A summary
An analysis
An application as illustrated in this example
Tedick, D. J., & Wesely, P. M. (2015). A Review of Research on Content-Based Foreign/Second Language Education in US K-12 Contexts. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 25–40.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rlcc20
Language, Culture and Curriculum
ISSN: 0790-8318 (Print) 1747-7573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlcc20
A review of research on content-based foreign/
second language education in US K-12 contexts
Diane J. Tedick & Pamela M. Wesely
To cite this article: Diane J. Tedick & Pamela M. Wesely (2015) A review of research on content-
based foreign/second language education in US K-12 contexts, Language, Culture and Curriculum,
28:1, 25-40, DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923
Published online: 11 Mar 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2760
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 41 View citing articles
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rlcc20
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlcc20
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rlcc20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rlcc20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-03-11
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-03-11
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923#tabModule
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923#tabModule
A review of research on content-based foreign/second language
education in US K-12 contexts
Diane J. Tedicka* and Pamela M. Weselyb
aSecond Languages and Cultures Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; bForeign Language and ESL Education,
Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
(Received 24 June 2014; accepted 18 October 2014)
This review of the extant research literature focuses on research about content-based
language instruction (CBI) programmes in K-12 foreign/second language education in
the USA. The review emphasises studies on one-way language immersion (OWI) and
two-way language immersion (TWI) programmes, which are school-based and
subject matter-driven. OWI primarily targets majority-language students and TWI a
combined student population of minority- and majority-language learners. Reference
to the few studies on non-immersion CBI programmes in the USA is also included.
This article presents a review of the research in relationship to four broad themes:
student outcomes, classroom language use and development, the hidden curriculum,
and teacher preparation and practice. The research review is followed by a discussion
of the research methodologies and theoretical frameworks used in these studies and
concluding sections that set suggestions for paths for future inquiry in four areas:
student diversity, the role of English in classrooms, teacher development, and
achievement research.
Keywords: content-based language instruction; language immersion education;
content-and-language-integrated learning; language teacher education
Content-based language instruction (CBI) takes many forms in US K-12 education,1 from
sheltered subject matter English-as-a-second language (ESL) classes, to developmental and
transitional bilingual programmes, to language immersion programmes and theme-based
foreign language (FL) courses in high schools (Tedick & Cammarata, 2012). The focus
of this review is on research about CBI programmes in K-12 foreign/second language edu-
cation in the USA. As the bulk of this research occurs in immersion contexts, this review
emphasises studies on language immersion programmes, which are school-based and
subject matter-driven. We begin with a description of important terminology and relevant
programme models to contextualise the review.
The research reviewed herein features several CBI learning contexts. Some of the pro-
grammes featured in the studies reviewed target majority-language (English-L1) learners.
The vast majority of studies on such programmes involve one-way immersion (OWI),
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
*Corresponding author. Email: djtedick@umn.edu
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 2015
Vol. 28, No. 1, 25–40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923
mailto:djtedick@umn.edu
designed for a predominantly linguistically homogeneous student population of English-L1
speakers. The literature search revealed few studies on non-immersion CBI programmes,
and they are referenced in the review. These are based on traditional FL programmes for
English-L1 speakers, either content-related programmes in the middle school (wherein
the FL is used to reinforce subject matter [e.g. science] concepts taught in English) or
FL classes at the middle or high school level that are theme-based (often culture or litera-
ture-related). Other CBI programmes featured prominently in the research reviewed are
two-way immersion (TWI) programmes, designed for a linguistically heterogeneous
student population of majority-language and minority-language (English-L2) learners.
In order for a programme to be worthy of the immersion label, at least 50% of subject
matter instruction must occur through the medium of the foreign/second/minority language
for a minimum of six years (throughout primary education), and at least two subject matter
courses must be taught in secondary continuation programmes (Fortune & Tedick, 2008).
All US immersion programmes begin at kindergarten or Grade 1 (ages 5–6 years), although
there are an increasing number of preschool programmes. OWI and TWI programmes vary
by the level of intensity with which the minority language is used in instruction. They may
be either partial (50:50), where each programme language is distributed evenly throughout
the grade levels, or total (90:10), where the minority language is used exclusively or nearly
exclusively at the beginning of the programme with the amount of instruction in English
gradually increasing as students advance through the grades. Immersion programmes
share three goals: academic achievement at or above grade level, additive bilingualism/bili-
teracy, and the development of cultural or multicultural competence.
Research on other types of US CBI programmes, such as sheltered ESL classes, indigen-
ous language immersion, and transitional and developmental bilingual education pro-
grammes, is not featured in this review. There is a dearth of empirical research on US
indigenous immersion programmes, which target students having Native American ancestry
and strive towards language and culture revitalisation. Moreover, a thorough review of the
research on programmes that serve minority-language (English-L2) students only is beyond
the scope of this article, as we have limited the review due to space limitations to research on
programmes that serve at least some majority-language (English-L1) learners.
It is difficult to know exact numbers of US immersion programmes. The Center for
Applied Linguistics (CAL) maintains OWI and TWI directories. The OWI directory (CAL,
2014a) lists nearly 600 programmes in over 20 languages (including some indigenous
languages), and the TWI directory (CAL, 2014b) approximately 450 in 7 languages, most
in Spanish.2 Because the directories rely on self-report, these numbers are likely quite low.
This article presents a review of the research in relationship to four broad themes:
student outcomes, classroom language use and development, the hidden curriculum, and
teacher preparation and practice. The research review is followed by a discussion of the
research methodologies and theoretical frameworks used in these studies and concluding
sections that set suggestions for paths for future inquiry.
2.1. Student outcomes in OWI and TWI programmes
Research on student outcomes in CBI learning environments in the USA has focused on
academic achievement and English language development, minority language develop-
ment, and attitudinal outcomes in OWI and TWI programmes. This section provides a syn-
thesis of research in these three areas as related to both minority- and majority-language
students.
26 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely
2.1.1. Academic achievement and English language development
Research has consistently reported that in the long run, both minority-language and
majority-language students enrolled in well-implemented US OWI and TWI programmes
perform as well as or better than their non-immersion peers (children schooled in
English only) on measures of academic achievement administered in English (Downs-
Reid, 2000; Essama, 2007; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006;
Padilla, Fan, Xu, & Silva, 2013; Thomas, Collier, & Collier, 2011). These measures typi-
cally assess reading and mathematics, as well as English language development (language
arts, writing). Similar outcomes have been found in studies that disaggregate student groups
by ethnicity (Caldas & Boudreaux, 1999; Haj-Broussard, 2002; Lindholm-Leary & Block,
2010), socioeconomic status (SES) (Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm-Leary & Block,
2010; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006; Thomas et al., 2011), or learning ability/impair-
ment (Thomas et al., 2011). Most comprehensively, the Thomas et al. (2011) study reported
that reading and mathematics scores of TWI students were higher for all students irrespec-
tive of their race/ethnicity, and SES, ESL, or special education status. Moreover, by middle
school, TWI students were at least a grade ahead in reading and mathematics achievement
compared to non-TWI students. These results are important because they show that TWI
programmes have the potential to lower the achievement gap that persists between
middle-class white students in US schools and students from these various subgroups.
