualism.

Nonetheless for the purpose of this paper, bilingual education is regarded as the transitional bilingual education whereby an L2 English learner receives academic instruction in his/her L1 in the lower grades in preparation for complete immersion in English instruction classes in latter grades. The idea behind this argument is that learning in L1 will enable the learner to achieve competency in English language based on literacy transfer concept.

Moreover, although some studies have often quoted the immersion programs in Texas, McAllen and El Paso as superior than bilingual education, Garcia(127) accentuates that the cited studies are actually bilingual education, but with a different practical approach.

On the same note, the latter author also underscores that the sample size for the above studies was extremely small and was carried out within a very short time frame, thus their results are anecdotal. On this note, the fact that a vast number of researches support bilingual education efficacy is evident that children exposed to these programs are more successful that those in all-English programs. Perhaps, these criticisms should be directed at the programs design than on the entire system.

To quote my own personal experience, bilingual education programs have enabled me to attain high level of French and English fluency although none of these languages is my native language.

This situation would not have been possible if I was immersed in English only or French only programs thus bilingual education has brought immense benefits to me; such that, I am able to utilize these languages in the classroom and they might come in handy in my afterschool life. The fact that globalization is opening new opportunities designate that bilinguals will have a greater advantage over monolinguals, who are immersed in English only programs.

Thus, the opponents should be perceived as individuals’ who are only concerned with instant results. This is based on the fact that, they cite that bilingual education delays assimilation of students into the American society. Although bilingual education process might be perceived as long and daunting, the end results justify the means. Hence, there is no reason to deny immigrants students a program that is beneficial to their lives both in the present and in future.

In a nutshell, in spite of inconclusive studies on bilingual education efficacy its’ significance cannot be overemphasized. On this note, obtainable studies indicate that bilingual education has performed exceptionally well and that with proper program improvement strategies, it has the potentiality of yielding even better results.

Although the author does not deny the fact that some elements of bilingual education might be wanting, the biggest problem is not about the practice of bilingualism, but on the availability of books to facilitate the adaptation of L1 and L2 within the bilingual education programs. As indicated above, Richard Rodriguez success was due to his exposure to vast English literature books, which enhanced his English language proficiency in the absence of bilingual education instruction.

Similarly, the current bilingual education systems can borrow a leaf from Richard Rodriguez case and ensure that students have unlimited access to books in order to cultivate a reading culture that would enhance the students success in attaining English language proficiency. As a matter of fact, learners can utilize these books to enhance their literacy levels of both L1 and L2.

Against this backdrop, bilingual education practices should be allowed to continue owing to the numerous benefits outlined above. Furthermore, the shortcomings of this program should be identified and dealt with conclusively in order to pave way for better bilingual systems.

Works Cited

Cummins, Jim. “Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and Possibility”. Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 20. 3, 1998, 255- 270. Print.

Duignan, Peter, J . Bilingual Education: A Critique , 1998. Web.

Garcia, Ofelia. “Bilingual Education Is Beneficial.” In Williams, Mary E. ed. Are Multicultural Approaches Good For Education? Opposing Viewpoints . San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. pp. 126-129. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 20). Bilingual Education: Programs Support. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bilingual-education/

"Bilingual Education: Programs Support." IvyPanda , 20 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/bilingual-education/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Bilingual Education: Programs Support'. 20 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Bilingual Education: Programs Support." December 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bilingual-education/.

1. IvyPanda . "Bilingual Education: Programs Support." December 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bilingual-education/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Bilingual Education: Programs Support." December 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bilingual-education/.

• Cummins INC.: Accounting Reporting
• Social Work in the Military: Psychological Issues
• Military Social Worker and Posttraumatic Disorder
• Additive Manufacturing Technology Advantages
• Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Treatment in Soldier
• Sociolinguistics: Bilingualism and Education
• L1 and L2 Glosses in Vocabulary Retention and Memorisation
• L2 Word Frequency Effects
• Bilingualism: Views of Language
• Bilingualism Resistance and Receptivity Explained
• Student Learning Outcome
• Verbal learning
• Developing Professional Knowledge to Create Professional Success
• English-Language Learners in the Modern World
• Hopi Education Theories and Practices

The Benefits of Bilingual Education and Its Impact on Student Learning and Growth

Approximately 5 million students in the United States are English language learners, and the number of English language learners (ELLs) in the US public school system continues to rise steadily, especially in more urbanized school districts.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), students who speak English as a second language are more likely to struggle with academics, and only about 67 percent will graduate from public high school in four years—whereas the average for all students is 84 percent. ELL students can better develop their English proficiency and close the gap in achievement by participating in language assistance programs or bilingual education programs, the NCES explains.

