Rafael Matielo, [email protected].

br
Amy Heineke, [email protected]

KEYWORD – LANGUAGE 8

Cognition, Bilingualism and Bilingual Education

Rafael Matielo, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina

Amy Heineke, Loyola University Chicago

Rafael Matielo, M.A. is a PhD candidate at Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina,

Florianópolis, Brazil, in the field of Second Language Acquisition.
Amy Heineke, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Bilingual/Bicultural Education at Loyola
University Chicago.

Abstract
The bilingual education debate is far from black and white, and grey areas are filled with
criticism stemming from broader societal issues outside of classrooms and schools. Criticism
of bilingual education often results from manipulated statistics and misguided examples that
disregard important research on bilingualism. In this paper, we share the benefits of
bilingualism and argue for bilingual education. We draw on proven cognitive benefits of
bilingual individuals over monolinguals, considering findings from recent studies in the area
of bilingualism and cognition.

Introduction
The debate centered on bilingual education in the United States (U.S.) epitomizes the
complexity of issues related to the language that serves as the medium-of-instruction in
schools (Tollefson & Tsui, 2004). The monolingual versus bilingual education debate is far
from black and white, and the grey areas are filled with criticism that stems from political
forces, xenophobic discourses, and societal issues outside of Kindergarten-through-twelfth
grade (K-12) classrooms (Cummins, 2000). Political, cultural, and socioeconomic variables
help explain the attack against bilingual education. Moreover, criticism of bilingual education
often results from manipulated statistics and misguided examples that disregard important
research on bilingualism (Krashen & McField, 2005); one pertinent realm includes proven
cognitive benefits of bilingual individuals (Cummins, 2000; Krashen, 2009), which is the
focus of this paper.

Though researchers are not in complete agreement as to what bilingualism is, it can be
viewed as “a complex psychological and socio-cultural linguistic behavior and has multi-
dimensional aspects” (Butler & Hakuta, 2006, p. 114). For the purposes of this paper, we use
the following definitions:
o Bilinguals: Individuals who fluently utilize two languages
o Bilingualism: The cognitive and social processes that bilinguals tend to undergo
 o Bilingual education: The purposeful use of two linguistic mediums of instruction

Proponents of bilingual education often emphasize the social and economic benefits
(Chorney, 1995; Fradd & Boswell, 1999). By mastering more than one language, bilinguals
gain social and educational benefits, such as the ability to socially interact with and learn
from people who represent different cultures and speak other languages (Butler & Hakuta,
2006), in addition to the increased likelihood of economic prosperity in a culturally and
linguistically diverse society (Baker, 2011). Additionally, advocates offer sociolinguistic
considerations, such as language loss from broader societal (Gibbs, 2002) and individual
identity lenses (Adelman-Reyes & Vallone, 2007). When designed and implemented
appropriately to match the unique contexts of K-12 settings, bilingual education is useful and
effective (Genesee et al, 2005; Krashen & McField, 2005), particularly to prepare participants
for the globalized world (Suárez-Orozco, 2001).

Often overshadowed by the social and economic benefits, an aspect of bilingualism that
merits closer attention is that of cognition. Studies have demonstrated that bilinguals are more
cognitively advanced, and therefore appropriate and effective bilingual education should be
encouraged (Cummins, 2000). Embedded in the larger contemporary debate of language
education in U.S. schools, this paper argues for bilingual education by focusing on the
cognitive advantages of bilinguals over monolinguals. We begin by sharing significant
findings from research on bilingualism and cognition. Then, we apply the research to K-12
students, classrooms and schools to encourage readers to consider the benefits of bilingual
education from a cognitive perspective. Finally, we tie together our contentions and propose
new directions for linguistic mediums-of-instruction in U.S. schools.

Recent Findings on Bilingualism and Cognition

When comparing bilinguals and monolinguals, recent findings corroborate prior literature:
monolinguals control a bigger vocabulary in each language they speak (Portocarrero,
Burright & Donovick, 2007), which is often taken as a central measure of children’s progress
in language development (Bialystok, 2009). Moreover, monolinguals present less difficulty
with lexical retrieval processes, which seems to occur with and persist as bilinguals age
(Gollan et al., 2007).

Despite these apparent advantages of being monolingual, there are other compensating
advantages that bilinguals present that certainly merit closer attention. Bilingual language
production “requires the constant involvement of the executive control system to manage
attention to the target language” (Bialystok, 2009, p. 5). Bialystok uses executive control
system to refer to cognitive processes, such as attention, working memory, problem solving,
inhibition, multi-tasking, and verbal reasoning. In this sense, an interesting point to be
highlighted is that this system can potentially enhance over time and become more vigorous
and robust for other specific functions in the bilingual brain. Hence, this can be viewed as one
of the important advantages that bilinguals exert over monolinguals.
Bbilinguals are more cognitively flexible than monolinguals (Adi-Japha, Berberich-Artzi, &
Libnawi, 2010). Though the term flexibility has not been very well defined in the literature,
and has therefore been loosely used, it is commonly referred to a mental flexibility as a result
of constant language switching when mentally reorganizing elements of a problem situation.
Cognitive flexibility builds on inhibitory control mechanisms and working memory, which
are together regarded as core executive skills critical for cognitive development. Cognitive or
mental flexibility has also been found to be one advantage that bilinguals tend to exert over
monolinguals (Diamond et al., 2007).

