annotation bibliography

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rlcc20

Language, Culture and Curriculum

ISSN: 0790-8318 (Print) 1747-7573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlcc20

A review of research on content-based foreign/ second language education in US K-12 contexts

Diane J. Tedick & Pamela M. Wesely

To cite this article: Diane J. Tedick & Pamela M. Wesely (2015) A review of research on content- based foreign/second language education in US K-12 contexts, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28:1, 25-40, DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923

Published online: 11 Mar 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2760

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 41 View citing articles

A review of research on content-based foreign/second language education in US K-12 contexts

Diane J. Tedicka* and Pamela M. Weselyb

aSecond Languages and Cultures Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; bForeign Language and ESL Education, Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

(Received 24 June 2014; accepted 18 October 2014)

This review of the extant research literature focuses on research about content-based language instruction (CBI) programmes in K-12 foreign/second language education in the USA. The review emphasises studies on one-way language immersion (OWI) and two-way language immersion (TWI) programmes, which are school-based and subject matter-driven. OWI primarily targets majority-language students and TWI a combined student population of minority- and majority-language learners. Reference to the few studies on non-immersion CBI programmes in the USA is also included. This article presents a review of the research in relationship to four broad themes: student outcomes, classroom language use and development, the hidden curriculum, and teacher preparation and practice. The research review is followed by a discussion of the research methodologies and theoretical frameworks used in these studies and concluding sections that set suggestions for paths for future inquiry in four areas: student diversity, the role of English in classrooms, teacher development, and achievement research.

Keywords: content-based language instruction; language immersion education; content-and-language-integrated learning; language teacher education

1. Introduction

Content-based language instruction (CBI) takes many forms in US K-12 education,1 from sheltered subject matter English-as-a-second language (ESL) classes, to developmental and transitional bilingual programmes, to language immersion programmes and theme-based foreign language (FL) courses in high schools (Tedick & Cammarata, 2012). The focus of this review is on research about CBI programmes in K-12 foreign/second language edu- cation in the USA. As the bulk of this research occurs in immersion contexts, this review emphasises studies on language immersion programmes, which are school-based and subject matter-driven. We begin with a description of important terminology and relevant programme models to contextualise the review.

The research reviewed herein features several CBI learning contexts. Some of the pro- grammes featured in the studies reviewed target majority-language (English-L1) learners. The vast majority of studies on such programmes involve one-way immersion (OWI),

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Language, Culture and Curriculum, 2015 Vol. 28, No. 1, 25–40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923

designed for a predominantly linguistically homogeneous student population of English-L1 speakers. The literature search revealed few studies on non-immersion CBI programmes, and they are referenced in the review. These are based on traditional FL programmes for English-L1 speakers, either content-related programmes in the middle school (wherein the FL is used to reinforce subject matter [e.g. science] concepts taught in English) or FL classes at the middle or high school level that are theme-based (often culture or litera- ture-related). Other CBI programmes featured prominently in the research reviewed are two-way immersion (TWI) programmes, designed for a linguistically heterogeneous student population of majority-language and minority-language (English-L2) learners.

In order for a programme to be worthy of the immersion label, at least 50% of subject matter instruction must occur through the medium of the foreign/second/minority language for a minimum of six years (throughout primary education), and at least two subject matter courses must be taught in secondary continuation programmes (Fortune & Tedick, 2008). All US immersion programmes begin at kindergarten or Grade 1 (ages 5–6 years), although there are an increasing number of preschool programmes. OWI and TWI programmes vary by the level of intensity with which the minority language is used in instruction. They may be either partial (50:50), where each programme language is distributed evenly throughout the grade levels, or total (90:10), where the minority language is used exclusively or nearly exclusively at the beginning of the programme with the amount of instruction in English gradually increasing as students advance through the grades. Immersion programmes share three goals: academic achievement at or above grade level, additive bilingualism/bili- teracy, and the development of cultural or multicultural competence.

Research on other types of US CBI programmes, such as sheltered ESL classes, indigen- ous language immersion, and transitional and developmental bilingual education pro- grammes, is not featured in this review. There is a dearth of empirical research on US indigenous immersion programmes, which target students having Native American ancestry and strive towards language and culture revitalisation. Moreover, a thorough review of the research on programmes that serve minority-language (English-L2) students only is beyond the scope of this article, as we have limited the review due to space limitations to research on programmes that serve at least some majority-language (English-L1) learners.

It is difficult to know exact numbers of US immersion programmes. The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) maintains OWI and TWI directories. The OWI directory (CAL, 2014a) lists nearly 600 programmes in over 20 languages (including some indigenous languages), and the TWI directory (CAL, 2014b) approximately 450 in 7 languages, most in Spanish.2 Because the directories rely on self-report, these numbers are likely quite low.

This article presents a review of the research in relationship to four broad themes: student outcomes, classroom language use and development, the hidden curriculum, and teacher preparation and practice. The research review is followed by a discussion of the research methodologies and theoretical frameworks used in these studies and concluding sections that set suggestions for paths for future inquiry.

2. State of the art

2.1. Student outcomes in OWI and TWI programmes

Research on student outcomes in CBI learning environments in the USA has focused on academic achievement and English language development, minority language develop- ment, and attitudinal outcomes in OWI and TWI programmes. This section provides a syn- thesis of research in these three areas as related to both minority- and majority-language students.

