Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Language Proficiency and the Integration of Immigrant Students in the Education System

Item

Title

Language Proficiency and the Integration of Immigrant Students in the Education System

Author

Stanat, Petra

Edele, Aileen

Research Area

Social Processes

Topic

Immigration

Abstract

The integration of immigrant students in the education system is an important concern in most countries around the world. Several lines of research on this issue focus on the role of language, often distinguishing between students' family language, typically referred to as first language (L1), and the school language, typically referred to as second language (L2). Past research has clearly shown that immigrant students' level of proficiency in L2 affects their school success, yet the role of L1 proficiency is less clear. In addition, the question whether bilingual or monolingual instruction is more effective in supporting immigrant students is largely unresolved. Current investigations aim at overcoming limitations of prior research by employing longitudinal designs, by controlling relevant third variables, and by conducting randomized field trials. Promising avenues for future research include developing more clear‐cut conceptual and operational definitions of core constructs, analyzing potentially important moderators of effects, determining the role quality of language input and instruction play for proficiency development and school success, and analyzing the associations between proficiency development in L1 and L2 with various aspects of integration.

Related Essays

The Impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok

Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help‐Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn

Neighborhoods and Cognitive Development (Psychology), Jondou Chen and Jeanne Brooks‐Gunn

Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E. Brand

Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development (Psychology), Samuel E. Ehrenreich and Marion K. Underwood

Migrant Networks (Sociology), Filiz Garip and Asad L. Asad

Ethnic Enclaves (Sociology), Steven J. Gold

Language and Thought (Psychology), Susan Goldin‐Meadow

Immigrant Children and the Transition to Adulthood (Sociology), Roberto G. Gonzales and Benjamin J. Roth

Immigration and the Changing Status of Asian Americans (Sociology), Jennifer Lee

Immigrant Sociocultural Adaptation, Identification, and Belonging (Sociology), Sarah J. Mahler

Immigrant Health Paradox (Sociology), Kyriakos S. Markides and Sunshine Rote

Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel and Claudia Buchmann

The Role of School‐Related Peers and Social Networks in Human Development (Political Science), Chandra Muller

Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Ian Mullins

Latinos and the Color Line (Sociology), Clara E. Rodríguez et al.

Language, Perspective, and Memory (Psychology), Rachel A. Ryskin et al.

Assimilation and Its Discontents (Sociology), Min Zhou

Identifier

etrds0407

extracted text

Language Proficiency and the
Integration of Immigrant Students in
the Education System
PETRA STANAT and AILEEN EDELE

Abstract
The integration of immigrant students in the education system is an important concern in most countries around the world. Several lines of research on this issue focus
on the role of language, often distinguishing between students’ family language, typically referred to as first language (L1), and the school language, typically referred to as
second language (L2). Past research has clearly shown that immigrant students’ level of
proficiency in L2 affects their school success, yet the role of L1 proficiency is less clear.
In addition, the question whether bilingual or monolingual instruction is more effective in supporting immigrant students is largely unresolved. Current investigations
aim at overcoming limitations of prior research by employing longitudinal designs,
by controlling relevant third variables, and by conducting randomized field trials.
Promising avenues for future research include developing more clear-cut conceptual and operational definitions of core constructs, analyzing potentially important
moderators of effects, determining the role quality of language input and instruction
play for proficiency development and school success, and analyzing the associations
between proficiency development in L1 and L2 with various aspects of integration.

INTRODUCTION
Over the past decades, immigration movements around the globe have
reached a historic peak, and there is no reason to expect that the numbers will
decrease in the foreseeable future. International immigration can pose many
opportunities but also substantial challenges to the individual immigrants as
well as to the countries where they take up residence (hereafter referred to as
country of residence). One of the most important challenges is the integration
of immigrant students in the education system, as educational achievement
and attainment are key determinants of success in the labor market and
participation in society more generally. Educational success, in turn, requires
language skills that allow students to engage in the institutional learning
opportunities the country of residence has to offer.
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

The linguistic situation of many immigrants and their offspring is unique.
They often speak another language at home than the one used in schools
and their proficiency in the school language is often limited. The question,
then, is how the education system should respond to this specific situation
to ensure that immigrant students will succeed even if they start out with
limited proficiency in the language of instruction. This question entails various aspects and is much more complex than it appears. Although researchers
from a number of disciplines have addressed some of the key questions, we
are still at the beginning of understanding the role language and different
approaches to language support play in the integration of immigrant students.
This essay addresses central research issues related to language use and
proficiency of immigrant students. We adopt an educational perspective and
concentrate on questions that are relevant for students’ success in the school
system, with most of the research focusing on determinants of proficiency
in the language of instruction as a key determinant of educational success.
The essay describes what we already know and in which directions research
should move in order to improve a knowledge base that may help to enhance
educational opportunities for immigrant students.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Several lines of foundational research are relevant for exploring the role of
language for the integration of immigrant students in the education system.
This research stems from various disciplines, most prominently psychology,
education, sociology, and economics. Broadly speaking, it includes studies
on children and adolescents who have acquired a language in their family
that is different from the language used in school. Although the age at which
they start learning the two languages and the degree of proficiency they have
reached vary tremendously, the family language of these students is typically
referred to as first language (L1) and the school language as second language
(L2). In some studies, the terms language minority or (within English speaking
countries) English Language Learners (ELL) are used as descriptors of these
students. Research on bilingualism, in contrast, does not distinguish between
a first language and a second language but focuses on persons who speak at
least two languages. Yet, again, the age at which they learned these languages
and the degree to which they are proficient in each of the languages vary
considerably.
One line of foundational research focuses on the role of L2 in immigrant
students’ educational success. The evidence provided by these studies,
among them several large-scale-assessment studies measuring competencies and skills of children and adolescents around the globe (OECD, 2012),

Language Proficiency

3

is quite clear: on average, students with an immigrant background are less
proficient in the language of instruction than their peers from native families,
and students with limited proficiency in the language of instruction are
likely to struggle in school. Studies show that oral skills in L2 significantly
predict immigrant students’ achievement not only in reading but also in
other subject domains including mathematics (for a meta-analysis, see
Prevoo, Malda, Mesman, & Van IJzendoorn, 2015). L2 proficiency also affects
the transition of immigrant students in differentiated school systems, with
limited proficiency resulting in transitions to lower tracks, for instance at the
transition from primary school to secondary school in Germany (Gresch &
Becker, 2010).
A second line of research aims at identifying factors that predict immigrants’ L2-acquisition. Chiswick and Miller (2001) suggested a framework
that distinguishes three general determinants of language proficiency: exposure, incentives/motivation, and efficiency (see also Esser, 2006). Exposure
refers to how long and how intensively an immigrant has been exposed to
a language. The notion of incentives or motivation refers to a broad range of
factors that may cause people to learn or not learn a language, such as anticipated economic returns and costs of learning the language, intention to stay
in the country of residence, or intention to return to the country of origin. Efficiency, finally, pertains to factors that make it more or less difficult to learn a
given language, including the age of the learner or the degree to which the
language is similar to the respective L1.
Immigrant students often have limited exposure to L2 and they therefore
lack opportunities for learning this language. Indicators of exposure studies
have explored include the number of years a person has lived in the country
of residence and the extent to which a person speaks the language at home.
Supporting the so-called time-on-task hypothesis, the findings clearly show
that these variables are significant predictors of immigrants’ proficiency in
L2, suggesting that the degree of exposure does, in fact, affect children’s
L2-acquisition (Duursma et al., 2007; Scheele, Leseman, & Mayo, 2010). In
line with the language competition as well as the time-on-task hypothesis,
moreover, using L1 at home seems to decrease exposure to L2, resulting in
a negative association between L1 use and L2 proficiency. There is evidence
from a number of representative samples that the other two factors in the
model (incentives/motivation and efficiency) play a significant role as well
(Chiswick & Miller, 2001; Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2009), yet most of the
relevant studies focused on adults in traditional immigration countries,
such as the United States, Canada, or Australia. Although the full model
has yet to be tested for other populations, the results of a recent analysis
indicate that it applies to children and adolescents in European countries as

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

well (Van Tubergen & Mentjox, 2014). However, this study focused on L1
proficiency and would have to be replicated for L2.
In a third line of research, the focus is on one specific determinant of L2 proficiency, namely, students’ proficiency in L1. On the basis of the assumption
that conceptual and metalinguistic knowledge acquired in L1 can be used
in other languages as well, the long-standing transfer hypothesis (Cummins,
1979) posits that a good command of L1 should make subsequent language
learning in L2 (as well as in additional languages) easier. In fact, foundational research on language transfer has accumulated substantial evidence
for cross-linguistic associations of literacy skills and its precursors: a considerable number of studies demonstrated that phonological awareness, basic
reading skills, and reading comprehension in L1 are positively related to L2
˘
reading (Durgunoglu,
Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003; Proctor, August, Carlo, & Snow, 2006). Although the majority of
these investigations used data from Spanish-speaking children in the United
States, some studies were also carried out in other countries, such as the
Netherlands (Verhoeven, 2007). Owing to a lack of formal L1 instruction,
however, language minority children do not necessarily become literate in
this language. This raises the question if L2 reading skills also benefit from
oral L1 skills. There is some evidence that this is the case, as the findings of a
meta-analysis suggest (Prevoo et al., 2015). Yet, many of the primary studies
neglected to control for potential confounds. An exception is a recent study
on Turkish- and Russian-speaking adolescents in Germany that took into
account key third variables, such as socioeconomic background and general
cognitive ability, and corroborated the hypothesis that L1 oral skills predict
L2 reading comprehension (Edele & Stanat, 2015).
The fourth line of research explores bilingualism and its effects (see The
Impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok). This
research clearly shows that people can become proficient in more than one
language. Although bilingual children and adolescents tend to have weaker
verbal skills than monolinguals in each of the two languages (Bialystok,
Craik, & Luk, 2012), their vocabulary may be larger overall. In addition,
the research evidence supports the assumption that bilingual students have
more advanced metalinguistic awareness than monolingual students. This
seems to make learning a third language easier for them, at least when both
L1 and L2 are official languages and used in the country’s schools, such as
Basque and Spanish in the Basque Country, Spain (Cenoz, 2003), whereas
the results of studies exploring the prediction for immigrant students are
mixed (Maluch, Kempert, Neumann, & Stanat, 2015; Van Gelderen et al.,
2003). The most frequently demonstrated effect of bilingualism, however,
is that individuals speaking two languages tend to perform better on tasks
that require attentional control, such as tasks involving distractions. Yet, the