Another interesting advantage that bilinguals tend to have over monolinguals is the ability to
solve certain problems that present misleading or conflicting cues at a much earlier age,
which has been confirmed in some studies (Bialystok & Martin, 2004). Two examples of this
advantage have been successfully confirmed with the Attention Network Test (ANT;
measures alerting, orienting, and executive control) and the Stroop Test (of mental or
attentional flexibility. Regarding ANT, Costa, Hernández and Sebastián-Gallés (2008)
demonstrated that Catalan-Spanish bilinguals responded faster and more positively during the
tests in comparison to monolinguals. Moreover, Bialystok (2009) demonstrated that early and
older bilinguals performed better on the Stroop test, which suggests that their executive
control (especially as regards their attentional resources) is more enhanced than
monolinguals.

Research has also focused on bilingualism and aging to determine whether or not the positive
effects of bilingualism tend to persist with age. Bialystok and colleagues (2004) report the
cognitive advantages of adult bilinguals and investigate if bilingualism attenuates or mitigates
the effects of aging on cognitive control in older adults. When comparing monolinguals and
bilinguals, results reveal that bilinguals respond faster to experiment conditions demanding
more from working memory. Working memory is a limited-resource memory system
responsible for the online processing (the work) and temporary maintenance (the memory) of
information when we carry out certain complex tasks, such as problem solving, reading,
speaking, and writing (Baddeley & Logie, 1999). As Bialystok et al (2004) point out, older
bilinguals present greater advantage for the same condition, which suggests that controlled
processing enhances over time and that bilingualism helps to counterbalance age-related
losses concerning executive processes. This finding corroborates that bilinguals are
cognitively smarter, but also demonstrates that positive effects on bilinguals’ cognition
prevail and enhance over time.

The point in time and extent of bilingualism affects linguistic performance and cognitive
control. Bialystok (2001) states, “It is plausible that having two different language systems
for examination may make structural patterns more noticeable and hasten the child’s attention
to the systematic features of language” (p. 134). This was verified by Luk, de Sa, and
Bialystok (2011), who investigated English monolingual and bilingual adults in terms of
English proficiency, language use history, and performance on a flanker task, which
measures cognition and conflict resolution based on ability to suppress responses unsuitable
for particular contexts. The study of twenty-year-old bilinguals divided participants into early
and late bilinguals depending on whether they became actively bilingual before or after ten
years of age. Results revealed that early bilinguals and monolinguals demonstrated similar
levels of English proficiency, both more proficient in English than late bilinguals; however,
early bilinguals performed better on the flanker test than the monolingual and late bilinguals.
In sum, active bilingualism is associated with greater advantages in cognitive control and
higher language proficiency.

This section of this paper summarized some of the important recent findings in the area of
bilingualism and cognition, especially the research that highlights cognitive advancements
that bilingualism offers. The next section of this paper centers on the core of this discussion,
advocating for the use of such advantages as an important argument for bilingual education.

Cognitive Advantages and Bilingual Education

We recognize the common arguments that surround the debate on bilingual education in the
U.S. One of the main arguments used by enthusiasts against bilingual education is the fact
that English learners (ELs) are not mastering English sufficiently. This statement is mostly
based on the results of standardized exams, which, paradoxically, test a language that they
have yet to master (Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003). As Abedi (2004) points out, “since
most standardized, content-based tests are conducted in English and field tested with
monolinguals, they might inadvertently function as English language proficiency tests” (p. 7),
and therefore represent a bias. Other criticisms of bilingual programs include the lack of
qualified teachers, financial resources, appropriate materials in both languages, and
administrative issues (Gold, 2009). Nevertheless, we argue that by adding the cognitive
benefits to the broader conversation, actors in the language policy process may consider ways
to overcome the more practical problems related to resources.

Because of the demonstrated cognitive benefits for bilingual individuals, bilingualism should
be encouraged and properly implemented in K-12 schools and classrooms. Thus, we pose the
following questions for educators to ponder:
o Why not invest in developing bilingual skills while children are young, that is, when
they can absorb language more easily and naturally?
o Why not invest in children before their sensitive period so that they may achieve
optimal results regarding their linguistic and cognitive performances?
o Why not advocate for a more cognitively advanced population, especially considering
all of the cognitive benefits that they can bring about?

