Understanding Bilingual Education – research Continued.

A few posts ago I shared the thoughts and research and from the post you could work out what type of bilingual educational establishment you were.  It helped you work out whether you offer  additive or subtractive bilingual education.  The research by Steve McCarty, Professor, Osaka Jogakuin College and Osaka Jogakuin University is really easy to read and interesting at the same time.  This final part of his research offers a questionnaire from which you can gather more evidence about the type of establishment you are to enable you to move to the type of establishment you would like to be.

Worksheet to Analyze Cases of Bilingual Education
We (or I) think that…

  1. Leaders of the society see different languages in their communities as a [problem | resource | right | human right as well as a resource].
  2. The leaders are trying to [change | maintain | develop] the native language use of children.
  3. This education is for language [majority | minority | majority and minority] students.
  4. >Education for these students is mostly in their [native | second | foreign] language.
  5. This education is for the purpose of [assimilation of language minority students into the majority culture | separation of an ethnic group from the mainstream culture | maintenance of a minority or ethnic language | enrichment of language majority students | encouraging linguistic diversity and multiculturalism].
  6. The result of the educational system or outcome for students is [elite (or elective) | folk (or circumstantial) ] and [additive | subtractive | monolingualism, not a kind of] bilingualism.
  7. It is [a strong form | a weak form | not really a type] of bilingual education.
  8. This is because [students may be bilingual but their native language is not used in school | students learn all subjects in their native language | students take some foreign language classes taught in their native language | students learn in two languages but not enough to become bilingual | students can get enough input and interaction in both languages to become bilingual (and possibly bicultural) ].
  9. This type of bilingual education is [submersion | submersion with pull-out or sheltered second language classes | segregationist | transitional | mainstream with foreign language teaching | separatist | immersion | maintenance or heritage language | two-way or dual language | mainstream bilingual]. [If the program is not called Immersion, stop after item #9. If it is called Immersion, add item #10:]
  10. It is [actually enrichment, because the teaching is less than 50% in the second language | partial immersion | total immersion]. It is [not immersion | early immersion (starting around pre-school) | middle immersion (starting around the middle of elementary school) | late immersion (starting around junior high school)].

you can find the rest below or at: http://www.childresearch.net/papers/language/2012_03.html

Introduction to this paper

The aim of this final installment is to activate the information and analytical skills gained in these three papers through lesson plans. The process is to examine the languages used in school systems and to analyze those cases into types of bilingual education. Ten cases are first given, and experience with university classes has shown that there is enough information in these papers for most students to correctly classify the cases into types of bilingual education. The important thing to learn is not the answers to these cases but rather to gain the analytical skills, such as to infer the cause-and-effect relationships between the aims of decision-makers in a society and the type of education that results. In not only these realistic cases but in any situation in the world where enough information is available about the languages used in schools, the whole chain of causation between a cultural way of thinking and actual classroom practices can be discerned.

Lesson Plans to Analyze Cases of Language Use in Schools into Types of Bilingual Education

As a series of class lessons, students first learn and discuss the list of ten “Varying Aims of Bilingual Education” presented earlier. For example, which aims do learners think are beneficial for the whole society? A more advanced activity would be to predict what types of bilingual education or school systems might result from the different aims. Students then use the chart of ten “Types of Bilingual Education” along with the list of ten aims and the further criteria in the worksheet at the end of this paper to analyze the ten “Cases of Languages involved in Education.” The list of aims and the chart of types handed out to students in the author’s classes are bilingual in English and Japanese, adapted from Baker (2001) and Oka (1996), to lighten the cognitive load of undergraduates and to reduce lecturing time. An alternative activity for seminars or conferences would be for individuals to describe the medium of instruction in a school system they know in another region of the world, and then the group could analyze it by the criteria in these papers.

The first chart in this paper describes ten realistic cases in Japan and the world where different languages are connected to an educational system, whether all the pertinent languages are used in the schools or not. That is, the worksheet to follow will allow for the conclusion that a system called bilingual education by local or national authorities is, besides the ten types, not actually bilingual education at all, chiefly because there is only one medium of instruction. The basic exercise of this paper is to use the list of ten aims, the chart of ten types of bilingual education, and the worksheet with ten items to classify the ten cases below into types of bilingual education.