Language Proficiency

5

relevance of this effect for educational success is largely unclear (see the
following section).
A fifth line of research, finally, concerns the support immigrant students
need to become proficient in the language of instruction and to succeed in
school. For a long time, the discussion focused on the role L1 should play in
these efforts. Most of the studies were carried out in North America and compared bilingual programs that provide significant parts of the instruction in
L1 (typically in a transitional approach with a gradual shift from mostly using
L1 to mostly using L2) with monolingual programs that use (almost) exclusively L2 in instruction. Several literature reviews and meta-analyses report
advantages for the bilingual programs (Greene, 1998; Relji´c, Ferring, & Martin, 2015; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2008; Slavin & Cheung, 2005), whereas
Rossell and colleagues conclude that the effect does not hold (Rossell & Baker,
1996; Rossell & Kuder, 2005). These contradictory findings are largely due
to substantial shortcomings that most studies on the issue have, such as a
lack of control groups or questionable comparability of treatment and control
groups. A more recent synthesis focused on investigations employing randomization or matching to ensure comparability of students in the different
treatment conditions and revealed a small advantage for bilingual instruction (Cheung & Slavin, 2012). Yet, the authors of the review point out that the
only randomized field trial that followed students over several years found
no effect (see the following paragraphs).
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Research on the role of language use and proficiency for educational success
of immigrant students is often interested in causal relationships. Owing to
methodological limitations of past studies, however, it is largely impossible
to draw conclusions about causes and effects, such as for the association
between proficiency in L1 and proficiency in L2. Cutting-edge research aims
at overcoming these limitations by employing longitudinal designs and
by controlling relevant third variables. In the case of intervention studies
exploring the effectiveness of language support, moreover, randomized
assignment to an experimental group and a control group ensures that
observed between-group differences after the intervention can be attributed
to the treatment.
Studies on the relevance of L2 for educational success of immigrant students and on determinants of L2 proficiency increasingly use designs with
repeated measurements. To establish that transfer effects occur, for instance,
it is necessary to show that language skills in L1 predict language skills in
L2 measured at a later point in time. Ideally, multiple measurements are

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

employed that allow for estimations of growth patterns. A few authors carried out longitudinal analyses and reported findings that are in line with the
transfer hypothesis (e.g., Leseman, Scheele, Mayo, & Messer, 2009 for a sample of immigrant preschoolers in the Netherlands; Lindsey et al., 2003 for a
sample of Spanish-speaking children in the United States).
To compare the effectiveness of monolingual (English only) and bilingual (English and Spanish) programs, a US-American study randomly
assigned Hispanic students at preschool age to the two types of instruction
within each of the participating schools and measured their language skills
repeatedly over the course of several years (Slavin, Madden, Calderon,
Chamberlain, & Hennessy, 2011). Analyses controlling for prior achievement showed that the children receiving monolingual support were more
proficient in English than the children receiving bilingual support in first
grade. By the time students reached second grade, however, this difference
had disappeared and the groups remained comparable in their English
proficiency throughout third and fourth grades. This finding contradicts
the conclusion of previous research suggesting that bilingual programs
promote L2 acquisition more effectively than monolingual programs. In
their research synthesis, Cheung and Slavin (2012, p. 26) therefore come to
the overall conclusion that “quality of instruction is more important than
language of instruction.”
Another trend in research on the association between language and educational success of immigrant students is an increased focus on processes or
mechanisms. This trend is most apparent in studies on the transfer issue. In
the past, research on language transfer typically analyzed the relationship
between isolated aspects of language proficiency, such as reading comprehension in L1 and L2. An increasing number of investigations now adopt
a more general approach. On the basis of theoretical models of reading, for
example, studies assess various components in both languages to determine
which of them transfer and account for the association between reading comprehension in L1 and L2. Proctor et al. (2006) used the Simple View of Reading
(Hoover & Gough, 1990) as a framework for analyzing the effects of decoding skills and oral language proficiency in L1 (Spanish) and L2 English on L2
reading comprehension of fourth grade students in the United States. They
found that alphabetic knowledge (an aspect of decoding) and vocabulary
knowledge (an aspect of oral language) in L1 predicted reading comprehension in L2 above and beyond decoding skills and oral language proficiency
in L2. The study also showed that the fluent readers in L2 were the students
who profited the most from their vocabulary knowledge in L1. The transfer
effects were small, however, suggesting that the relevance of L1 proficiency
for reading development in L2 is limited.

Language Proficiency

7

Research on effects of L1 on L2 has also begun to explore different mechanisms simultaneously in order to estimate their relative impact. One of the
most intriguing questions is how transfer and language competition influence L2 acquisition, as their effects should operate in opposite directions.
While the transfer hypothesis predicts positive effects of L1 proficiency
on L2 proficiency, the language competition hypothesis suggests that a
frequent use of L1 should promote L1 acquisition but reduce L2 use and
hence L2 acquisition. After most studies in the past focused on one of these
mechanisms, researchers have now begun to explore them simultaneously.
A longitudinal study carried out in the Netherlands assessed several aspects
of L1 and L2 proficiency in a group of children (age 3–6) from Turkish- or
Tarifit-Berber-speaking immigrant families. In addition, the authors measured the extent to which the children were exposed to L1 and L2 in their
home environment. Not surprisingly, the findings indicate that a frequent
use of a language has positive effects on proficiency in this language (positive
same-language effect of language use on language proficiency). Moreover,
the study revealed a negative cross-language relationship between language
use and language proficiency. The authors interpret this pattern of findings
as support for the language competition hypothesis. At the same time,
however, the study also provided evidence for transfer effects: higher levels
of L1 proficiency were associated with larger gains in L2 vocabulary and
reading comprehension, even after controlling for potential confounds,
such as basic cognitive ability and prior language skills in L2. For language
support, the authors conclude that promoting L1 may have positive effects
not only on L1 development but also on L2 acquisition owing to transfer
effects. To counter language competition effects, however, they argue that
opportunities for L2 acquisition need to be intensified as well (Leseman
et al., 2009; see also Scheele et al., 2010).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Future studies should address the shortcomings of past research and continue to focus on current lines of inquiry that seem particularly promising. In
addition, it seems worthwhile to broaden the view on integration and explore
how different aspects of integration relate to use of and proficiency development in L1 and L2.
As described earlier, current research often suffers from methodological
shortcomings that severely limit the interpretability of findings. In addition
to a lack of longitudinal data and a failure to control for potential confounds,
studies sometimes use self-report measures of language proficiency (Berry,
Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Chiswick & Miller, 2001; Mouw & Xie,
1999; Van Tubergen & Mentjox, 2014). This is most frequently the case in

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

studies with large samples. In fact, there seems to be a trade-off between
quality of language-proficiency indicators and generalizability of findings:
Investigations employing language tests are typically small scale and limited
in the generalizability of their results. In contrast, large-scale studies with
more generalizable results usually use self-reports of language proficiency.
Analyses with self-report indicators, however, often yield different results
than analyses with objectively tested language skills, as a study with data
from a large, nationwide sample of immigrant adolescents in Germany
demonstrates (Edele, Seuring, Kristen, & Stanat, 2015). Future investigations, including large-scale studies, should therefore employ language tests
or at least establish that the self-report (or other alternative) measures they
use are valid.
Future research should also aim at overcoming conceptual limitations by
defining and operationalizing important constructs more clearly and consistently. As pointed out earlier, the conceptual and operational definitions of
such concepts as first language, second language, and bilingualism vary considerably across studies. For example, it is often unclear at what age students
started to acquire L1 and L2, to what extent they use these languages in everyday lives, whether and to what extent one of the two languages is dominant,
and how proficient students are in the two languages. At the very least, studies should routinely report these and other characteristics that could potentially moderate effects. The goal should be to accumulate a research basis on
issues such as transfer, language competition, and language support that can
be summarized with meta-analytic techniques. This requires clear definitions
of the concepts and information on potential moderators.
Another potential moderator to which future research should pay more
attention is the specific combination of languages that studies investigate.
One important aspect is the degree of similarity between L1 and L2 that may
influence transfer and other processes of L2-acquisition as well as the effects
of bilingualism on linguistic and cognitive outcomes (Barac & Bialystok,
2012; Edele & Stanat, 2015; Pasquarella, Chen, Gottardo, & Geva, 2015). A
large share of the relevant research has focused on US samples with Spanish
as L1 and English as L2. Comparing results for different combinations of
languages and language groups would allow researchers to determine
whether observed effects are specific to these combinations or universal.
In research on determinants of L2 acquisition, it would be promising to
test the model suggested by Chiswick and Miller (2001) more comprehensively for children and adolescents. Most importantly, the model should be
extended by distinguishing between quantity and quality of language exposure. To ensure that their children will learn the language used in school,
immigrant parents sometimes speak L2 at home, even if they themselves are
not fluent in this language. This raises the question of relative effects that

Language Proficiency

9

quantity and quality of exposure may have on L2 development. Longitudinal research on differential language environments of children in the United
States (Hart & Risley, 1995; Weizman & Snow, 2001) suggests that language
development is affected not only by the quantity but also by the quality of
the language parents use with their children (such as variability of vocabulary). Similar analyses are needed in settings where more than one language
is spoken. Among other things, research should determine whether L2 development profits more from relatively low-quality input in L2 or from relatively
high-quality input in L1.
In research exploring the impact of L1 on L2, it would be important to
estimate more precisely the net effects of transfer on the one hand and of
time-on-task or language competition on the other hand. In addition, studies should explore more systematically the role of possible moderators, such
as students’ basic cognitive abilities and relevant features of the respective
language combinations. In addition, the widely held assumption that transfer will occur only if a certain threshold of L1 proficiency has been reached
should be tested with suitable study designs (Edele & Stanat, 2015; Prevoo
et al., 2015).
In a similar vein, it would be important for research on bilingualism to further determine how fluent students have to be in the two languages for positive effects of bilingualism to occur. Most importantly, the extent to which the
cognitive advantages of bilinguals affect educational success should be analyzed. Past research was mainly carried out in laboratory settings with rather
confined cognitive tasks, and it is largely unclear whether the observed differences between monolingual and bilingual students play out in school-related
learning. One of the few studies examining this question for a sample of
Turkish-speaking immigrant children in Germany suggests that this may not
be the case (Kempert, Saalbach, & Hardy, 2011). In addition, the implications
of research on bilingualism for language support need to be specified. The
generalizability of studies on bilingual education is often limited owing to
selection bias (Slavin & Cheung, 2005). It is therefore unclear whether all students can profit from this approach or the effects depend on other factors,
such as students’ general cognitive ability (aptitude × treatment interaction).
In addition, more research on this issue with samples from other regions
would help to determine whether the findings from North American studies
also apply to other language groups and contexts.
As Cheung and Slavin (2012) point out, moreover, a key issue for future
research on support for children from immigrant families is quality of
instruction. Although the relative effectiveness of bilingual and monolingual approaches for educational success has not been fully determined,
at this point it seems that the importance of the language of instruction
per se may have been overrated. Instead, the effectiveness of bilingual

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

and monolingual approaches most likely depends on the quality of their
conceptualization and implementation. A conceptually elaborated approach
that was designed in the United States to help language minority students
gain access to the curriculum content in all subjects and, at the same time, to
develop their language skills in L2 is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP; Short, Echevarría, & Richards-Tutor, 2011). It involves a number
of techniques, such as providing comprehensive reviews of key vocabulary
and giving students the opportunity to clarify key concepts in their L1.
Although some analyses, which also focus on language minority students
in the United States, suggest that the SIOP approach can be effective, the
findings are inconsistent (Echevarría, Richards-Tutor, Canges, & Francis,
2011) and well-controlled studies are lacking. Thus, again, studies on the
effectiveness of support for immigrant students are needed that employ
well-controlled designs and include measures of quality.
Yet, the integration of immigrant students in the education system is even
more complex than the foci of current research suggest. Structural and cultural integration, such as educational success and proficiency in the language
of instruction, clearly are of prime relevance, but social and identity-related
integration are vital as well. Importantly, these different aspects of integration
are interrelated and most likely associated with language use and proficiency.
The Theory of Segmented Assimilation, for example, argues that proficiency in
the L1 can provide access to social capital of the ethnic group, which may
help to prevent students from adapting to marginalized groups and from
failing in school (Portes & Zhou, 1993). Although it is still unclear whether
the assumptions of the Theory of Segmented Assimilation hold and, if so,
under which conditions the predicted patterns are likely to occur, the general line of reasoning is a good example for a broadened view on the roles
language may have in the integration of immigrant students in the education system. A promising avenue for future research would be to analyze the
associations among proficiency development in L1 and L2 as well as different aspects of integration over time to provide a more complete picture of
factors and processes influencing immigrant students’ educational success.
REFERENCES
Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background, and education. Child Development,
83(2), 413–422.
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural
transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind
and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240–250.

