Dual Language Education 1
Running Head: DUAL LANGUAGE EDUCATION
Dual Language Education Programs in U.S. Schools:
Analyzing Implementation, Effectiveness and Implications
Anna Sangalis
Vanderbilt University
Spring 2009
Dual Language Education 2
Abstract
In recent years there has been a growth of English language learners (ELLs) in America and with this
growth comes the need to find the most appropriate services to meet the educational needs of both
ELLs and native English-speaking students. There has recently been a rise of the dual language/two-way
immersion (DL/TWI) program model, which incorporates both native English and minority language
speakers into one instructional environment. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness
of this DL/TWI education program in U.S. schools on the basis of its three main goals of
bilingualism/biliteracy, cross-cultural understanding, and high student academic achievement. Through
analyzing DL/TWI programs in regard to research about how students learn, the optimal learning
environment, curriculum and instructional strategies, and assessment, the evidence maintains that
DL/TWI programs are successful in educating both ELLs and English speakers while simultaneously
ensuring high academic success in a positive school environment.
Dual Language Education 3
Introduction
Demographics in U.S. schools are changing. In 2000, minority enrollment in elementary and
secondary schools was 40%, up from 24% in 1976. Within that minority enrollment, Latinos increased
from 6.4% in 1976 to 12% in 1996. There were 4.5 million Latino students in 2000 which is large
increase from the 3 million in 1976. Also, the enrollment of Asian/Pacific Islander students rose from
535,000 to 1,158,000 over those same years, which is an increase of 116%. As for future student ratios,
by 2040 White students will be the minority in every category of public education (García, 2005). See
Table 1 below which shows the rate of growth from 1980-2000 by ethnic group.
Table 1 US population by race origin: Percent distribution and rate of growth: 1980–2000
Ethnic Group
Distribution
Rate of Growth
1980
2000
227 million
276 million
22%
Hispanic
6.4%
11.9%
86%
Asian American
1.5%
3.8%
153%
African American
11.7%
12.2%
4%
Native American
0.6%
0.7%
17%
European American
79.8%
71.3%
-10.7%
Total
(Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 in Lindholm-Leary, 2001)
The growth of these minority groups from various nations speaking many different tongues indicates
that there is an increasing population of English language learners (ELLs) to be educated in U.S. schools.
Thus, it is important that the educational community takes seriously the needs of this growing
population.
It is also important to note, though, that these demographic shifts suggest a need to address
more than just the needs of an increasing ELL population, but also those of the English speakers. After
all, the environments of English speakers are changing as well, as they are increasingly living near,
Dual Language Education 4
interacting with, and going to school with non-English speakers. More broadly, the United States, which
is often criticized for its widespread monolingualism, is losing ground in the area of international trade
to linguistically more developed countries like China and Japan (Crawford, 1995). Thus, a changing U.S.
population and globalization of the business environment is making it increasingly advantageous for
English speakers to gain proficiency and familiarity with other languages and cultures.
In light of this, any broad educational model that simultaneously meets the needs of ELLs and
benefits English speaking students amidst this changing global environment should be given serious
consideration. A model of this sort has great potential to increase the efficiency of our educational
system by avoiding having to differentiate models for English speakers and ELLs and, ultimately, to
produce learners that are better equipped to be successful in our changing world.
Traditionally, ELLs have been educated using one of the following three teaching models:
transitional bilingual education, structured English immersion, and the language maintenance approach.
In transitional bilingual education (TBE) students are taught content and English simultaneously in their
first language (L1) only until they have gained enough mastery to learn from instruction conducted
solely in the second language (L2) (Fishman, 1982). Structured English immersion is where the teacher
conducts instruction solely in English and uses “simplified English” to make input comprehensible so that
students can develop English proficiency as quickly as possible in order to move into a mainstream
classroom. The language maintenance model teaches content and English language simultaneously with
the goal of fostering learning of the second language while also maintaining the first language. While
each of these models has its own strengths and weaknesses, the focus of this paper is to advocate for a
particular form of the language maintenance model known as the dual language or two-way immersion
program (DL/TWI).
The unique advantage of the DL/TWI over other models is that it fits the aforementioned
criterion of being the kind of educational model that can simultaneously benefit ELLs over other ELL
Dual Language Education 5
alternatives and also benefit English-speakers beyond what a mainstream model can offer. Instead of
emphasizing the transition of ELL students into mainstream classrooms, there is ideally a 50/50 mix of
native English speakers and minority language speakers where the focus is on maintaining and
developing both English and L2 while simultaneously learning content in both languages (García, 2005).