Similar results have been reported for low SES students in early total OWI programmes,
including those from African-American backgrounds who typically come to school speak-
ing non-standard English (Caldas & Boudreaux, 1999; Haj-Broussard, 2002).
Some studies have shown that achievement gaps in mathematics and reading in TWI and
OWI programmes remain, although they are smaller than gaps observed in non-immersion,
mainstream programmes (Caldas & Boudreaux, 1999; Thomas et al., 2011). Other studies
have reported that minority-language (Spanish-, Chinese-speaking) students in TWI pro-
grammes reach or surpass grade level norms in English reading, writing, and mathematics
by Grades 5–7, and sometimes sooner (de Jong, 2002; Lindholm-Leary, 2001, 2011;
Lindholm-Leary & Hernández, 2011). A future avenue for research is to identify specific
programme characteristics and other factors that appear to close the achievement gap.
Some studies address whether the exposure to English in the programme (i.e. if the pro-
gramme is partial/50:50 or total/90:10) has an effect on outcomes. TWI studies have involved
both 50:50 and 90:10 programmes and have reported that in the long run there is no differ-
ence between students in the two programme models in terms of their English language
development (Christian, Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, & Howard, 2004; Lindholm-Leary,
2001). There appears to be a short-term advantage for students in 50:50 TWI programmes
when it comes to academic achievement and English language development, but that advan-
tage disappears by the upper primary grades, and student performance remains comparable
through the middle school years for students in both 50:50 and 90:10 models (Christian et al.,
2004). No parallel information exists about OWI programmes in the USA, although Cana-
dian OWI research has shown that there is no difference between programme types in terms
of English development (Genesee, 1981). Thus, the research demonstrates that more time in
English does not result in better English language outcomes in immersion programmes.
2.1.2. Minority language development
Despite the fact that many OWI and TWI immersion programmes do not assess student pro-
ficiency in the minority language in systematic ways, some US studies have explored
Language, Culture and Curriculum 27
student acquisition of the minority language. Using locally developed tools, validated inter-
view-type measures developed by CAL (Thompson, Boyson, & Rhodes, 2006), standar-
dised online tests developed by the Center for Applied Second Language Studies
(CASLS), and/or teacher rating tools, these studies have demonstrated that English-L1
immersion students develop higher levels of proficiency in their L2 than students enrolled
in traditional FL programmes (CASLS, 2011). Although there tends to be a very wide range
of oral proficiency levels in immersion classrooms, students in partial and total OWI have
been shown to achieve upper-intermediate to low-advanced oral language proficiency by
Grade 8 or earlier (Fortune & Tedick, 2015; Thompson et al., 2006), according to measures
based on the Proficiency Guidelines developed by the American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages (ACTFL, 2012).3 For majority-language students in TWI programmes,
the findings related to oral skills in the minority language have generally paralleled those of
OWI programmes (Howard, Christian, & Genesee, 2004; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Padilla
et al., 2013). Not surprisingly, students in 90:10 programmes have been shown to
achieve higher levels of minority language proficiency than students in 50:50 programmes
(Lindholm-Leary, 2001). Most of the research on language proficiency has occurred in
Spanish OWI and TWI programmes but a few recent studies have focused on Mandarin
TWI programmes (Lindholm-Leary, 2011; Padilla et al., 2013). Whereas most studies on
oral language proficiency in TWI contexts have revealed positive outcomes for majority-
language students, a select few studies have pointed to more limited language development
in both 50:50 (Kovelman, Baker, & Petitto, 2008; Stipek, Ryan, & Alarco, 2001) and 90:10
programmes (Tedick & Young, 2014). These studies, which have employed a wide range of
assessment tools, have revealed minimal Spanish oral language proficiency on the part of
English-L1 TWI students in preschool and kindergarten (Stipek et al., 2001), Grade 2
(Kovelman et al., 2008), and Grade 5 (Tedick & Young, 2014). In particular, Tedick and
Young reported that three of four English-L1 students had developed very limited oral
skills in Spanish even though they had been in the programme for nearly six years (since
kindergarten).
Similar to Canadian French immersion studies, US studies have shown that majority-
language students in immersion programmes typically develop near-native levels of
reading and listening proficiency, but their speaking and writing skills lack grammatical
accuracy (Fortune & Tedick, 2015; Potowski, 2007; Tedick & Young, 2014), and their
language is not typically sociolinguistically appropriate (Fortune, 2001). Although there
is a wealth of Canadian immersion research that has carefully examined specific gramma-
tical, lexical, and sociolinguistic features of immersion students’ language (see Lyster,
2007, for review), very few US studies have done so (Fortune & Tedick, 2015; Potowski,
2007; Tedick & Young, 2014).
Most studies have shown an advantage for minority-language students when it comes to
their proficiency in the minority language, with many becoming balanced bilinguals
(Howard et al., 2004), while majority-language students consistently maintain much stron-
ger levels of proficiency in English. However, Padilla et al. (2013) found that in a Mandarin
TWI programme, the early advantage that Mandarin speakers had over English speakers
disappeared by the upper primary grades; there were no significant differences between
majority- and minority-language students’ performance on proficiency measures by
Grade 3 (oral measures) and by Grade 5 (literacy measures). Additionally, some
minority-language students have been shown to become dominant in English (Fortune,
2001) and to develop grammatical inaccuracies with certain forms (Potowski, 2007;
Tedick & Young, 2014).
28 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely
This research, therefore, suggests that the outcome of immersion programme partici-
pation for both majority- and minority-language learners is generally positive for minority
language development. However, this outcome is not always consistent across ages and
language skills.
2.1.3. Attitudinal outcomes
Two primary types of attitudinal outcomes have been examined in studies on immersion
programmes in the USA: students’ cross-cultural competence and attitudes about the learn-
ing situation. When compared with students in non-immersion contexts, students in both
OWI (Corbaz, 2006) and TWI (Block, 2011; Rolstad, 1997) programmes have been
found to be stronger in areas relating to cross-cultural competence, though Corbaz’s find-
ings were significant only for girls, not boys. Non-comparative studies in TWI contexts
have also reported that students value learning with peers who represent different linguistic
and cultural backgrounds (Bearse & de Jong, 2008; Cazabon, Nicoladis, & Lambert, 1998;
Lindholm-Leary, 2011). Positive attitudes about other cultures have been shown to continue
after students have exited the programme as well (Bearse & de Jong, 2008; Wesely, 2010).
