Mainstream models of bilingual education view English language learners (ELLs) from a deficiency perspective and engage in the practice of subtractive schooling, which strips the learner of cultural capital that could benefit him or her in terms of educational achievement. Conversely, the dual-language (DL) model is additive in nature, seeking to add English to the student's body of knowledge while at the same time maintaining the first language. Evidence suggests that DL programs have the potential to foster both significant academic achievement and increased cultural awareness in the students they serve. Moreover, researchers have found a pervasive “culture of intellectualism” present in schools with effective DL programs. This culture is characterized by active engagement in learning, including the free exchange of ideas and the promotion of higher order thinking skills. As such, DL programs offer both language-majority and language-minority learners the opportunity to reach advanced levels of academic achievement. As with any educational program, teachers play a crucial role in the success or failure of these programs. Thus, successful DL teachers must draw from a variety of sources to make decisions about instruction in their classrooms. By building on Bandura's theory of human agency and applying it specifically to DL teachers, these findings can be used to inform the successful implementation and maintenance of new DL programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlanisI.RodriguezM. (2008). Sustaining a dual language immersion program: Features of success. Journal of Latinos & Education, 7, 305–319.
2.
AllinderR. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86–95.
3.
AlmogO.ShechtmanZ. (2007). Teachers' democratic and efficacy beliefs and styles of coping with behavioural problems of pupils with special needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22, 115–129.
4.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
5.
BanduraA. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184.
6.
BanduraA. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
7.
BanduraA. (1994). Self-efficacy. In RamachaudranV. S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
8.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
9.
ChristianD. (1994). Two-way bilingual education: Students learning through two languages. Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
10.
CollierV. P.ThomasW. P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2, 1–20.
11.
CrabtreeB. F.MillerW. L. (1999). Using codes and code manuals: A template organizing style of interpretation. In CrabtreeB. F.MillerW. L. (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 93–109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
CrawfordJ. (1992). Hold your tongue: Bilingualism and the politics of “English only.” Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
13.
CreswellJ. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
14.
DenzinN. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
EisenbergerJ.Conti-D'AntonioM.BertandoR. (2005). Self-efficacy: Raising the bar for all students (2nd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
16.
EstradaV. L.GomezL.Ruiz-EscalanteJ. A. (2009). Let's make dual language the norm. Educational Leadership, 66(7), 54–58.
17.
EvansE. D.TribbleM. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 81–85.
18.
FreemanY. S.FreemanD. E.MercuriS. P. (2005). Dual language essentials for teachers and administrators. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
19.
FryR. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners?Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
20.
GayL. R.AirasianP. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
21.
GibsonS.DemboM. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582.
22.
GlickmanC.TamashiroR. (1982). A comparison of first-year, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 558–562.
23.
GuskeyT. R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245–259.
24.
GuskeyT. R.PassaroP. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627–643.
25.
Hadi-TabassumS. (2005). The balancing act of bilingual immersion. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 50–54.
26.
HakutaK. (1986). Mirror of language. New York, NY: Basic Books.
27.
HakutaK. (1987). Degree of bilingualism and cognitive ability in mainland Puerto Rican children. Child Development, 58, 1372–1388.
28.
HaycockK. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Washington, DC: Education Trust.
JohnsonS. M. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31.
Kirk SenesacB. V. (2002). Two-way bilingual immersion: A portrait of quality schooling. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 85–102.
32.
KrashenS. (1991). Bilingual education and the second language acquisition theory. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 51–79). Sacramento, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.
33.
LazarusR. S.FolkmanS. (1987). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
34.
Lessow-HurleyJ. (1991). A commonsense guide to bilingual education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
35.
Lessow-HurleyJ. (2005). The foundations of dual language instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
36.
Lindholm-LearyK. J. (2001). Dual language education. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
37.
Lindholm-LearyK. J. (2004/2005). The rich promise of two-way immersion. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 56–59.
38.
LindholmK. J.AclanZ. (1991). Bilingual proficiency as a bridge to academic achievement: Results from bilingual/immersion programs. Journal of Education, 173, 71–80.
39.
LindholmK. J.FairchildH. H. (1990). Evaluation of an elementary school bilingual immersion program. In PadillaA. M.FairchildH. H.ValadezC. M. (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and strategies (pp. 126–136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40.
MeijerC.FosterS. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. Journal of Special Education, 22, 378–385.
41.
MetisM. (2008). A cure for monolingualism. District Administration, 44(11), 35–47.
42.
MoraJ. K. (2009). From the ballot box to the classroom. Educational Leadership, 66(7), 14–19.
43.
MoraJ.WinkJ.WinkD. (2001). Dueling models of dual language instruction: A critical review of the literature and program implementation guide. Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 417–442.
44.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York, NY: Author.
45.
PadillaR. (2004). SuperHyperQual version 1.4. Software and user's guide. Boerne, TX: Author.
46.
PajaresF.UrdanT. C. (Eds.). (2006) Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
47.
PalmerD.LynchA. W. (2008). A bilingual education for a monolingual test? The pressure to prepare for TAKS and its influence on choices for language of instruction in Texas elementary bilingual classrooms. Language Policy, 7, 217–235.
48.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
PervinL.JohnO. (2001). Personality: Theory and research (8th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
50.
PortesA.HaoL. (1998). Pluribus unum: Bilingualism and loss of language in the second generation. Sociology of Education, 71, 269–294.
51.
RayJ. M. (2008). Building the bridge as you walk on it: Didactic behaviors of elementary teachers in a dual language program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1658–1671.
52.
RivkinE. A.HanushekE. A.KainJ. F. (2001). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
53.
RodriguezR. (1982). Hunger of memory. New York, NY: Bantam.
54.
SandersW. L.HornS. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247–256.
55.
SimonP. (1980). The tongue-tied American. New York, NY: Continuum.
56.
SkinnerE. A. (1975). Perceived control, motivation, and coping. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
SmithP. H.Arnot-HopfferE. (1998). Exito bilingue: Promoting Spanish literacy in a dual language immersion program. Bilingual Research Journal, 22, 103–119.
58.
SoodakL. C.PodellD. M.LehmanL. R. (1998). Teachers, student, and school attributes as predictors of teachers' responses to inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 31, 480–498.
59.
StewartJ. H. (2005). Foreign language study in elementary schools: Benefits and implications for achievement in reading and math. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 11–16.
ThomasW. P.CollierV. (2003). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students' long-term academic achievement. Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html
62.
Tschannen-MoranM.Woolfolk HoyA. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944–956.
WrightS. P.HornS. P.SandersW. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 57–67.