Ultimately, the DL/TWI model has three goals: bilingualism/biliteracy, positive cross-cultural attitudes,
and academic achievement at or above grade level (Howard & Christian, 2002). On the basis of these
three goals, we will examine the effectiveness of this model and best practices for its implementation in
light of research on four different dimensions: learners and learning, learning environment, curriculum
and instructional strategies, and assessment. This is followed by a discussion of two effective DL/TWI
schools, some limitations of this model, and implications for teachers and administrators in our school
system today.
Learners and Learning
When evaluating the quality of the DL/TWI model and its ability to meet its goal of
bilingualism/biliteracy, it is important to consult research in order to understand how ELLs acquire a
second language. A good program should operate within the framework of seeking to meet the
research-proven needs of its learners. This is of particular importance for a program like the DL/TWI
model because second language acquisition is occurring simultaneously in two different languages for
two different groups, the ELLs and the English speakers. On the surface, this might appear problematic,
seemingly burdening teachers with extra responsibility and cutting down on time committed to
acquisition of each language. What is noteworthy, though, is that rather than being a hindrance to
second language acquisition, the mixed classroom setting of the DL/TWI program is actually beneficial
when considering the research-based theories regarding how learners best acquire a second language.
Lightbown & Spada (2006) address several different factors that contribute to a learner’s ability
to acquire a second language. Five key characteristics that they identify are: proficiency of first language,
Dual Language Education 6
cognitive maturity, metalinguistic awareness, world knowledge, and little anxiety when speaking the
language. The first characteristic, proficiency of the first language, is important because students who
are literate in their native language will move through second language acquisition levels more quickly
to proficiency than those who do not have a strong foundation or have an interrupted education
(Gottlieb, 2006). This reflects a strength of the DL/TWI program because it strongly emphasizes literacy
in both languages, so each group’s native language proficiency will continue to improve, thereby
facilitating better language acquisition. Also, cognitive maturity and metalinguistic awareness in DL/TWI
programs are on par with other mainstream classes because material is not watered-down to overcome
the language barrier and still employs higher order cognitive thinking. Moreover, students in DL/TWI
programs should experience less language anxiety and expand their worldviews because each student
has the chance to be a “language and culture expert” during the times the teacher conducts instruction
in their native language and/or about their ethnic customs. Therefore, the DL/TWI program is an
environment which makes development of these language acquisition characteristics possible.
To elaborate on the significance of first language proficiency in second language acquisition,
further evidence shows that second language learners use their prior knowledge and proficiency in the
first language to compare and contrast aspects of the new language (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). For
instance, if there are similar syntactic structures the learner may be able to apply the knowledge directly
from their first language to the second according to the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (Lightbown &
Spada, 2006). Krashen’s input hypothesis says that acquisition occurs when learners are exposed to
“i+1,” in which i is language that is already acquired and 1 is new language or information just a bit
beyond what is already comprehended. Similarly, the interaction hypothesis relates with Krashen’s
input hypothesis in the belief that modified interaction is necessary for language acquisition (Lightbown
& Spada, 2006). Modified interaction means adapting instruction, such as through modified speech
production, to account for the needs of second language learners. If these beliefs are true, then a
Dual Language Education 7
second language learner has a much easier time accessing the second language if some input is in their
first language so that they can understand it while also receiving new language or content instruction
that challenges them one step beyond where they are now. In addition, Crawford (2004) asserts that
classroom instruction in the native language is necessary to keep students on track academically during
the years in which they are learning English well enough to succeed in an English-only classroom setting.
Accordingly, in DL/TWI programs, students receive not only comprehensible input in their first language
for academic content but they are also simultaneously learning content and language in the second
language.
In addition to the need for comprehensible input, two other major factors in the way learners
acquire a second language are an ample amount of time spent practicing the second language and
opportunities to interact with proficient language speakers. The DL/TWI program is strong on both of
these points. The program has, by nature, a long-term emphasis with a minimum of 4-6 years suggested
to fully achieve the DL/TWI goals of high academic achievement and linguistic success. The DL/TWI
program’s mix of English language learners and English language speakers provides vital opportunities to
interact with proficient language speakers, which serve as linguistic supports to aid in second language
acquisition (Gottlieb, 2006). Clearly the strengths of the DL/TWI program regarding the way learners
acquire knowledge (particularly of a second language) are numerous. Therefore, ELL students in a dual
language education program have more opportunities to build on the resources they have, such as prior
knowledge, proficiency in their native language, as well as the resources their classroom environment
provides, such as ample time, interaction with proficient English speakers and modified input, to acquire
a second language more easily and effectively.