Researchers have also found that students who have graduated from elementary immer-
sion programmes retain positive attitudes towards school and their programmes (Cazabon
et al., 1998; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2001); these positive atti-
tudes persisted even among OWI students who had chosen not to continue in immersion at
the secondary level (Wesely, 2010). Furthermore, Lindholm-Leary and Borsato (2001)
found that students perceived that the TWI programme challenged them to do well in
school and that learning through two languages helped them learn to think better; these
findings were even stronger for Latino minority-language learners, who also indicated
that they were not likely to drop out of school, an important finding given that the
drop-out rate among Latinos is the highest in the nation.
Thus, students in US immersion programmes can be seen as having positive attitudinal
outcomes related to both cross-cultural competence and the learning situation. Methodo-
logical concerns that emerged as these studies were reviewed are discussed below.
2.2. Classroom language use and development
Some US research has focused on issues related to classroom language use and develop-
ment, specifically studies on classroom interaction and form-focused instruction (FFI).
This section discusses each of these areas.
2.2.1. Classroom interaction
A number of studies have explored questions related to which languages students use in
immersion classrooms, when, with whom, and for what purposes. These were spurred by
Tarone and Swain’s (1995) call for systematic research on student language use practices
as a result of a study in which they observed US OWI immersion students using English
rather than the L2 to interact with classmates. Drawing on sociolinguistic and sociocultural
theoretical frameworks, several studies that focused on Grade 5 student interaction in differ-
ent OWI and TWI programmes found that students generally used the L2 (Spanish) to inter-
act with the teacher but tended to use English (or a mixture of both languages) to interact with
each other (Broner, 2001; Fortune, 2001; Potowski, 2007). Moreover, students tended to use
English for most social functions (Fortune) and ‘off-task’ behaviour (Broner; Potowski) and
Language, Culture and Curriculum 29
used Spanish for most academic functions and ‘on-task’ behaviour. Further, Fortune and
Potowski indicated that the presence of Spanish-L1 speakers did not lead to enhanced oppor-
tunities for peer interaction in Spanish. These studies also reported that students used a sig-
nificant amount of English during Spanish instructional time. In a study focused on Grades 1,
3, and 8 in a 50:50 TWI programme, Ballinger and Lyster (2011) reported that regardless of
language background, all students preferred English; however, they also observed that
teacher expectations played an important role in determining students’ language use
choices. Moreover, Fortune (2001) and Ballinger and Lyster alike found that Spanish speak-
ers tended to reserve their use of Spanish for other Spanish speakers.
A growing number of studies have focused on student interaction in TWI contexts to
explore not just language choice but also how students’ varied use of both instructional
languages can foster language learning. For example, Angelova, Gunawardena, and Volk
(2006) and Martin-Beltrán (2010) drew upon sociocultural theory to investigate how
TWI students mediate their own and each other’s language learning within and across
languages. These studies found that students moved in and out of different linguistic
roles as they interacted and used both languages (often simultaneously), which afforded
opportunities for metalinguistic analysis and other learning.
Findings such as these along with the developing understanding that bilinguals’ linguis-
tic resources intersect and interact in dynamic ways have led to a relatively recent push
against strict separation of instructional languages in immersion and other bilingual class-
rooms (García, 2009; Swain & Lapkin, 2013). Further research is needed here.
2.2.2. FFI and corrective feedback
FFI comprises both proactive approaches and reactive approaches (Lyster, 2007). Proactive
approaches involve planning for systematic focus on form in content-based teaching, while
reactive approaches involve in-the-moment attention to students’ production of errors
through the provision of corrective feedback. Quite a number of FFI and corrective feed-
back studies have been conducted in immersion or CBI classrooms in Canada and other
countries, but very few have emerged in the USA. Lyster and Mori (2006) compared
student responses to corrective feedback in a Japanese OWI programme in the USA with
Canadian French immersion student responses. They found that student uptake and
repair can vary depending on the instructional context and teachers’ backgrounds.
Studies on proactive approaches to FFI have typically involved instructional interven-
tions with noticing, awareness, and controlled practice (production) activities aimed at
improving students’ ability to use specific forms accurately. Most Canadian studies have
reported that students’ accuracy improves after such interventions (see Lyster, 2007, for
review). The only US CBI study identified in the literature search that involved this type
of instructional intervention was conducted in a Grade 5 TWI classroom (Tedick &
Young, 2014). Tedick and Young found the intervention to have a positive impact on
English-L1 and Spanish-L1 students who had low-intermediate proficiency in Spanish,
but not on English-L1 students whose Spanish proficiency was very low. They speculated
that a certain threshold of proficiency may be necessary for FFI to make a difference.
Clearly there is a significant gap in US immersion research on FFI and corrective feedback.
2.3. The hidden curriculum in OWI and TWI programmes
Although research on immersion in the USA has primarily focused on what de Jong calls
‘the effectiveness debate’ (2014, p. 241; for examples, see studies reviewed in Section
30 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely
2.1.1), some researchers have also chosen to focus on what is learned, enacted, or experi-
enced by the students beyond the academic and language goals of the programme. Some of
these studies, conducted in TWI classrooms, focus on theoretical concepts broadly related
to language status, including language ideology and cultural capital. Other studies focus on
the social psychology of language learners, including attitudes, perspectives, and invest-
ments in learning language.
2.3.1. Language status in TWI contexts
Students in TWI programmes, through their extensive and regular use of both English and
the minority language (typically Spanish), make choices that then can be interpreted as indi-
cating their developing understanding of the status of the two languages. Several studies in
elementary contexts have focused on indirect analysis of elementary students’ language
ideologies as enacted in their language choices (Fitts, 2006; López, 2011; Volk & Angelova,
2007). They have found that English-dominant students sometimes displayed a negative
stance towards Spanish and bilingualism (López) or privileged English in the classroom
(Volk & Angelova). Others have found that efforts by teachers and administrators to
promote bilingualism were regularly undermined by a subtle privileging of English over
Spanish (Fitts, 2006; Palmer, 2007). Similarly, some researchers working with older stu-
dents have found that classroom structures and practices in some TWI environments had
a tendency to privilege English over Spanish unless specific steps were taken by instructors
to avoid that inequity (Freeman, 1998); this privileging of English has then been manifested
by students in their classroom interactions and reports on their language attitudes.
Studies about language status in OWI classrooms have not been prevalent. To explain
this, Cervantes-Soon (2014) has argued that in world language education, as represented
in OWI, ideas of social justice, equity, and social identities in language development are
more readily dismissed than in TWI or ESL programmes. Palmer, Ballinger, and Peter
(2014) echo this observation, suggesting that without the ‘intentional mixing of students
that drives TWI research to centrally consider issues of equity’ (p. 229), OWI has been domi-
nated by classroom interaction studies, focusing on L2 acquisition. Yet, even on this topic US
studies are scarce. Cervantes-Soon (2014) stated that language education has been seen as
‘neutral and prestigious’ (p. 72). Indeed, the assumption that students in OWI programmes
are all English-L1 speakers has dominated much of the research discourse. Work by Cana-
dian scholars like Dagenais (2008) on language awareness in multilingual OWI classrooms
has not been replicated in the USA; this is certainly a significant lacuna in the field, particu-
larly given the growing socioeconomic, ethnic, and linguistic diversity in US OWI.