26 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely

2.1.1. Academic achievement and English language development

Research has consistently reported that in the long run, both minority-language and majority-language students enrolled in well-implemented US OWI and TWI programmes perform as well as or better than their non-immersion peers (children schooled in English only) on measures of academic achievement administered in English (Downs- Reid, 2000; Essama, 2007; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006; Padilla, Fan, Xu, & Silva, 2013; Thomas, Collier, & Collier, 2011). These measures typi- cally assess reading and mathematics, as well as English language development (language arts, writing). Similar outcomes have been found in studies that disaggregate student groups by ethnicity (Caldas & Boudreaux, 1999; Haj-Broussard, 2002; Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010), socioeconomic status (SES) (Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006; Thomas et al., 2011), or learning ability/impair- ment (Thomas et al., 2011). Most comprehensively, the Thomas et al. (2011) study reported that reading and mathematics scores of TWI students were higher for all students irrespec- tive of their race/ethnicity, and SES, ESL, or special education status. Moreover, by middle school, TWI students were at least a grade ahead in reading and mathematics achievement compared to non-TWI students. These results are important because they show that TWI programmes have the potential to lower the achievement gap that persists between middle-class white students in US schools and students from these various subgroups. Similar results have been reported for low SES students in early total OWI programmes, including those from African-American backgrounds who typically come to school speak- ing non-standard English (Caldas & Boudreaux, 1999; Haj-Broussard, 2002).

Some studies have shown that achievement gaps in mathematics and reading in TWI and OWI programmes remain, although they are smaller than gaps observed in non-immersion, mainstream programmes (Caldas & Boudreaux, 1999; Thomas et al., 2011). Other studies have reported that minority-language (Spanish-, Chinese-speaking) students in TWI pro- grammes reach or surpass grade level norms in English reading, writing, and mathematics by Grades 5–7, and sometimes sooner (de Jong, 2002; Lindholm-Leary, 2001, 2011; Lindholm-Leary & Hernández, 2011). A future avenue for research is to identify specific programme characteristics and other factors that appear to close the achievement gap.

Some studies address whether the exposure to English in the programme (i.e. if the pro- gramme is partial/50:50 or total/90:10) has an effect on outcomes. TWI studies have involved both 50:50 and 90:10 programmes and have reported that in the long run there is no differ- ence between students in the two programme models in terms of their English language development (Christian, Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, & Howard, 2004; Lindholm-Leary, 2001). There appears to be a short-term advantage for students in 50:50 TWI programmes when it comes to academic achievement and English language development, but that advan- tage disappears by the upper primary grades, and student performance remains comparable through the middle school years for students in both 50:50 and 90:10 models (Christian et al., 2004). No parallel information exists about OWI programmes in the USA, although Cana- dian OWI research has shown that there is no difference between programme types in terms of English development (Genesee, 1981). Thus, the research demonstrates that more time in English does not result in better English language outcomes in immersion programmes.

2.1.2. Minority language development

Despite the fact that many OWI and TWI immersion programmes do not assess student pro- ficiency in the minority language in systematic ways, some US studies have explored

Language, Culture and Curriculum 27

student acquisition of the minority language. Using locally developed tools, validated inter- view-type measures developed by CAL (Thompson, Boyson, & Rhodes, 2006), standar- dised online tests developed by the Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS), and/or teacher rating tools, these studies have demonstrated that English-L1 immersion students develop higher levels of proficiency in their L2 than students enrolled in traditional FL programmes (CASLS, 2011). Although there tends to be a very wide range of oral proficiency levels in immersion classrooms, students in partial and total OWI have been shown to achieve upper-intermediate to low-advanced oral language proficiency by Grade 8 or earlier (Fortune & Tedick, 2015; Thompson et al., 2006), according to measures based on the Proficiency Guidelines developed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL, 2012).3 For majority-language students in TWI programmes, the findings related to oral skills in the minority language have generally paralleled those of OWI programmes (Howard, Christian, & Genesee, 2004; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Padilla et al., 2013). Not surprisingly, students in 90:10 programmes have been shown to achieve higher levels of minority language proficiency than students in 50:50 programmes (Lindholm-Leary, 2001). Most of the research on language proficiency has occurred in Spanish OWI and TWI programmes but a few recent studies have focused on Mandarin TWI programmes (Lindholm-Leary, 2011; Padilla et al., 2013). Whereas most studies on oral language proficiency in TWI contexts have revealed positive outcomes for majority- language students, a select few studies have pointed to more limited language development in both 50:50 (Kovelman, Baker, & Petitto, 2008; Stipek, Ryan, & Alarco, 2001) and 90:10 programmes (Tedick & Young, 2014). These studies, which have employed a wide range of assessment tools, have revealed minimal Spanish oral language proficiency on the part of English-L1 TWI students in preschool and kindergarten (Stipek et al., 2001), Grade 2 (Kovelman et al., 2008), and Grade 5 (Tedick & Young, 2014). In particular, Tedick and Young reported that three of four English-L1 students had developed very limited oral skills in Spanish even though they had been in the programme for nearly six years (since kindergarten).

Similar to Canadian French immersion studies, US studies have shown that majority- language students in immersion programmes typically develop near-native levels of reading and listening proficiency, but their speaking and writing skills lack grammatical accuracy (Fortune & Tedick, 2015; Potowski, 2007; Tedick & Young, 2014), and their language is not typically sociolinguistically appropriate (Fortune, 2001). Although there is a wealth of Canadian immersion research that has carefully examined specific gramma- tical, lexical, and sociolinguistic features of immersion students’ language (see Lyster, 2007, for review), very few US studies have done so (Fortune & Tedick, 2015; Potowski, 2007; Tedick & Young, 2014).

Most studies have shown an advantage for minority-language students when it comes to their proficiency in the minority language, with many becoming balanced bilinguals (Howard et al., 2004), while majority-language students consistently maintain much stron- ger levels of proficiency in English. However, Padilla et al. (2013) found that in a Mandarin TWI programme, the early advantage that Mandarin speakers had over English speakers disappeared by the upper primary grades; there were no significant differences between majority- and minority-language students’ performance on proficiency measures by Grade 3 (oral measures) and by Grade 5 (literacy measures). Additionally, some minority-language students have been shown to become dominant in English (Fortune, 2001) and to develop grammatical inaccuracies with certain forms (Potowski, 2007; Tedick & Young, 2014).

