Immersion and submersion programs differ socioculturally, communicating success versus failure to children¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1979 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Immersion programs communicate to children their success, whereas submersion programs often make children acutely aware of their failure. → Cummins 1979

Evidence¶

Cummins 1979¶

Cummins, James. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED257312. doi:10.3102/00346543049002222

q2 · i? · theoretical · r2

The paper contrasts the two program types, both involving a home-school language switch. In immersion, teachers know the child's L1 and praise any use of the school language; in submersion, lack of proficiency is often treated as a sign of limited ability and the child's L1 is viewed as an impediment.

"what is communicated to children inimmersion programs is their success, whereas in submersionprograms children are often made to feel acutely aware of their failure."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• High L2 achievers in immersion programs show IQ gains, consistent with a higher threshold of bilingual competence — related
• Bilingual education evaluations have produced uninterpretable data by failing to model child-input by treatment interactions — related
• Critics argue Cummins' framework neglects the sociocultural context and CALP may index acculturation rather than cognitive ability — related
• Bilingual language policy facilitates multilingual and multicultural pedagogical interaction in Indonesian university classrooms — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Sociocultural classroom diversity can produce inequality when school-home discontinuities make children perform below their abilities — related
• The Good Language Learner metanarrative persists in sociocultural accounts by equating success with access to community conversations — related