2.3.2. The social psychology of students
Research focusing on the social psychology of students in US immersion programmes also
lags behind work published by our Canadian colleagues, but it is certainly developing. In
both TWI and OWI programmes, researchers have found that students have displayed
emotional, deeply felt beliefs about language, often connected to the students’ own invest-
ment in language learning and their identities in the classroom (Bearse & de Jong, 2008;
Fortune, 2001; Potowski, 2007; Wesely, 2009). Potowski demonstrated how TWI students’
identity investments in Spanish were enacted in their classroom language use; her work
illustrated that classroom language use could not be separated from contextual and histori-
cal factors (see also Cazabon et al., 1998). Lee, Hill-Bonnet, and Raley (2011) found that
students’ identities as language brokers or brokees during academic tasks were dictated not
Language, Culture and Curriculum 31
just by their knowledge and ability in the language, but also by how other students viewed
them. Identities as such were influenced by classroom interactions, but were not always
internalised due to the variability in the language tasks in the TWI context. Other scholars
have shown that bilingual students in the TWI classroom are seen not just as ‘language
mediators’ (as discussed in Section 2.2.1) but also as ‘social mediators’, fulfilling an aca-
demic role as well as a specific social role in their classroom (Angelova et al., 2006; Martin-
Beltrán, 2010). Hornberger and Link (2012) have suggested that this type of translangua-
ging and transliteracy taking place in multilingual classrooms powerfully validates students
and promotes academic achievement. Scholars thus suggest that immersion students are
learning both language and content, but they are also constantly negotiating and enacting
their identities as learners and actors in the classroom.
Similarly, research conducted in OWI contexts has demonstrated that social relation-
ships created in the programme have been vital to students’ language learning motivation
(Haj-Broussard, 2002; Wesely, 2009) and language use (Broner, 2001; Fortune, 2001).
Some scholars have suggested that the social psychology of immersion students cannot
be seen as monolithic, static, and/or unchanging. Wesely (2009) found that students in
an OWI programme varied considerably in their language learning motivation, even
though they shared similar linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Findings have also
suggested that immersion students change over time in their feelings about language learn-
ing and the programme (Cazabon et al., 1998; Wesely, 2013). However, these studies
present the issue of variation within a group and change over time as secondary findings;
more in-depth research is warranted here.
2.4. Teacher preparation and practice
This section explores what we know about the specific roles, experiences, practices,
choices, and perspectives of CBI teachers in the USA. In particular, studies have focused
on how they balance content and language in their teaching and how they balance the
use of two instructional languages.
2.4.1. Content and language integration
In this section, we focus on a summary of what we know about the specific roles, experi-
ences, practices, choices, and perspectives of K-12 CBI teachers. Teachers are often charac-
terised as vital components of the learning enterprise. Overviews of immersion
programming and case studies (Freeman, 1998) of US immersion programmes identify
the challenge of finding qualified bilingual teachers who are capable of teaching both
language and content. Indeed, many if not most US immersion teachers do not benefit
from pre-service preparation or in-service professional development focused on language
and content integration (Tedick & Fortune, 2013).
Currently, much of the research relating to teachers examines their instructional prac-
tices, focusing on in-service immersion or other CBI teachers. Some research has
focused on how immersion teachers balance content and language instruction (Cammarata
& Tedick, 2012; Fortune, Tedick, & Walker, 2008), and how traditional FL teachers learn
about, plan for, or enact CBI (Cammarata, 2010; Pessoa, Hendry, Donato, Tucker, & Lee,
2007). In a phenomenological study, Cammarata and Tedick (2012) described the balancing
of language and content in the immersion classroom as a major challenge for both OWI and
TWI immersion teachers, demonstrating that they struggle to see themselves as both
language and content teachers and are uncertain about how to identify which language
32 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely
features to focus on as they teach content. This struggle and uncertainty are inherent parts of
learning to integrate language and content, and researchers have called for professional
development for CBI teachers that helps them to develop that instructional balance
(Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Fortune et al., 2008; Lyster, 2007).
2.4.2. Balancing instructional languages
Although language and content integration has been studied in the TWI context, a much
more common focus in TWI has been on the balance between the use of English and
Spanish in the classroom and the programme as a whole. In particular, Palmer’s work
(2008, 2009) has suggested that TWI teachers struggle with balancing languages and
student interaction equitably, sometimes allowing English-L1 children to control the con-
versation (2009), and sometimes engaging more successfully in balancing the different
needs of the Spanish- and English-speaking students (2008). de Jong and Bearse (2014)
found that secondary TWI teachers struggled with programmatic decisions about language
allocation, specifically in that the separation of Spanish and English in the programme
restricted the teachers considerably.
The research about teachers in US K-12 CBI contexts thus focuses on in-service tea-
chers and other educators who are making decisions in the classroom or the programme
about how language is used with the content, what language is used when, and what influ-
ences and is influenced by these decisions. Although the TWI literature contains a dimen-
sion of emphasis on language choice, the central concerns are the same: What should be
taught and how should it be taught? A notable gap, therefore, is that little research has
addressed the process of preparing teachers for CBI contexts, either initially or in their pro-
fessional development. Other aspects of instructional practice, like the integration of tech-
nology, have not been studied.
2.5. Research methodologies and theoretical frameworks
The variety of topics and objectives in the research on K-12 CBI instruction in the USA has
naturally resulted in the use of a wide variety of research approaches. Qualitative, quanti-
tative, and mixed methods approaches are all featured in the research literature, with quan-
titative approaches dominating achievement research and qualitative approaches
classroom-based studies and teacher research. In this section, we examine the methodologi-
cal patterns and trends and identify dominant theoretical frameworks informing studies.
2.5.1. Qualitative work
Scholarship included in this review has been concerned with issues such as the culture in
classrooms and the experiences and internal processes of stakeholders, both of which are
commonly investigated using qualitative methods. Qualitative work addressing classroom
interactions, much of it adopting sociocultural theory, has focused on examining language
naturally produced in the class and then drawing inferences from identified themes and pat-
terns, presenting them in narrative form. Classroom ethnographies and discourse analysis
(Palmer, 2007, 2008, 2009) have been particularly fruitful methodologies used in this
regard. Importantly, the comprehensive ethnographies and qualitative focus on classroom
interactions in the USA have been predominantly set in TWI contexts; there is much less
research about language naturally produced in the OWI classroom in the USA and analysed
qualitatively.
