12.3190, Review: Lindholm-Leary, Dual Language Education

Mon Dec 24 15:16:46 UTC 2001

LINGUIST List:  Vol-12-3190. Mon Dec 24 2001. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 12.3190, Review: Lindholm-Leary, Dual Language Education

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	Jody Huellmantel, WSU		James Yuells, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Heather Taylor-Loring, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Richard Harvey, EMU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Simin Karimi <simin at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================
What follows is another discussion note contributed to our Book
Discussion Forum.  We expect these discussions to be informal and
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited
to join in.

If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books
announced on LINGUIST as "available for discussion."  (This means that
the publisher has sent us a review copy.)  Then contact
Simin Karimi at simin at linguistlist.org
or Terry Langendoen at terry at linguistlist.org.

Subscribe to Blackwell's LL+ at http://www.linguistlistplus.com/ and
donate 20% of your subscription to LINGUIST! You get 30% off on
Blackwells books, and free shipping and postage!

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:30:09 -0600
From:  Dennis Malone <dennis_malone at sil.org>
Subject:  Review of Lindholm-Leary, 2001

2)
Date:  Mon, 24 Dec 2001 09:53:35 -0500 (EST)
From:  linguistlist reviews <reviews at linguistlist.org>
Subject:  Review of Lindholm-Leary, 2001

3)
Date:  Mon, 24 Dec 2001 10:08:35 -0500 (EST)
From:  linguistlist reviews <reviews at linguistlist.org>
Subject:  Review:  Lindholm-Leary, 2001

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:30:09 -0600
From:  Dennis Malone <dennis_malone at sil.org>
Subject:  Review of Lindholm-Leary, 2001

BOOK REVIEW
Lindholm-Leary, Kathryn J. (2001) Dual Language Education.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. viii and 370 pages.
Paperback ISBN 1-85359-531-4 (US$44.95). Hardcover ISBN 1-
85359-532-2 (US$99.95) [Prices cited from the Multilingual
Matters website: http://www.multilingual-matters.com].

REVIEWER
Dennis L. Malone, Ph.D., International Literacy Consultant,
SIL International

PURPOSE
Although considerable research is available that focuses on
the pedagogy and outcomes of bilingual education programs,
few studies have explored the forms and results of bilingual
education programs in which native speakers of the two
languages learn together in the same classrooms (a process
known as dual language education or DLE).  The purpose of
Lindholm-Leary's book is to provide an overview of DLE
programs and the effects of those programs on both majority-
language and minority-language participants.

By the author's definition, DLE programs "combine
maintenance bilingual education and immersion education
models in an integrated classroom composed of both language
majority and language minority students with the goal of
full bilingualism and biliteracy" (p. 1).

ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY OF CONTENT
Lindholm-Leary does an admirable job of organizing and
analyzing a large amount of diverse data relating to DLE
programs.  Following a brief Introduction, the author
divides her material into four main sections:

PART 1: Social and theoretical context of DLE programs (Ch.
1-3)
PART 2: Classroom, administrative and familial contexts in
DLE programs (Ch. 4-7)
PART 3: Student outcomes in DLE programs (Ch. 8-13)
PART 4: Conclusions and implications of DLE for language
education programs (Ch. 14-15)

In the book's Introduction, the author describes "three
major forces that have created a surge of interest in
various language education models" (p. 1).  The three
factors are, briefly: (1) the economic, social and political
ramifications of globalization that have stimulated interest
in high level multilingual communication proficiency; (2) a
worldwide increase in immigration leading to concerns about
the education needs of minority language students; and (3) a
growing concern for the revitalization of indigenous
languages that have been suppressed and/or neglected in the
past.

With respect to the first two of the factors, the author
presents an excellent and persuasive argument for the
potential of DLE programs to bring about the needed
educational outcomes or at least to contribute significantly
to their achievement.  With respect to the third factor,
readers are left more or less to themselves to identify the
implications of the programs reported here for
revitalization efforts in neglected minority languages.