Cases of Languages involved in Education
  1. Native speakers of Japanese start studying English in the 5th grade of elementary school and several hours a week from junior high school. This is because English as an International Language may be valuable for their future studies and career.
  2. Immigrants from South America and Asia are working in a small city in Japan where there are not many other foreigners. Their children can study only in regular public school classes.
  3. There are Korean and Chinese ethnic schools in Japan. They teach Korean or Chinese language and culture. Including Japanese and some English, students may become bilingual or multilingual to some extent.
  4. An American Indian tribe tries to keep their children in their home region, to protect their language and culture, so they teach subjects mostly through their native language, using some English where it is necessary.
  5. In some areas of Africa, black Africans are isolated from government support and suffer from problems like child labor. Their children do not have the choice to study in a regional or international language like Swahili, Arabic, French or English, which could lift them out of poverty. Such African villages must try to conduct their own education in their native language.
  6. Many Canadian Inuit wish to maintain their native language and culture, but also to trade with others in North America. The government recognizes their right to keep their native language and helps their children learn English along with their native language.
  7. Most Canadians speak English, but people in the province of Quebec are mostly native speakers of French. Canada has a bilingual and multicultural policy with both English and French as official languages. Many schools in Quebec conduct classes in English at least half of the time.
  8. Mexican immigrants to the United States are often seen as having difficulty in school and adjusting to American society because they speak Spanish. Many of their children are therefore taught in simple English or regularly taken out of mainstream classes for lessons in English as a Second Language (ESL).
  9. Uyghur children receive education only in Chinese. The government has called it “bilingual education” in a press release that appeared in international news. Recently Uyghur students have been urged to live in dormitories at school and see their parents mostly during vacations.
  10. A small number of American schools form classes with about half English and half Spanish native speakers (or native speakers of other languages, including Japanese). The two languages are alternated in the curriculum, both cultures are valued, and the students can help each other.

Finally, the following worksheet can be used to analyze salient factors involved in any school system and, referring to the previous charts in these three papers, reach a conclusion as to what type of bilingual education the case may represent. The author developed this worksheet to lighten the cognitive load for second and third year university students in bilingualism and bilingual education classes to analyze cases of languages involved in education by just selecting among the choices in boldface type. By simply circling their choices on the worksheet, the students can make a paragraph analyzing any number of cases. Students can work in groups, with one person saying their analysis out loud to the whole class, starting with “We think that …” In this way, second to fourth year students majoring in English usually reach a reasonable conclusion as to the type of bilingual education.

Worksheet to Analyze Cases of Bilingual Education
We (or I) think that…

  1. Leaders of the society see different languages in their communities as a [problem | resource | right | human right as well as a resource].
  2. The leaders are trying to [change | maintain | develop] the native language use of children.
  3. This education is for language [majority | minority | majority and minority] students.
  4. >Education for these students is mostly in their [native | second | foreign] language.
  5. This education is for the purpose of [assimilation of language minority students into the majority culture | separation of an ethnic group from the mainstream culture | maintenance of a minority or ethnic language | enrichment of language majority students | encouraging linguistic diversity and multiculturalism].
  6. The result of the educational system or outcome for students is [elite (or elective) | folk (or circumstantial) ] and [additive | subtractive | monolingualism, not a kind of] bilingualism.
  7. It is [a strong form | a weak form | not really a type] of bilingual education.
  8. This is because [students may be bilingual but their native language is not used in school | students learn all subjects in their native language | students take some foreign language classes taught in their native language | students learn in two languages but not enough to become bilingual | students can get enough input and interaction in both languages to become bilingual (and possibly bicultural) ].
  9. This type of bilingual education is [submersion | submersion with pull-out or sheltered second language classes | segregationist | transitional | mainstream with foreign language teaching | separatist | immersion | maintenance or heritage language | two-way or dual language | mainstream bilingual]. [If the program is not called Immersion, stop after item #9. If it is called Immersion, add item #10:]
  10. It is [actually enrichment, because the teaching is less than 50% in the second language | partial immersion | total immersion]. It is [not immersion | early immersion (starting around pre-school) | middle immersion (starting around the middle of elementary school) | late immersion (starting around junior high school)].

Items 1 and 2 in the worksheet focus attention on the motives of decision-makers faced with different native languages of students in their schools. The first one examines their attitudes, adapted from Ruiz (1984), who held that authorities view language as a problem, resource, or right, with very different policies following from these views. The author sees “language,” which can mean so many things, as referring in this case to different languages in contact or occupying the same space, while, similarly, “right” can more precisely draw from United Nations human rights agreements pertaining to native languages, and from scholarship on linguistic human rights (Skuttnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1995). These also bear on the right of authorities in the second item to alter the language use of children rather than maintaining or, in the best scenario for the student, developing L1, which can bolster L2 development as well.