Language Proficiency

11

Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A
review. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 71–87.
Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant
English Language Learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of
research. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 351–395.
Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (2001). A model of destination language acquisition: Application to male immigrants in Canada. Journal of Political Economy, 38(3),
391–409.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251.
˘ A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer
Durgunoglu,
of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465.
Duursma, E., Romero-Contreras, S., Szuber, A., Proctor, P., Snow, C., August, D., &
Calderón, M. (2007). The role of home literacy and language environment on bilinguals’ English and Spanish vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28,
171–190.
Echevarría, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP
model to promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English
learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 334–351.
Edele, A., Seuring, J., Kristen, C., & Stanat, P. (2015). Why bother with testing? The
validity of immigrants’ self-assessed language proficiency. Social Science Research,
52, 99–123.
Edele, A., & Stanat, P. (2015). The role of first-language listening comprehension
in second-language reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1037/edu0000060.
Esser, H. (2006). Sprache und Integration: Die sozialen Bedingungen und Folgen des
Spracherwerbs von Migranten. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag.
Greene, J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Claremont,
CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.
Gresch, C., & Becker, M. (2010). Sozial- und leistungsbedingte Disparitäten
im Übergangsverhalten bei türkischstämmigen Kindern und Kindern aus
(Spät-)Aussiedlerfamilien [Social and achievement-related disparities at the transition to secondary school for children with Turkish and Aussiedler backgrounds].
In K. Maaz, J. Baumert, C. Gresch & N. McElvany (Eds.), Der Übergang von der
Grundschule in die weiterführende Schule: Leistungsgerechtigkeit und regionale, soziale
und ethnisch-kulturelle Disparitäten (pp. 181–200). Bonn, Germany: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF).
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing,
2(2), 127–160.
Kempert, S., Saalbach, H., & Hardy, I. (2011). Cognitive benefits and costs of bilingualism in elementary school students. The case of mathematical word problems.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 547–561.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Leseman, P., Scheele, A. F., Mayo, A. Y., & Messer, M. H. (2009). Bilingual development in early childhood and the languages used at home: Competition for
scarce resources? In I. Gogolin & U. Neumann (Eds.), Streitfall Zweisprachigkeit – the
bilingualism controversy (Vol. 1, pp. 317–331). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS-Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Lindsey, K. A., Manis, F. R., & Bailey, C. E. (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading
in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(3), 482–494.
Maluch, J. T., Kempert, S., Neumann, M., & Stanat, P. (2015). The effect of speaking a
minority language at home on foreign language learning. Learning and Instruction,
36, 76–85.
Mouw, T., & Xie, Y. (1999). Bilingualism and the academic achievement of first- and
second-generation Asian Americans: Accommodation with or without assimilation? American Sociological Review, 64(2), 232–252.
OECD (2012). Untapped skills: Realising the potential of immigrant students. Paris,
France: PISA, OECD Publishing.
Pasquarella, A., Chen, X., Gottardo, A., & Geva, E. (2015). Cross-language transfer of word reading accuracy and word reading fluency in Spanish–English and
Chinese–English bilinguals: Script-universal and script-specific processes. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 96–110.
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented Assimilation
and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
530(1), 74–96.
Prevoo, M. J. L., Malda, M. M., Mesman, J., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H.
(2015). Within- and cross-language relations between oral language proficiency and school outcomes in bilingual children with an immigrant background: A meta-analytical study. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 237–276.
doi:10.3102/0034654315584685.
Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. (2006). The intriguing role of
Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 159–169.
Relji´c, G., Ferring, D., & Martin, R. (2015). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of
bilingual programs in Europe. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 92–128.
Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2008). The big picture in bilingual education: A
meta-analysis corrected for Gersten’s coding error. Journal of Educational Research
and Policy Studies, 8(2), 1–15.
Rossell, C. H., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(1), 7–74.
Rossell, C. H., & Kuder, J. (2005). Meta-murky: A rebuttal to recent meta-analysis
of bilingual education. In Arbeitsstelle Interkulturelle Konflikte und
gesellschaftliche Integration (Ed.), The effectiveness of bilingual school programs
for immigrant children (pp. 43–76). Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin
für Sozialforschung.

Language Proficiency

13

Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P., & Mayo, A. Y. (2010). The home language environment of
monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 117–140. doi:10.1017/S014271640999019.
Short, D. J., Echevarría, J., & Richards-Tutor, J. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research,
15(3), 363–380.
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading
instruction for English Language Learners. In Arbeitsstelle Interkulturelle Konflikte und gesellschaftliche Integration (Ed.), The effectiveness of bilingual school programs for immigrant children (pp. 5–42). Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum
Berlin für Sozialforschung.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Calderon, M., Chamberlain, A., & Hennessy, M. (2011).
Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 47–58.
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., deGlopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Snellings, P., Simis, A., &
Stevenson, M. (2003). Role of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and
processing speed in L3, L2 and L1 reading comprehension: A structural equation
modeling approach. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 7–25.
Van Tubergen, F., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). A dynamic approach to the determinants
of immigrants’ language proficiency: The United States, 1980–2001. International
Migration Review, 43(3), 519–543.
Van Tubergen, F., & Mentjox, T. (2014). Minority language proficiency of adolescent
immigrant children in England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Kölner
Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 66(1), 241–262.
Verhoeven, L. (2007). Early bilingualism, language transfer and phonological awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 425–429.
Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37, 265–279.

PETRA STANAT SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Petra Stanat is the director of the German Institute for Educational Quality Improvement (IQB) and professor of educational psychology at the
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. The IQB is in charge of the national monitoring system of student achievement in Germany. Petra Stanat obtained her
PhD in social and personality psychology at the University of Massachusetts
at Amherst in 1998 and completed her Habilitation in Education at the Freie
Universität Berlin, Germany, in 2005. Her research focuses on questions
related to ethnic and social disparities in education, determinants of immigrant students’ educational success, second-language teaching and learning,
as well as educational quality and monitoring. She has received several
research grants from the German Science Foundation and the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research and has published her findings

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

nationally as well as internationally in edited books and journal articles.
She is involved in several professional organizations and advisory boards.
Among other things, she is an elected member of the Review Board for
Education Sciences of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and member
of the Editorial Board of the Zeitschrift für Pädagogik [Journal of Education].

AILEEN EDELE SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Aileen Edele is about to complete her PhD in psychology. She studied psychology at the University of Freiburg (Germany), the Humboldt-Universität
zu Berlin (Germany), and the University of Toronto (Canada) and
received her diploma (equivalent to a Master’s degree) from the
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin in 2007. She has worked as a research
scientist in the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS), a longitudinal
large-scale study on education in Germany and has a strong interest in
the sociocultural adaptation and psychological adaptation of children and
adolescents from immigrant families. Her research focuses on the role of
immigrant students’ first language proficiency and cultural identity in
educational achievement. She has published a number of book chapters and
journal articles on these issues and served as an ad hoc reviewer for several
peer-reviewed journals, such as the Journal of Educational Psychology.
RELATED ESSAYS
The Impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok
Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn
Neighborhoods and Cognitive Development (Psychology), Jondou Chen and
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development (Psychology), Samuel E.
Ehrenreich and Marion K. Underwood
Migrant Networks (Sociology), Filiz Garip and Asad L. Asad
Ethnic Enclaves (Sociology), Steven J. Gold
Language and Thought (Psychology), Susan Goldin-Meadow
Immigrant Children and the Transition to Adulthood (Sociology), Roberto G.
Gonzales and Benjamin J. Roth
Immigration and the Changing Status of Asian Americans (Sociology),
Jennifer Lee

Language Proficiency

15

Immigrant Sociocultural Adaptation, Identification, and Belonging (Sociology), Sarah J. Mahler
Immigrant Health Paradox (Sociology), Kyriakos S. Markides and Sunshine
Rote
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann
The Role of School-Related Peers and Social Networks in Human Development (Political Science), Chandra Muller
Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Ian Mullins
Latinos and the Color Line (Sociology), Clara E. Rodríguez et al.
Language, Perspective, and Memory (Psychology), Rachel A. Ryskin et al.
Assimilation and Its Discontents (Sociology), Min Zhou



Language Proficiency and the
Integration of Immigrant Students in
the Education System
PETRA STANAT and AILEEN EDELE

Abstract
The integration of immigrant students in the education system is an important concern in most countries around the world. Several lines of research on this issue focus
on the role of language, often distinguishing between students’ family language, typically referred to as first language (L1), and the school language, typically referred to as
second language (L2). Past research has clearly shown that immigrant students’ level of
proficiency in L2 affects their school success, yet the role of L1 proficiency is less clear.
In addition, the question whether bilingual or monolingual instruction is more effective in supporting immigrant students is largely unresolved. Current investigations
aim at overcoming limitations of prior research by employing longitudinal designs,
by controlling relevant third variables, and by conducting randomized field trials.
Promising avenues for future research include developing more clear-cut conceptual and operational definitions of core constructs, analyzing potentially important
moderators of effects, determining the role quality of language input and instruction
play for proficiency development and school success, and analyzing the associations
between proficiency development in L1 and L2 with various aspects of integration.