28 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely

This research, therefore, suggests that the outcome of immersion programme partici- pation for both majority- and minority-language learners is generally positive for minority language development. However, this outcome is not always consistent across ages and language skills.

2.1.3. Attitudinal outcomes

Two primary types of attitudinal outcomes have been examined in studies on immersion programmes in the USA: students’ cross-cultural competence and attitudes about the learn- ing situation. When compared with students in non-immersion contexts, students in both OWI (Corbaz, 2006) and TWI (Block, 2011; Rolstad, 1997) programmes have been found to be stronger in areas relating to cross-cultural competence, though Corbaz’s find- ings were significant only for girls, not boys. Non-comparative studies in TWI contexts have also reported that students value learning with peers who represent different linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Bearse & de Jong, 2008; Cazabon, Nicoladis, & Lambert, 1998; Lindholm-Leary, 2011). Positive attitudes about other cultures have been shown to continue after students have exited the programme as well (Bearse & de Jong, 2008; Wesely, 2010).

Researchers have also found that students who have graduated from elementary immer- sion programmes retain positive attitudes towards school and their programmes (Cazabon et al., 1998; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2001); these positive atti- tudes persisted even among OWI students who had chosen not to continue in immersion at the secondary level (Wesely, 2010). Furthermore, Lindholm-Leary and Borsato (2001) found that students perceived that the TWI programme challenged them to do well in school and that learning through two languages helped them learn to think better; these findings were even stronger for Latino minority-language learners, who also indicated that they were not likely to drop out of school, an important finding given that the drop-out rate among Latinos is the highest in the nation.

Thus, students in US immersion programmes can be seen as having positive attitudinal outcomes related to both cross-cultural competence and the learning situation. Methodo- logical concerns that emerged as these studies were reviewed are discussed below.

2.2. Classroom language use and development

Some US research has focused on issues related to classroom language use and develop- ment, specifically studies on classroom interaction and form-focused instruction (FFI). This section discusses each of these areas.

2.2.1. Classroom interaction

A number of studies have explored questions related to which languages students use in immersion classrooms, when, with whom, and for what purposes. These were spurred by Tarone and Swain’s (1995) call for systematic research on student language use practices as a result of a study in which they observed US OWI immersion students using English rather than the L2 to interact with classmates. Drawing on sociolinguistic and sociocultural theoretical frameworks, several studies that focused on Grade 5 student interaction in differ- ent OWI and TWI programmes found that students generally used the L2 (Spanish) to inter- act with the teacher but tended to use English (or a mixture of both languages) to interact with each other (Broner, 2001; Fortune, 2001; Potowski, 2007). Moreover, students tended to use English for most social functions (Fortune) and ‘off-task’ behaviour (Broner; Potowski) and

Language, Culture and Curriculum 29

used Spanish for most academic functions and ‘on-task’ behaviour. Further, Fortune and Potowski indicated that the presence of Spanish-L1 speakers did not lead to enhanced oppor- tunities for peer interaction in Spanish. These studies also reported that students used a sig- nificant amount of English during Spanish instructional time. In a study focused on Grades 1, 3, and 8 in a 50:50 TWI programme, Ballinger and Lyster (2011) reported that regardless of language background, all students preferred English; however, they also observed that teacher expectations played an important role in determining students’ language use choices. Moreover, Fortune (2001) and Ballinger and Lyster alike found that Spanish speak- ers tended to reserve their use of Spanish for other Spanish speakers.

A growing number of studies have focused on student interaction in TWI contexts to explore not just language choice but also how students’ varied use of both instructional languages can foster language learning. For example, Angelova, Gunawardena, and Volk (2006) and Martin-Beltrán (2010) drew upon sociocultural theory to investigate how TWI students mediate their own and each other’s language learning within and across languages. These studies found that students moved in and out of different linguistic roles as they interacted and used both languages (often simultaneously), which afforded opportunities for metalinguistic analysis and other learning.

Findings such as these along with the developing understanding that bilinguals’ linguis- tic resources intersect and interact in dynamic ways have led to a relatively recent push against strict separation of instructional languages in immersion and other bilingual class- rooms (García, 2009; Swain & Lapkin, 2013). Further research is needed here.

2.2.2. FFI and corrective feedback

FFI comprises both proactive approaches and reactive approaches (Lyster, 2007). Proactive approaches involve planning for systematic focus on form in content-based teaching, while reactive approaches involve in-the-moment attention to students’ production of errors through the provision of corrective feedback. Quite a number of FFI and corrective feed- back studies have been conducted in immersion or CBI classrooms in Canada and other countries, but very few have emerged in the USA. Lyster and Mori (2006) compared student responses to corrective feedback in a Japanese OWI programme in the USA with Canadian French immersion student responses. They found that student uptake and repair can vary depending on the instructional context and teachers’ backgrounds.

Studies on proactive approaches to FFI have typically involved instructional interven- tions with noticing, awareness, and controlled practice (production) activities aimed at improving students’ ability to use specific forms accurately. Most Canadian studies have reported that students’ accuracy improves after such interventions (see Lyster, 2007, for review). The only US CBI study identified in the literature search that involved this type of instructional intervention was conducted in a Grade 5 TWI classroom (Tedick & Young, 2014). Tedick and Young found the intervention to have a positive impact on English-L1 and Spanish-L1 students who had low-intermediate proficiency in Spanish, but not on English-L1 students whose Spanish proficiency was very low. They speculated that a certain threshold of proficiency may be necessary for FFI to make a difference. Clearly there is a significant gap in US immersion research on FFI and corrective feedback.

