A meta-analysis of selected studies on the efficacy of bilingual education was conducted and the results were compared with a traditional review of the same literature. When statistical controls for methodological inadequacies were employed, participation in bilingual education programs consistently produced small to moderate differences favoring bilingual education for tests of reading, language skills, mathematics, and total achievement when the tests were in English, and for reading, language, mathematics, writing, social studies, listening comprehension, and attitudes toward school or self when tests were in other languages. The magnitude of effect sizes was influenced by the types of programs compared, language of the criterion instruments, academic domain of the criterion instruments, random versus nonrandom assignment of students to programs, formula used to calculate effect sizes, and types of scores reported in the studies. Programs characterized by instability and/or hostile environments were associated with lower effect sizes. The synthesized studies contained a variety of methodological weaknesses which affected the magnitude of the effect sizes. Initial group differences-in language dominance, in environmental language exposure, in need for the bilingual program-were not uncommon. In some cases, comparison groups contained bilingual program "graduates." In others, experimental groups changed in composition during the study through the exiting of successful students and their replacement with newcomers subsequent to pretesting and prior to posttesting. Although the technique of metaanalysis allows for statistical control of methodological inadequacies, the methodological inadequacies in the synthesized studies render the results less than definitive and highlight the need for quality research in the area of bilingual education. Problems inherent in conducting research on bilingual programs are discussed in relation to the outcomes of this synthesis, and guidelines for future research are proposed.

No abstract

The role of social, cultural, and personal factors in moderating achievement attributions and evaluation anxiety as they affect math performance in school was studied for 397 Anglo, black, and Hispanic students in grades four to eight. Cross-group analyses indicated that motivation contributed to low academic achievement in all groups, but different factors were important for different groups; causal attributions were more predictive of math scores for the black and Anglo children, while anxiety scores were more predictive for the Hispanic children. Across ethnic groups, those children who do experience a debilitating constellation of motivational variables are from families who are upwardly mobile and on the borderline of socioeconomic or cultural strata. The findings suggest the importance of developing instructional activities to facilitate positive motivation that are in accord with the motivational needs of the particular child as well as further research to pinpoint the motivational needs of different groups of children.There is a long and continuing history of interest in the sociocultural origins of achievement-related motives (

In this response to Baker’s (1987) “Comment on Willig’s ‘A Meta-Analysis of Selected Studies on the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education,’” I address major questions raised by Baker and present counter arguments to each. First, I contend that the questions addressed in the meta-analysis were more appropriate for answering the concerns of the White House review team than were those addressed in Baker and de Kanter (1981) ; second, I provide evidence suggesting that one of Baker’s major points—that Willig (1985) did not include the studies from Baker and de Kanter (1983) —is primarily a rhetorical strategy; third, I explain the process of information gathering in the meta-analysis and compare my information from specific studies to that reported in Baker and de Kanter (1981) , demonstrating pitfalls in Baker’s review methods; fourth, I present my rationale for the exclusion of specific studies not included in the meta-analysis and demonstrate that Baker’s treatment of these studies is flawed; finally, I clarify several technical questions raised by Baker.

No abstract