The type and quality of program affect oral language proficiency and Lindholm-Leary (2001)
states that additive (bilingual, like DL/TWI) rather than subtractive (transitional) and more intense
(immersion) programs produce higher levels of proficiency in both languages. MacSwan & Pray (2005)
Dual Language Education 8
also concluded in their study of the rate of language acquisition of ELLs that children in bilingual
education programs, such as dual language immersion, learn English at the same pace or faster than
children in all-English programs. For example, native-Spanish speakers in a two-way dual language
school in Houston, TX were at or above grade level in English and Spanish proficiency in grades 1-5.
English achievement was higher for ELLs in this program than all other bilingual programs for ELLs in the
district. As for the native English speakers, when tested in Spanish using the Aprenda 2, they scored
between the 65th-87th percentiles at the end of grades 2-5 (Thomas & Collier, 2004). Not only are
students achieving higher than their monolingual peers, but they also acquire a second language that
will benefit them for the rest of their lives (Thomas & Collier, 2003). All of this indicates that the DL/TWI
program is well suited, based on theory and research, to achieve its goal of bilingualism/biliteracy.
Learning Environment
Now that we have explored some of the ways in which dual language/two-way immersion
programs cultivate ELL students’ second language acquisition we will look more deeply into what kind of
environmental features are focal for a successful DL/TWI model. If properly applied, these
environmental features position the DL/TWI program to effectively achieve its goals of promoting
positive cross-cultural attitudes while simultaneously contributing to the other goals of bilingualism and
academic achievement as well. Although some features are variable, dependent upon the type of
DL/TWI model and the school, there are some characteristics of the general program and classroom
environment that are vital to all DL/TWI programs.
First and foremost, successful DL/TWI instruction programs need to have all the qualities that
make any mainstream school effective (Crawford, 1995). One of these key elements is strong
leadership. A supportive administration is especially important with DL/TWI programs as these
programs take much dedication and flexibility in their implementation, and thus an active and
committed principal is crucial for a successful DL/TWI school (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Lindholm-Leary,
Dual Language Education 9
2001; Crawford, 1995). Secondly, as in all effective schools, there must be high-quality teachers
(Crawford, 1995; Thomas & Collier 2004; Howard & Christian, 2002). In DL/TWI programs this means
that teachers should be familiar with the immersion model, be up-to-date on second language
acquisition and bilingual education theories, know instructional and assessment strategies, and either be
fluent in both languages or have two teachers each fluent in one of the target languages (LindholmLeary, 2005). The third quality of effective schools in general is home-school collaboration (LindholmLeary 2005; Howard & Christian, 2002; Crawford, 1995). In successful DL/TWI programs, parents from all
linguistic and cultural backgrounds should feel welcome and valued by the school. English-speaking and
minority-language parents alike should be a part of the parent advisory board to help make school
decisions (Lindholm-Leary, 2005).
In addition to the mainstream school program features of success there are some additional
guidelines for implementation of DL/TWI programs specifically. First, DL/TWI programs are built with
the idea that students will have long-term exposure to instruction in both the native and second
language. Multiple researchers have found that at least 4-6 years of bilingual instruction for the
participants are necessary to reach the program goals (Thomas & Collier, 2002; Howard & Christian,
2002). This is based on evidence that second language proficiency can take up to ten years (Collier,
1995). Thus parents should be informed that enrolling the students in the program is a long-term
commitment that should begin around Kindergarten and continue until upper elementary. Second,
instruction should be based on the same core academic curriculum that other mainstream programs
use (Howard & Christian, 2002). The curriculum should not be a watered down version of academic
subjects, but should include the same higher-order thinking processes that all children engage in at that
grade level (Collier & Thomas, 2004). Third, optimal language input should be provided in both
languages (Howard & Christian, 2002; Crawford, 1995). Optimal input means that the input should be
comprehensible and interesting as well as provide opportunities for output to round out the quality
Dual Language Education 10
language arts instruction in both languages (Howard & Christian, 2002). Fourth, the target or nonEnglish language should be used at least 50% of the time for instruction (up to 90% in lower grades)
and English should be used at least 10% of the time. For the minority language, which is by definition
used less frequently in mainstream society, to be valued by both groups it must be the language of
instruction for at least half the time. Additionally, this is important for nonminority language students to
have the chance to develop native-like proficiency and academic vocabulary in the minority language.