2.3. The hidden curriculum in OWI and TWI programmes

Although research on immersion in the USA has primarily focused on what de Jong calls ‘the effectiveness debate’ (2014, p. 241; for examples, see studies reviewed in Section

30 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely

2.1.1), some researchers have also chosen to focus on what is learned, enacted, or experi- enced by the students beyond the academic and language goals of the programme. Some of these studies, conducted in TWI classrooms, focus on theoretical concepts broadly related to language status, including language ideology and cultural capital. Other studies focus on the social psychology of language learners, including attitudes, perspectives, and invest- ments in learning language.

2.3.1. Language status in TWI contexts

Students in TWI programmes, through their extensive and regular use of both English and the minority language (typically Spanish), make choices that then can be interpreted as indi- cating their developing understanding of the status of the two languages. Several studies in elementary contexts have focused on indirect analysis of elementary students’ language ideologies as enacted in their language choices (Fitts, 2006; López, 2011; Volk & Angelova, 2007). They have found that English-dominant students sometimes displayed a negative stance towards Spanish and bilingualism (López) or privileged English in the classroom (Volk & Angelova). Others have found that efforts by teachers and administrators to promote bilingualism were regularly undermined by a subtle privileging of English over Spanish (Fitts, 2006; Palmer, 2007). Similarly, some researchers working with older stu- dents have found that classroom structures and practices in some TWI environments had a tendency to privilege English over Spanish unless specific steps were taken by instructors to avoid that inequity (Freeman, 1998); this privileging of English has then been manifested by students in their classroom interactions and reports on their language attitudes.

Studies about language status in OWI classrooms have not been prevalent. To explain this, Cervantes-Soon (2014) has argued that in world language education, as represented in OWI, ideas of social justice, equity, and social identities in language development are more readily dismissed than in TWI or ESL programmes. Palmer, Ballinger, and Peter (2014) echo this observation, suggesting that without the ‘intentional mixing of students that drives TWI research to centrally consider issues of equity’ (p. 229), OWI has been domi- nated by classroom interaction studies, focusing on L2 acquisition. Yet, even on this topic US studies are scarce. Cervantes-Soon (2014) stated that language education has been seen as ‘neutral and prestigious’ (p. 72). Indeed, the assumption that students in OWI programmes are all English-L1 speakers has dominated much of the research discourse. Work by Cana- dian scholars like Dagenais (2008) on language awareness in multilingual OWI classrooms has not been replicated in the USA; this is certainly a significant lacuna in the field, particu- larly given the growing socioeconomic, ethnic, and linguistic diversity in US OWI.

2.3.2. The social psychology of students

Research focusing on the social psychology of students in US immersion programmes also lags behind work published by our Canadian colleagues, but it is certainly developing. In both TWI and OWI programmes, researchers have found that students have displayed emotional, deeply felt beliefs about language, often connected to the students’ own invest- ment in language learning and their identities in the classroom (Bearse & de Jong, 2008; Fortune, 2001; Potowski, 2007; Wesely, 2009). Potowski demonstrated how TWI students’ identity investments in Spanish were enacted in their classroom language use; her work illustrated that classroom language use could not be separated from contextual and histori- cal factors (see also Cazabon et al., 1998). Lee, Hill-Bonnet, and Raley (2011) found that students’ identities as language brokers or brokees during academic tasks were dictated not

Language, Culture and Curriculum 31

just by their knowledge and ability in the language, but also by how other students viewed them. Identities as such were influenced by classroom interactions, but were not always internalised due to the variability in the language tasks in the TWI context. Other scholars have shown that bilingual students in the TWI classroom are seen not just as ‘language mediators’ (as discussed in Section 2.2.1) but also as ‘social mediators’, fulfilling an aca- demic role as well as a specific social role in their classroom (Angelova et al., 2006; Martin- Beltrán, 2010). Hornberger and Link (2012) have suggested that this type of translangua- ging and transliteracy taking place in multilingual classrooms powerfully validates students and promotes academic achievement. Scholars thus suggest that immersion students are learning both language and content, but they are also constantly negotiating and enacting their identities as learners and actors in the classroom.

Similarly, research conducted in OWI contexts has demonstrated that social relation- ships created in the programme have been vital to students’ language learning motivation (Haj-Broussard, 2002; Wesely, 2009) and language use (Broner, 2001; Fortune, 2001). Some scholars have suggested that the social psychology of immersion students cannot be seen as monolithic, static, and/or unchanging. Wesely (2009) found that students in an OWI programme varied considerably in their language learning motivation, even though they shared similar linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Findings have also suggested that immersion students change over time in their feelings about language learn- ing and the programme (Cazabon et al., 1998; Wesely, 2013). However, these studies present the issue of variation within a group and change over time as secondary findings; more in-depth research is warranted here.

2.4. Teacher preparation and practice

This section explores what we know about the specific roles, experiences, practices, choices, and perspectives of CBI teachers in the USA. In particular, studies have focused on how they balance content and language in their teaching and how they balance the use of two instructional languages.

2.4.1. Content and language integration

In this section, we focus on a summary of what we know about the specific roles, experi- ences, practices, choices, and perspectives of K-12 CBI teachers. Teachers are often charac- terised as vital components of the learning enterprise. Overviews of immersion programming and case studies (Freeman, 1998) of US immersion programmes identify the challenge of finding qualified bilingual teachers who are capable of teaching both language and content. Indeed, many if not most US immersion teachers do not benefit from pre-service preparation or in-service professional development focused on language and content integration (Tedick & Fortune, 2013).