Language, Culture and Curriculum 33
Qualitative methodologies have also been central to the examination of the social psy-
chology of stakeholders in CBI programmes. Interviews with teachers and students in par-
ticular have been a common data source in this respect. Sometimes, such sources are used
alone and subjected to a qualitative or phenomenological analysis (Bearse & de Jong, 2008;
Cammarata, 2009, 2010; Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). With equal frequency, interviews
have been paired with qualitative classroom observation analysis in studies about language
choice (Fitts, 2006; Volk & Angelova, 2007) or with survey data in mixed methods studies
(Wesely, 2010, 2013).
Finally, there are also many primarily qualitative studies that approach their topics (e.g.
teachers, achievement) as one component of an educational programme; these case studies,
comprehensive ethnographies, or programme evaluations combine multiple data sources
and analysis procedures to provide a description of the entire programme or phenomenon,
with inferences about individual components as a part of this larger whole (Freeman, 1998).
2.5.2. Quantitative work
Researchers using quantitative research methodologies have focused on issues relating to
comparing programmes, groups of students, and intervention effects. These studies draw
upon cognitive and sociocognitive theoretical frameworks. Naturally, studies that focus
on academic achievement outcomes have been quantitative in nature, sometimes purely
descriptive, sometimes using inferential statistics to compare different groups of students
(Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010). In studies on minority-language
development (CASLS, 2011; Fortune & Tedick, 2015; Padilla et al., 2013; Thompson et al.,
2006), the diversity of instruments, coarseness of speaking and writing rating scales, and
small numbers of participants have made it difficult to draw clear conclusions.
A portion of the work on classroom interaction has utilised quantitative analysis pro-
cedures to lead to inferences about the data (Broner, 2001; Lyster & Mori, 2006; Tedick
& Young, 2014). In these studies, transcripts of classroom interactions have been coded,
quantified (sometimes with the assistance of data analysis programmes), and either com-
pared in a quasi-experimental design or examined in a correlational design, frequently
using an interactional analysis framework (Lyster & Mori, 2006). Researchers have often
supplemented this work with other secondary data sources, including quantitative (obser-
vation protocols) and qualitative (field notes) data sources reflecting classroom observations
(Tedick & Young, 2014), qualitative interviews with stakeholders, and document analysis.
Trends in quantitative research methodologies beyond these two primary categories are
difficult to identify. A small number of studies on attitudinal outcomes or stakeholder atti-
tudes have included quantitative data, primarily from surveys or questionnaires (Block,
2011; Corbaz, 2006; Wesely, 2010, 2013). At times these surveys have been combined
with qualitative data in a mixed methods framework. Although research in applied linguis-
tics and education in the USA prominently features quantitative approaches, the areas of
inquiry often associated with quantitative work (instructional interventions, corpus analy-
sis, etc.) have rarely been investigated. There is nothing to suggest that quantitative research
methodologies are favoured or disfavoured by scholars looking at the field, rather that the
questions appropriate to the use of such methodologies are not typically being asked.
In this section, we highlight some of the persistent challenges and research gaps that we feel
particularly limit our knowledge of CBI in K-12 programmes in the USA. These areas
34 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely
include the underdevelopment of research on: student diversity, the role of English in the
classroom, teacher development, and language and academic achievement.
3.1. Student diversity
A significant portion of this work in FL, OWI, and TWI contexts relies on one major
assumption: that the L1 of the student is easily identifiable as either English (in OWI
and FL contexts, in some students in TWI contexts) or Spanish (in TWI contexts). Research
situated in US contexts rarely examines issues related to simultaneous bilinguals (Hopewell
& Escamilla, 2014) or multilingual students who might be learning their third language (an
exception is Rolstad, 1997). This despite the fact that, as CBI programmes have developed
and spread throughout the world, researchers have found that they ‘serve a wide variety of
purposes for diverse communities’ (Dagenais, 2008, p. 202). The impact of disregarding the
linguistic and cultural background of students in research focused on language choice and
language ideology in CBI programmes is quite substantial, as these programmes have been
found to be undeniably connected to the surrounding context, politically situated, and
socially constructed (Freeman, 1998). Similarly, subgroups of students in immersion,
other than groups differentiated by a language or by academic ability, have rarely been
studied (exceptions include Caldas & Boudreaux, 1999; Haj-Broussard, 2002; Thomas
et al., 2011). In a similar vein, the language proficiencies (both in English and in the
minority language) vary widely in both OWI and TWI programmes (Fortune & Tedick,
2015; Tedick & Young, 2014). Needed are studies that lead to a better understanding of
how best to differentiate instruction to address this linguistic diversity. Looking more
closely at how students in immersion programmes differ within one learning community
will lead to better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of these programmes.
Moreover, TWI studies tend to emphasise the experiences and outcomes of minority-
language students; the assumptions appear to be that middle-class white students comprise
the majority-language student population in TWI programmes and that they will fare
well irrespective of the programme they attend. Kovelman et al. (2008), Stipek et al.
(2001), and Tedick and Young (2014) have reported results that bring such assumptions
into question, and other studies have revealed persistent achievement gaps between non-
white and white majority-language students in OWI and TWI programmes. As US
schools in general and OWI and TWI programmes in particular become increasingly
diverse, it is imperative that studies examine outcomes for all learners and identify
programme practices that bring all learners to academic success and high levels of bilingu-
alism and biliteracy.
3.2. The role of English in the classroom
The research clearly demonstrates that OWI and TWI US immersion students maintain a
preference for English, yet the function and potential of English for both majority- and min-
ority-language learners in immersion are still underexplored. It is important that studies
examine how L1 use may facilitate L2 acquisition and how L1 and L2 can work together
to develop students’ bilingualism and biliteracy. Lyster, Quiroga, and Ballinger (2013,
p. 171) argue (and we concur) that students need to develop ‘a sense of linguistic and con-
textual integrity for each language on its own’ while learning to draw upon all of their lin-
guistic resources as they develop as bilinguals. Research that sheds more light on this
process for majority- as well as minority-language learners is sorely needed.
Language, Culture and Curriculum 35
3.3. Teacher development
The teacher-related research literature in this review focuses primarily on in-service tea-
chers’ implementation of language and content instruction in the classroom. The topic of
CBI or immersion teacher preparation is rarely referenced in that work, with the exception
of the implications sections. Studies specifically examining the processes of teacher devel-
opment in or teacher learning about CBI/immersion in the USA are rare. One notable
exception to this is recent phenomenological work done by Cammarata (2010) regarding
the experiences of in-service teachers in learning about CBI. Cammarata identified many
areas where his experienced participant teachers struggled with CBI in the non-immersion
FL context. However, there is still a notable lack of research on a wide variety of topics
relating to teacher development, including pre-service teacher preparation, the professional
trajectories of immersion or other CBI teachers, the differences between teacher preparation
in OWI, TWI, and FL non-immersion contexts, and the connection between teacher edu-
cation and policy in CBI programmes. This is a theme that bears more exploration, both
for improvement of CBI programmes in general and for the potential to contribute to the
larger discussion about teacher preparation in the USA. Research on teacher education
does not transfer smoothly across national borders, and it is one of the areas in which a
lack of US-based research is truly consequential. Moreover, absent are studies that adopt
theoretical frameworks that have been prominent in US teacher research more broadly con-
ceived, such as communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), pedagogical content knowledge
(Shulman, 1986), or teacher socialisation (Zeichner & Gore, 1990).