INTRODUCTION
Over the past decades, immigration movements around the globe have
reached a historic peak, and there is no reason to expect that the numbers will
decrease in the foreseeable future. International immigration can pose many
opportunities but also substantial challenges to the individual immigrants as
well as to the countries where they take up residence (hereafter referred to as
country of residence). One of the most important challenges is the integration
of immigrant students in the education system, as educational achievement
and attainment are key determinants of success in the labor market and
participation in society more generally. Educational success, in turn, requires
language skills that allow students to engage in the institutional learning
opportunities the country of residence has to offer.
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

The linguistic situation of many immigrants and their offspring is unique.
They often speak another language at home than the one used in schools
and their proficiency in the school language is often limited. The question,
then, is how the education system should respond to this specific situation
to ensure that immigrant students will succeed even if they start out with
limited proficiency in the language of instruction. This question entails various aspects and is much more complex than it appears. Although researchers
from a number of disciplines have addressed some of the key questions, we
are still at the beginning of understanding the role language and different
approaches to language support play in the integration of immigrant students.
This essay addresses central research issues related to language use and
proficiency of immigrant students. We adopt an educational perspective and
concentrate on questions that are relevant for students’ success in the school
system, with most of the research focusing on determinants of proficiency
in the language of instruction as a key determinant of educational success.
The essay describes what we already know and in which directions research
should move in order to improve a knowledge base that may help to enhance
educational opportunities for immigrant students.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Several lines of foundational research are relevant for exploring the role of
language for the integration of immigrant students in the education system.
This research stems from various disciplines, most prominently psychology,
education, sociology, and economics. Broadly speaking, it includes studies
on children and adolescents who have acquired a language in their family
that is different from the language used in school. Although the age at which
they start learning the two languages and the degree of proficiency they have
reached vary tremendously, the family language of these students is typically
referred to as first language (L1) and the school language as second language
(L2). In some studies, the terms language minority or (within English speaking
countries) English Language Learners (ELL) are used as descriptors of these
students. Research on bilingualism, in contrast, does not distinguish between
a first language and a second language but focuses on persons who speak at
least two languages. Yet, again, the age at which they learned these languages
and the degree to which they are proficient in each of the languages vary
considerably.
One line of foundational research focuses on the role of L2 in immigrant
students’ educational success. The evidence provided by these studies,
among them several large-scale-assessment studies measuring competencies and skills of children and adolescents around the globe (OECD, 2012),

Language Proficiency

3

is quite clear: on average, students with an immigrant background are less
proficient in the language of instruction than their peers from native families,
and students with limited proficiency in the language of instruction are
likely to struggle in school. Studies show that oral skills in L2 significantly
predict immigrant students’ achievement not only in reading but also in
other subject domains including mathematics (for a meta-analysis, see
Prevoo, Malda, Mesman, & Van IJzendoorn, 2015). L2 proficiency also affects
the transition of immigrant students in differentiated school systems, with
limited proficiency resulting in transitions to lower tracks, for instance at the
transition from primary school to secondary school in Germany (Gresch &
Becker, 2010).
A second line of research aims at identifying factors that predict immigrants’ L2-acquisition. Chiswick and Miller (2001) suggested a framework
that distinguishes three general determinants of language proficiency: exposure, incentives/motivation, and efficiency (see also Esser, 2006). Exposure
refers to how long and how intensively an immigrant has been exposed to
a language. The notion of incentives or motivation refers to a broad range of
factors that may cause people to learn or not learn a language, such as anticipated economic returns and costs of learning the language, intention to stay
in the country of residence, or intention to return to the country of origin. Efficiency, finally, pertains to factors that make it more or less difficult to learn a
given language, including the age of the learner or the degree to which the
language is similar to the respective L1.
Immigrant students often have limited exposure to L2 and they therefore
lack opportunities for learning this language. Indicators of exposure studies
have explored include the number of years a person has lived in the country
of residence and the extent to which a person speaks the language at home.
Supporting the so-called time-on-task hypothesis, the findings clearly show
that these variables are significant predictors of immigrants’ proficiency in
L2, suggesting that the degree of exposure does, in fact, affect children’s
L2-acquisition (Duursma et al., 2007; Scheele, Leseman, & Mayo, 2010). In
line with the language competition as well as the time-on-task hypothesis,
moreover, using L1 at home seems to decrease exposure to L2, resulting in
a negative association between L1 use and L2 proficiency. There is evidence
from a number of representative samples that the other two factors in the
model (incentives/motivation and efficiency) play a significant role as well
(Chiswick & Miller, 2001; Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2009), yet most of the
relevant studies focused on adults in traditional immigration countries,
such as the United States, Canada, or Australia. Although the full model
has yet to be tested for other populations, the results of a recent analysis
indicate that it applies to children and adolescents in European countries as

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

well (Van Tubergen & Mentjox, 2014). However, this study focused on L1
proficiency and would have to be replicated for L2.
In a third line of research, the focus is on one specific determinant of L2 proficiency, namely, students’ proficiency in L1. On the basis of the assumption
that conceptual and metalinguistic knowledge acquired in L1 can be used
in other languages as well, the long-standing transfer hypothesis (Cummins,
1979) posits that a good command of L1 should make subsequent language
learning in L2 (as well as in additional languages) easier. In fact, foundational research on language transfer has accumulated substantial evidence
for cross-linguistic associations of literacy skills and its precursors: a considerable number of studies demonstrated that phonological awareness, basic
reading skills, and reading comprehension in L1 are positively related to L2
˘
reading (Durgunoglu,
Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003; Proctor, August, Carlo, & Snow, 2006). Although the majority of
these investigations used data from Spanish-speaking children in the United
States, some studies were also carried out in other countries, such as the
Netherlands (Verhoeven, 2007). Owing to a lack of formal L1 instruction,
however, language minority children do not necessarily become literate in
this language. This raises the question if L2 reading skills also benefit from
oral L1 skills. There is some evidence that this is the case, as the findings of a
meta-analysis suggest (Prevoo et al., 2015). Yet, many of the primary studies
neglected to control for potential confounds. An exception is a recent study
on Turkish- and Russian-speaking adolescents in Germany that took into
account key third variables, such as socioeconomic background and general
cognitive ability, and corroborated the hypothesis that L1 oral skills predict
L2 reading comprehension (Edele & Stanat, 2015).
The fourth line of research explores bilingualism and its effects (see The
Impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok). This
research clearly shows that people can become proficient in more than one
language. Although bilingual children and adolescents tend to have weaker
verbal skills than monolinguals in each of the two languages (Bialystok,
Craik, & Luk, 2012), their vocabulary may be larger overall. In addition,
the research evidence supports the assumption that bilingual students have
more advanced metalinguistic awareness than monolingual students. This
seems to make learning a third language easier for them, at least when both
L1 and L2 are official languages and used in the country’s schools, such as
Basque and Spanish in the Basque Country, Spain (Cenoz, 2003), whereas
the results of studies exploring the prediction for immigrant students are
mixed (Maluch, Kempert, Neumann, & Stanat, 2015; Van Gelderen et al.,
2003). The most frequently demonstrated effect of bilingualism, however,
is that individuals speaking two languages tend to perform better on tasks
that require attentional control, such as tasks involving distractions. Yet, the

Language Proficiency

5

relevance of this effect for educational success is largely unclear (see the
following section).
A fifth line of research, finally, concerns the support immigrant students
need to become proficient in the language of instruction and to succeed in
school. For a long time, the discussion focused on the role L1 should play in
these efforts. Most of the studies were carried out in North America and compared bilingual programs that provide significant parts of the instruction in
L1 (typically in a transitional approach with a gradual shift from mostly using
L1 to mostly using L2) with monolingual programs that use (almost) exclusively L2 in instruction. Several literature reviews and meta-analyses report
advantages for the bilingual programs (Greene, 1998; Relji´c, Ferring, & Martin, 2015; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2008; Slavin & Cheung, 2005), whereas
Rossell and colleagues conclude that the effect does not hold (Rossell & Baker,
1996; Rossell & Kuder, 2005). These contradictory findings are largely due
to substantial shortcomings that most studies on the issue have, such as a
lack of control groups or questionable comparability of treatment and control
groups. A more recent synthesis focused on investigations employing randomization or matching to ensure comparability of students in the different
treatment conditions and revealed a small advantage for bilingual instruction (Cheung & Slavin, 2012). Yet, the authors of the review point out that the
only randomized field trial that followed students over several years found
no effect (see the following paragraphs).
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Research on the role of language use and proficiency for educational success
of immigrant students is often interested in causal relationships. Owing to
methodological limitations of past studies, however, it is largely impossible
to draw conclusions about causes and effects, such as for the association
between proficiency in L1 and proficiency in L2. Cutting-edge research aims
at overcoming these limitations by employing longitudinal designs and
by controlling relevant third variables. In the case of intervention studies
exploring the effectiveness of language support, moreover, randomized
assignment to an experimental group and a control group ensures that
observed between-group differences after the intervention can be attributed
to the treatment.
Studies on the relevance of L2 for educational success of immigrant students and on determinants of L2 proficiency increasingly use designs with
repeated measurements. To establish that transfer effects occur, for instance,
it is necessary to show that language skills in L1 predict language skills in
L2 measured at a later point in time. Ideally, multiple measurements are

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

employed that allow for estimations of growth patterns. A few authors carried out longitudinal analyses and reported findings that are in line with the
transfer hypothesis (e.g., Leseman, Scheele, Mayo, & Messer, 2009 for a sample of immigrant preschoolers in the Netherlands; Lindsey et al., 2003 for a
sample of Spanish-speaking children in the United States).
To compare the effectiveness of monolingual (English only) and bilingual (English and Spanish) programs, a US-American study randomly
assigned Hispanic students at preschool age to the two types of instruction
within each of the participating schools and measured their language skills
repeatedly over the course of several years (Slavin, Madden, Calderon,
Chamberlain, & Hennessy, 2011). Analyses controlling for prior achievement showed that the children receiving monolingual support were more
proficient in English than the children receiving bilingual support in first
grade. By the time students reached second grade, however, this difference
had disappeared and the groups remained comparable in their English
proficiency throughout third and fourth grades. This finding contradicts
the conclusion of previous research suggesting that bilingual programs
promote L2 acquisition more effectively than monolingual programs. In
their research synthesis, Cheung and Slavin (2012, p. 26) therefore come to
the overall conclusion that “quality of instruction is more important than
language of instruction.”
Another trend in research on the association between language and educational success of immigrant students is an increased focus on processes or
mechanisms. This trend is most apparent in studies on the transfer issue. In
the past, research on language transfer typically analyzed the relationship
between isolated aspects of language proficiency, such as reading comprehension in L1 and L2. An increasing number of investigations now adopt
a more general approach. On the basis of theoretical models of reading, for
example, studies assess various components in both languages to determine
which of them transfer and account for the association between reading comprehension in L1 and L2. Proctor et al. (2006) used the Simple View of Reading
(Hoover & Gough, 1990) as a framework for analyzing the effects of decoding skills and oral language proficiency in L1 (Spanish) and L2 English on L2
reading comprehension of fourth grade students in the United States. They
found that alphabetic knowledge (an aspect of decoding) and vocabulary
knowledge (an aspect of oral language) in L1 predicted reading comprehension in L2 above and beyond decoding skills and oral language proficiency
in L2. The study also showed that the fluent readers in L2 were the students
who profited the most from their vocabulary knowledge in L1. The transfer
effects were small, however, suggesting that the relevance of L1 proficiency
for reading development in L2 is limited.