Items 3 and 4 clarify the profile of the students involved from their perspective. Item 5 clarifies the purpose or aim of a school system more specifically in line with the criteria for types of bilingual education. Item 6 probes the likely results or outcomes of a school system for students in terms of types of bilingualism. Briefly, elite bilingualism is for the fortunate majority by choice, hence it is also called elective, whereas folk bilingualism is a common situation that immigrants and minorities find themselves in, not of their own choice, hence it is also called circumstantial (cf. McCarty, 2010, for further details). Additive bilingualism is where the L2 is acquired with no cost to the L1 and therefore beneficial to the person, which is generally the case with enrichment or strong forms of bilingual education. Whereas subtractive bilingualism means that L2 replaces L1, which is detrimental to the person cognitively, and can alienate children from parents and relatives who speak only the L1. Item 6 also includes the option of concluding that the school system is not a case of bilingual education at all, usually because having only one medium of instruction tends to lead toward students remaining or becoming monolingual. The elite/folk distinction often maps onto the additive/subtractive outcome, but there are exceptions such as Separatist bilingual education, so the item is expressed as it is to cover as much as possible the different types of bilingual education.

With item 7 the type of bilingual education can be narrowed down to weak, strong, or monolingual, based on analyzing the previous criteria such as the likely learning outcomes, regardless of what a school system claims to practice. Item 8 offers a range of specific reasons for the item 7 selection and, together with other criteria, leads to the conclusion of the analysis in item 9, namely the type of bilingual education the case represents.

One further option is to add an item 10 for cases where an educational program is called immersion. That is to say, immersion programs have been shown to be effective, but because they are popular and sound attractive, it is not uncommon for school programs to inaccurately claim to be practicing immersion or bilingual education generally, either due to lack of specialized knowledge or because many of the students entering their schools speak different languages or are already bilingual. The strong forms of bilingual education would develop both languages in any case by using at least two languages as the medium of instruction.

Conclusion to the three papers on Bilingual Education

In conclusion, by learning the criteria and analytical skills introduced in these three papers, and completing the worksheet with ten items utilizing the list of ten aims and the chart of ten types, various school systems, such as the ten cases represent, can be analyzed into types of bilingual education.

References

Is your school really bilingual or monolingual in disguise?

Great piece of research about the type of schools that support monolingualism despite advocating their support of bilingualism. The research was done in Japan by Steve McCarty, Professor, Osaka Jogakuin College and Osaka Jogakuin University

Which is your school? Look at the table to discover which type your school is.

Types of Bilingual Education

Type of ProgramTypical StudentsLanguages used in the Classroom Educational/ Societal AimLanguage Outcome
Weak Forms of Bilingual Education *
SUBMERSION     (Structured immersion) Language Minority Majority Language Assimilation Monolingualism
SUBMERSION with withdrawal classes / sheltered English Language Minority Majority Language with pull-out L2 ** lessons [held in a different location] Assimilation Monolingualism
SEGREGATIONIST Language Minority Minority Language (forced, no choice) Apartheid Monolingualism
TRANSITIONAL Language Minority Moves from Minority to Majority Language Assimilation Relative Monolingualism
MAINSTREAM with Foreign Language Teaching Language Majority Majority Language with L2/FL ** Lessons Limited Enrichment Limited Bilingualism
SEPARATIST Language Minority Minority Language (out of choice) Detachment / Autonomy Limited Bilingualism
Type of ProgramTypical StudentsLanguages used in the Classroom Educational/ Societal AimLanguage Outcome
Strong Forms of Bilingual Education
IMMERSION Language Majority Bilingual with initial emphasis on L2 ** Pluralism / Enrichment Bilingualism & Biliteracy
MAINTENANCE / HERITAGE LANGUAGE Language Minority Bilingual with emphasis on L1 ** Maintenance / Pluralism / Enrichment Bilingualism & Biliteracy
TWO-WAY / DUAL LANGUAGE Mixed Language Majority & Minority Minority & Majority Maintenance / Pluralism / Enrichment Bilingualism & Biliteracy
MAINSTREAM BILINGUAL Language Majority Two Majority Languages Maintenance / Pluralism / Enrichment Bilingualism & Biliteracy

* In some cases the weak forms of bilingual education may actually be monolingual forms of education. ** L2  = [Students’] 2nd Language, L1 = 1st [or native] language, FL = Foreign Language.