3.4. Achievement research
The research relating to academic achievement in CBI programmes contains some important
gaps. One issue underlying these gaps is the lack of national achievement examinations. In
general, each state develops its own set of academic standards (drawn from national stan-
dards) and determines which measurements to use to assess students’ achievement in
relationship to those standards.4 Thus, it is impossible to compare research findings from
one state to another; without national achievement examinations, a truly large-scale assess-
ment of academic achievement of students in immersion programmes cannot be undertaken.
Other gaps exist as well. Most research is cross-sectional rather than longitudinal in
nature, and longitudinal studies are sorely needed. Second, a majority of the research has
focused on TWI contexts. There is a relative dearth of research in OWI contexts, and
much of it has been small scale and not published in peer-reviewed journals. Third, research
on literacy achievement has focused on achievement in English literacy based on standar-
dised tests; missing are studies on students’ biliteracy development in OWI and TWI class-
room contexts (Hopewell & Escamilla, 2014). Finally, research has tended to focus on
overall, programme-level academic achievement rather than on classroom content learning,
such as students’ ability to read challenging subject-matter texts. A notable exception is a
recent study by Martínez-Álvarez, Bannan, and Peters-Burton (2012), which explored how
TWI 4th graders learned to monitor their comprehension of scientific texts as a result of
strategy instruction. More work in this area is needed.
The research on CBI in US K-12 contexts contributes uniquely to the discussion on CBI/
content-and-language-integrated learning (CLIL) in the international research community.
36 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely
Research on student outcomes, classroom language use and development, the hidden cur-
riculum, and teacher preparation and practice are all addressed in this body of work, distrib-
uted across TWI, OWI, and traditional FL programmes that implement CBI. The US
research is also notable in some of the important gaps that still need to be filled, many
of which are identified above. One overarching gap, however, is that this review has
revealed a significant lack of research on OWI and CBI in non-immersion, FL programmes
for majority-language students in the USA. This scarcity may be due to the fact that few
non-immersion CBI programmes exist, but such reasoning does not apply to OWI pro-
grammes given that the CAL directories (see note 2) currently report more OWI than
TWI programmes in the USA. We end this review with a call for more research in that
and several sub-areas; there is still much work to be done in the USA to understand
better the processes, products, and experiences related to the use of CBI.
The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers who offered comments that improved this article.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
1. In the US, K-12 education comprises primary school for students aged 5–11 years (kindergarten
through Grade 5) and secondary school for students aged 12–18 years (Grades 6–12).
2. CAL’s OWI and TWI directories may be accessed at http://webapp.cal.org/Immersion/ and http://
www.cal.org/twi/directory/.
3. These are comparable to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
levels B2 and C1 (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp).
4. Many states have recently adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which were
developed by a consortium of governors, education commissioners, and other educators. Devel-
opment of national CCSS assessments is currently underway (http://www.corestandards.org/).
Unfortunately, the CCSS emphasise English language development; there is no attention to bilin-
gual development.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012). ACTFL proficiency
guidelines – speaking (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://
actflproficiencyguidelines 2012.org/
Angelova, M., Gunawardena, D., & Volk, D. (2006). Peer teaching and learning: Co-constructing
language in a dual language first grade. Language and Education, 20, 173–190. doi:10.1080/
09500780608668722
Ballinger, S., & Lyster, R. (2011). Student and teacher language use in a two-way Spanish/English
immersion school. Language Teaching Research, 15, 289–306. doi:10.1177/1362168811401151
Bearse, C., & de Jong, E. (2008). Cultural and linguistic investment: Adolescents in a secondary two-
way immersion program. Equity and Excellence in Education, 41, 325–340. doi:10.1080/
10665680802174817
Block, N. (2011). The impact of two-way dual immersion programs on initially English-dominant
Latino students’ attitudes. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 125–141. doi:10.1080/15235882.
2011.598059
Broner, M. (2001). Impact of interlocutor and task on first and second language use in a Spanish
immersion program (CARLA Working Paper #18). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
Language, Culture and Curriculum 37
http://webapp.cal.org/Immersion/
http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/
http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp
http://www.corestandards.org/
http://actflproficiencyguidelines2012.org/
http://actflproficiencyguidelines2012.org/
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1080/09500780608668722
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1080/09500780608668722
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1177/1362168811401151
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1080/10665680802174817
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1080/10665680802174817
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1080/15235882.2011.598059
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1080/15235882.2011.598059
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Retrieved from http://www.carla.umn.
edu/resources/working-papers/documents/ImpactOfInterlocutorTaskOn1st2ndLanguage
Caldas, S., & Boudreaux, N. (1999). Poverty, race and foreign language immersion: Predictors of
math and English language arts performance. Learning Languages, 5, 4–15.
Cammarata, L. (2009). Negotiating curricular transitions: Foreign language teachers’ learning experi-
ence with content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne
des langue vivantes, 65, 559–585.
Cammarata, L. (2010). Foreign language teachers’ struggle to learn content-based instruction. L2
Journal, 2, 89–118.
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience
of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.
2012.01330.x
Cazabon, M., Nicoladis, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1998). Becoming bilingual in the Amigos two-way
immersion program (Research Report 3). Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and
Excellence. Retrieved from http://crede.berkeley.edu/research/crede/products/print/reports/rr3.html
Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL). (2014a). Directory of foreign language immersion programs in
U.S. schools. Retrieved from http://webapp.cal.org/Immersion/
Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL). (2014b). Directory of two-way bilingual immersion programs
in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/
Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS). (2011). What levels of proficiency do immer-
sion students achieve? Eugene, OR: Author. Retrieved from https://casls.uoregon.edu/pdfs/
tenquestions/TBQImmersionStudentProficiencyRevised
Cervantes-Soon, C. G. (2014). A critical look at dual language immersion in the New Latin@ dia-
spora. Bilingual Research Journal, 37, 64–82. doi:10.1080/15235882.2014.893267
Christian, D., Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Howard, E. (2004). Final progress report: CAL/
CREDE study of two-way immersion education. Alexandria, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi/CREDEfinal
Corbaz, P. (2006). Assessing the effect of foreign language immersion programs on intercultural sen-
sitivity. American Council of Immersion Education Newsletter, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.
carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol10/nov2006_research_assessing.html
Dagenais, D. (2008). Developing a critical awareness of language diversity in immersion. In T. W.
Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion
education (pp. 201–220). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Downs-Reid, D. (2000). Using English achievement data to promote French immersion. American
Council of Immersion Education Newsletter, 3, 1–4 (insert).