Currently, much of the research relating to teachers examines their instructional prac- tices, focusing on in-service immersion or other CBI teachers. Some research has focused on how immersion teachers balance content and language instruction (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Fortune, Tedick, & Walker, 2008), and how traditional FL teachers learn about, plan for, or enact CBI (Cammarata, 2010; Pessoa, Hendry, Donato, Tucker, & Lee, 2007). In a phenomenological study, Cammarata and Tedick (2012) described the balancing of language and content in the immersion classroom as a major challenge for both OWI and TWI immersion teachers, demonstrating that they struggle to see themselves as both language and content teachers and are uncertain about how to identify which language

32 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely

features to focus on as they teach content. This struggle and uncertainty are inherent parts of learning to integrate language and content, and researchers have called for professional development for CBI teachers that helps them to develop that instructional balance (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Fortune et al., 2008; Lyster, 2007).

2.4.2. Balancing instructional languages

Although language and content integration has been studied in the TWI context, a much more common focus in TWI has been on the balance between the use of English and Spanish in the classroom and the programme as a whole. In particular, Palmer’s work (2008, 2009) has suggested that TWI teachers struggle with balancing languages and student interaction equitably, sometimes allowing English-L1 children to control the con- versation (2009), and sometimes engaging more successfully in balancing the different needs of the Spanish- and English-speaking students (2008). de Jong and Bearse (2014) found that secondary TWI teachers struggled with programmatic decisions about language allocation, specifically in that the separation of Spanish and English in the programme restricted the teachers considerably.

The research about teachers in US K-12 CBI contexts thus focuses on in-service tea- chers and other educators who are making decisions in the classroom or the programme about how language is used with the content, what language is used when, and what influ- ences and is influenced by these decisions. Although the TWI literature contains a dimen- sion of emphasis on language choice, the central concerns are the same: What should be taught and how should it be taught? A notable gap, therefore, is that little research has addressed the process of preparing teachers for CBI contexts, either initially or in their pro- fessional development. Other aspects of instructional practice, like the integration of tech- nology, have not been studied.

2.5. Research methodologies and theoretical frameworks

The variety of topics and objectives in the research on K-12 CBI instruction in the USA has naturally resulted in the use of a wide variety of research approaches. Qualitative, quanti- tative, and mixed methods approaches are all featured in the research literature, with quan- titative approaches dominating achievement research and qualitative approaches classroom-based studies and teacher research. In this section, we examine the methodologi- cal patterns and trends and identify dominant theoretical frameworks informing studies.

2.5.1. Qualitative work

Scholarship included in this review has been concerned with issues such as the culture in classrooms and the experiences and internal processes of stakeholders, both of which are commonly investigated using qualitative methods. Qualitative work addressing classroom interactions, much of it adopting sociocultural theory, has focused on examining language naturally produced in the class and then drawing inferences from identified themes and pat- terns, presenting them in narrative form. Classroom ethnographies and discourse analysis (Palmer, 2007, 2008, 2009) have been particularly fruitful methodologies used in this regard. Importantly, the comprehensive ethnographies and qualitative focus on classroom interactions in the USA have been predominantly set in TWI contexts; there is much less research about language naturally produced in the OWI classroom in the USA and analysed qualitatively.

Language, Culture and Curriculum 33

Qualitative methodologies have also been central to the examination of the social psy- chology of stakeholders in CBI programmes. Interviews with teachers and students in par- ticular have been a common data source in this respect. Sometimes, such sources are used alone and subjected to a qualitative or phenomenological analysis (Bearse & de Jong, 2008; Cammarata, 2009, 2010; Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). With equal frequency, interviews have been paired with qualitative classroom observation analysis in studies about language choice (Fitts, 2006; Volk & Angelova, 2007) or with survey data in mixed methods studies (Wesely, 2010, 2013).

Finally, there are also many primarily qualitative studies that approach their topics (e.g. teachers, achievement) as one component of an educational programme; these case studies, comprehensive ethnographies, or programme evaluations combine multiple data sources and analysis procedures to provide a description of the entire programme or phenomenon, with inferences about individual components as a part of this larger whole (Freeman, 1998).

2.5.2. Quantitative work

Researchers using quantitative research methodologies have focused on issues relating to comparing programmes, groups of students, and intervention effects. These studies draw upon cognitive and sociocognitive theoretical frameworks. Naturally, studies that focus on academic achievement outcomes have been quantitative in nature, sometimes purely descriptive, sometimes using inferential statistics to compare different groups of students (Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010). In studies on minority-language development (CASLS, 2011; Fortune & Tedick, 2015; Padilla et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2006), the diversity of instruments, coarseness of speaking and writing rating scales, and small numbers of participants have made it difficult to draw clear conclusions.

A portion of the work on classroom interaction has utilised quantitative analysis pro- cedures to lead to inferences about the data (Broner, 2001; Lyster & Mori, 2006; Tedick & Young, 2014). In these studies, transcripts of classroom interactions have been coded, quantified (sometimes with the assistance of data analysis programmes), and either com- pared in a quasi-experimental design or examined in a correlational design, frequently using an interactional analysis framework (Lyster & Mori, 2006). Researchers have often supplemented this work with other secondary data sources, including quantitative (obser- vation protocols) and qualitative (field notes) data sources reflecting classroom observations (Tedick & Young, 2014), qualitative interviews with stakeholders, and document analysis.

Trends in quantitative research methodologies beyond these two primary categories are difficult to identify. A small number of studies on attitudinal outcomes or stakeholder atti- tudes have included quantitative data, primarily from surveys or questionnaires (Block, 2011; Corbaz, 2006; Wesely, 2010, 2013). At times these surveys have been combined with qualitative data in a mixed methods framework. Although research in applied linguis- tics and education in the USA prominently features quantitative approaches, the areas of inquiry often associated with quantitative work (instructional interventions, corpus analy- sis, etc.) have rarely been investigated. There is nothing to suggest that quantitative research methodologies are favoured or disfavoured by scholars looking at the field, rather that the questions appropriate to the use of such methodologies are not typically being asked.

