English language immersion and students' academic achievement in English, Chinese and mathematics

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that second language immersion is an effective means of facilitating primary school students' second language without undermining competence in their first language. Despite the rapid growth of English immersion (EI) programmes in China, only limited empirical research has been conducted to evaluate students' academic achievement in these programmes. This study addressed three primary research questions regarding EI students' academic achievement represented by English (L2), Chinese (L1) and mathematics. This study was conducted with a group of Grade 2 (n 0385), Grade 4 (n 0430) and Grade 6 (n 0183) students in immersion or non-immersion programmes in three schools in China. Cambridge Young Learners English Tests were employed as the L2 measure. School-issued achievement tests in L1 (Chinese) and in mathematics were also employed. The results show that immersion students, compared with non-immersion students, did better in English at all three grade levels. They also did similarly in Chinese and mathematics at Grades 2 and 4, but better at Grade 6. The findings from this evaluation study demonstrate a complex and developmental picture of students' academic achievement in English, Chinese and mathematics.

First and Second Language Acquisition in German Children Attending a Kindergarten Immersion Program: A Combined Longitudinal and Cross‐Sectional Study

“…After controlling for cognitive abilities and SES, English vocabulary was found to increase significantly from Grade 1 to Grade 4 in both immersion students and students with conventional English instruction, though immersion students outperformed conventionally educated children. Concerning L1 development, majority-language immersion students have been shown to develop comparable or even higher L1 competencies compared to monolingually educated students (e.g., Bamford & Mizokawa, 1991;Cheng, Li, Kirby, Qiang, & Wade-Woolley, 2010;Harley, Hart, & Lapkin, 1986;Swain & Lapkin, 1982). The fact that L1 development is unimpaired by immersion is presumably due to students' daily contact with their L1 outside school (e.g., at home, through media, and in the community), which provides sufficient L1 input for age-appropriate L1 development.…”

Comprehension of English plural-singular marking by Mandarin-L1, early L2-immersion learners

“…However, this conclusion is based on the absence of conspicuous differences in global comprehension rather than close examination of these learners' receptive abilities. Nevertheless, the claim that immersion learners typically have strong L2 comprehension is well supported as they reliably demonstrate L2 skills sufficient for completing appropriate grade-level content (Alanís, 2000;Cazabon, Nicoladis, & Lambert, 1998;Cheng, Li, Kirby, Qiang, & Wade-Woolley, 2010;Genesee, 1987;Harley, Hart, & Lapkin, 1986;Knell et al, 2007;Lindholm-Leary, 2011;Swain & Lapkin, 1982;Turnbull et al, 2001). Assessments that measure L2 proficiency by tracking immersion learners' holistic listening and reading comprehension (e.g., Genesee, 1981;Harley & Hart, 1997;Siegel et al, 2010;Swain & Lapkin, 1982;Turnbull et al, 1998) are certain to have more validity in predicting academic success than a psycholinguistic experiment, yet such assessments offer little evidence about the precise nature of immersion learners' comprehension of particular linguistic features.…”

Motivation and Test Anxiety in Test Performance Across Three Testing Contexts: The CAEL, CET, and GEPT

“…Using a nested research design (test‐takers within and across tests and testing contexts), this study examined the interrelationships of test‐takers' reported motivation and test anxiety in their test performance within each testing site and across the three different social and educational contexts where the tests take place. The study also investigated significant personal demographic factors—gender and age (Cheng, Li, Kirby, Qiang, & Wade‐Woolley, ; Ellis, ; Figueiredo & da Silva, ; Larsen‐Freeman, )—and social factors in relation to test importance to stakeholders and test purposes (Bachman, ; Fox & Cheng, ; K. Ryan, ). Two main research questions guided the study:…”