Bilingual education develops lifelong skills for students, encompassing cognitive, social and
economical benefits. Bilingualism opens new doors, but also allows maintenance of ties with
families and cultures. As Goetz (2003) suggested, bilingual children have greater sensitivity
to sociolinguistic interactions with interlocutors and better sociolinguistic skills, especially
when living in a country where bilingualism is not the norm. Hence, fostering bilingual
education brings about lifelong benefits, regardless of whether one is considered early or late
bilingual and independent of one’s linguistic context.

Conclusion
In this paper, we argue for bilingual education, considering the plethora of cognitive
advantages of bilinguals. We address important findings in the area of bilingualism and
cognition to ground our stance for bilingual education. In the light of the contentions here,
proper bilingual education must be encouraged to foster bilingualism and the corresponding
benefits of being bilingual, which include metalinguistic awareness, classification skills,
concept formation, analogical reasoning, visual-spatial skills, semantic development,
enhancement of executive control, and conflict-resolution skills (Bialystok, 2001; Bialystok;
2009; Bialystok, & Martin, 2004; Bialystok et al., 2004; Costa & Sebastián-Gallés, 2008).

In short, despite the challenges that bilingual education faces in the U.S., cognitive
advantages to bilingualism should be considered in the larger debate with a view to
strengthening the argument for its implementation and acceptance. As Bialystok (2009)
claims, “the overall conclusion from these various studies is that bilingualism is one of the
experiences capable of influencing cognitive function and, to some extent, cognitive
structure” (p. 9). As well as enhancements in one’s cognitive structure, bilingualism is a
unique ability that allows people to connect to and learn from one another in a globalizing
world.

References
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment
and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33, 4-14.
Adelman-Reyes, S., & Vallone, T. L. (2007). Toward an expanded understanding of two-way
bilingual immersion education: constructing identity through critical, additive
bilingual/bicultural pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives, 9, 3-11.
Adi-Japha, E., Berberich-Artzi, J., & Libnawi, A. (2010) Cognitive flexibility in drawings of
bilingual children. Child Development 81, 1356-1366.
Baddeley, A.D.; Logie, R.H. (1999) Working memory: the multiple component model. In
Miyake, A.; Shah, P. (Eds.) Models of working memory: mechanisms of active
maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press, p.28-61.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. New York, USA:
Multilingual Matters.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (2009) Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 12, 3-11.
Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. M. (2004).Attention and inhibition in bilingual children:
Evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science, 7, 325–
339.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and
cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290–
303.
Butler, Y. G., & Hakuta, K. (2006). Bilingualism and second language acquisition. In T. K.
Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.) The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 114-144). Oxford:
Blackwell Press.
Chorney, H. (1995). The economic benefits of linguistic duality and bilingualism: A political
economy approach. In Official languages and the economy: New Canadian
Perspectives. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Heritage.
Costa, A., Hernandez, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism aids conflict
resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106, 59-86.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves
cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387–1388.
Fradd, S. H., & Boswell, T. D. (1999). Income patterns of bilingual and English-only
Hispanics in selected metropolitan areas. In S. H. Fradd (Ed.), Creating Florida’s
multilingual workforce: Educational policies and practices for students learning new
languages. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Education.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005) English language
learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal Of Education For
Students Placed At Risk, 10, 363-385.
Gibbs, W. W. (2002). Saving dying languages. Scientific American, 79, 78-85.
Goetz, P. (2003). The effects of bilingualism on theory of mind development. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 6, 1-15.
Gold, N. C. (2009). Solving the shortage of bilingual teachers: Policy implications of
California’s staffing initiative for LEP students. Paper presented at Third Research
Symposium on Limited-English-Proficient Students’ Issues. Washington, DC.
Gollan, T. H., Fennema-Notestine, C., Montoya, R. I., & Jernigan, T. L. (2007). The bilingual
effect on Boston Naming Test performance. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 13, 197–208.
Krashen, S. (2009). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Los Angeles,
CA: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S., & McField, G. (2005). What works? Reviewing the latest evidence on bilingual
education. Language Learner, 1, 7-10.
Luk, G., de Sa, E., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Is there a relationship between onset age of
bilingualism and enhancement of cognitive control? Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 14, 588–595.
Portocarrero, J. S., Burright, R. G., & Donovick, P. J. (2007). Vocabulary and verbal fluency
of bilingual and monolingual college students. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
22, 415–422.
Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new
research and practice paradigms in the testing of English language learners.
Educational Researcher, 32, 3-13.
Suárez-Orozco, M. (2001). Globalization, immigration, and education. Harvard Educational
Review 71, 345–65.
Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, A.B.M. (2004). Medium-of-instruction policies: Which agenda?
Whose agenda? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.