For the ELLs, explicit English instruction for at least 10% of the time is important since English is the most
common language in American society. By fourth grade, instruction should even out to 50:50 in both
languages (Howard & Christian, 2002). Fifth, DL/TWI programs should be additive bilingual
environments, where all students are not only developing proficiency in a second language but also
maintaining native language proficiency at the same time (Crawford, 1995; Howard & Christian, 2002).
Sixth, during instructional activities, there should be a balance of language groups where students work
cooperatively and collaboratively together (Crawford, 1995; Howard & Christian, 2002). Collier &
Thomas (2004) maintain that a 70:30 mix is the minimum language group balance required for students
to naturally acquire the second language. Obviously as the program progresses the rules about a close
to 50:50 mix of language minority and native English speakers become less important as all students
should be proficient in both languages.
Lastly, the classroom environment in a DL/TWI program should include positive interactions
among students through empowerment objectives as well through cooperative learning (Crawford,
1995; Howard & Christian, 2002). Students of both language groups should feel valued and empowered
through the culturally and linguistically relevant instruction while also having opportunities to learn
about, work with, and, in turn, value students of different backgrounds. This is one of the most
important and satisfying results of DL/TWI programs – that students feel valued and accepted while
concurrently accepting and valuing their peers.
Dual Language Education 11
When implemented effectively, the above features of a DL/TWI classroom satisfy one of the
most important goals of two-way dual language programs, which is a positive, cross-culturally respectful
environment. The integrated and inclusive nature of dual language programs creates a unifying
environment for students as opposed to the normally segregated and exclusive nature of English-only or
transitional education programs. The minority language students receive the cultural support and
exposure to the way of life of nonminority peers while nonminority peers expand their worldview and
develop firsthand respect for culturally diverse peers (Thomas & Collier, 2003). Therefore, in this type of
educational environment, minority language and English language speakers alike feel valued because
they serve as essential funds of knowledge and language support for their peers.
Curriculum and Instructional Strategies
Teaching in DL/TWI environments is no easy task. Teachers must not only provide instruction
that is both comprehensible and challenging but also must simultaneously provide language instruction
in two different languages. In DL/TWI programs there are some specific instructional strategies and
features supported by theory and research that work in conjunction with the proper learning
environment and effective educational assessment to aid in reaching the goals of bilingualism/biliteracy
and high academic achievement.
Of vital importance to a successful DL/TWI program is that the bilingual teacher must be sure to
separate the languages during instruction (Collier & Thomas, 2004). This means that there should be no
translation or repetition of content information in the other language. As a result, the students have real
authentic purposes for understanding and responding to the content in the language of instruction
instead of solely relying on the translation into their native language. Within each language time, there
should be high-quality, explicit language arts instruction integrated within thematic units (Thomas &
Collier, 2003; Crawford, 1995). Thematic units provide context-rich and authentic opportunities for
students to try out the language instruction while also learning and achieving academic content
Dual Language Education 12
objectives. The curriculum of these units must reflect and value all students’ cultures and provide
opportunities for speech production in both languages in structured and unstructured activities
(Lindholm-Leary, 2005; Crawford 1995). Students need the opportunity to see themselves as well as
learn about other cultures within the curriculum. This will promote positive cross-cultural attitudes as
well as expanded worldviews as the curriculum acts as both a mirror reflecting their own culture and a
window into those of others.
As with instructing all second language learners, sheltered instruction strategies should be in
place to make content comprehensible. Instructional features of sheltered instruction (SIOP model)
include using visual aids, manipulatives, graphic organizers; speaking at the rate and proficiency level of
the students; building on background knowledge; modeling academic tasks; providing many
opportunities for speech production, etc. (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000). Implementing such
accommodations as graphic organizers, TPR (total physical response), and realia (physical objects) help
students use more than one sense to learn language and content during lessons. Their interaction with
real objects, organizational tools and physical activity coupled with literacy activities help make the
content more comprehensible. Another feature of sheltered instruction that needs to be present in all
language learning classrooms are both content and language objectives (Gottlieb, 2006; Echevarria,
Vogt, & Short, 2000). There should be specific content objectives related to the state or local standards
included in the lesson as well as specific language objectives relating to all areas of reading, writing,
speaking and listening. It is important to note that sheltered instruction does not mean emphasizing
lower order thinking, but rather simplifies the language through which the cognitively demanding
content is taught. Because of the many adaptations required in this instructional strategy, a thoughtful
and reflective teacher is essential to cultivate students’ academic achievement at or above grade level.