Language Proficiency

7

Research on effects of L1 on L2 has also begun to explore different mechanisms simultaneously in order to estimate their relative impact. One of the
most intriguing questions is how transfer and language competition influence L2 acquisition, as their effects should operate in opposite directions.
While the transfer hypothesis predicts positive effects of L1 proficiency
on L2 proficiency, the language competition hypothesis suggests that a
frequent use of L1 should promote L1 acquisition but reduce L2 use and
hence L2 acquisition. After most studies in the past focused on one of these
mechanisms, researchers have now begun to explore them simultaneously.
A longitudinal study carried out in the Netherlands assessed several aspects
of L1 and L2 proficiency in a group of children (age 3–6) from Turkish- or
Tarifit-Berber-speaking immigrant families. In addition, the authors measured the extent to which the children were exposed to L1 and L2 in their
home environment. Not surprisingly, the findings indicate that a frequent
use of a language has positive effects on proficiency in this language (positive
same-language effect of language use on language proficiency). Moreover,
the study revealed a negative cross-language relationship between language
use and language proficiency. The authors interpret this pattern of findings
as support for the language competition hypothesis. At the same time,
however, the study also provided evidence for transfer effects: higher levels
of L1 proficiency were associated with larger gains in L2 vocabulary and
reading comprehension, even after controlling for potential confounds,
such as basic cognitive ability and prior language skills in L2. For language
support, the authors conclude that promoting L1 may have positive effects
not only on L1 development but also on L2 acquisition owing to transfer
effects. To counter language competition effects, however, they argue that
opportunities for L2 acquisition need to be intensified as well (Leseman
et al., 2009; see also Scheele et al., 2010).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Future studies should address the shortcomings of past research and continue to focus on current lines of inquiry that seem particularly promising. In
addition, it seems worthwhile to broaden the view on integration and explore
how different aspects of integration relate to use of and proficiency development in L1 and L2.
As described earlier, current research often suffers from methodological
shortcomings that severely limit the interpretability of findings. In addition
to a lack of longitudinal data and a failure to control for potential confounds,
studies sometimes use self-report measures of language proficiency (Berry,
Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Chiswick & Miller, 2001; Mouw & Xie,
1999; Van Tubergen & Mentjox, 2014). This is most frequently the case in

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

studies with large samples. In fact, there seems to be a trade-off between
quality of language-proficiency indicators and generalizability of findings:
Investigations employing language tests are typically small scale and limited
in the generalizability of their results. In contrast, large-scale studies with
more generalizable results usually use self-reports of language proficiency.
Analyses with self-report indicators, however, often yield different results
than analyses with objectively tested language skills, as a study with data
from a large, nationwide sample of immigrant adolescents in Germany
demonstrates (Edele, Seuring, Kristen, & Stanat, 2015). Future investigations, including large-scale studies, should therefore employ language tests
or at least establish that the self-report (or other alternative) measures they
use are valid.
Future research should also aim at overcoming conceptual limitations by
defining and operationalizing important constructs more clearly and consistently. As pointed out earlier, the conceptual and operational definitions of
such concepts as first language, second language, and bilingualism vary considerably across studies. For example, it is often unclear at what age students
started to acquire L1 and L2, to what extent they use these languages in everyday lives, whether and to what extent one of the two languages is dominant,
and how proficient students are in the two languages. At the very least, studies should routinely report these and other characteristics that could potentially moderate effects. The goal should be to accumulate a research basis on
issues such as transfer, language competition, and language support that can
be summarized with meta-analytic techniques. This requires clear definitions
of the concepts and information on potential moderators.
Another potential moderator to which future research should pay more
attention is the specific combination of languages that studies investigate.
One important aspect is the degree of similarity between L1 and L2 that may
influence transfer and other processes of L2-acquisition as well as the effects
of bilingualism on linguistic and cognitive outcomes (Barac & Bialystok,
2012; Edele & Stanat, 2015; Pasquarella, Chen, Gottardo, & Geva, 2015). A
large share of the relevant research has focused on US samples with Spanish
as L1 and English as L2. Comparing results for different combinations of
languages and language groups would allow researchers to determine
whether observed effects are specific to these combinations or universal.
In research on determinants of L2 acquisition, it would be promising to
test the model suggested by Chiswick and Miller (2001) more comprehensively for children and adolescents. Most importantly, the model should be
extended by distinguishing between quantity and quality of language exposure. To ensure that their children will learn the language used in school,
immigrant parents sometimes speak L2 at home, even if they themselves are
not fluent in this language. This raises the question of relative effects that

Language Proficiency

9

quantity and quality of exposure may have on L2 development. Longitudinal research on differential language environments of children in the United
States (Hart & Risley, 1995; Weizman & Snow, 2001) suggests that language
development is affected not only by the quantity but also by the quality of
the language parents use with their children (such as variability of vocabulary). Similar analyses are needed in settings where more than one language
is spoken. Among other things, research should determine whether L2 development profits more from relatively low-quality input in L2 or from relatively
high-quality input in L1.
In research exploring the impact of L1 on L2, it would be important to
estimate more precisely the net effects of transfer on the one hand and of
time-on-task or language competition on the other hand. In addition, studies should explore more systematically the role of possible moderators, such
as students’ basic cognitive abilities and relevant features of the respective
language combinations. In addition, the widely held assumption that transfer will occur only if a certain threshold of L1 proficiency has been reached
should be tested with suitable study designs (Edele & Stanat, 2015; Prevoo
et al., 2015).
In a similar vein, it would be important for research on bilingualism to further determine how fluent students have to be in the two languages for positive effects of bilingualism to occur. Most importantly, the extent to which the
cognitive advantages of bilinguals affect educational success should be analyzed. Past research was mainly carried out in laboratory settings with rather
confined cognitive tasks, and it is largely unclear whether the observed differences between monolingual and bilingual students play out in school-related
learning. One of the few studies examining this question for a sample of
Turkish-speaking immigrant children in Germany suggests that this may not
be the case (Kempert, Saalbach, & Hardy, 2011). In addition, the implications
of research on bilingualism for language support need to be specified. The
generalizability of studies on bilingual education is often limited owing to
selection bias (Slavin & Cheung, 2005). It is therefore unclear whether all students can profit from this approach or the effects depend on other factors,
such as students’ general cognitive ability (aptitude × treatment interaction).
In addition, more research on this issue with samples from other regions
would help to determine whether the findings from North American studies
also apply to other language groups and contexts.
As Cheung and Slavin (2012) point out, moreover, a key issue for future
research on support for children from immigrant families is quality of
instruction. Although the relative effectiveness of bilingual and monolingual approaches for educational success has not been fully determined,
at this point it seems that the importance of the language of instruction
per se may have been overrated. Instead, the effectiveness of bilingual

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

and monolingual approaches most likely depends on the quality of their
conceptualization and implementation. A conceptually elaborated approach
that was designed in the United States to help language minority students
gain access to the curriculum content in all subjects and, at the same time, to
develop their language skills in L2 is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP; Short, Echevarría, & Richards-Tutor, 2011). It involves a number
of techniques, such as providing comprehensive reviews of key vocabulary
and giving students the opportunity to clarify key concepts in their L1.
Although some analyses, which also focus on language minority students
in the United States, suggest that the SIOP approach can be effective, the
findings are inconsistent (Echevarría, Richards-Tutor, Canges, & Francis,
2011) and well-controlled studies are lacking. Thus, again, studies on the
effectiveness of support for immigrant students are needed that employ
well-controlled designs and include measures of quality.
Yet, the integration of immigrant students in the education system is even
more complex than the foci of current research suggest. Structural and cultural integration, such as educational success and proficiency in the language
of instruction, clearly are of prime relevance, but social and identity-related
integration are vital as well. Importantly, these different aspects of integration
are interrelated and most likely associated with language use and proficiency.
The Theory of Segmented Assimilation, for example, argues that proficiency in
the L1 can provide access to social capital of the ethnic group, which may
help to prevent students from adapting to marginalized groups and from
failing in school (Portes & Zhou, 1993). Although it is still unclear whether
the assumptions of the Theory of Segmented Assimilation hold and, if so,
under which conditions the predicted patterns are likely to occur, the general line of reasoning is a good example for a broadened view on the roles
language may have in the integration of immigrant students in the education system. A promising avenue for future research would be to analyze the
associations among proficiency development in L1 and L2 as well as different aspects of integration over time to provide a more complete picture of
factors and processes influencing immigrant students’ educational success.
REFERENCES
Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background, and education. Child Development,
83(2), 413–422.
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural
transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind
and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240–250.

Language Proficiency

11

Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A
review. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 71–87.
Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant
English Language Learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of
research. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 351–395.
Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (2001). A model of destination language acquisition: Application to male immigrants in Canada. Journal of Political Economy, 38(3),
391–409.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251.
˘ A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer
Durgunoglu,
of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465.
Duursma, E., Romero-Contreras, S., Szuber, A., Proctor, P., Snow, C., August, D., &
Calderón, M. (2007). The role of home literacy and language environment on bilinguals’ English and Spanish vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28,
171–190.
Echevarría, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP
model to promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English
learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 334–351.
Edele, A., Seuring, J., Kristen, C., & Stanat, P. (2015). Why bother with testing? The
validity of immigrants’ self-assessed language proficiency. Social Science Research,
52, 99–123.
Edele, A., & Stanat, P. (2015). The role of first-language listening comprehension
in second-language reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1037/edu0000060.
Esser, H. (2006). Sprache und Integration: Die sozialen Bedingungen und Folgen des
Spracherwerbs von Migranten. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag.
Greene, J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Claremont,
CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.
Gresch, C., & Becker, M. (2010). Sozial- und leistungsbedingte Disparitäten
im Übergangsverhalten bei türkischstämmigen Kindern und Kindern aus
(Spät-)Aussiedlerfamilien [Social and achievement-related disparities at the transition to secondary school for children with Turkish and Aussiedler backgrounds].
In K. Maaz, J. Baumert, C. Gresch & N. McElvany (Eds.), Der Übergang von der
Grundschule in die weiterführende Schule: Leistungsgerechtigkeit und regionale, soziale
und ethnisch-kulturelle Disparitäten (pp. 181–200). Bonn, Germany: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF).
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing,
2(2), 127–160.
Kempert, S., Saalbach, H., & Hardy, I. (2011). Cognitive benefits and costs of bilingualism in elementary school students. The case of mathematical word problems.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 547–561.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Leseman, P., Scheele, A. F., Mayo, A. Y., & Messer, M. H. (2009). Bilingual development in early childhood and the languages used at home: Competition for
scarce resources? In I. Gogolin & U. Neumann (Eds.), Streitfall Zweisprachigkeit – the
bilingualism controversy (Vol. 1, pp. 317–331). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS-Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Lindsey, K. A., Manis, F. R., & Bailey, C. E. (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading
in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(3), 482–494.
Maluch, J. T., Kempert, S., Neumann, M., & Stanat, P. (2015). The effect of speaking a
minority language at home on foreign language learning. Learning and Instruction,
36, 76–85.
Mouw, T., & Xie, Y. (1999). Bilingualism and the academic achievement of first- and
second-generation Asian Americans: Accommodation with or without assimilation? American Sociological Review, 64(2), 232–252.
OECD (2012). Untapped skills: Realising the potential of immigrant students. Paris,
France: PISA, OECD Publishing.
Pasquarella, A., Chen, X., Gottardo, A., & Geva, E. (2015). Cross-language transfer of word reading accuracy and word reading fluency in Spanish–English and
Chinese–English bilinguals: Script-universal and script-specific processes. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 96–110.
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented Assimilation
and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
530(1), 74–96.
Prevoo, M. J. L., Malda, M. M., Mesman, J., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H.
(2015). Within- and cross-language relations between oral language proficiency and school outcomes in bilingual children with an immigrant background: A meta-analytical study. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 237–276.
doi:10.3102/0034654315584685.
Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. (2006). The intriguing role of
Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 159–169.
Relji´c, G., Ferring, D., & Martin, R. (2015). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of
bilingual programs in Europe. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 92–128.
Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2008). The big picture in bilingual education: A
meta-analysis corrected for Gersten’s coding error. Journal of Educational Research
and Policy Studies, 8(2), 1–15.
Rossell, C. H., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(1), 7–74.
Rossell, C. H., & Kuder, J. (2005). Meta-murky: A rebuttal to recent meta-analysis
of bilingual education. In Arbeitsstelle Interkulturelle Konflikte und
gesellschaftliche Integration (Ed.), The effectiveness of bilingual school programs
for immigrant children (pp. 43–76). Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin
für Sozialforschung.