The benefits of bilingual education can begin with students in elementary school and follow them throughout their lives. Education’s impact can lead to a variety of outcomes depending on whether ELL students learn English in a monolingual or bilingual environment. Educators in diverse classrooms or working as school leaders should consider the benefits of bilingual education when creating curricula and establishing desired student learning outcomes.

What Is Bilingual Education?

While bilingual education can take many forms, it strives to incorporate multiple languages into the process of teaching. For example, since there is such a large Spanish-speaking population in the United States, many primary and secondary school students can benefit from educational environments where they are learning in both English and Spanish.

Bilingual education can often be the most effective when children are beginning preschool or elementary school. If children grow up speaking Spanish as their primary language, it can be difficult for them to be placed in English-speaking elementary schools and be expected to understand their teachers and classmates. In a bilingual classroom, however, young students can further establish their foundation of Spanish as well as English, better preparing them for the rest of their education.

Of course, this works for students who begin school speaking any language as their primary language. Children whose parents have come to the United States from another country may have limited English skills when they first begin elementary school. Teachers working in bilingual education classrooms will balance their use of two languages when teaching math, science, history, and other subjects to help these students develop a stronger foundation of their first language as well as English as their second language.

Academic Benefits

Students can benefit in many ways from participating in bilingual education programs or classrooms. Some of the benefits of bilingual education relate to intellect. For example, research has shown that students who can speak and write in multiple languages have cognitive advantages over their monolingual peers. Those who learn a second or third language from a young age are able to develop communication skills and a higher degree of literacy. Children who grow up in bilingual environments develop a keen awareness of how language works and have a stronger foundation for learning additional languages in the future.

Students can also benefit academically from bilingual education. Students who pursue higher education are typically required to take a foreign language at the collegiate level, so those who have been exposed to bilingual educational environments before college—and speak two or more languages—have an advantage over their peers. They can advance in their studies and feel comfortable with multiple communities of students on their campuses.

Students who are exposed to multiple languages throughout high school and college can also have long-term career benefits. Their proficiency in multiple languages is an advantage when they graduate and enter the workplace as professionals. Every industry has a need for effective communicators who can speak multiple languages to meet the needs of the growing number of English language learners in the United States. International operations also have a great need for professionals who can speak multiple languages and represent US-based organizations and companies.

Growth beyond Academics

While there are many benefits of bilingual education related to school and work, bilingual education programs also have a huge impact on students’ cultural and social growth. Children who grow up speaking English as a second language often come from culturally diverse backgrounds. Incorporating cultural education in the classroom can help create enriching academic experiences for all students.

Exploring multiple languages in the classroom provides a foundation for cultural education that allows students to learn and grow alongside classmates from a different cultural background. As a result, students learn to become more adaptable and more aware of the world around them.

To encourage the academic and cultural development of students in bilingual education settings, teachers should have a strong foundation in education and leadership. They should demonstrate a passion for teaching as well as an understanding of how language and culture work together in their students’ academic journeys. Educators should be aware of the role that policies play in the educational environments they cultivate and have an understanding of how to best represent their students’ cultural backgrounds.

Pursue a Master of Arts in Teaching or Master of Education in Education Policy and Leadership

To implement the best teaching practices in bilingual education classrooms, teachers should be equipped with a foundation in transformational leadership and cultural awareness. To that end, teachers looking to have a meaningful impact on the lives of their students can further their own education and pursue an advanced degree in education policy and leadership. Through programs like American University’s Master of Arts in Teaching and Master of Education in Education Policy and Leadership , educators can broaden their worldviews, engaging in topics such as education law and policy, quantitative research in education, and educational leadership and organizational change.

Culturally Responsive Teaching Strategies: Importance, Benefits & Tips

EdD vs. PhD in Education: Requirements, Career Outlook, and Salary

Transformational Leadership in Education

Bilingual Kidspot, “5 Amazing Benefits of a Bilingual Education”

Learning English, “Number of English Learners in US Schools Keeps Rising”

National Center for Education Statistics, “Digest of Education Statistics”

National Center for Education Statistics, “English Language Learners in Public Schools”

Pew Research Center, “6 Facts About English Language Learners in U.S. Public Schools”

USA Today, “More US Schools Teach in English and Spanish, But Not Enough to Help Latino Kids”

Request Information

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Some Words Feel Truer in Spanish

By Natalia Sylvester

Ms. Sylvester is the author of the forthcoming children’s book “A Maleta Full of Treasures” (“La Maleta de Tesoros”).