The next strategy, active/discovery learning, also requires a creative teacher and is vital to the
students’ content comprehension because it gives students access to abstract ideas even amidst limited
Dual Language Education 13
language skills. In these types of lessons students are the ones constructing and discovering meaning by
interacting with materials instead of the teachers. They are used most often in science or mathematics
so that the abstract concepts may be accessible with less language intensive requirements (Howard &
Christian, 2002). For instance, students might actually construct their own model of the water cycle or
conduct an experiment with different chemicals to discover scientific processes independently.
Also important for any program with language learners, and especially for the DL/TWI model
because of its mixed group of language learners, is a strategy known as cooperative learning. The idea
of students of both languages working together, each having a specific role, to solve problems is one of
the cornerstones of this program model. With cooperative learning, researchers of DL/TWI classrooms
have found that there is more opportunity to practice oral language among students, better
development of cross-cultural understanding, and overall, produces higher academic achievement
across curriculum, which are appropriately the three main goals of DL/TWI programs (Collier & Thomas,
2004; Cohen & Lotan, 1995; Howard & Christian, 2002).
When designing curriculum, there should also be thought to the grade levels of instruction.
Most beneficial would be starting with Kindergarten and 1st grade so that DL/TWI students can begin to
develop fluency in their second language before the academic demands become more challenging. Also,
elementary grades provide more opportunity for the types of instructional strategies that are most
useful for DL/TWI programs such as cooperative learning and active/discovery learning, as mentioned
above (Howard & Christian, 2002). As students progress into higher grade levels they take with them
the learning strategies and techniques along with the second language proficiency to achieve above and
beyond their mainstream peers.
When these teaching strategies are implemented within the learning environment outlined
above, there have been significant academic gains among DL/TWI students. For instance, there have
been more advances in closing the achievement gap between native English speakers and English
Dual Language Education 14
language learners in dual language programs than in English-only or transitional bilingual education
programs (Thomas & Collier, 2002). Also, minority language students who have higher levels of literacy
development and academic achievement in the first language tend to achieve higher academically and
in literacy in English as well (Howard & Christian, 2002). In comparison to transitional bilingual education
programs, Collier & Thomas (2004) found much higher academic achievement for ELLs in any kind of
dual language program. Within the four dual language models of their study (one-way 90:10, one way
50:50, two-way 90:10, and two-way 50:50), as shown in Table 2, the highest annual achievement gap
closure and gap closure by 5th grade was in the two-way 90:10 model.
Table 2
Achievement Gap Closure For English Learners in Dual Language Programs–What Can We Expect?
Program Type Annual Gap Closure Annual Effect Size % of Gap Closed
by Grade 5
One-way 90:10
3 - 5 NCEs
0.14 - 0.24*
70% - 100% +
One-way 50:50
3 NCEs
0.14
70%
Two-way 90:10 4 - 6 NCEs
0.19 - .29*
95%- 100% +
Two-way 50:50 3.5 - 5 NCEs
0.14 - 0.24*
70% - 100% +
* = meaningful and significant annual effect
Notes:
(1) Using norm referenced tests – a difficult test measures the true gap size, an easier test underestimates the gap
(2) ELLs started at grade K with no exposure to English
(3) Achievement gap = 1.2 national standard deviations
(Source: Collier & Thomas, 2004)
Furthermore, in two-way language immersion schools in Houston, Texas, the English language learners
made academic achievement gains in English and Spanish at or above grade level in grades 1-5. ELLs in
all grades performed higher in English that ELLs in other types of bilingual education programs (Collier &
Thomas, 2004).
English learners are not the only ones achieving academic success in DL/TWI programs, as native
English speakers are outperforming their peers as well. As noted in Figure 1, Lindholm-Leary (2005) also
Dual Language Education 15
found that 7th graders, both ELLs and English proficient, in a two-way bilingual immersion program
performed at or above grade level in reading and math, outperforming the average students in
California.
(Source: Lindholm-Leary, 2005)
Likewise, norm-referenced tests in all subject areas showed that native English speakers in two way
bilingual immersion programs achieve above the 50th percentile, well above their monolingual peers
while also adding a second language (Thomas & Collier, 2002).
From this evidence, it seems clear that DL/TWI programs achieve their goal of high academic
achievement for both English language learners and native English speakers through a linguistically and
academically enriching program that is not only on par with but often exceeds other bilingual or
mainstream programs.
