No bilingual advantage in executive control or working memory in Experiment 2¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Experiment 2 found no significant group differences on Number Stroop, Plus-Minus, or Letter-Number Sequencing measures. → Mielicki 2017

Evidence¶

Mielicki 2017¶

Mielicki, M. K., Kacinik, N. A., & Wiley, J. (2017). Bilingualism and symbolic abstraction: Implications for algebra learning. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.03.002

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Experiment 2 measured inhibitory control (Number Stroop), set shifting (Plus-Minus), and working memory (Letter-Number Sequencing). Several measures tended toward a monolingual advantage; e.g., bilinguals had marginally higher overall mean RTs on the Number Stroop (p<0.06).

"Further,theresultsofthesecondexperimentfailedtodemonstrate abilingualadvantageinanyofthethreebasicmeasuresofexecutive control."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading and Language — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• The bilingual advantage on hard Symbol Math items replicated in Experiment 2 with executive control and SES measures — related
• Bilingual 8-year-olds show smaller inhibitory-control costs than monolinguals on the faces task — reports the opposite
• Bilingual and monolingual 8-year-olds do not differ in response suppression costs — related