read more at http://www.childresearch.net/papers/language/2012_02.html

Bilingual education, strictly speaking, involves teaching in two or more languages in schools, but for the reasons discussed in the previous paper, a bewildering variety of programs can claim a connection to the use of plural languages in education. Some school systems claim to practice bilingual education because their cultural minority students know another language aside from the one used in schools, but such programs with a monolingual medium of formal instruction do not actually represent a type of bilingual education at all. Their students may be bilingual for the time being despite, not because of, monolingual school systems that are designed to assimilate minorities.

http://waoe.org/steve/epublist.html – for his website

Types of Bilingual Education

With such diverse aims and resulting educational systems existing in the world, a taxonomy can only classify common patterns, but based on worldwide research sources, Baker has formulated ten types of bilingual education spanning four editions of his Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. The book was considered so important that Oka (1996) translated the whole first edition into Japanese, with its title suggesting a close connection between bilingualism and second language acquisition. The author could thus make a bilingual chart adapted from Baker (2001, p. 194) and Oka (1996, p. 183): Types of Bilingual Education

Type of ProgramTypical StudentsLanguages used in the Classroom Educational/ Societal AimLanguage Outcome
Weak Forms of Bilingual Education *
SUBMERSION     (Structured immersion) Language Minority Majority Language Assimilation Monolingualism
SUBMERSION with withdrawal classes / sheltered English Language Minority Majority Language with pull-out L2 ** lessons [held in a different location] Assimilation Monolingualism
SEGREGATIONIST Language Minority Minority Language (forced, no choice) Apartheid Monolingualism
TRANSITIONAL Language Minority Moves from Minority to Majority Language Assimilation Relative Monolingualism
MAINSTREAM with Foreign Language Teaching Language Majority Majority Language with L2/FL ** Lessons Limited Enrichment Limited Bilingualism
SEPARATIST Language Minority Minority Language (out of choice) Detachment / Autonomy Limited Bilingualism
Type of ProgramTypical StudentsLanguages used in the Classroom Educational/ Societal AimLanguage Outcome
Strong Forms of Bilingual Education
IMMERSION Language Majority Bilingual with initial emphasis on L2 ** Pluralism / Enrichment Bilingualism & Biliteracy
MAINTENANCE / HERITAGE LANGUAGE Language Minority Bilingual with emphasis on L1 ** Maintenance / Pluralism / Enrichment Bilingualism & Biliteracy
TWO-WAY / DUAL LANGUAGE Mixed Language Majority & Minority Minority & Majority Maintenance / Pluralism / Enrichment Bilingualism & Biliteracy
MAINSTREAM BILINGUAL Language Majority Two Majority Languages Maintenance / Pluralism / Enrichment Bilingualism & Biliteracy

* In some cases the weak forms of bilingual education may actually be monolingual forms of education. ** L2  = [Students’] 2nd Language, L1 = 1st [or native] language, FL = Foreign Language.

As can be seen in the extreme right column above, weak and strong forms are defined by the typical language outcomes among students, basically whether or not children become or remain bilingual. In strong forms of bilingual education, reading and writing are conducted in both languages, resulting in biliteracy. On the other hand, if classes are taught mainly in one language, it is not to the credit of the school system if some students are bilingual. Children of immigrants or minorities may simply be in transition from their endangered native language or languages to monolingualism in the dominant language of the society. Whereas majority or minority languages are defined from the viewpoint of the mainstream society, native languages (L1) and second or foreign languages (L2) should always be defined from the viewpoint of the learners involved.

In the second column from the right, the various educational or societal aims of bilingual education are seen again in keywords. The middle column demonstrates the variety of possible language use patterns in school classes, particularly the medium of instruction. The ten types of bilingual education are thus defined by the language background of the students, the languages actually used in school, the aims of decision-making authorities, and the active linguistic repertoire of students upon leaving the school.

Regarding particular types, submersion and transitional bilingual education serve the purpose of assimilating immigrant or minority children into the mainstream of society. Transitional programs start with considerable native language instruction, but it is gradually phased out. Submersion programs simply plunge students abruptly into classrooms where their native language is not seen as fit to use, and the medium of instruction is foreign to them, so they involuntarily sink or swim. Such programs are not called submersion, and they are usually believed to help students adjust to society as soon as possible so they can make a living in the future, but it tends to result in the cognitive damage of losing their native language proficiency. Then, for example in the U.S., they may still be stigmatized as limited English proficiency (LEP) speakers or of low intelligence according to standardized test results in their second language.