My earliest relationship with language was defined by rules. As an immigrant who came to this country from Peru at age 4, I spent half of my days in kindergarten occupied with learning the rules of the English language. There was the tricky inconsistency of pronunciation to navigate and, once I learned to speak it, the challenge of translating what I’d learned into reading skills.

At home, my mom would often create games to help my sister and me preserve our Spanish and improve our grammar. Driving around our neighborhood in Miami, she’d point at a traffic light, hold up four fingers and say, “Se-ma-fo-ro — on which syllable do you put the accent?”

Each language had its defined space: English in school, Spanish at home. But as my parents became more fluent (and my sister and I more dominant) in English, the boundaries became blurred. Being bilingual empowered us to break barriers beyond the rules and definitions attached to words. Some things were simply untranslatable, because they spoke to this new space we were living in — within, between and around language. We were making a new home here, same as so many immigrants who end up shaping language as much as it shapes us.

It became evident as the phrase “Cómo se dice?” or “How do you say?” became a constant in my home. Sometimes, it’d be my parents who asked, “How do you say” followed by a word like “sobremesa” or “ganas.” It seemed simple enough in theory, but proved nearly impossible for us to translate without elaborating using full sentences or phrases. After all, to have a word to describe a long conversation that keeps you at the table and extends a meal, you’d have to value the concept enough to name it. Some ideas are so embedded in Latin American and Spanish cultures that they exist implicitly. Of course “ganas” can be something you feel but also give, and be at once more tame yet more powerful than “desire.” (If you know, you know.)

Other times, it’d be my sister and I who were curious about a word’s Spanish counterpart. Was there really no differentiating in Spanish between the fingers (dedos) on our hands, and those on our feet we call toes? When we wanted to say we were excited about something, the word “emocionada” seemed to fall short of capturing our specific, well, emotion. Sometimes we would blank on a word. But sometimes, we would find that the perfect word isn’t necessarily in the language we’re speaking.

What I’m describing, of course, has its own word: code switching. The act of shifting from one language or dialect to another, particularly based on social context, is often framed as something that so-called minorities do to fit into more mainstream spaces. It’s true that code switching can be a form of assimilation, a way of shielding ourselves from the prejudices rooted in racism, classism and xenophobia that can arise when we freely express our culture and language in spaces not designed to embrace them. But what I seldom see discussed is how code switching isn’t solely a reactionary response to feeling unwelcome. Within our own communities, it can signal comfort and belonging.

Take the Spanish word “maleta,” or “suitcase” in English. This year, I was at a writing conference and met up with two Mexican American authors, one of whom brought her suitcase to the venue because she had already checked out of the hotel. We walked the halls and offered to help with her maleta, making several jokes and references to it, but never once using the word “suitcase,” despite speaking mainly in English.

This was an entirely natural and unspoken decision. There are some words that simply feel truer in Spanish than they do in English. I call these home words and heart words because I associate them with the place I most grew up using them: at home, among family. Though the words might share a literal definition with their translation, one version carries emotional depth that enriches its meaning. To code switch this way among friends implies we share not only a language, but an intimate understanding of where we come from.

A suitcase is for clothes and possessions when someone travels, but to me, a maleta meant family had arrived from Peru, carrying flavors, textures and memories of my birthplace. Language is rooted in context, which is another way of saying that language is driven by memory. In this way, what we do or don’t choose to translate is another way of telling stories about our past.

Last year, a study on the specific way that Miamians use direct Spanish translations to form English phrases called the practice an emerging dialect. It’s a form of borrowing between languages that results in what is known as calques. For decades, expressions like “get down from the car” and “super hungry,” which are translated from Spanish, have made their way into regional speech, even in the case of non-Spanish speakers.

When I shared the article on social media, my DMs were flooded by friends and family — not only in Miami but also in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas and in Southern California — who joked that they’ve been using these phrases since they were children, and their parents had, too. The novelty was not in their usage but in their validation (whether or not we sought that validation). My friends and I grew up being told to speak a certain way and respect the rules of both languages. We, in turn, didn’t so much break the rules as we simply played with them, swirling bits of English and Spanish together until it resembled something new yet familiar, our fingerprints proudly planted in its mess.

This is one of my greatest joys as a writer. I love language not only for all it can do but also for all it can’t and all the space it leaves in the gaps for creation. It is empowering that something as supposedly fixed as the meaning of a word or phrase is actually alive and evolving. It means we don’t have to lose parts of ourselves to assimilation; we can expand language to include the full breadth of our experiences.

Words are just sounds and letters until we collectively give them meaning through story. When we use language to connect, it’s one of the most beautiful things that make us human.

Natalia Sylvester is the author of the forthcoming children’s book “A Maleta Full of Treasures” (“La Maleta de Tesoros”).

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .