Immersion Education

Practices, Policies, Possibilities

Diane J. Tedick, Donna Christian, Tara Williams Fortune, Diane J. Tedick, Donna Christian, Tara Williams Fortune

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781847694737
• Topic: Sprachen & Linguistik
• Subtopic: Sprachkunst unterrichten

This volume builds on Fortune and Tedick's 2008 Pathways to Multilingualism: Evolving Perspectives on Immersion Education and showcases the practice and promise of immersion education through in-depth investigations of program design, implementation practices, and policies in one-way, two-way and indigenous programs. Contributors present new research and reflect on possibilities for strengthening practices and policies in immersion education. Questions explored include: What possibilities for program design exist in charter programs for both two-way and indigenous models? How do studies on learner outcomes lead to possibilities for improvements in program implementation? How do existing policies and practices affect struggling immersion learners and what possibilities can be imagined to better serve such learners? In addressing such questions, the volume invites readers to consider the possibilities of immersion education to enrich the language development and educational achievement of future generations of learners.

Chapter 1
The Future of Immersion Education:An Invitation to ‘Dwell in Possibility’

D.J. TEDICK, D. CHRISTIAN and T.W. FORTUNE

Introduction

In Pathways to Multilingualism: Evolving Perspectives on Immersion Education, Fortune and Tedick (2008) argued that the three immersion program types – one-way (foreign language), two-way (bilingual) and indigenous language immersion – have much in common despite their different contexts. They proposed that there is much to be gained from ‘cross-fertilization’ of ideas and practices across program types and social contexts. This volume builds on those themes by describing the practices and policies that characterize a variety of immersion programs. In this introductory chapter, we reiterate the definition of immersion, describe the three program types and offer a brief overview of the volume’s chapters. We then speak to the continued growth of immersion worldwide, acknowledge that many challenges persist and conclude with a call for immersion scholars and practitioners to imagine and embrace possibilities for strengthening immersion education to increase its impact and better achieve its goals.

Defining immersion

Language immersion education falls within the more encompassing category of bilingual education when referred to from the international perspective. In the United States, we have adopted the term dual language education to describe programs that adhere to the principles of additive bilingualism and biliteracy and cultural pluralism. The three immersion programs identified above comprise three of four dual language program types. The fourth is developmental/maintenance bilingual education, that parallels one-way foreign language immersion in that it targets learners with similar linguistic and cultural backgrounds, in this case language minority learners.

Originating in Canada in 1965 and now found worldwide, one-way (foreign language) immersion programs enroll linguistically homogeneous students who are typically dominant in the majority language and have no or minimal immersion language (IL) proficiency on program entry. One-way programs aim to (1) develop additive bi/multilingualism and bi/multiliteracy, (2) ensure that learners achieve academically and (3) foster the development of intercultural understanding.

Two-way (bilingual) immersion (TWI) programs, initiated in the early 1960s (Ovando, 2003) and predominantly found in the United States, differ from one-way immersion primarily in the student population. They bring together language minority and language majority learners to be instructed in and to learn each others’ languages (e.g. Spanish/English or Chinese/English) and work toward immersion goals of additive bi/multilingualism and bi/multiliteracy, academic achievement and cross-cultural understanding.

Indigenous language immersion programs are designed to revitalize endangered indigenous cultures and languages and promote their maintenance and development. They typically enroll children with indigenous heritage, though increasingly attracting some nonheritage learners. These programs are one-way or two-way depending on their student population. Besides reclaiming Native peoples’ cultural identity, they strive for academic achievement and additive bi/multilingualism and bi/multiliteracy. Indigenous immersion is becoming increasingly common around the world, notably in Oceania, Scandinavia, North America and South America. Just as indigenous communities have embraced immersion to restore Native identity and reverse language shift (Baker & Jones, 1998; Fishman, 1991), so too have autochthonous minority language communities such as the Basque, Irish and Welsh, to name a few.¹

At least 50% of subject-matter instruction must be taught through the IL for the program to qualify as immersion, and some immersion programs maintain or surpass 50% of IL instructional time from elementary through the end of secondary school. In the United States, secondary continuation programs offering a minimum of two year-long subject-matter classes in the IL still receive the immersion designation, however (Fortune & Tedick, 2008; Met & Lorenz, 1997). While some postsecondary programs exist (e.g. Burger et al., Chapter 7 and Wilson & Kamanā, Chapter 3), there are as yet no guidelines to specify how much time the IL must be used for subject-matter instruction in order for a program to be considered immersion at this level.

Overview of the volume

This volume showcases the immersion program types described above (Table 1.1). It is divided into four sections, each providing studies, literature reviews or descriptions of at least two of the three program types. The first section, Practices in Immersion Program Design, includes descriptions of Swedish immersion (Björklund & Mård-Miettinen), Hawaiian immersion (Wilson & Kamanā) and two-way Spanish/English immersion charter programs (Zehrbach). The second, Immersion Program Outcomes and Implications for Practice, summarizes research on Chinese/English twoway programs (Lindholm-Leary), a Spanish/English two-way secondary continuation program (de Jong & Bearse) and a French Immersion Studies postsecondary program (Burger et al.). The next section showcases studies on student Language Use, involving Irish immersion 6th graders (Ó Duibhir) and US Spanish immersion 5th graders (Broner & Tedick), and Assessment Practices as a means of impacting Cherokee immersion student language use (Peter et al.). The final section emphasizes Policy and Practice in Immersion Education with contributions that explore the impact of context on policies and practices in English immersion in Hong Kong and China (Hoare) and two-way Spanish/English immersion in the United States (Dorner). This section also includes a chapter that summarizes research and guides policy and practice related to struggling learners in immersion (Fortune). The volume closes with refl ections on the current state and future possibilities for immersion (Genesee).

Table 1.1 Overview of the volume’s chapters

Chapter/Authors	Language(s), (Context) and Program Variation	Student and Language Characteristics
One-Way Immersion Programs
Chapter 2: Björklund and Mård-Miettinen	Swedish (Finland) PreK–9, early total	Language-majority students; minority (official) language
Chapter 7: Burger et al.	French (Canada)Postsecondary continuation	Language-majority (Anglophone) students; minority (or second majority) language
Chapter 8:Ó Duibhir	Irish (Republic of Ireland) PreK–12, early total	Language-majority (English) and heritage learners;minority (official) autochthonous language
Chapter 9: Broner and Tedick	Spanish (US) K–5, early total	Language-majority (English) learners; international (foreign) language
Chapter 11: Hoare	English Hong Kong: Late immersion Xi’an, China: Middle-school continuation (linked to early partial program)*	Language-majority students; international language
Two-Way Immersion Programs
Chapter 4: Zehrbach	Spanish/English (US)K–8 charter programs, varying from 90:10 to 50:50	Language-minority (heritage) students; native language and majority language Language-majority (+heritage) students; minority (international) language
Chapter 5: Lindholm-Leary	Chinese/English (US) K–8, 80:20 and 70:30"^†	Same as above
Chapter 6: de Jong and Bearse	Spanish/English (US) Middle/high-school continuation (linked to 50:50 program)^†	Same as above
Chapter 12:Dorner	Spanish/English (US) K–5, 50:50	Same as above
Indigenous Immersion Programs
Chapter 3: Wilson and Kamanã	Hawaiian (US)PreK–12, early total	Heritage (+ some nonheritage) learners; language/culture revitalization and development of ethnic identity
Chapter 10: Peter et al.	Cherokee (US) PreK–4, early total	Heritage learners; language/culture revitalization and development of ethnic identity
Additional Chapters
Chapter 13: Fortune	Not language- or context-specific	N/A
Chapter 14: Genesee	Concluding chapter	N/A

* As explained by Hoare, the program in Xi’an does not technically qualify as immersion.

† As explained by Lindholm-Leary and de Jong and Bearse, the middle and high-school continuation programs do not technically qualify as immersion.

The Continued Expansion of Immersion Education

From Asia to Europe to North America and beyond, immersion programs are proliferating as more communities embrace the promise they hold for developing a bi/multilingual and bi/multicultural citizenry and for revitalizing and/or maintaining autochthonous and indigenous languages. Björklund and Mård-Miettinen (Chapter 2) indicate that the demand for Swedish immersion exceeds the places available in existing programs. Ó Duibhir (Chapter 8) explains that more ‘all Irish’ immersion programs are added each year. Hoare (Chapter 11) describes new legislation in Hong Kong that will lead to significant immersion growth. In the United States, the state of Utah has the goal of initiating 100 immersion programs within five years (Gregg Roberts, personal communication, February 9, 2010).

This impressive growth is undoubtedly due in large part to the strong research base that has consistently demonstrated the benefits of immersion education, including the development of functional proficiency in the IL at no expense to learners’ first language (L1), and academic achievement and majority language development at levels that equal or surpass those of nonimmersion students (e.g. Genesee, 1987, 2004; Howard et al., 2004). At the same time, many challenges that have plagued immersion programs from their inception persist.

Persistent Immersion Challenges

Just like the benefits, the challenges facing immersion programs have been well documented. Although a thorough discussion of these challenges is beyond the scope of this chapter, we briefl y summarize several key issues here.

Achievement of the primary goals of immersion

IL development

Research on one-way immersion has established that language majority students do not acquire native-like levels of IL proficiency in the productive skills (e.g. Genesee, 1987, 2004). Underdeveloped productive skills persist even after students have been schooled in immersion throughout the entire K-12 sequence (Burger et al., Chapter 7). Students’ language lacks grammatical accuracy and lexical specificity, is less complex and is sociolinguistically less appropriate when compared with the language of native speakers (e.g. Harley et al., 1990; Mougeon et al., 2010). Students’ use of English during IL instructional time increases as they progress through the grade levels in both one-way and two-way programs (e.g. Broner & Tedick, Chapter 9; Fortune, 2001; Potowski, 2007). Students tend to code mix somewhat frequently in upper elementary grades (Broner & Tedick, Chapter 9; Ó Duibhir, Chapter 8), and they struggle to produce extended discourse, often producing only sentence-level utteran...