Essama, L. (2007). Total immersion programs: Assessment data reveal achievement in reading and
math. American Council of Immersion Education Newsletter, 11, 1–8 (insert).
Fitts, S. (2006). Reconstructing the status quo: Linguistic interaction in a dual-language school.
Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 337–365.
Fortune, T. W. (2001). Understanding students’ oral language use as a mediator of social interaction
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. J. (2008). One-way, two-way and indigenous immersion: A call for
cross-fertilization. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism:
Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 3–21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. J. (2015). English-proficient before K–8: Oral proficiency development
of English-proficient K–8 Spanish immersion students. Manuscript under review.
Fortune, T. W., Tedick, D. J., & Walker, C. L. (2008). Integrated language and content teaching:
Insights from the immersion classroom. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to mul-
tilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 71–96). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Freeman, R. D. (1998). Bilingual education and social change. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. New York, NY:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Genesee, F. (1981). A comparison of early and late second language learning. Canadian Journal of
Behavioral Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 13, 115–128.
Haj-Broussard, M. (2002). Perceptions, interactions, and immersion: A cross-comparative case study
of African-American students’ experiences in a French immersion context and a regular education
context. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 7, 39–59.
38 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely
http://www.carla.umn.edu/resources/working-papers/documents/ImpactOfInterlocutorTaskOn1st2ndLanguage
http://www.carla.umn.edu/resources/working-papers/documents/ImpactOfInterlocutorTaskOn1st2ndLanguage
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x
http://crede.berkeley.edu/research/crede/products/print/reports/rr3.html
http://webapp.cal.org/Immersion/
http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/
https://casls.uoregon.edu/pdfs/tenquestions/TBQImmersionStudentProficiencyRevised
https://casls.uoregon.edu/pdfs/tenquestions/TBQImmersionStudentProficiencyRevised
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1080/15235882.2014.893267
http://www.cal.org/twi/CREDEfinal
http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol10/nov2006_research_assessing.html
http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol10/nov2006_research_assessing.html
Hopewell, S., & Escamilla, K. (2014). Biliteracy development in immersion contexts. Journal of
Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 181–195.
Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual
classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
15, 261–278. doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.658016
Howard, E., Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2004). The development of bilingualism and biliteracy from
grades 3 to 5: A summary of findings from the CAL/CREDE study of two-way immersion edu-
cation. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence and Center
for Applied Linguistics.
de Jong, E. (2002). Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic achievement in a two-way
bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 65–84.
de Jong, E. (2014). Program design and two-way immersion programs. Journal of Immersion and
Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 241–256.
de Jong, E., & Bearse, C. (2014). Dual language programs as a strand within a secondary school:
Dilemmas of school organization and the TWI mission. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 17, 15–31. doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.725709
Kovelman, I., Baker, S., & Petitto, L. (2008). Age of first bilingual language exposure as a new
window into bilingual reading development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2),
203–223. doi:10.1017/S1366728908003386
Lee, J. S., Hill-Bonnet, L., & Raley, J. (2011). Examining the effects of language brokering on student
identities and learning opportunities in dual immersion classrooms. Journal of Language,
Identity, and Education, 10, 306–326. doi:10.1080/15348458.2011.614544
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual language education. Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2011). Student outcomes in Chinese two-way immersion programs: Language
proficiency, academic achievement, and student attitudes. In D. J. Tedick, D. Christian, & T. W.
Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (pp. 81–103). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Block, N. (2010). Achievement in predominantly low-SES Hispanic dual
language schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 1–18.
doi:10.1080/13670050902777546
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Borsato, G. (2001). Impact of two-way bilingual elementary programs on
students’ attitudes toward school and college (Research Report 10). Santa Cruz: Center for
Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic achievement. In F. Genesee, K. J. Lindholm-
Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners (pp. 176–222).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Hernández, A. (2011). Achievement and language proficiency of Latino
students in dual language programmes: Native English speakers, fluent English/previous ELLs,
and current ELLs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32, 531–545.
doi:10.1080/01434632.2011.611596
López, M. M. (2011). Children’s language ideologies in a first-grade dual-language class. Journal of
Early Childhood Literacy, 12, 176–201. doi:10.1177/1468798411417077
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060128
Lyster, R., Quiroga, J., & Ballinger, S. (2013). The effects of biliteracy instruction on morphological
awareness. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1, 169–197. doi:10.
1075/jicb.1.2.02lys
Martin-Beltrán, M. (2010). The two-way language bridge: Co-constructing bilingual language learn-
ing opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 254–277. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.
01020.x
Martínez-Álvarez, P., Bannan, B., & Peters-Burton, E. (2012). Effect of strategy instruction on fourth-
grade dual language learners’ ability to monitor their comprehension of scientific texts. Bilingual
Research Journal, 35, 331–349. doi:10.1080/15235882.2012.734005
Padilla, A. M., Fan, L., Xu, X., & Silva, D. (2013). A Mandarin/English two-way immersion program:
Language proficiency and academic achievement. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 661–679.
doi:10.1111/flan.12060
Language, Culture and Curriculum 39
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.658016
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.725709
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1017/S1366728908003386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2011.614544
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1080/13670050902777546
http://dx.doi.org/%20doi:10.1080/01434632.2011.611596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468798411417077
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060128
http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.2.02lys
http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.2.02lys
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01020.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01020.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2012.734005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/flan.12060
Palmer, D. K. (2007). Building and destroying students’ ‘academic identities’: The power of discourse
in a two-way immersion classroom. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21,
647–667. doi:10.1080/09518390701470537
Palmer, D. K. (2008). Diversity up close: Building alternative discourses in the two-way immersion
classroom. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving per-
spectives on immersion education (pp. 97–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Palmer, D. K. (2009). Middle-class English speakers in a two-way immersion bilingual classroom:
‘Everybody should be listening to Jonathan right now … ’. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 177–202.
doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00164.x
Palmer, D. K., Ballinger, S., & Peter, L. (2014). Classroom interaction in one-way, two-way, and indi-
genous immersion contexts. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2),
225–240.
Pessoa, S., Hendry, H., Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., & Lee, H. (2007). Content-based instruction in the
foreign language classroom: A discourse perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 102–121.
doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb02856.x
Potowski, K. (2007). Language and identity in a dual immersion school. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Rolstad, K. (1997). Effects of two-way immersion on the ethnic identification of third language stu-
dents: An exploratory study. Bilingual Research Journal, 21, 43–63. doi:10.1080/15235882.
1997.10815601
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 4–14.