3. Looking into the future

In this section, we highlight some of the persistent challenges and research gaps that we feel particularly limit our knowledge of CBI in K-12 programmes in the USA. These areas

34 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely

include the underdevelopment of research on: student diversity, the role of English in the classroom, teacher development, and language and academic achievement.

3.1. Student diversity

A significant portion of this work in FL, OWI, and TWI contexts relies on one major assumption: that the L1 of the student is easily identifiable as either English (in OWI and FL contexts, in some students in TWI contexts) or Spanish (in TWI contexts). Research situated in US contexts rarely examines issues related to simultaneous bilinguals (Hopewell & Escamilla, 2014) or multilingual students who might be learning their third language (an exception is Rolstad, 1997). This despite the fact that, as CBI programmes have developed and spread throughout the world, researchers have found that they ‘serve a wide variety of purposes for diverse communities’ (Dagenais, 2008, p. 202). The impact of disregarding the linguistic and cultural background of students in research focused on language choice and language ideology in CBI programmes is quite substantial, as these programmes have been found to be undeniably connected to the surrounding context, politically situated, and socially constructed (Freeman, 1998). Similarly, subgroups of students in immersion, other than groups differentiated by a language or by academic ability, have rarely been studied (exceptions include Caldas & Boudreaux, 1999; Haj-Broussard, 2002; Thomas et al., 2011). In a similar vein, the language proficiencies (both in English and in the minority language) vary widely in both OWI and TWI programmes (Fortune & Tedick, 2015; Tedick & Young, 2014). Needed are studies that lead to a better understanding of how best to differentiate instruction to address this linguistic diversity. Looking more closely at how students in immersion programmes differ within one learning community will lead to better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of these programmes.

Moreover, TWI studies tend to emphasise the experiences and outcomes of minority- language students; the assumptions appear to be that middle-class white students comprise the majority-language student population in TWI programmes and that they will fare well irrespective of the programme they attend. Kovelman et al. (2008), Stipek et al. (2001), and Tedick and Young (2014) have reported results that bring such assumptions into question, and other studies have revealed persistent achievement gaps between non- white and white majority-language students in OWI and TWI programmes. As US schools in general and OWI and TWI programmes in particular become increasingly diverse, it is imperative that studies examine outcomes for all learners and identify programme practices that bring all learners to academic success and high levels of bilingu- alism and biliteracy.

3.2. The role of English in the classroom

The research clearly demonstrates that OWI and TWI US immersion students maintain a preference for English, yet the function and potential of English for both majority- and min- ority-language learners in immersion are still underexplored. It is important that studies examine how L1 use may facilitate L2 acquisition and how L1 and L2 can work together to develop students’ bilingualism and biliteracy. Lyster, Quiroga, and Ballinger (2013, p. 171) argue (and we concur) that students need to develop ‘a sense of linguistic and con- textual integrity for each language on its own’ while learning to draw upon all of their lin- guistic resources as they develop as bilinguals. Research that sheds more light on this process for majority- as well as minority-language learners is sorely needed.

Language, Culture and Curriculum 35

3.3. Teacher development

The teacher-related research literature in this review focuses primarily on in-service tea- chers’ implementation of language and content instruction in the classroom. The topic of CBI or immersion teacher preparation is rarely referenced in that work, with the exception of the implications sections. Studies specifically examining the processes of teacher devel- opment in or teacher learning about CBI/immersion in the USA are rare. One notable exception to this is recent phenomenological work done by Cammarata (2010) regarding the experiences of in-service teachers in learning about CBI. Cammarata identified many areas where his experienced participant teachers struggled with CBI in the non-immersion FL context. However, there is still a notable lack of research on a wide variety of topics relating to teacher development, including pre-service teacher preparation, the professional trajectories of immersion or other CBI teachers, the differences between teacher preparation in OWI, TWI, and FL non-immersion contexts, and the connection between teacher edu- cation and policy in CBI programmes. This is a theme that bears more exploration, both for improvement of CBI programmes in general and for the potential to contribute to the larger discussion about teacher preparation in the USA. Research on teacher education does not transfer smoothly across national borders, and it is one of the areas in which a lack of US-based research is truly consequential. Moreover, absent are studies that adopt theoretical frameworks that have been prominent in US teacher research more broadly con- ceived, such as communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986), or teacher socialisation (Zeichner & Gore, 1990).

3.4. Achievement research

The research relating to academic achievement in CBI programmes contains some important gaps. One issue underlying these gaps is the lack of national achievement examinations. In general, each state develops its own set of academic standards (drawn from national stan- dards) and determines which measurements to use to assess students’ achievement in relationship to those standards.4 Thus, it is impossible to compare research findings from one state to another; without national achievement examinations, a truly large-scale assess- ment of academic achievement of students in immersion programmes cannot be undertaken.

Other gaps exist as well. Most research is cross-sectional rather than longitudinal in nature, and longitudinal studies are sorely needed. Second, a majority of the research has focused on TWI contexts. There is a relative dearth of research in OWI contexts, and much of it has been small scale and not published in peer-reviewed journals. Third, research on literacy achievement has focused on achievement in English literacy based on standar- dised tests; missing are studies on students’ biliteracy development in OWI and TWI class- room contexts (Hopewell & Escamilla, 2014). Finally, research has tended to focus on overall, programme-level academic achievement rather than on classroom content learning, such as students’ ability to read challenging subject-matter texts. A notable exception is a recent study by Martínez-Álvarez, Bannan, and Peters-Burton (2012), which explored how TWI 4th graders learned to monitor their comprehension of scientific texts as a result of strategy instruction. More work in this area is needed.

4. Conclusion

The research on CBI in US K-12 contexts contributes uniquely to the discussion on CBI/ content-and-language-integrated learning (CLIL) in the international research community.

