L1 and L2 CALP are interdependent: strong promotion of L1 literacy in the early grades entails no adverse consequences for English¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1999 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 3 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? L1 and L2 CALP tend to be strongly related, and strong promotion of L1 literacy in school in the early grades entails no adverse consequences for English. → Cummins 1999

Evidence¶

Cummins 1999¶

Cummins, J. (1999). BICS and CALP: Clarifying the Distinction. ERIC Document ED 438 551. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED438551

q2 · i? · the article prints no effect size for this finding · theoretical · r2

Cummins states these claims about the common underlying proficiency (CUP) "reflect an enormous amount of research data; they are not based on theoretical speculation", citing Cummins (1984, 1996). The present paper reports no new statistics.

"L1 and L2 CALP tend to be strongly related to each other and strong promotion of L1 literacy in school in the early grades entails no adverse consequences for English."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Preserving a bilingual student's heritage language supports rather than hinders English acquisition — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• BICS and CALP intersect developmentally but are not identical or reducible one to the other — related
• Early-exit transitional bilingual programs that provide minimal early-grade English literacy and then transition students to all-English classrooms with no support are inappropriate — related
• Promoting minority children's L1 raises L1 achievement at no cost to L2 achievement — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• L1 and L2 academic proficiencies are developmentally interdependent, so instruction in either language can build underlying academic ability — related
• Small-scale studies suggest age 15-16 with intermediate English proficiency (reading GE 5) is a good immigration age — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Preservation of the mother tongue predicts second-language achievement among migrant children — related