Stipek, D., Ryan, R., & Alarco, R. (2001). Bridging research and practice to develop a two-way bilin-
gual program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 133–149.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). AVygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The
L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1, 101–129.
doi:10.1075/jicb.1.1.05swa
Tarone, E., & Swain, M. (1995). A sociolinguistic perspective on second language use in immersion
classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 166–178. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.
tb05428.x
Tedick, D. J., & Cammarata, L. (2012). Content and language integration in K-12 contexts: Student
outcomes, teacher practices, and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 45(S1),
S28–S53. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01178.x
Tedick, D. J., & Fortune, T. W. (2013). Bilingual/immersion teacher education. In C. A. Chapelle
(Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 438–443). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0096
Tedick, D. J., & Young, A. I. (2014). Fifth grade two-way immersion students’ responses to form-
focused instruction. Applied Linguistics, 1–25. doi:10.1093/applin/amu066
Thomas, W., Collier, V., & Collier, K. (2011). English learners in North Carolina, 2010. Raleigh, NC:
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. Retrieved from http://esl.ncwiseowl.org/
resources/dual_language/
Thompson, L. E., Boyson, B. A., & Rhodes, N. C. (2006). Administrator’s manual for CAL foreign
language assessments, grades K–8. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Volk, D., & Angelova, M. (2007). Language ideology and the mediation of language choice in peer
interactions in a dual-language first grade. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 6, 177–
199. doi:10.1080/15348450701454205
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wesely, P. M. (2009). The language learning motivation of early adolescent French immersion gradu-
ates. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 270–286. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01021.x
Wesely, P. M. (2010). Language learning motivation in early adolescents: Using mixed methods
research to explore contradiction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 295–312. doi:10.
1177/1558689810375816
Wesely, P. M. (2013). The nature of foreign language anxiety in elementary immersion program
graduates. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1, 226–250. doi:10.
1075/jicb.1.2.04wes
Zeichner, K., & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teacher education (pp. 329–348). New York, NY: Macmillan.
40 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518390701470537
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00164.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb02856.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.1997.10815601
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.1997.10815601
http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.05swa
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05428.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05428.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01178.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0096
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu066
http://esl.ncwiseowl.org/resources/dual_language/
http://esl.ncwiseowl.org/resources/dual_language/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348450701454205
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01021.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1558689810375816
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1558689810375816
http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.2.04wes
http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.2.04wes
1. Introduction
2. State of the art
2.1. Student outcomes in OWI and TWI programmes
2.1.1. Academic achievement and English language development
2.1.2. Minority language development
2.1.3. Attitudinal outcomes
2.2. Classroom language use and development
2.2.1. Classroom interaction
2.2.2. FFI and corrective feedback
2.3. The hidden curriculum in OWI and TWI programmes
2.3.1. Language status in TWI contexts
2.3.2. The social psychology of students
2.4. Teacher preparation and practice
2.4.1. Content and language integration
2.4.2. Balancing instructional languages
2.5. Research methodologies and theoretical frameworks
2.5.1. Qualitative work
2.5.2. Quantitative work
3. Looking into the future
3.1. Student diversity
3.2. The role of English in the classroom
3.3. Teacher development
3.4. Achievement research
4. Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Disclosure statement
Notes
References
1
8
Annotated Bibliography
Author Name
Walden University
RSCH 8110/7110/6110: Research Theory, Design, and Methods
Instructor Name
Due Date
Annotated Bibliography
A
utism researchers continue to grapple with activities that best serve the purpose of fostering positive interpersonal relationships for children with autism. Children have benefited from therapy sessions that provide ongoing activities to aid their ability to engage in healthy social interactions. However, less is known about how K–12 schools might implement programs for this group of individuals to provide additional opportunities for growth, or even if and how school programs would be of assistance in the end. There is a gap, then, in understanding the possibilities of implementing such programs in schools to foster the social and mental health of children with autism. The six articles I selected for this assignment present research on different types of therapeutic programs that have been used to promote social interactions in children with autism.
Annotated Bibliography
Wi
mpory, D. C., & Nash, S. (1999). Musical interaction therapy – therapeutic play for children with autism. Child Language and Teaching Therapy, 15(1), 17–28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/026565909901500103
Wi
mpory and Nash provided a case study for implementing music interaction therapy as part of play therapy aimed at cultivating communication skills in infants with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The researchers based their argument on films taken of play-based therapy sessions that introduced music interaction therapy. To assess the success of music play, Wimpory and Nash filmed the follow-up play-based interaction between the parent and the child. The follow-up interactions revealed that 20 months after the introduction of music play, the child developed prolonged playful interaction with both the psychologist and the parent. The follow-up films also revealed that the child initiated spontaneously pretend play during these later sessions. After the introduction of music, the child began to develop appropriate language skills.
Si
nce the publication date for this case study is 1999, the results are dated. Although this study found that music interaction therapy is useful, emerging research in the field has undoubtedly changed in the time since this article was published. Wimpory and Nash wrote this article for a specific audience, including psychologists and researchers working with infants diagnosed with ASD. Their focus means that others beyond these fields may not find the findings applicable to their work.
I
am interested in the role of music in therapy to foster social and mental health in children with ASD. Therefore, Wimpory and Nash’s research is useful to me for background information on the implementation of music into play-based therapy in infants with ASD. Wimpory and Nash presented a basis for this technique and outlined its initial development. Therefore, their case study can be useful to my research when paired with more recent research on the topic.
Conclusion
For the Week 10 Application assignment, include a one-paragraph conclusion that presents a
synthesis
of the six articles you annotated.
�An introduction paragraph is a helpful addition to your annotated bibliography to tell your reader about your topic of interest and the general context of your topic.
An introduction paragraph is not required for the Week 6 and Week 8 Application assignments.
An introduction paragraph is required for the Week 10 Application assignment; this single paragraph should provide context for why you selected the six research articles that you did.
�Each APA style-formatted reference entry should be followed by a three-paragraph annotation that includes (a) a summary of the source, (b) an analysis of the source, and (c) an application of the source.
�The first paragraph of the annotation is a � HYPERLINK “https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/annotatedbibliographies/summary” ��summary� of the source.
The summary should present the (a) main findings of the study, (b) primary method(s) of the study, and (c) theoretical or conceptual basis of the study.
�The second paragraph of the annotation is an � HYPERLINK “https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/annotatedbibliographies/critique” ��analysis� of the source.
The analysis should explain the strengths and limitations of the source.
�The third paragraph of the annotation is an � HYPERLINK “https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/annotatedbibliographies/application” ��application� of the source.
The application should (a) justify how the source is applicable to your research interest, (b) describe how the source’s method is applicable to your research interest, and (c) indicate how the source might help to guide your future research on the topic.
In this paragraph, it is acceptable to use the � HYPERLINK “https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarlyvoice/first” ��first person� (I, me, my) in your writing.
��A conclusion is not required for the Week 6 and Week 8 Application assignments.
A conclusion is required for the Week 10 Application assignment; this single paragraph should present a � HYPERLINK “http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/evidence/synthesis” ��synthesis� of the six research articles you annotated.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Achiever Papers is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Dissertation Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, if anything is unclear, you may always chat with us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download