The second type of submersion in the chart aims to soften the shock of changing the language use of children by teaching in sheltered or simplified English, or pulling language minority students out of classes to study the majority language or medium of instruction itself. Withdrawal classes take place in some Japanese cities as well, with a small number of language minority students pulled out of each school to study Japanese as a second language (JSL) in a central location. Among the drawbacks, they miss regular class content and are further isolated from mainstream students. When Vaipae went beyond questionnaire surveys to interview immigrant families, she found that “regardless of the length of residence or school attendance in Japan, none of the case study students reached academic achievement levels on par with their Japanese classmates” (2001, p. 228).

Mainstream with Foreign Language Teaching, also a weak type of bilingual education, is the usual pattern where the mainstream language majority students study a foreign language several hours a week, which does not provide enough exposure and interaction in the L2 for students to become bilingual. Far removed from environments where it would be necessary and rewarding to use the foreign language, it is too little and started too late. Critical periods have passed where babies could distinguish all languages, children could attain native-like L2 pronunciation until about age eight, and languages could be acquired without much effort until around puberty (Glinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 1999, pp. 23-24, 138).  This is the usual predicament with English in Japan, various foreign languages taught in the U.S., and in other countries where one language is dominant.

The two other weak forms of bilingual education, Segregationist and Separatist, can appear to be similar, as they tend to be minority groups isolated from the mainstream society and using their native languages in school, insofar as children can attend. But the key difference is whether they have the choice of their medium of instruction or not. In Segregationist situations the dominant social group excludes the minority group from the option of learning in languages of wider communication such as Swahili, Arabic, English, or French. In this way the dominant group keeps the minority groups down, monopolizing limited resources and economic opportunities for social advancement. Whereas in Separatist situations the minority group is deliberately trying to distance its members from the strong influence of the mainstream society in order to protect its native language, culture, and religion. For example, some American Indians find their children turning away from their native language and values because of the strong influence of the popular culture in English. They may therefore conduct their own education in their native language apart from American influences, although young people are liable to become native speakers of English regardless, because the mainstream language can hardly be avoided.

Most of the weak forms of bilingual education were reserved for the children of immigrants and minorities except the Mainstream with Foreign Language Teaching model, which is ineffective and scarcely threatens to change the existing social order.

Turning to strong forms, a very successful model for majority language students is Immersion, usually in another language of high status, cultural prestige, and economic value. The difference between Immersion and Submersion (for minority students) is first of all a matter of choice, like diving into the deep end of a pool versus being pushed into it. The majority children or at least their parents choose an immersion bilingual education program for the utmost academic advancement, whereas submersion is a matter of circumstance, the conditions most minority families encounter in schools where the default national policy toward them is assimilation.

Immersion originated in Canada, which has a majority of French speakers in the province of Quebec. Canada has developed a national policy of bilingualism, with English and French as official languages, and multiculturalism (Shapson & D’Oyley, 1984) in consideration of indigenous Inuit and other minorities. 40% of children in Toronto schools are foreign born (Ritchie, 2006). Immersion bilingual education has been implemented widely for many years in Canada and adopted by schools in other countries (Bostwick, 2004). There are several English immersion schools in Japan, with research showing its effectiveness at Kato Gakuen in Shizuoka Prefecture (Bostwick, 2001). Conversely, there are schools in the U.S. and Australia that have Japanese immersion programs.

In immersion bilingual education the regular curriculum is taught to some extent in the target language, which can also be called Content-Based Foreign Language Teaching. But if the L2 is used less than half the time over the school year, it is not considered immersion, strictly speaking, but rather enrichment (Genesee, cited in Bostwick, 2004). When it is much less than 50%, it is Mainstream with Foreign Language Teaching, as noted earlier among the weak forms. There has not been much research or attention to bilingual education beyond childhood, but Content-Based English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Teaching, for example at Osaka Jogakuin University, can be more or less than 50% in the target language. In response to the author’s question at a public lecture, Fred Genesee answered that Content-Based EFL in higher education could be called “immersion-like.”

If a program is called immersion, it may need to be confirmed that the curriculum meets the established criteria. There is a distinction between partial and total immersion, as the proportion of L1 and L2 used tends to change from year to year in the same bilingual school. It is further divided into early immersion when it starts in pre-school, middle immersion when it starts midway through elementary school, and late immersion when it starts around the beginning of junior high school.  It is a strict standard compared to most foreign language programs, but many studies have shown that immersion students did not lose any native level ability in L1 but rather gained academic (Bostwick, 2001) and cognitive benefits from effective bilingual education programs.