Although some readers may have particular interests in the
data presented in PARTS 2 and 3, they will be wise to begin
by reading through PART 1 where the author defines most of
her shorthand references to program types (90:10, 80:20,
70:30,50:50, 90LO, 90HI, TBE, EO, FLES) and student
designations (FEP, LEP, EB, SB).

In PART 1, the author discusses issues of changing
demographics in the U.S. and elsewhere that have resulted in
large minority language populations and increased cultural
diversity along with the education problems resulting from
such changes.

The political issues driving the English Only movement and
California's Proposition 227 (the passage of which in 1997
effectively eliminated most of the support for the state's
extensive bilingual education programs) are featured in
Chapter 1.  The author argues that, contrary to accusations
by English-only adherents, bilingual education does work,
and DLE programs appear to be its most effective form.

Two basic models of DLE programs are also defined in Chapter
1.  First, the 90:10 model, which refers to the use of the
"target language (TL)" as medium of instruction 90 percent
of the time and the societal language (e.g. English in the
U.S.) for 10 percent of the time in kindergarten and grade
1, gradually changing to roughly 80:20 in grades 2 and 3,
and then to around 50:50 in grades 4-6.  The second DLE
program type is called 50:50 because the TL (e.g., Spanish)
is used 50 percent of the time, and the societal language is
used 50 percent of the time.  Throughout the remaining
chapters variants of these two programs models are compared
with each other and with other bilingual education programs
that are not DLE (e.g., transitional bilingual education or
English-only programs that involve only minority language
students).  According to the author, programs fitting the
DLE definition have grown in number in the U.S. from 30 in
1987 to 261 in 1999.

Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature on theoretical
and conceptual models of language education.  The review
emphasizes the common traits of effective language education
programs: strong leadership, a cohesive and supportive
faculty, and clear articulation of the instructional
program.  The author also emphasizes the need for both
groups of students (minority and majority) to be treated
equitably.

Chapter 3 describes specific design and implementation
features of successful language education models
(particularly DLE programs).  The discussion includes a
persuasive argument for beginning literacy instruction in
the target (minority) language.

In PART 2, the author provides valuable information on the
various contexts of DLE programs, including the demographic
and educational characteristics of the schools involved in
her study (Ch. 4), the range of teachers' perceptions of
administrative and parental support, their own participation
in the planning program, and the degree to which students in
both groups (minority language and societal language) were
treated equitably (Ch. 5), the kind and (linguistic) quality
of "teacher talk" in the classroom (Ch. 6), and the various
influences on parent attitudes toward and involvement in DLE
programs (Ch. 7).

The last two chapters are of particular interest. Chapter 6
adds more empirical evidence to reports in recent research
on trends in "teacher talk" (i.e., the teachers' oral use of
language with students in the classroom context).  The
author argues that the plethora of cognitively low-level
linguistic structures in teachers' interactions with
students, corporately and individually, need to be addressed
in any language education program that aims at high levels
of bilingual proficiency.

Chapter 7 provides an analysis of parent attitudes toward
the DLE programs in which their children participate.  This,
according to the author, has been a "missing link" in
language education research to date.  Of particular interest
is the finding that parents of kindergarten students are the
population segment that is most satisfied with DLE programs,
followed by parents of students in grades 6-8.  The least
satisfied were parents of grades 3-5 students.  In 90:10 DLE
programs, reading in the societal (majority) language (e.g.,
English) does not begin until Grade 3.  Thus, at that point,
parents who are concerned that their children are falling
behind other children in English-only classrooms have no
evidence to assuage their fears.  By grade 6, however, the
students' success in transferring target language literacy
skills to the societal language has become apparent.  Thomas
and Collier's (1997) longitudinal study also demonstrates
that the positive affects of dual language programs are not
clear until the later primary grades.  Their research
explains the differences in parent satisfaction over the K-8
spectrum of DLE.