Language Proficiency

13

Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P., & Mayo, A. Y. (2010). The home language environment of
monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 117–140. doi:10.1017/S014271640999019.
Short, D. J., Echevarría, J., & Richards-Tutor, J. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research,
15(3), 363–380.
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading
instruction for English Language Learners. In Arbeitsstelle Interkulturelle Konflikte und gesellschaftliche Integration (Ed.), The effectiveness of bilingual school programs for immigrant children (pp. 5–42). Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum
Berlin für Sozialforschung.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Calderon, M., Chamberlain, A., & Hennessy, M. (2011).
Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 47–58.
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., deGlopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Snellings, P., Simis, A., &
Stevenson, M. (2003). Role of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and
processing speed in L3, L2 and L1 reading comprehension: A structural equation
modeling approach. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 7–25.
Van Tubergen, F., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). A dynamic approach to the determinants
of immigrants’ language proficiency: The United States, 1980–2001. International
Migration Review, 43(3), 519–543.
Van Tubergen, F., & Mentjox, T. (2014). Minority language proficiency of adolescent
immigrant children in England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Kölner
Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 66(1), 241–262.
Verhoeven, L. (2007). Early bilingualism, language transfer and phonological awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 425–429.
Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37, 265–279.

PETRA STANAT SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Petra Stanat is the director of the German Institute for Educational Quality Improvement (IQB) and professor of educational psychology at the
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. The IQB is in charge of the national monitoring system of student achievement in Germany. Petra Stanat obtained her
PhD in social and personality psychology at the University of Massachusetts
at Amherst in 1998 and completed her Habilitation in Education at the Freie
Universität Berlin, Germany, in 2005. Her research focuses on questions
related to ethnic and social disparities in education, determinants of immigrant students’ educational success, second-language teaching and learning,
as well as educational quality and monitoring. She has received several
research grants from the German Science Foundation and the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research and has published her findings

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

nationally as well as internationally in edited books and journal articles.
She is involved in several professional organizations and advisory boards.
Among other things, she is an elected member of the Review Board for
Education Sciences of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and member
of the Editorial Board of the Zeitschrift für Pädagogik [Journal of Education].

AILEEN EDELE SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Aileen Edele is about to complete her PhD in psychology. She studied psychology at the University of Freiburg (Germany), the Humboldt-Universität
zu Berlin (Germany), and the University of Toronto (Canada) and
received her diploma (equivalent to a Master’s degree) from the
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin in 2007. She has worked as a research
scientist in the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS), a longitudinal
large-scale study on education in Germany and has a strong interest in
the sociocultural adaptation and psychological adaptation of children and
adolescents from immigrant families. Her research focuses on the role of
immigrant students’ first language proficiency and cultural identity in
educational achievement. She has published a number of book chapters and
journal articles on these issues and served as an ad hoc reviewer for several
peer-reviewed journals, such as the Journal of Educational Psychology.
RELATED ESSAYS
The Impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok
Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn
Neighborhoods and Cognitive Development (Psychology), Jondou Chen and
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development (Psychology), Samuel E.
Ehrenreich and Marion K. Underwood
Migrant Networks (Sociology), Filiz Garip and Asad L. Asad
Ethnic Enclaves (Sociology), Steven J. Gold
Language and Thought (Psychology), Susan Goldin-Meadow
Immigrant Children and the Transition to Adulthood (Sociology), Roberto G.
Gonzales and Benjamin J. Roth
Immigration and the Changing Status of Asian Americans (Sociology),
Jennifer Lee

Language Proficiency

15

Immigrant Sociocultural Adaptation, Identification, and Belonging (Sociology), Sarah J. Mahler
Immigrant Health Paradox (Sociology), Kyriakos S. Markides and Sunshine
Rote
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann
The Role of School-Related Peers and Social Networks in Human Development (Political Science), Chandra Muller
Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Ian Mullins
Latinos and the Color Line (Sociology), Clara E. Rodríguez et al.
Language, Perspective, and Memory (Psychology), Rachel A. Ryskin et al.
Assimilation and Its Discontents (Sociology), Min Zhou


Language Proficiency and the
Integration of Immigrant Students in
the Education System
PETRA STANAT and AILEEN EDELE

Abstract
The integration of immigrant students in the education system is an important concern in most countries around the world. Several lines of research on this issue focus
on the role of language, often distinguishing between students’ family language, typically referred to as first language (L1), and the school language, typically referred to as
second language (L2). Past research has clearly shown that immigrant students’ level of
proficiency in L2 affects their school success, yet the role of L1 proficiency is less clear.
In addition, the question whether bilingual or monolingual instruction is more effective in supporting immigrant students is largely unresolved. Current investigations
aim at overcoming limitations of prior research by employing longitudinal designs,
by controlling relevant third variables, and by conducting randomized field trials.
Promising avenues for future research include developing more clear-cut conceptual and operational definitions of core constructs, analyzing potentially important
moderators of effects, determining the role quality of language input and instruction
play for proficiency development and school success, and analyzing the associations
between proficiency development in L1 and L2 with various aspects of integration.

INTRODUCTION
Over the past decades, immigration movements around the globe have
reached a historic peak, and there is no reason to expect that the numbers will
decrease in the foreseeable future. International immigration can pose many
opportunities but also substantial challenges to the individual immigrants as
well as to the countries where they take up residence (hereafter referred to as
country of residence). One of the most important challenges is the integration
of immigrant students in the education system, as educational achievement
and attainment are key determinants of success in the labor market and
participation in society more generally. Educational success, in turn, requires
language skills that allow students to engage in the institutional learning
opportunities the country of residence has to offer.
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

The linguistic situation of many immigrants and their offspring is unique.
They often speak another language at home than the one used in schools
and their proficiency in the school language is often limited. The question,
then, is how the education system should respond to this specific situation
to ensure that immigrant students will succeed even if they start out with
limited proficiency in the language of instruction. This question entails various aspects and is much more complex than it appears. Although researchers
from a number of disciplines have addressed some of the key questions, we
are still at the beginning of understanding the role language and different
approaches to language support play in the integration of immigrant students.
This essay addresses central research issues related to language use and
proficiency of immigrant students. We adopt an educational perspective and
concentrate on questions that are relevant for students’ success in the school
system, with most of the research focusing on determinants of proficiency
in the language of instruction as a key determinant of educational success.
The essay describes what we already know and in which directions research
should move in order to improve a knowledge base that may help to enhance
educational opportunities for immigrant students.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Several lines of foundational research are relevant for exploring the role of
language for the integration of immigrant students in the education system.
This research stems from various disciplines, most prominently psychology,
education, sociology, and economics. Broadly speaking, it includes studies
on children and adolescents who have acquired a language in their family
that is different from the language used in school. Although the age at which
they start learning the two languages and the degree of proficiency they have
reached vary tremendously, the family language of these students is typically
referred to as first language (L1) and the school language as second language
(L2). In some studies, the terms language minority or (within English speaking
countries) English Language Learners (ELL) are used as descriptors of these
students. Research on bilingualism, in contrast, does not distinguish between
a first language and a second language but focuses on persons who speak at
least two languages. Yet, again, the age at which they learned these languages
and the degree to which they are proficient in each of the languages vary
considerably.
One line of foundational research focuses on the role of L2 in immigrant
students’ educational success. The evidence provided by these studies,
among them several large-scale-assessment studies measuring competencies and skills of children and adolescents around the globe (OECD, 2012),

Language Proficiency

3

is quite clear: on average, students with an immigrant background are less
proficient in the language of instruction than their peers from native families,
and students with limited proficiency in the language of instruction are
likely to struggle in school. Studies show that oral skills in L2 significantly
predict immigrant students’ achievement not only in reading but also in
other subject domains including mathematics (for a meta-analysis, see
Prevoo, Malda, Mesman, & Van IJzendoorn, 2015). L2 proficiency also affects
the transition of immigrant students in differentiated school systems, with
limited proficiency resulting in transitions to lower tracks, for instance at the
transition from primary school to secondary school in Germany (Gresch &
Becker, 2010).
A second line of research aims at identifying factors that predict immigrants’ L2-acquisition. Chiswick and Miller (2001) suggested a framework
that distinguishes three general determinants of language proficiency: exposure, incentives/motivation, and efficiency (see also Esser, 2006). Exposure
refers to how long and how intensively an immigrant has been exposed to
a language. The notion of incentives or motivation refers to a broad range of
factors that may cause people to learn or not learn a language, such as anticipated economic returns and costs of learning the language, intention to stay
in the country of residence, or intention to return to the country of origin. Efficiency, finally, pertains to factors that make it more or less difficult to learn a
given language, including the age of the learner or the degree to which the
language is similar to the respective L1.
Immigrant students often have limited exposure to L2 and they therefore
lack opportunities for learning this language. Indicators of exposure studies
have explored include the number of years a person has lived in the country
of residence and the extent to which a person speaks the language at home.
Supporting the so-called time-on-task hypothesis, the findings clearly show
that these variables are significant predictors of immigrants’ proficiency in
L2, suggesting that the degree of exposure does, in fact, affect children’s
L2-acquisition (Duursma et al., 2007; Scheele, Leseman, & Mayo, 2010). In
line with the language competition as well as the time-on-task hypothesis,
moreover, using L1 at home seems to decrease exposure to L2, resulting in
a negative association between L1 use and L2 proficiency. There is evidence
from a number of representative samples that the other two factors in the
model (incentives/motivation and efficiency) play a significant role as well
(Chiswick & Miller, 2001; Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2009), yet most of the
relevant studies focused on adults in traditional immigration countries,
such as the United States, Canada, or Australia. Although the full model
has yet to be tested for other populations, the results of a recent analysis
indicate that it applies to children and adolescents in European countries as

