This paper addresses common assumptions about bilingualism and language acquisition which are relevant to special educators concerned with learning difficulties among minority students. Two opposing assumptions have dominated the policy debate about the effects of bilingual education: the linguistic mismatch and maximum exposure. The former holds that because students cannot learn in a language they do not understand, a home-school language switch will result in academic retardation. According to the maximum exposure assumption, the more exposure minority students receive to English in school the more academic progress they will make. Both assumptions are refuted by the research data which consistently support two theoretical principles that (a) first- and second-language cognitive/academic developments are interdependent and (b) language acquisition is largely dependent on students receiving sufficient comprehensible input in the target language. These principles are discussed in terms of their implications for program planning and pedagogy for language-minority students who are academically at risk.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerK.A.de KanterA.A.Effectiveness of bilingual education: A review of the literature. Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning and Budget, U.S. Department of Education, 1981.
2.
BruckM.The feasibility of an additive bilingual program for language-impaired children. In LebrunY.ParadisM. (Eds.), Early bilingualism and child development. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger, in press.
3.
BruckM.The suitability of early French immersion programs for the language-disabled child. Canadian Journal of Education, 1978, 3, 51–72.
4.
Carpinteria Unified School District, Title VII evaluation report 1981-82. Unpublished report, 1982.
5.
CohenE. G.DeAvilaE.IntiliJ. A.Executive summary: Multicultural improvement of cognitive ability. Report to State of California Department of Education, 1982.
6.
CohenA. D.SwainM.Bilingual education: The immersion model in the North American context. In AlatisJ.E.TwaddellK. (Eds.), English as a second language in bilingual education. Washington, D. C.: TESOL, 1976.
7.
CumminsJ.Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters, in press.
8.
CumminsJ.Heritage language education: A literature review. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education, 1983.
9.
CumminsJ.Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 1979, 49, 222–251.
10.
CumminsJ.The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education, Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, 1981.
11.
CurtisJ.One day I lost my head and other stories. Elmira, CA: Instituto de Lengua y Cultura, in press.
12.
DeAvilaE.CohenE. G.IntiliJ. A.Multicultural improvement of cognitive abilities. Final report to California State Department of Education, 1981.
EdelskyC.From “Jimosalcsco” to “7 narangas se calleron y el arbol-est-triste en lagrymas”: Writing development in a bilingual program. In CronnellB. (Ed.), The writing needs of linguistically different students. Los Alamitos: SWRL Educational Research and Development, 1981.
15.
GeneseeF.Historical and theoretical foundations of immersion education. In California State Department of Education, Studies on immersion education: A collection for U. S. educators. Sacramento: State Department of Education, 1983.
16.
GoodmanY.GoodmanK.Twenty questions about teaching language. Educational Leadership, 1981, 38, 437–442.
17.
GravesD. H.Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann, 1983.
18.
GuthrieL. F.An ecological case study of bilingual instruction (English/Cantonese), grade 5, site 5. Appendix B 6. Significant Bilingual Instructional Features Study. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, 1981.
19.
HébertR.BilodeauM.FoidartD.LegerR.SaindonC.SchaubroeckG.LaurencelleY.Rendement academique et langue d'enseignement chez les éléves franco-manitobains. Saint-Boniface, Manitoba: Centre de Recherches du Collége Universitaire de Saint-Boniface, 1976.
20.
Hernandez-ChavezE.BurtM.DulayH.The bilingual syntax measure. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1976.
21.
KrashenS. D.Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. In California State Department of Education, Schooling and minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, 1981.
22.
KrashenS. D.Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982.
23.
LambertW. E.Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In WolfgangA. (Ed.), Education of immigrant students. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1975.
24.
LapkinS.CumminsJ.Canadian French immersion: Current administrative and instructional practices. In California State Department of Education, Studies on immersion education: A collection for U.S. educators. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1983.
25.
LongM. H.Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In ClarkeM. A.HandscombeJ. (Eds.), On TESOL ‘82: Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching. Washington, D. C.: TESOL, 1983.
26.
MercerJ.Labelling the mentally retarded. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973.
27.
San Diego City Schools. An exemplary approach to bilingual education: A comprehensive handbook for implementing an elementary-level Spanish-English language immersion program. San Diego: San Diego City Schools, 1982.
28.
SchachterJ.Nutritional needs of language learners. In ClarkeM. A.HandscombeJ. (Eds.), On TESOL ‘82: Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching. Washington, D.C.: TESOL, 1983.
SmithF.Writing and the writer. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1982.
31.
SwainM.Bilingual education: Research and its implications. In YorioC. A.PerkinsK.SchachterJ. (Eds.), On TESOL ‘79: The learner in focus. Washington, D. C.: TESOL, 1979.
32.
TikunoffW. J.Five significant bilingual instructional features: A summary of findings from Part 1 of the SBIF descriptive study. In FisherC. (Eds.), The significant bilingual instructional features study. Final report submitted to The National Institute of Education, 1983.
33.
TuckerG. R.Implications for U. S. bilingual education: Evidence from Canadian research. Focus, 1980, 2, 1–4.
34.
WellsG.Learning through interaction: The study of language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
35.
FillmoreL. WongThe language learner as an individual: Implications of research on individual differences for the ESL teacher. In ClarkeM. A.HandscombeJ. (Eds.), On TESOL ‘82: Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching. Washington, D. C.: TESOL, 1983.