IN PART 3, the author turns her attention to student
outcomes, providing a detailed discussion of student samples
and data collection techniques from her study (Chapter 8).
She collected comparative data on several thousand students
with respect to their ethnic and economic background, oral
language proficiency and academic language/ reading
achievement.  She includes longitudinal data on 149 students
over a period of 5 years in in four 90:10-type DLE program.

She then uses comparative data on student oral proficiency
outcomes in their DLE program languages, which were
primarily Spanish and English (Chapter 9).  One key finding
here is that achieving bilingual proficiency in both Spanish
and English is more likely to occur in a 90:10 DLE program
than a 50:50 one.

In addition to oral proficiency, the author examines reading
and language achievement in both the L1 and the L2 (Chapter
10), demonstrating an important correlation between
bilingual proficiency and students' scores in reading
achievement (p. 232).

In Chapter 11, the author compares standardized tests of
reading achievement with alternative forms of evaluation
(primarily portfolio assessment).  The author argues that
the two forms of assessment are more complementary than
competitive, each assessing different aspects of the same
reading process.

The author also discusses DLE students' performance with
respect to subjects other than language education:
mathematics, science and social studies (Chapter 12).
Again, the students in the DLE programs are generally able
to perform as well as or better than their non-DLE
counterparts.

Chapter 13 concludes PART 3 with a discussion of students'
attitudes and motivations as these affect the learning
environment.  The implications here are that ethnic minority
students in DLE programs experience increased perception of
academic competence and "global self-worth," approximating
that of middle- and upper-class students in English-as-
medium-of-instruction programs (p. 287).

In PART 4, the author summarizes her findings and
conclusions and discusses their implications for language
education programs. She concludes that DLE programs are
effective in helping students attain levels of bilingualism,
biliteracy and academic achievement that are at or above
grade level for both language minority and language majority
students (Chapter 14).  These results are consistent
irrespective of students' ethnic, socioeconomic and/or
linguistic backgrounds.  Teachers and parents both express
positive attitudes toward the programs.

In the book's final chapter the author presents a detailed
summary of key implications of her research, distilling her
final analysis into three general conclusions: (1) DLE
programs can be effective in promoting high levels of
language proficiency, increased academic achievement and
positive student attitudes; (2) DLE teachers clearly enjoy
teaching in the DLE programs; and (3) parents demonstrate
their satisfaction with DLE programs by recommending them to
other parents (p. 330).  Within the context of Lindholm-
Leary's careful data collection, analysis, and
interpretation, those are warranted assertions.

A CRITICAL EVALUATION
Lindholm-Leary provides her readers with a useful and timely
assessment of dual language education.  The book is useful
because the author has taken care to present as
comprehensive a picture of DLE programs as possible without
becoming tedious.  The book is timely because her detailed
description and analysis of DLE programs follow closely on
the heels of major research studies (August & Hakuta, 1997;
Thomas and Collier, 1997; Christian, Montone, Lindholm &
Carranza, 1997; Cloud, Genesee and Hamayan, 2000) which
argue strongly that DLE programs are the most effective form
of minority language education in terms of minority student
achievement in English.

The author provides a well-reasoned historical and
theoretical case for dual language education.  In the
process she adds another chapter to the sad account of how
easily political opponents can use hearsay and innuendo to
discredit substantive empirical research supporting the
promotion of effective bilingual education programs (e.g.,
California's Proposition 227).

A few incidental aspects of the author's presentation
warrant questioning.

First, in her discussion of literacy instruction (pp. 90-
92), the author notes that a trend toward whole language
reading programs coincided with the dual language programs
she was studying.  She asserts that "this whole language
movement and the DLE program are confounded" making it
impossible to know whether reading achievement was a result
of the literacy methodology or the DLE program.  However, it
seems to this reviewer that regardless of the literacy
methodology (whole language, phonics, basal readers),
reading achievement could never be exclusively attributed to
the "DLE program" since it is the nature of literacy
instruction to affect reading achievement.