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

well (Van Tubergen & Mentjox, 2014). However, this study focused on L1
proficiency and would have to be replicated for L2.
In a third line of research, the focus is on one specific determinant of L2 proficiency, namely, students’ proficiency in L1. On the basis of the assumption
that conceptual and metalinguistic knowledge acquired in L1 can be used
in other languages as well, the long-standing transfer hypothesis (Cummins,
1979) posits that a good command of L1 should make subsequent language
learning in L2 (as well as in additional languages) easier. In fact, foundational research on language transfer has accumulated substantial evidence
for cross-linguistic associations of literacy skills and its precursors: a considerable number of studies demonstrated that phonological awareness, basic
reading skills, and reading comprehension in L1 are positively related to L2
reading (Durgunoğlu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003; Proctor, August, Carlo, & Snow, 2006). Although the majority of
these investigations used data from Spanish-speaking children in the United
States, some studies were also carried out in other countries, such as the
Netherlands (Verhoeven, 2007). Owing to a lack of formal L1 instruction,
however, language minority children do not necessarily become literate in
this language. This raises the question if L2 reading skills also benefit from
oral L1 skills. There is some evidence that this is the case, as the findings of a
meta-analysis suggest (Prevoo et al., 2015). Yet, many of the primary studies
neglected to control for potential confounds. An exception is a recent study
on Turkish- and Russian-speaking adolescents in Germany that took into
account key third variables, such as socioeconomic background and general
cognitive ability, and corroborated the hypothesis that L1 oral skills predict
L2 reading comprehension (Edele & Stanat, 2015).
The fourth line of research explores bilingualism and its effects (see The
Impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok). This
research clearly shows that people can become proficient in more than one
language. Although bilingual children and adolescents tend to have weaker
verbal skills than monolinguals in each of the two languages (Bialystok,
Craik, & Luk, 2012), their vocabulary may be larger overall. In addition,
the research evidence supports the assumption that bilingual students have
more advanced metalinguistic awareness than monolingual students. This
seems to make learning a third language easier for them, at least when both
L1 and L2 are official languages and used in the country’s schools, such as
Basque and Spanish in the Basque Country, Spain (Cenoz, 2003), whereas
the results of studies exploring the prediction for immigrant students are
mixed (Maluch, Kempert, Neumann, & Stanat, 2015; Van Gelderen et al.,
2003). The most frequently demonstrated effect of bilingualism, however,
is that individuals speaking two languages tend to perform better on tasks
that require attentional control, such as tasks involving distractions. Yet, the

Language Proficiency

5

relevance of this effect for educational success is largely unclear (see the
following section).
A fifth line of research, finally, concerns the support immigrant students
need to become proficient in the language of instruction and to succeed in
school. For a long time, the discussion focused on the role L1 should play in
these efforts. Most of the studies were carried out in North America and compared bilingual programs that provide significant parts of the instruction in
L1 (typically in a transitional approach with a gradual shift from mostly using
L1 to mostly using L2) with monolingual programs that use (almost) exclusively L2 in instruction. Several literature reviews and meta-analyses report
advantages for the bilingual programs (Greene, 1998; Reljić, Ferring, & Martin, 2015; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2008; Slavin & Cheung, 2005), whereas
Rossell and colleagues conclude that the effect does not hold (Rossell & Baker,
1996; Rossell & Kuder, 2005). These contradictory findings are largely due
to substantial shortcomings that most studies on the issue have, such as a
lack of control groups or questionable comparability of treatment and control
groups. A more recent synthesis focused on investigations employing randomization or matching to ensure comparability of students in the different
treatment conditions and revealed a small advantage for bilingual instruction (Cheung & Slavin, 2012). Yet, the authors of the review point out that the
only randomized field trial that followed students over several years found
no effect (see the following paragraphs).
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Research on the role of language use and proficiency for educational success
of immigrant students is often interested in causal relationships. Owing to
methodological limitations of past studies, however, it is largely impossible
to draw conclusions about causes and effects, such as for the association
between proficiency in L1 and proficiency in L2. Cutting-edge research aims
at overcoming these limitations by employing longitudinal designs and
by controlling relevant third variables. In the case of intervention studies
exploring the effectiveness of language support, moreover, randomized
assignment to an experimental group and a control group ensures that
observed between-group differences after the intervention can be attributed
to the treatment.
Studies on the relevance of L2 for educational success of immigrant students and on determinants of L2 proficiency increasingly use designs with
repeated measurements. To establish that transfer effects occur, for instance,
it is necessary to show that language skills in L1 predict language skills in
L2 measured at a later point in time. Ideally, multiple measurements are

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

employed that allow for estimations of growth patterns. A few authors carried out longitudinal analyses and reported findings that are in line with the
transfer hypothesis (e.g., Leseman, Scheele, Mayo, & Messer, 2009 for a sample of immigrant preschoolers in the Netherlands; Lindsey et al., 2003 for a
sample of Spanish-speaking children in the United States).
To compare the effectiveness of monolingual (English only) and bilingual (English and Spanish) programs, a US-American study randomly
assigned Hispanic students at preschool age to the two types of instruction
within each of the participating schools and measured their language skills
repeatedly over the course of several years (Slavin, Madden, Calderon,
Chamberlain, & Hennessy, 2011). Analyses controlling for prior achievement showed that the children receiving monolingual support were more
proficient in English than the children receiving bilingual support in first
grade. By the time students reached second grade, however, this difference
had disappeared and the groups remained comparable in their English
proficiency throughout third and fourth grades. This finding contradicts
the conclusion of previous research suggesting that bilingual programs
promote L2 acquisition more effectively than monolingual programs. In
their research synthesis, Cheung and Slavin (2012, p. 26) therefore come to
the overall conclusion that “quality of instruction is more important than
language of instruction.”
Another trend in research on the association between language and educational success of immigrant students is an increased focus on processes or
mechanisms. This trend is most apparent in studies on the transfer issue. In
the past, research on language transfer typically analyzed the relationship
between isolated aspects of language proficiency, such as reading comprehension in L1 and L2. An increasing number of investigations now adopt
a more general approach. On the basis of theoretical models of reading, for
example, studies assess various components in both languages to determine
which of them transfer and account for the association between reading comprehension in L1 and L2. Proctor et al. (2006) used the Simple View of Reading
(Hoover & Gough, 1990) as a framework for analyzing the effects of decoding skills and oral language proficiency in L1 (Spanish) and L2 English on L2
reading comprehension of fourth grade students in the United States. They
found that alphabetic knowledge (an aspect of decoding) and vocabulary
knowledge (an aspect of oral language) in L1 predicted reading comprehension in L2 above and beyond decoding skills and oral language proficiency
in L2. The study also showed that the fluent readers in L2 were the students
who profited the most from their vocabulary knowledge in L1. The transfer
effects were small, however, suggesting that the relevance of L1 proficiency
for reading development in L2 is limited.

Language Proficiency

7

Research on effects of L1 on L2 has also begun to explore different mechanisms simultaneously in order to estimate their relative impact. One of the
most intriguing questions is how transfer and language competition influence L2 acquisition, as their effects should operate in opposite directions.
While the transfer hypothesis predicts positive effects of L1 proficiency
on L2 proficiency, the language competition hypothesis suggests that a
frequent use of L1 should promote L1 acquisition but reduce L2 use and
hence L2 acquisition. After most studies in the past focused on one of these
mechanisms, researchers have now begun to explore them simultaneously.
A longitudinal study carried out in the Netherlands assessed several aspects
of L1 and L2 proficiency in a group of children (age 3–6) from Turkish- or
Tarifit-Berber-speaking immigrant families. In addition, the authors measured the extent to which the children were exposed to L1 and L2 in their
home environment. Not surprisingly, the findings indicate that a frequent
use of a language has positive effects on proficiency in this language (positive
same-language effect of language use on language proficiency). Moreover,
the study revealed a negative cross-language relationship between language
use and language proficiency. The authors interpret this pattern of findings
as support for the language competition hypothesis. At the same time,
however, the study also provided evidence for transfer effects: higher levels
of L1 proficiency were associated with larger gains in L2 vocabulary and
reading comprehension, even after controlling for potential confounds,
such as basic cognitive ability and prior language skills in L2. For language
support, the authors conclude that promoting L1 may have positive effects
not only on L1 development but also on L2 acquisition owing to transfer
effects. To counter language competition effects, however, they argue that
opportunities for L2 acquisition need to be intensified as well (Leseman
et al., 2009; see also Scheele et al., 2010).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Future studies should address the shortcomings of past research and continue to focus on current lines of inquiry that seem particularly promising. In
addition, it seems worthwhile to broaden the view on integration and explore
how different aspects of integration relate to use of and proficiency development in L1 and L2.
As described earlier, current research often suffers from methodological
shortcomings that severely limit the interpretability of findings. In addition
to a lack of longitudinal data and a failure to control for potential confounds,
studies sometimes use self-report measures of language proficiency (Berry,
Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Chiswick & Miller, 2001; Mouw & Xie,
1999; Van Tubergen & Mentjox, 2014). This is most frequently the case in

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

studies with large samples. In fact, there seems to be a trade-off between
quality of language-proficiency indicators and generalizability of findings:
Investigations employing language tests are typically small scale and limited
in the generalizability of their results. In contrast, large-scale studies with
more generalizable results usually use self-reports of language proficiency.
Analyses with self-report indicators, however, often yield different results
than analyses with objectively tested language skills, as a study with data
from a large, nationwide sample of immigrant adolescents in Germany
demonstrates (Edele, Seuring, Kristen, & Stanat, 2015). Future investigations, including large-scale studies, should therefore employ language tests
or at least establish that the self-report (or other alternative) measures they
use are valid.
Future research should also aim at overcoming conceptual limitations by
defining and operationalizing important constructs more clearly and consistently. As pointed out earlier, the conceptual and operational definitions of
such concepts as first language, second language, and bilingualism vary considerably across studies. For example, it is often unclear at what age students
started to acquire L1 and L2, to what extent they use these languages in everyday lives, whether and to what extent one of the two languages is dominant,
and how proficient students are in the two languages. At the very least, studies should routinely report these and other characteristics that could potentially moderate effects. The goal should be to accumulate a research basis on
issues such as transfer, language competition, and language support that can
be summarized with meta-analytic techniques. This requires clear definitions
of the concepts and information on potential moderators.
Another potential moderator to which future research should pay more
attention is the specific combination of languages that studies investigate.
One important aspect is the degree of similarity between L1 and L2 that may
influence transfer and other processes of L2-acquisition as well as the effects
of bilingualism on linguistic and cognitive outcomes (Barac & Bialystok,
2012; Edele & Stanat, 2015; Pasquarella, Chen, Gottardo, & Geva, 2015). A
large share of the relevant research has focused on US samples with Spanish
as L1 and English as L2. Comparing results for different combinations of
languages and language groups would allow researchers to determine
whether observed effects are specific to these combinations or universal.
In research on determinants of L2 acquisition, it would be promising to
test the model suggested by Chiswick and Miller (2001) more comprehensively for children and adolescents. Most importantly, the model should be
extended by distinguishing between quantity and quality of language exposure. To ensure that their children will learn the language used in school,
immigrant parents sometimes speak L2 at home, even if they themselves are
not fluent in this language. This raises the question of relative effects that