Dual Language Education 16
Assessment
Once education leaders implement DL/TWI program with these specific curriculum parameters,
teachers need to know how to measure their students’ progress over time through classroom-based and
large-scale assessments. From these assessments, teachers will gain knowledge not only about their
students’ strengths and needs but also about how to plan future instruction. Assessment in a DL/TWI
program is similar to that of mainstream classrooms in that the expectations for achievement of content
area standards are the same. However, the program also requires additional assessments conducted in
both English and the minority language to measure language proficiency (Lindholm-Leary, 2005).
Because the goals of the DL/TWI program include both academic achievement and
biliteracy/bilingualism, there should be evidence to show gains in both areas. To demonstrate these
gains, there should also be multiple assessment measures in the form of both large-scale and classroombased assessments.
Large-scale assessments, including state-wide tests, measure both language proficiency and
academic achievement. The criterion-referenced and norm-referenced standardized tests gauge how
students perform based on the state academic and language standards and how they compare to other
students across geographic areas, respectively. Although these tests do provide some information about
academic language proficiency and are important for continued measurement of progress over time,
they do not provide the complete picture of academic achievement of second language learners in a
DL/TWI. A better measurement of student achievement in a second language development program
comes through content-based assessment of both language proficiency and academic achievement
(Gottlieb, 2006).
Content-based assessment of language proficiency focuses on how students use language in the
context of communicating content. Reversely, content-based assessment of academic achievement is
where language is simply the means to measure content skills and knowledge (Gottlieb, 2006). Teachers
Dual Language Education 17
in DL/TWI programs should use classroom-based assessments in everyday activities and tasks to gather
more explicit information about students’ language proficiency (both social and academic language
proficiency) as well as content knowledge.
Classroom-based assessments make use of activities, tasks and projects that teachers embed
within instruction to monitor students’ progress, allowing teachers a chance to make the kind of
subjective analysis that large-scale assessments neglect (Gottlieb, 2006). Some examples of classroombased assessments are rubrics, anecdotal notes, rating scales, portfolios, and student self-assessments.
The three areas of concentration in both instruction and assessment of second language learners are
social language proficiency, which is everyday conversational language; academic language proficiency,
which is specific content vocabulary, sentence structure, and phonology/syntax/semantics; and content
knowledge and skills. A combination of academic achievement and social language proficiency creates
academic language proficiency (Gottlieb, 2006). It is important that with each assessment the teacher
has chosen a specific area on which to concentrate. For example, if the teacher is teaching a science
lesson in Spanish about the water cycle and the students are making a diagram of the water cycle in
groups, the teacher should choose which aspect(s) of the lesson she wants to assess. Perhaps the focus
of assessment is on social language proficiency, which is measured by listening to the communication
among peers in groups, or on the use of academic language in this context. Further, she could assess
knowledge of content objectives by creating a grading rubric of the water cycle diagram based on the
content objectives of this lesson. Thus, the information that the teacher seeks about the students
guides the type and focus of assessment.
Within this specific program as with any program involving second language learners, some
accommodations need to be made to the assessments to ensure that the information about the
students’ ability accurately represents what they know. Without such accommodations, the language
barrier could distort the assessment and misguide teachers’ future instruction. To scaffold and
Dual Language Education 18
differentiate instructional assessments for second language learners, teachers are encouraged to use
visual or graphic support through authentic, hands-on materials and graphic organizers (Gottlieb, 2006;
Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000). These as well as other accommodations such as extended time, orally
read tests, and bilingual dictionaries help to acquire the true information about each student’s
knowledge.
These assessment techniques can be both formal and informal so that there are objective and
subjective measures in place. One example of an informal assessment that is useful for gaining valuable
information about students is student self-assessments. Student self-assessments can be both criteriabased, such as in self-assessment checklists, as well as performance-based, such as in self and/or peer
reflection questions. Student self-assessments are mostly used in classroom-based assessments because
they are not as easily incorporated into large-scale assessments. However, some large-scale tests
include background information questionnaires to help analyze and compare results in light of students’
backgrounds (Gottlieb, 2006).
Therefore in a DL/TWI program, student progress assessment, embedded within instruction,
should be ongoing to make sure the program is effective. The major areas of assessment for second
language learners are oral language proficiency, academic language proficiency, and content knowledge.
These areas of assessment inform the teachers about how well the students are learning within the
learning environment and from instructional strategies in use. After collecting this data about student
performance teachers should reflect and evaluate instructional changes that can be made (Howard &
Christian, 2002). Constant reflection and assessment will provide the best outcomes possible for
meeting the program goals of bilingualism, cross-cultural understanding and high academic
achievement.