Lindholm-Leary (citing Wong Fillmore's 1985 research)
emphasizes that "effective bilingual teachers tailor their
verbal interactions according to the level of each student's
language proficiency" (p. 124).  However, neither of the two
studies of "teacher-talk" featured in Chapter 6 report on
the degree to which the language of the teachers' utterances
was tailored to the language proficiency of the student.
Thus, the percentages of teachers' instructional utterances
(p. 131) do not indicate whether or not those utterances
were appropriate to the learners' language level.

>>From time to time, the author's interpretation of findings
is regrettably muted.  For example, in Chapter 9, reporting
on a comparison of bilingual education program types with
respect to oral language proficiency in the L2 (English),
the score for the transitional bilingual education program
(a non-DLE program) outscored all the DLE program types in
English language proficiency (p. 190).  It would be helpful
in a case like this to offer a more detailed explanation.
Is this an "early-exit TBE" program or a "late-exit TBE"
program.  If it is an "early-exit" program (i.e., 1 or 2
years), then this finding is exactly the kind that opponents
of maintenance bilingual education will use to discredit the
longer, more expensive, more effective programs.
Fortunately, in this example, the results are somewhat
problematic since the TBE participants are rated as "94%"
English-proficient in kindergarten in a program that
requires students to be limited-English-proficiency (LEP)
for enrollment (p. 194).

With respect to the author's interpretation of her research
findings, my only reservation is with her tendency to over-
use the modifier "clearly" (e.g., the term is used 3 times
in a description of assessment results that are not all that
clear, pp. 243-244).  Considered against the whole of
Lindholm-Leary's argument, however, this a not particularly
serious fault.

All in all, the author's presentation of her data and
analysis is straightforward and persuasive.  Her study
provides the field of bilingual education with a much-needed
analysis of program models that feature language education
seriously aimed at bilingual, biliterate proficiency.  As
the author states in her final chapter: "The realities of
living in multicultural communities and an ever-shrinking
global community with a variety of languages requires
training students with high levels of multilingual and
multicultural competencies" (p.310).  This volume presents a
convincing argument for the provision of more human and
material resources for expanding and adapting dual language
education programs to the diverse multilingual settings in
today's world.

REFERENCES
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning
about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for
language-minority children: A research agenda.  Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.

Christian, D., Montone, C., Lindholm, L. & Carranza, I.
(1997).  Profiles in two-way bilingual education.  McHenry,
IL: Delta Systems.

Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000).  Dual language
instruction.  Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Katz, L. & Frost, R. (1992) The reading process is different
for different orthographies: The orthographic depth
hypothesis.  Haskins Laboratories Studies Report on Speech
Research, SH 111/112, 147-160.

Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for
language minority students.  Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as
input?  In S.M. Gass & C.G. Maddens (eds.), Input in Second
language Acquisition, pp. 17-50.  Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Dennis Malone earned a Ph.D. in Education at Indiana
University and currently works as an International Literacy
Consultant with SIL International in the Asia Area.  His
research interests are mother tongue education,
sociolinguistics (especially language maintenance and
revitalization issues) and literacy studies in general. He
has extensive experience in ethnic minority education in
Asia and the Pacific. He is currently serving as visiting
lecturer at Mahidol University-Salaya (Bangkok), advising on
several mother tongue education projects in the Asia Area,
and consulting with the Ministry of Education and Training
(Vietnam), on a pilot project on ethnic minority primary
education.

-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 24 Dec 2001 09:53:35 -0500 (EST)
From:  linguistlist reviews <reviews at linguistlist.org>
Subject:  Review of Lindholm-Leary, 2001

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:30:09 -0600
From: Dennis Malone <dennis_malone at sil.org>
Subject: Review of Lindholm-Leary, 2001