Majority language children (L1) attending minority language (L2) immersion education programmes can gain comparable levels of L1 attainment to those attending mainstream
58
assessments in L1 reading and writing, even though they develop comparable levels of L1 speaking and comprehension (Bergström, Klatte, Steinbrink, & Lachmann, 2016; Bialystok, Peets, & Moreno, 2012; Bialystok, Peets, & Moreno, 2014; Bialystok et al., 2010; May, Hill, & Tiakiwai, 2009). Studies have been undertaken in relation to the academic achievement of pupils in immersion programmes (Gort, 2006; Howard, Christian, & Genesee, 2004; Lazuruk, 2007; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014; Marian, Shook, & Schroeder, 2013; Umansky & Reardon, 2014). In an analysis of children from a French immersion programme in Grade 2 (N=50, mean age 7.7 years) and Grade 5 (N=33, mean age, 10.6 years), Bialystok et al., (2012) found that the French (L2) vocabulary of these children failed to develop as quickly as their English vocabulary (L1). Bialystok et al. (2014) compared the scores of a French immersion education cohort
(N=68) on English standardised tests, to those of children attending mainstream English monolingual schools (N=56). The results of this comparison showed that by Grade 5, the
immersion cohort, were more accurate at detecting grammatical errors in English (87%), than the monolingual group (78%). Also, the findings suggest that the immersion cohort experienced an accelerated effect on their English language vocabulary over the course of the study, compared to the monolinguals. It was also found that they experienced a greater increase in their English letter fluency than the control group. Overall the findings of this study showed that in the long term, there is no linguistic disadvantage of immersion education for pupils.
Within an Irish immersion school context, Parsons & Lyddy (2016) compared pupils’ Irish and English reading development in four schools where children learned to read in Irish first, or English first. Findings showed that pupils were not at a disadvantage if they learned to read in Irish first, however, there was an initial ‘settling in’ period required before they reached the same academic level as those learning to read in English first. Shiel et al. (2011) utilised data from the 2009 National Assessment of pupils in English and mathematics to compare pupils from 2nd and 6th class in IM schools (N=1,694) with those in the same classes in English-medium
59
schools (N=6,694). Findings of this research revealed that IM pupils performed better than their English-medium counterparts on English and mathematics standardised assessments. However, when the SES factors were taken into consideration during analysis, it was found that both cohorts scored equivalently on English language assessments, and pupils in 6th class in IM schools scored lower in mathematics. The outcomes of IM education are discussed in further detail later in this chapter.
Similar results have been obtained for Japanese-English immersion programs (Bostwick, 2001), Russian-Estonian immersion programs (Mehisto & Asser, 2007), and Swedish-Finnish programmes (Björklund & Mård-Miettinen, 2011). Pupils (N=124) enrolled in a Mandarin immersion programme in Grades 3, 4, and 5, outperformed their monolingual control group in the area of English (Padilla, Fan, Xu, & Silva, 2013). A larger study was conducted in the USA, on the effects of dual language programmes in relation to academic achievement (Steele et al., 2017). Pupils (N=1,625) from seven schools were tracked each autumn from 2004-2010. Their achievement in English literacy, mathematics, and science were monitored using the results of standardised assessments. When the results from the immersion cohort were compared to those in monolingual schools, it was found that the immersion pupils outperformed their monolingual peers “in reading by about seven months of learning in Grade 5 and nine months of learning in Grade 8” (Steele et al., 2017, p. 302). Furthermore, results showed no statistically significant difference between both groups in mathematics and science assessments. For other subjects, such as, history, geography etc., it has also been found that those attending immersion schools can reach comparable levels as those attending mainstream monolingual schools (Essama & Hanson, 2007; Genesee, 2004; Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2013; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm- Leary & Howard, 2008).
Research has found that bilingual education, such as immersion education, can facilitate the acquisition of a third language (L3) for pupils due to a cross-linguistic transfer of skills (Bild
60
& Swain, 1989; Brohy, 2001; Dillon, 2009; Jaspaert & Lemmens, 1990; Sanz, 2000, 2007). Early studies on immigrant bilinguals in Canada and Brussels have shown that individuals achieved higher scores on their L3 assessments than monolinguals learning these languages as their L2 (Bild & Swain, 1989; Jaspaert & Lemmens, 1990). Third language acquisition has also been studied in bilingual schools in Spain (Cenoz & Valencia, 1994; Lasagabaster, 2000; Safont, 2005; Sanz, 2000). The results of all these studies showed that the bilingual cohort outperformed the monolingual cohort when learning English as a L3. The areas of English language
development assessed by these studies were oral and written language (Cenoz & Valencia, 1994; Lasagabaster, 2000, Sanz, 2000) and the acquisition of English language pragmatics (Safont, 2005). Within an Irish context, Dillon (2009) used a mixed methods research approach to investigate whether pupils in IM schools (N=92) found it easier to learn German as a L3, than those attending monolingual English schools (N=68). The findings showed that those attending IM schools reported that it was easier to learn German due to their prior linguistic knowledge in Irish. The findings of these studies support the theory that learning a L3 is easier when bilingual.