Dual Language Education 19
Examples of Effective DL/TWI Programs
To provide further evidence that the aforementioned features foster successful DL/TWI
programs we will take a look at two schools that have implemented this program effectively. The Oyster
Elementary School began in Washington, D.C. in 1971 with the goal of providing a strong enrichment
program through capitalizing on the linguistic diversity of the area instead of allowing the usual
segregation of Spanish-speaking children (Crawford, 1995). One of the features present in the
implementation of this school is that the principal and teachers are highly qualified and trained in
bilingual methodologies. The staff is twice the size of normal schools because they have both nativeSpanish and native-English speaking teachers. The pedagogical approach focuses on valuing both
languages by spending approximately equal time teaching all subjects in Spanish and English while still
maintaining language separation. The student ratio is 60% Latino, 20-25% White, 15% Black and 2%
other language minority. Also, unique to this school is that students gain literacy in both English and
Spanish at the same time so that they can read in both languages by mid-first grade.
The result of the Oyster experiment is high student test scores and much demand and
popularity among community families for enrollment. Also, after tracking some former students, many
continued to pursue using their Spanish ability and keeping ties to the Hispanic community (Crawford,
1995). It is clear that the program features, both environmental as well as pedagogical (such as
separation of languages, qualified bilingual teachers, and affirmation of the minority language), led to a
thriving and successful dual language immersion school.
The Inter-American Magnet School in Chicago, IL is another example of a school that has
effectively implemented many of the program characteristics mentioned in this paper in its language
immersion program (Kirk-Senesac, 2002). It began in 1975 with Pre-Kindergarten and added one grade a
year up until 8th grade. Its stated goals are high levels of bilingualism and biliteracy for all students,
grade level appropriate levels of academic achievement, and positive cross-cultural attitudes and self-
Dual Language Education 20
esteem. The school is at least 60% Hispanic, half with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). As students
progress from Pre-K to 8th grade, the amount of English gradually increases from 20% in Pre-K to 50% by
8th grade. In the curriculum, all students’ cultures are integrated into the academic subjects. The
bilingual faculty considers itself a family who all share the same high expectations for their students. A
unique aspect of this school is the exemplary parental involvement and collaboration. Parents are not
only dedicated to the beliefs of the school, but they also lobbied to keep it open several times at its
inception when failure was close at hand. Also, the parents, teachers, and the principal all serve on a
committee to hire new staff.
The outcomes of the Inter-American school are similar to the Oyster school. Standardized test
scores show that both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking students gain proficiency in their second
language, although ELLs achieve higher proficiency in English than native-English speakers in Spanish.
The academic achievement of all students at Inter-American is equivalent to or surpasses the
achievement of the rest of the state. Also, parent satisfaction is reflected in the extremely high
attendance rates, low student mobility, and high competition for enrollment (600 applicants for 60 slots)
(Kirk-Senesac, 2002). The results of the Inter-American school, along with the Oyster school, show that
through a DL/TWI program designed with the essential environmental and curriculum features in mind
can create a school that produces high student achievement, bilingualism/biliteracy, and an
appreciation of differences in background/culture.
Limitations
As with any educational program model there are some issues that make it difficult to
implement a program like the DL/TWI. One limitation is that since the program is designed to be most
effective after at least 4-6 years, student mobility into and out of the program has to be limited. So, if
students have to exit the program for unforeseen reasons and move to a different program, they may
not experience the same academic benefits of students who go all the way through the DL/TWI
Dual Language Education 21
program. Additionally with No Child Left Behind’s emphasis on high academic achievement gains for ELL
students in the short-term, long-term focused programs like DL/TWI are not as highly regarded because
the best outcomes arrive after several years of immersion in the program (See Figure 2) (Thomas &
Collier, 1996). It should be the case that policy makers, principals and teachers collect longitudinal
information about students’ success over time to add to the annual information obtained by No Child
Left Behind to assess if a program is most beneficial for long-term student outcomes.