36 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely

Research on student outcomes, classroom language use and development, the hidden cur- riculum, and teacher preparation and practice are all addressed in this body of work, distrib- uted across TWI, OWI, and traditional FL programmes that implement CBI. The US research is also notable in some of the important gaps that still need to be filled, many of which are identified above. One overarching gap, however, is that this review has revealed a significant lack of research on OWI and CBI in non-immersion, FL programmes for majority-language students in the USA. This scarcity may be due to the fact that few non-immersion CBI programmes exist, but such reasoning does not apply to OWI pro- grammes given that the CAL directories (see note 2) currently report more OWI than TWI programmes in the USA. We end this review with a call for more research in that and several sub-areas; there is still much work to be done in the USA to understand better the processes, products, and experiences related to the use of CBI.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers who offered comments that improved this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes 1. In the US, K-12 education comprises primary school for students aged 5–11 years (kindergarten

through Grade 5) and secondary school for students aged 12–18 years (Grades 6–12). 2. CAL’s OWI and TWI directories may be accessed at http://webapp.cal.org/Immersion/ and http://

www.cal.org/twi/directory/. 3. These are comparable to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)

levels B2 and C1 (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp). 4. Many states have recently adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which were

developed by a consortium of governors, education commissioners, and other educators. Devel- opment of national CCSS assessments is currently underway (http://www.corestandards.org/). Unfortunately, the CCSS emphasise English language development; there is no attention to bilin- gual development.

References American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012). ACTFL proficiency

guidelines – speaking (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http:// actflproficiencyguidelines 2012.org/

Angelova, M., Gunawardena, D., & Volk, D. (2006). Peer teaching and learning: Co-constructing language in a dual language first grade. Language and Education, 20, 173–190. doi:10.1080/ 09500780608668722

Ballinger, S., & Lyster, R. (2011). Student and teacher language use in a two-way Spanish/English immersion school. Language Teaching Research, 15, 289–306. doi:10.1177/1362168811401151

Bearse, C., & de Jong, E. (2008). Cultural and linguistic investment: Adolescents in a secondary two- way immersion program. Equity and Excellence in Education, 41, 325–340. doi:10.1080/ 10665680802174817

Block, N. (2011). The impact of two-way dual immersion programs on initially English-dominant Latino students’ attitudes. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 125–141. doi:10.1080/15235882. 2011.598059

Broner, M. (2001). Impact of interlocutor and task on first and second language use in a Spanish immersion program (CARLA Working Paper #18). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,

Language, Culture and Curriculum 37

Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Retrieved from http://www.carla.umn. edu/resources/working-papers/documents/ImpactOfInterlocutorTaskOn1st2ndLanguage.pdf

Caldas, S., & Boudreaux, N. (1999). Poverty, race and foreign language immersion: Predictors of math and English language arts performance. Learning Languages, 5, 4–15.

Cammarata, L. (2009). Negotiating curricular transitions: Foreign language teachers’ learning experi- ence with content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langue vivantes, 65, 559–585.

Cammarata, L. (2010). Foreign language teachers’ struggle to learn content-based instruction. L2 Journal, 2, 89–118.

Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781. 2012.01330.x

Cazabon, M., Nicoladis, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1998). Becoming bilingual in the Amigos two-way immersion program (Research Report 3). Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Retrieved from http://crede.berkeley.edu/research/crede/products/print/reports/rr3.html

Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL). (2014a). Directory of foreign language immersion programs in U.S. schools. Retrieved from http://webapp.cal.org/Immersion/

Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL). (2014b). Directory of two-way bilingual immersion programs in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/

Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS). (2011). What levels of proficiency do immer- sion students achieve? Eugene, OR: Author. Retrieved from https://casls.uoregon.edu/pdfs/ tenquestions/TBQImmersionStudentProficiencyRevised.pdf

Cervantes-Soon, C. G. (2014). A critical look at dual language immersion in the New Latin@ dia- spora. Bilingual Research Journal, 37, 64–82. doi:10.1080/15235882.2014.893267

Christian, D., Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Howard, E. (2004). Final progress report: CAL/ CREDE study of two-way immersion education. Alexandria, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi/CREDEfinal.doc

Corbaz, P. (2006). Assessing the effect of foreign language immersion programs on intercultural sen- sitivity. American Council of Immersion Education Newsletter, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www. carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol10/nov2006_research_assessing.html

Dagenais, D. (2008). Developing a critical awareness of language diversity in immersion. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 201–220). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Downs-Reid, D. (2000). Using English achievement data to promote French immersion. American Council of Immersion Education Newsletter, 3, 1–4 (insert).

Essama, L. (2007). Total immersion programs: Assessment data reveal achievement in reading and math. American Council of Immersion Education Newsletter, 11, 1–8 (insert).

Fitts, S. (2006). Reconstructing the status quo: Linguistic interaction in a dual-language school. Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 337–365.

Fortune, T. W. (2001). Understanding students’ oral language use as a mediator of social interaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. J. (2008). One-way, two-way and indigenous immersion: A call for cross-fertilization. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 3–21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. J. (2015). English-proficient before K–8: Oral proficiency development of English-proficient K–8 Spanish immersion students. Manuscript under review.

Fortune, T. W., Tedick, D. J., & Walker, C. L. (2008). Integrated language and content teaching: Insights from the immersion classroom. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to mul- tilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 71–96). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Freeman, R. D. (1998). Bilingual education and social change. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. New York, NY:

Wiley-Blackwell. Genesee, F. (1981). A comparison of early and late second language learning. Canadian Journal of

Behavioral Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 13, 115–128. Haj-Broussard, M. (2002). Perceptions, interactions, and immersion: A cross-comparative case study

of African-American students’ experiences in a French immersion context and a regular education context. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 7, 39–59.

38 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely

Hopewell, S., & Escamilla, K. (2014). Biliteracy development in immersion contexts. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 181–195.

Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 261–278. doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.658016

Howard, E., Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2004). The development of bilingualism and biliteracy from grades 3 to 5: A summary of findings from the CAL/CREDE study of two-way immersion edu- cation. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence and Center for Applied Linguistics.

de Jong, E. (2002). Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic achievement in a two-way bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 65–84.

de Jong, E. (2014). Program design and two-way immersion programs. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 241–256.

de Jong, E., & Bearse, C. (2014). Dual language programs as a strand within a secondary school: Dilemmas of school organization and the TWI mission. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17, 15–31. doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.725709

Kovelman, I., Baker, S., & Petitto, L. (2008). Age of first bilingual language exposure as a new window into bilingual reading development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 203–223. doi:10.1017/S1366728908003386

Lee, J. S., Hill-Bonnet, L., & Raley, J. (2011). Examining the effects of language brokering on student identities and learning opportunities in dual immersion classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 10, 306–326. doi:10.1080/15348458.2011.614544

Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual language education. Avon: Multilingual Matters. Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2011). Student outcomes in Chinese two-way immersion programs: Language

proficiency, academic achievement, and student attitudes. In D. J. Tedick, D. Christian, & T. W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (pp. 81–103). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Block, N. (2010). Achievement in predominantly low-SES Hispanic dual language schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 1–18. doi:10.1080/13670050902777546

Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Borsato, G. (2001). Impact of two-way bilingual elementary programs on students’ attitudes toward school and college (Research Report 10). Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic achievement. In F. Genesee, K. J. Lindholm- Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners (pp. 176–222). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Hernández, A. (2011). Achievement and language proficiency of Latino students in dual language programmes: Native English speakers, fluent English/previous ELLs, and current ELLs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32, 531–545. doi:10.1080/01434632.2011.611596

López, M. M. (2011). Children’s language ideologies in a first-grade dual-language class. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 12, 176–201. doi:10.1177/1468798411417077

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060128

Lyster, R., Quiroga, J., & Ballinger, S. (2013). The effects of biliteracy instruction on morphological awareness. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1, 169–197. doi:10. 1075/jicb.1.2.02lys

Martin-Beltrán, M. (2010). The two-way language bridge: Co-constructing bilingual language learn- ing opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 254–277. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010. 01020.x

Martínez-Álvarez, P., Bannan, B., & Peters-Burton, E. (2012). Effect of strategy instruction on fourth- grade dual language learners’ ability to monitor their comprehension of scientific texts. Bilingual Research Journal, 35, 331–349. doi:10.1080/15235882.2012.734005

Padilla, A. M., Fan, L., Xu, X., & Silva, D. (2013). A Mandarin/English two-way immersion program: Language proficiency and academic achievement. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 661–679. doi:10.1111/flan.12060

Language, Culture and Curriculum 39

Palmer, D. K. (2007). Building and destroying students’ ‘academic identities’: The power of discourse in a two-way immersion classroom. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21, 647–667. doi:10.1080/09518390701470537

Palmer, D. K. (2008). Diversity up close: Building alternative discourses in the two-way immersion classroom. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving per- spectives on immersion education (pp. 97–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Palmer, D. K. (2009). Middle-class English speakers in a two-way immersion bilingual classroom: ‘Everybody should be listening to Jonathan right now … ’. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 177–202. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00164.x

Palmer, D. K., Ballinger, S., & Peter, L. (2014). Classroom interaction in one-way, two-way, and indi- genous immersion contexts. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 225–240.

Pessoa, S., Hendry, H., Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., & Lee, H. (2007). Content-based instruction in the foreign language classroom: A discourse perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 102–121. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb02856.x

Potowski, K. (2007). Language and identity in a dual immersion school. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Rolstad, K. (1997). Effects of two-way immersion on the ethnic identification of third language stu- dents: An exploratory study. Bilingual Research Journal, 21, 43–63. doi:10.1080/15235882. 1997.10815601

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Stipek, D., Ryan, R., & Alarco, R. (2001). Bridging research and practice to develop a two-way bilin- gual program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 133–149.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). AVygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1, 101–129. doi:10.1075/jicb.1.1.05swa

Tarone, E., & Swain, M. (1995). A sociolinguistic perspective on second language use in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 166–178. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995. tb05428.x

Tedick, D. J., & Cammarata, L. (2012). Content and language integration in K-12 contexts: Student outcomes, teacher practices, and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 45(S1), S28–S53. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01178.x

Tedick, D. J., & Fortune, T. W. (2013). Bilingual/immersion teacher education. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 438–443). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0096

Tedick, D. J., & Young, A. I. (2014). Fifth grade two-way immersion students’ responses to form- focused instruction. Applied Linguistics, 1–25. doi:10.1093/applin/amu066

Thomas, W., Collier, V., & Collier, K. (2011). English learners in North Carolina, 2010. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. Retrieved from http://esl.ncwiseowl.org/ resources/dual_language/

Thompson, L. E., Boyson, B. A., & Rhodes, N. C. (2006). Administrator’s manual for CAL foreign language assessments, grades K–8. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Volk, D., & Angelova, M. (2007). Language ideology and the mediation of language choice in peer interactions in a dual-language first grade. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 6, 177– 199. doi:10.1080/15348450701454205

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wesely, P. M. (2009). The language learning motivation of early adolescent French immersion gradu- ates. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 270–286. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01021.x

Wesely, P. M. (2010). Language learning motivation in early adolescents: Using mixed methods research to explore contradiction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 295–312. doi:10. 1177/1558689810375816

Wesely, P. M. (2013). The nature of foreign language anxiety in elementary immersion program graduates. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1, 226–250. doi:10. 1075/jicb.1.2.04wes

Zeichner, K., & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329–348). New York, NY: Macmillan.

40 D.J. Tedick and P.M. Wesely