Sociological / Psycholinguistic   Bases of Bilingual Education 

Cognitive Theories of Bilingual Education

       The ideas and notions of the general public concerning bilingual education theory diverge greatly from empirical evidence. Many adhere to the belief that second language acquisition comes at the price of the learner’s first language.

If one thinks of human linguistic ability as a balloon into which only a predetermined amount of input may be placed, it becomes difficult to imagine the notion of a highly literate multilingual individual, in that there simply isn’t enough room for all the words and phrases of two much less three of more languages. What followed from this was the idea that one language’s growth meant the diminishing of any other language the individual knew.

This is known as the Balance Theory. A theory, which flies in the face of empirical evidence and the underlying ideas behind bilingual education. What it also implied was a concrete division between the thoughts, experiences and knowledge of the two languages. Cummins later termed this SUP or Separate Underlying Principle, meaning that each linguistic section of the brain was built on separate foundations without the ability to interface together, thusly rendering any instruction in one language useless or non-transferable.

This notion of SUP fits well with English First proponents. This group seeks to do away with bilingual education in the United States due to what they perceive as bilingual education’s failure to differentiate itself as a strong or superior option to English immersion programs. If in fact there is no transfer between languages in the brain, or if the theory that there is only a finite amount of space for language in the brain is correct, it would be logical to call for the abandonment of bilingual education in that the use of a child’s first language (Spanish, Vietnamese, Urdu…) would hamper and impede the development of the second (English).

When what seems to be logical is held up to the scrutiny of empirical evidence, the major flaws of the aforementioned beliefs and theories become apparent. Studies have shown that certain types of bilingual education result in actual cognitive advantages when compared with submersion or monolingual education. The notion of limited space for linguistic / language development is also flawed. Research has also shown that there is ample room for two, three or more languages. Finally the idea of a Separate Underlying Proficiency SUP for each set of language abilities is not supported in the research findings.

The binary opposite of SUP, is CUP or Common Underlying Proficiency.  Also coined by Cummins, CUP supports the idea that all comprehensible input, regardless of its language is accessible by the conscious mind. For example an individual with language abilities in Norwegian and English could hear a story in Norwegian and later recount it or write about its significance in English. This concept is part of the foundation of bilingual education. A 7-year-old child from El Salvador, with no English language abilities can continue her cognitive development through Spanish language math, science, and language arts while learning English at the same time. In time, as her English language abilities develop, she will be able to transfer what she has learned through her native language instruction into subsequent classes taught in English.

        Addressing the issue of language development, Cummins illustrates its two domains: BICS [Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills] and CALP [Cognitive Academic Language.

It is not difficult to find an individual, especially a child, who after a period as brief as one or two years, can carry on a conversation in a second language with the ease and intonation of a native speaker. Students with these strong conversational skills are often thought to be fully fluent and not in need of academic modifications due to their language background. Such students have reached a level equal to their peers in language ability in the area of social, everyday conversation or BICS. Research has shown that it takes on average 1-2 years for second language learners to become fluent in common, contextualized discourse. Through social patterns and interactions, these learners make predictions with few errors as to what will or might be said next. These interactions include gestures, facial expressions, music, and pictures among other clues to the meaning of verbal discourse.

Often such individuals as described above did poorly in school despite the strong second language abilities they exhibited. This is due to a difference between social and academic language. The academic side differs from the social in that there is little or no contextualization of the input, there is also an increased, distinct vocabulary especially in written English. This vocabulary, coupled with the relative absence of auditory and non-verbal clues, combined with cognitively challenging material, made academic success in a second language extremely difficult even if the second language learner possessed strong social skills or BICS. Research has found that it takes 5-7 years before an individual is able to work in a second language on the level of their peers in a cognitively challenging, decontextualized setting. Cummins refers to this level of proficiency as CALP.

Bilingual education seeks to cognitively develop the learner in their first language while building both social and academic language proficiency in their second language. This type of setting allows them to keep up academically with others their age by way of first language instruction in the core curriculum until such time as they have gained sufficient cognitive and second language development to allow them an opportunity to succeed in their second language.

Course Components:

1. Cognitive Theories Paper 
2. Legal Cases Analytical Paper 
3. Presentation 
4. Notebook   
5. Paper 
6. Professional Development