Figure 2
(Source: Thomas & Collier, 1996)
Dual Language Education 22
Another possible limitation is the student demographic of the surrounding area. As mentioned
before, an approximate 50/50 mix of English and minority language speakers is important in dual
language programs. Therefore, if the community surrounding the school is not conducive to this mix of
students, then the outcome may not be as good. Additionally, the necessary resources and high cost of
the program is cause for concern. It presents more of a challenge to find highly trained and qualified
bilingual teachers to work in such a school as well as the bilingual materials necessary for instruction. To
respond to this concern, the question should be asked: if a program proves more effective for more
people in the long-term, do its benefits outweigh the higher expense? Furthermore, the most popular
program for ELLs in place right now is the ESL pullout program, which, in addition to being the least
effective of language service models, is also the most expensive (Thomas & Collier, 1997). Thus, quality
instruction does have its costs, but the impressive student outcomes motivate parents and community
members to support the program both fundamentally and financially as well (Torres-Guzmán, 2002).
Conclusion/ Implications
The evidence provided in the sections above strongly suggests that a properly run DL/TWI
programs produces bilingualism/biliteracy, high student academic achievement and cross-cultural
respect. With such remarkable effectiveness, there should be a large expansion of these types of
programs across the nation. Although it may not be possible to change existing programs entirely, there
are some improvements that can be made. For instance, transitional bilingual education programs,
which are typically 2-3 years, can be easily improved by using the same teachers and resources over a
longer-term and making use of a dual-language emphasis. Additionally, English-only pullouts or
sheltered English immersion programs can implement features of the dual language program, such as
providing native language support whenever possible and expanding the length of the program, to work
towards full closure of the achievement gap (Thomas & Collier, 2003). Since each of the environmental
Dual Language Education 23
and curricular features of DL/TWI programs have been proven to be effective on their own, any
incorporation of these into existing programs would be beneficial.
Perhaps if U.S. schools systems at large seriously consider broad implementation of a DL/TWI or
comparable type of program, not only would we see more bilingualism/biliteracy but we would also
witness a growth in cross-cultural awareness and academic achievement. This kind of educational
program which successfully serves both ELLs and native English speakers could help the U.S. regain its
competitive edge in global education and business, which has weakened due to a lack of cultural
sensitivity and multilingualism. The statistics are striking – our ELL population has exploded, and looks
to continue growing into the future. Thus, instead of focusing on many different programs and pouring
money and resources into ineffective ELL programs, the concentration should be on how to make
variations of this effective model the best and most beneficial for all students on a nation-wide scale.
Generating additional and more effective dual language/two-way immersion education programs is the
answer to increase effectiveness and efficiency of our education system by serving both ELLs and native
English speakers through the same program.
Dual Language Education 24
References
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the
heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99-120.
Collier, V. P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on
academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 187-212.
Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. Directions in Language and
Education, 1, 1-12.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English?
Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5, 26-38.
Collier, V.P. & Thomas, W. P. (2004). The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual Language Education for All.
NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1-20.
http://michellemakusshory.googlepages.com/Collier2004.pdf
Crawford, J. (1995). Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory and Practice. (3rd ed.). Los Angeles:
Bilingual Educational Services.
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.) Los Angeles:
Bilingual Education Services.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2000). Making content comprehensible for English
language learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Fishman, J. A. (1982). Sociolinguistic Foundations of Bilingual Education. The Bilingual Review, 9, 1-35.
García, E.E. (2005). Teaching and Learning in Two Languages: Bilingualism and Schooling in the United
States. New York, New York: Teachers College Press.
Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English Language Learners: Bridges from Language Proficiency to
Academic Achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Dual Language Education 25
Howard, E.R. & Christian, D. (2002). Two-way immersion 101: Designing and implementing a two-way
immersion education program at the elementary level. Center for Research on Education,
Diversity and Excellence.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=crede
Kirk-Senesac, B. V. (2002). Two-Way Bilingual Immersion: A Portrait of Quality Schooling. Bilingual
Research Journal, 26(1).
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages are Learned. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual Language Education. Clevedon, England : Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2005) The Rich Promise of Two-Way Immersion. Educational Leadership, 62(4).
56-59.
MacSwan, J. & Pray, L. (2005). Learning English Bilingually: Age of Onset of Exposure and Rate of
Acquisition Among English Language Learners in a Bilingual Education Program. Bilingual
Research Journal, 29(3), 653- 678.
Thomas, W.P. & Collier, V.P. (1998). Two Languages Are Better Than One. Educational Leadership, 55(4),
23-26.
Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority
students' long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education,
Diversity and Excellence, University of California-Santa Cruz. Available from:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/CollierThomasComplete.pdf
Thomas, W.P. & Collier, V. P. (2003). The Multiple Benefits of Dual Language. Educational Leadership:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. . 61-64
Torres-Guzmán, M. E. (2002). Dual Language Programs: Key Features and Results. NCBE Resource
Collection Series, 14. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education