Language Proficiency

9

quantity and quality of exposure may have on L2 development. Longitudinal research on differential language environments of children in the United
States (Hart & Risley, 1995; Weizman & Snow, 2001) suggests that language
development is affected not only by the quantity but also by the quality of
the language parents use with their children (such as variability of vocabulary). Similar analyses are needed in settings where more than one language
is spoken. Among other things, research should determine whether L2 development profits more from relatively low-quality input in L2 or from relatively
high-quality input in L1.
In research exploring the impact of L1 on L2, it would be important to
estimate more precisely the net effects of transfer on the one hand and of
time-on-task or language competition on the other hand. In addition, studies should explore more systematically the role of possible moderators, such
as students’ basic cognitive abilities and relevant features of the respective
language combinations. In addition, the widely held assumption that transfer will occur only if a certain threshold of L1 proficiency has been reached
should be tested with suitable study designs (Edele & Stanat, 2015; Prevoo
et al., 2015).
In a similar vein, it would be important for research on bilingualism to further determine how fluent students have to be in the two languages for positive effects of bilingualism to occur. Most importantly, the extent to which the
cognitive advantages of bilinguals affect educational success should be analyzed. Past research was mainly carried out in laboratory settings with rather
confined cognitive tasks, and it is largely unclear whether the observed differences between monolingual and bilingual students play out in school-related
learning. One of the few studies examining this question for a sample of
Turkish-speaking immigrant children in Germany suggests that this may not
be the case (Kempert, Saalbach, & Hardy, 2011). In addition, the implications
of research on bilingualism for language support need to be specified. The
generalizability of studies on bilingual education is often limited owing to
selection bias (Slavin & Cheung, 2005). It is therefore unclear whether all students can profit from this approach or the effects depend on other factors,
such as students’ general cognitive ability (aptitude × treatment interaction).
In addition, more research on this issue with samples from other regions
would help to determine whether the findings from North American studies
also apply to other language groups and contexts.
As Cheung and Slavin (2012) point out, moreover, a key issue for future
research on support for children from immigrant families is quality of
instruction. Although the relative effectiveness of bilingual and monolingual approaches for educational success has not been fully determined,
at this point it seems that the importance of the language of instruction
per se may have been overrated. Instead, the effectiveness of bilingual

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

and monolingual approaches most likely depends on the quality of their
conceptualization and implementation. A conceptually elaborated approach
that was designed in the United States to help language minority students
gain access to the curriculum content in all subjects and, at the same time, to
develop their language skills in L2 is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP; Short, Echevarría, & Richards-Tutor, 2011). It involves a number
of techniques, such as providing comprehensive reviews of key vocabulary
and giving students the opportunity to clarify key concepts in their L1.
Although some analyses, which also focus on language minority students
in the United States, suggest that the SIOP approach can be effective, the
findings are inconsistent (Echevarría, Richards-Tutor, Canges, & Francis,
2011) and well-controlled studies are lacking. Thus, again, studies on the
effectiveness of support for immigrant students are needed that employ
well-controlled designs and include measures of quality.
Yet, the integration of immigrant students in the education system is even
more complex than the foci of current research suggest. Structural and cultural integration, such as educational success and proficiency in the language
of instruction, clearly are of prime relevance, but social and identity-related
integration are vital as well. Importantly, these different aspects of integration
are interrelated and most likely associated with language use and proficiency.
The Theory of Segmented Assimilation, for example, argues that proficiency in
the L1 can provide access to social capital of the ethnic group, which may
help to prevent students from adapting to marginalized groups and from
failing in school (Portes & Zhou, 1993). Although it is still unclear whether
the assumptions of the Theory of Segmented Assimilation hold and, if so,
under which conditions the predicted patterns are likely to occur, the general line of reasoning is a good example for a broadened view on the roles
language may have in the integration of immigrant students in the education system. A promising avenue for future research would be to analyze the
associations among proficiency development in L1 and L2 as well as different aspects of integration over time to provide a more complete picture of
factors and processes influencing immigrant students’ educational success.
REFERENCES
Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background, and education. Child Development,
83(2), 413–422.
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural
transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind
and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240–250.

Language Proficiency

11

Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A
review. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 71–87.
Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant
English Language Learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of
research. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 351–395.
Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (2001). A model of destination language acquisition: Application to male immigrants in Canada. Journal of Political Economy, 38(3),
391–409.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251.
Durgunoğlu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer
of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465.
Duursma, E., Romero-Contreras, S., Szuber, A., Proctor, P., Snow, C., August, D., &
Calderón, M. (2007). The role of home literacy and language environment on bilinguals’ English and Spanish vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28,
171–190.
Echevarría, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP
model to promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English
learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 334–351.
Edele, A., Seuring, J., Kristen, C., & Stanat, P. (2015). Why bother with testing? The
validity of immigrants’ self-assessed language proficiency. Social Science Research,
52, 99–123.
Edele, A., & Stanat, P. (2015). The role of first-language listening comprehension
in second-language reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1037/edu0000060.
Esser, H. (2006). Sprache und Integration: Die sozialen Bedingungen und Folgen des
Spracherwerbs von Migranten. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag.
Greene, J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Claremont,
CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.
Gresch, C., & Becker, M. (2010). Sozial- und leistungsbedingte Disparitäten
im Übergangsverhalten bei türkischstämmigen Kindern und Kindern aus
(Spät-)Aussiedlerfamilien [Social and achievement-related disparities at the transition to secondary school for children with Turkish and Aussiedler backgrounds].
In K. Maaz, J. Baumert, C. Gresch & N. McElvany (Eds.), Der Übergang von der
Grundschule in die weiterführende Schule: Leistungsgerechtigkeit und regionale, soziale
und ethnisch-kulturelle Disparitäten (pp. 181–200). Bonn, Germany: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF).
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing,
2(2), 127–160.
Kempert, S., Saalbach, H., & Hardy, I. (2011). Cognitive benefits and costs of bilingualism in elementary school students. The case of mathematical word problems.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 547–561.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Leseman, P., Scheele, A. F., Mayo, A. Y., & Messer, M. H. (2009). Bilingual development in early childhood and the languages used at home: Competition for
scarce resources? In I. Gogolin & U. Neumann (Eds.), Streitfall Zweisprachigkeit – the
bilingualism controversy (Vol. 1, pp. 317–331). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS-Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Lindsey, K. A., Manis, F. R., & Bailey, C. E. (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading
in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(3), 482–494.
Maluch, J. T., Kempert, S., Neumann, M., & Stanat, P. (2015). The effect of speaking a
minority language at home on foreign language learning. Learning and Instruction,
36, 76–85.
Mouw, T., & Xie, Y. (1999). Bilingualism and the academic achievement of first- and
second-generation Asian Americans: Accommodation with or without assimilation? American Sociological Review, 64(2), 232–252.
OECD (2012). Untapped skills: Realising the potential of immigrant students. Paris,
France: PISA, OECD Publishing.
Pasquarella, A., Chen, X., Gottardo, A., & Geva, E. (2015). Cross-language transfer of word reading accuracy and word reading fluency in Spanish–English and
Chinese–English bilinguals: Script-universal and script-specific processes. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 96–110.
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented Assimilation
and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
530(1), 74–96.
Prevoo, M. J. L., Malda, M. M., Mesman, J., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H.
(2015). Within- and cross-language relations between oral language proficiency and school outcomes in bilingual children with an immigrant background: A meta-analytical study. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 237–276.
doi:10.3102/0034654315584685.
Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. (2006). The intriguing role of
Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 159–169.
Reljić, G., Ferring, D., & Martin, R. (2015). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of
bilingual programs in Europe. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 92–128.
Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2008). The big picture in bilingual education: A
meta-analysis corrected for Gersten’s coding error. Journal of Educational Research
and Policy Studies, 8(2), 1–15.
Rossell, C. H., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(1), 7–74.
Rossell, C. H., & Kuder, J. (2005). Meta-murky: A rebuttal to recent meta-analysis
of bilingual education. In Arbeitsstelle Interkulturelle Konflikte und
gesellschaftliche Integration (Ed.), The effectiveness of bilingual school programs
for immigrant children (pp. 43–76). Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin
für Sozialforschung.

Language Proficiency

13

Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P., & Mayo, A. Y. (2010). The home language environment of
monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 117–140. doi:10.1017/S014271640999019.
Short, D. J., Echevarría, J., & Richards-Tutor, J. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research,
15(3), 363–380.
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading
instruction for English Language Learners. In Arbeitsstelle Interkulturelle Konflikte und gesellschaftliche Integration (Ed.), The effectiveness of bilingual school programs for immigrant children (pp. 5–42). Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum
Berlin für Sozialforschung.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Calderon, M., Chamberlain, A., & Hennessy, M. (2011).
Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 47–58.
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., deGlopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Snellings, P., Simis, A., &
Stevenson, M. (2003). Role of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and
processing speed in L3, L2 and L1 reading comprehension: A structural equation
modeling approach. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 7–25.
Van Tubergen, F., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). A dynamic approach to the determinants
of immigrants’ language proficiency: The United States, 1980–2001. International
Migration Review, 43(3), 519–543.
Van Tubergen, F., & Mentjox, T. (2014). Minority language proficiency of adolescent
immigrant children in England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Kölner
Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 66(1), 241–262.
Verhoeven, L. (2007). Early bilingualism, language transfer and phonological awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 425–429.
Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37, 265–279.

PETRA STANAT SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Petra Stanat is the director of the German Institute for Educational Quality Improvement (IQB) and professor of educational psychology at the
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. The IQB is in charge of the national monitoring system of student achievement in Germany. Petra Stanat obtained her
PhD in social and personality psychology at the University of Massachusetts
at Amherst in 1998 and completed her Habilitation in Education at the Freie
Universität Berlin, Germany, in 2005. Her research focuses on questions
related to ethnic and social disparities in education, determinants of immigrant students’ educational success, second-language teaching and learning,
as well as educational quality and monitoring. She has received several
research grants from the German Science Foundation and the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research and has published her findings

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

nationally as well as internationally in edited books and journal articles.
She is involved in several professional organizations and advisory boards.
Among other things, she is an elected member of the Review Board for
Education Sciences of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and member
of the Editorial Board of the Zeitschrift für Pädagogik [Journal of Education].

AILEEN EDELE SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Aileen Edele is about to complete her PhD in psychology. She studied psychology at the University of Freiburg (Germany), the Humboldt-Universität
zu Berlin (Germany), and the University of Toronto (Canada) and
received her diploma (equivalent to a Master’s degree) from the
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin in 2007. She has worked as a research
scientist in the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS), a longitudinal
large-scale study on education in Germany and has a strong interest in
the sociocultural adaptation and psychological adaptation of children and
adolescents from immigrant families. Her research focuses on the role of
immigrant students’ first language proficiency and cultural identity in
educational achievement. She has published a number of book chapters and
journal articles on these issues and served as an ad hoc reviewer for several
peer-reviewed journals, such as the Journal of Educational Psychology.
RELATED ESSAYS
The Impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok
Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn
Neighborhoods and Cognitive Development (Psychology), Jondou Chen and
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development (Psychology), Samuel E.
Ehrenreich and Marion K. Underwood
Migrant Networks (Sociology), Filiz Garip and Asad L. Asad
Ethnic Enclaves (Sociology), Steven J. Gold
Language and Thought (Psychology), Susan Goldin-Meadow
Immigrant Children and the Transition to Adulthood (Sociology), Roberto G.
Gonzales and Benjamin J. Roth
Immigration and the Changing Status of Asian Americans (Sociology),
Jennifer Lee

Language Proficiency

15

Immigrant Sociocultural Adaptation, Identification, and Belonging (Sociology), Sarah J. Mahler
Immigrant Health Paradox (Sociology), Kyriakos S. Markides and Sunshine
Rote
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann
The Role of School-Related Peers and Social Networks in Human Development (Political Science), Chandra Muller
Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Ian Mullins
Latinos and the Color Line (Sociology), Clara E. Rodríguez et al.
Language, Perspective, and Memory (Psychology), Rachel A. Ryskin et al.
Assimilation and Its Discontents (Sociology), Min Zhou



Media

Language Proficiency and the Integration of Immigrant Students in the Education System