Maintenance or Heritage Language programs serve the purpose of preserving the ethnic identity, culture and language of minority group members. Immigrant communities in particular have a need to maintain communication channels with first generation immigrants and people in their country of origin. Through bilingual education their children can cope with the majority society without losing their roots. Korean (Cary, 2001) and Chinese schools in Japan are of this type. Since their students are mostly raised in Japan and hence native speakers of Japanese, with English also taught at least through secondary school, many of their graduates are bilingual or multilingual.

Two-Way or Dual Language bilingual education is similar to immersion, but schools try to gather about the same number of minority and majority language students in each class in the program, and usually team teach about half of the curriculum in the native language of the minority and half in the native language of the majority language students. This shows that both languages are equally valued, and students can learn from each other. Two examples are Seigakuin Atlanta International School (n.d.), in English and Japanese, and Vienna Bilingual Schools (Oka, 2003, pp. 51-52), in German and English.

The last strong form among the ten types of bilingual education is called Mainstream Bilingual. It includes international schools and the European Schools Movement (Baker, 2006, p. 227). It serves children like majority students or temporary residents whose native language is an international language such as English. Thus Baker’s most recent edition also calls it Bilingual Education in Majority Languages. “Such schools are in societies where much of the population is already bilingual or multilingual (e.g. Singapore, Luxembourg) or where there are significant numbers of natives or expatriates wanting to become bilingual (e.g. learning through English and Japanese in Japan)” (Baker, 2006, p. 250). “Bilingual education in majority languages means that some curriculum content is learnt through a student’s second language. In Europe, this is often called Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)” (p. 251).

Conclusion to this paper

This was the longest of the three papers analyzing bilingual education because of the many types that are found in the world. The types drew from the varying purposes for bilingual education outlined in the first paper. Particularly the charts of ten purposes and ten types in the first and second papers will also provide background information for the final article. The third paper adds a worksheet with ten criteria and a list of ten realistic cases in Japan and the world to classify into types of bilingual education. Putting all of these together, it will be possible to analyze the languages used in any educational system in the world in terms of bilingual education.

References

  • Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Bostwick, R.M. (2001). Bilingual education of children in Japan: Year four of a partial immersion programme. In M.G. Noguchi & S. Fotos (Eds.), Studies in Japanese Bilingualism (pp. 164-183). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Bostwick, R.M. (2004). What is Immersion? Numazu, Shizuoka, Japan: Katoh Gakuen. Retrieved from http://bi-lingual.com/school/INFO/WhatIsImmersion.html
  • Cary, A. (2001). Affiliation, not assimilation: Resident Koreans and ethnic education. In M.G. Noguchi & S. Fotos (Eds.), Studies in Japanese Bilingualism (pp. 98-132). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Glinkoff, R.M. & Hirsh-Pasek, K.H. (1999). How Babies Talk: The Magic and Mystery of Language in the First Three Years of Life. NY: A Plume Book.
  • Oka, H. (1996). Bairingaru kyoiku to daini gengo shutoku [Bilingual education and second language acquisition]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
  • Oka, H. (2003). Sekai no bairingarizumu [Bilingualism in the world]. In JACET Bilingualism SIG, (Ed.), Nihon no bairingaru kyouiku: Gakkou no jirei kara manabu [Bilingual education in Japan: Learning from case studies in schools], pp. 24-66. Tokyo: Sanshusha.
  • Ritchie, M. (2006). Integrating children who speak a foreign language into English nursery schools in Toronto, Canada. Tokyo: Child Research Net. Retrieved from http://www.childresearch.net/papers/multi/2006_03.html
  • Seigakuin Atlanta International School (n.d.). Parents’ Guide to Our Two-Way Immersion School. Retrieved from http://www.seig.ac.jp/english/atlanta/img/Two%20Way%20Immersion(E).pdf
  • Shapson, S. & D’Oyley, V. (Eds.). (1984). Bilingual and multicultural education: Canadian perspectives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Vaipae, S.S. (2001). Language minority students in Japanese public schools. In M.G. Noguchi & S. Fotos (Eds.), Studies in Japanese Bilingualism (pp. 184-233). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Yukawa, E. (2000). Bilingual education in Sweden. In S. Ryan (Ed.), The best of Bilingual Japan, (pp. 45-47). Osaka: Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT) Bilingualism SIG.