1. A BRIEF GUIDE TO RESEARCH ON IMMERSION PROGRAMS
Fred Genesee
McGill University
French Immersion in Manitoba Conference
Winnipeg
Feb. 6, 2009

2. PERILS OF BILINGUALISM

3. IS BILINGUAL ACQUISITION EXCEPTIONAL?
Bishop & Mogford 1989
Chapters:
Children with Autism
Children with Down’s Syndrome
Children with William’s Syndrome
Hearing-Impaired Children
Children with Visual Impairment
Hearing children of deaf parents

4. THE GLOBAL VILLAGE

5. ENGLISH IN THE GLOBAL VILLAGE (Niall Ferguson, Los Angeles Times)

6. COGNITIVE ADVANTAGES BIALYSTOK selective attention
(2004/2007)
selective attention
(executive functions of
the brain)
focus on relevant task information, screen out irrelevant information
a result of managing 2 languages
persists into adulthood

7. CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING

8. ROAD MAP lessons from research:
brief review of Canadian Immersion programs
lessons from research:
1. value of content-based L2 instruction
2. age
3. time
4. students with learning challenges +
5. simultaneous bilingualism
opportunities & challenges

9. PROGRAM MODELS: early total immersion

10. PROGRAM MODELS: delayed immersion

11. PROGRAM MODELS: Two-Year Late Immersion

12. PROGRAM MODELS: Double Immersion

13. 1. CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION IS EFFECTIVE
meaningful content & communicative use of language to promote L2/L3 acquisition:
promotes acquisition of authentic language proficiency
pedagogically efficient – 2 for the price of 1
takes advantage of children’s natural language learning abilities
research evidence …

14. Research evidence (Genesee, 2004)
English language development
academic achievement
French proficiency

15. ENGLISH LANGUAGE OUTCOMES Speaking, Listening, Reading, Writing
Immersion Students = Non-immersion students
Students in enriched immersion score better than students in all-
English programs on English language tests

16. ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT mathematics, science, other
Immersion Students = Non-immersion students

17. Comprehension Skills (Listening & Reading):
FRENCH PROFICIENCY
Comprehension Skills (Listening & Reading):
Immersion = Native speakers > Non-immersion
Production Skills (Speaking & Writing):
Immersion < Native speakers > Non-immersion

18. BUT… content-based instruction alone is not optimal
Immersion students have significant gaps in their grammatical and communicative competence
language arts instruction is important
focus-on-form can enhance French language competence (Lyster, 2007)

19. THE CHALLENGE…
to develop curriculum and pedagogical strategies that promote L2 learning – a curriculum that integrates content and language instruction systematically and explicitly (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000)

20. 2. EARLY L2 INSTRUCTION IS GOOD
early exposure takes advantage of young students’ natural language learning ability
early socio-cultural openness
pedagogy and learning styles are compatible in early grades: learner-centered & interactive

21. BUT…
early start does not guarantee higher levels of achievement than delayed start
delayed L2 exposure can be equally effective sometimes (Genesee, 2004):
late immersion = early immersion sometimes
older students are faster learners
older learners have well developed L1 literacy skills that can transfer & facilitate L2 literacy development

22. THE CHALLENGE
to develop coherent grade-to-grade curriculum that ensures continuous language development (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000; Met, 1998)

23. OPTIONS
schools and parents have choices – early or delayed focused on L2
possibility of late L3 instruction, even immersion (Cenoz & Genesee, 1998)

24. 3. TIME on TASK
language acquisition is complex – extended exposure to L2 in immersion is good
more time in school creates more time outside school for L2 learning: expanding students’ repertoires through authentic language use in the community
BUT: no simple relationship between time & learning in school….

25. TIME & acquisition of majority language
time does not matter so much for English
language acquisition
early total immersion = partial immersion
early total immersion = delayed immersion
Immersion students = non-Immersion students
How is this possible?
Immersion in English outside school
AND

26. COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY (from Cummins, 2000)

27. TIME & acquisition of minority languages
time matters
more time in French  greater proficiency in French, generally:
total immersion > partial immersion
more support for L1 of minority language students  greater L1 and English language competence
WHY? transfer of minority language literacy skills to English and French literacy

28. BUT… time is not a psycholinguistic variable:
two-year late immersion = early total immersion sometimes
simply providing extended immersion experience is not enough
time must be translated into effective learning opportunities (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000)
educators must have a long term*, coherent plan for spending time – how to link language learning to content over time

29. 4. IMMERSION FOR ALL?
Research on majority language students has shown that it is effective and suitable for students (Genesee, 2004):
with academic challenges
with poor L1 skills
from disadvantaged socio-economic families
learning typologically different languages (Hebrew, Japanese, Mohawk)
Little research evidence on students with severe
cognitive, perceptual and socio-emotional challenges

30. WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN WITH LANGUAGE or READING ACQUISITION DIFFICULTIES?
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST (APRIL 2002)
…. I am a psychologist working in English schools in a very French environment. We are sometimes challenged with children who have been diagnosed with SLI and that come from unilingual French homes. My knowledge of the problematic was leading me to believe that adding yet another language on a child having difficulty mastering his mother tongue could be putting too much pressure and setting the child up for failure.

31. Immersion students with poor L1 skills
☼ Bruck (1984)
anglophone immersion students with L1 deficits = anglophone control students
☼ Erdos, Genesee & Savage (2008)
strong correlation between L1 and L2 reading skills and precursors of reading

32. French-English bilinguals with LI*
FRENCH-ENGLISH BILINGUALS with LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT Paradis, Crago, Genesee & Rice (2003)
French-English bilinguals with LI*
(8 years old)
Fr monos with L I Eng monos with L I
* Not in bilingual programs

33. RESULTS
bilingual children with impairment had same patterns of impairment as monolingual children with impairment – in both English & French
bilingual children with impairment had same severity of impairment as monolingual children with impairment – in both English & French
children with language impairment were bilingual

34. 5. SIMULTANEOUS BILINGUALISM myth of the monolingual brain

35. EVIDENCE: MONOLINGUAL MILESTONES
word first vocabulary word grammar/
segmentation babbling words spurt comb. communicat’n
(7 mths) (10-12 m) (12mths) (18mths) (24mths) (beyond)
bilingual milestones are the same
bilingual milestones are the same

36. Educational Implications
3rd language children and their parents should not be discouraged from using the heritage language at home
even if the child is suspected of having a language learning impairment
they should be encouraged to use it in ways that reinforce literacy skills
this provides a foundation for the acquisition of academic language and literacy in English & French

37. LAST WORDS Immersion education is effective
it is suitable for diverse learner groups
effectiveness depends on many variables –
“devil is in the detail”
research findings can guide our efforts in planning effective immersion programs
need more emphasis on professional development so that instruction continues to evolve with our growing understanding of what makes immersion work

38. to learn more about bilingualism

39. Thank You

40. Handbook of Language Development, 324-342. Oxford, Eng.: Blackwell.
REFERENCES
Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F., (1998). Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2001). Bilingual education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Inc.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). ). Dual Language Instruction: A Handbook for Enriched Education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinle & Heinle.
Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students. In T.K. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds), Handbook of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism, pp Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Genesee, F., & Nicoladis, E. (2006). Bilingual acquisition. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (eds.),
Handbook of Language Development, Oxford, Eng.: Blackwell.
Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2004). Dual language development and disorders. Boston: Brookes.
Johnson, R.K., & Swain, M. (Eds., 1997), Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic achievement. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds) Educating English language learners, pp NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Met. M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz
& F. Genesee (Eds), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education,
p Clevedon, Eng.: Multilingual Matters.