1

The Effects of Bilingualism on Students and Learning

Domenic Corrado

Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

University of Toronto

CTL7006H: Educational Research 1

Dr. Sameena Eidoo

February 7, 2021
 2

The Effects of Bilingualism on Students and on Learning

Bilingualism is an important element of the world today and as such has been studied in a

variety of ways. Overall, research has determined that bilingualism has a generally positive

effect on learning, however, there remain many discrepancies and lack of attention to critical

areas in in the current research. This paper will examine the current state of research, contrasting

and critically highlighting studies on a variety of foci. Personally, growing up in Canada, an

officially bilingual country, and receiving an education in the French language until Grade 11,

has led me to question whether students who had a complete grasp of the language or were

enrolled in a French immersion program could be shown to think or perform in school differently

due to this additional language. I have always wondered how languages have affected ways of

thinking or educational performance. In considering the widespread implications of this research,

I have attempted to include as diverse of a collection of voices as possible. Certainly, as a topic

of language, much of the research on bilingualism involves the English language quite

prominently given both its status worldwide and the dominance of English-language literature

and academia. In considering my own positionality and in an effort to combat this linguistic

imperialism, I have included a as diverse a group of researchers as possible, both in terms of

gender and cultural location. Although featuring a number of North American voices, this paper

also includes the work of researchers from Europe, Central America, Iran, and Israel.

Additionally, the research highlights bilingualism in South Africa and languages stemming from

Asia. This paper wis divided into three sections. The first highlights major findings concerning

the effects of bilingualism on learning. The second examines the scope of these findings and the

extent of these effects. The third highlights additional considerations prominent in studies on this

topic. Before examining the research, it should be noted that in almost all studies, female to male
 3

ratios were fairly even. Bilingualism itself is difficult to measure, as languages may be learned at

different rates and beginning at different periods of development. As a result, achieving a

complete study of its effects is a difficult and daunting task.

General Research Finds on the Effects of Bilingualism

The first element to examine is the general findings of research to this date. This section

will examine the noted effects of bilingualism on the literacy and linguistic ability, cognitive

ability, and memory of learners. In most cases, multilingualism can be considered an extension

of bilingualism, any positive or negative effects of the latter can often be assumed to extend to at

least the same degree for the former.

Bilingualism and Language Learning

The most common and well-examined focus of research on the effects of bilingualism

concerns literacy and language ability. This should not be surprising, as bilingualism itself

relates heavily to language, providing an obvious connection to literacy and language learning. A

2006 comprehensive study in the U.S. found that bilingual students in general benefitted from

bilingual instruction in terms of their linguistic ability (Cummins, 2015). However, despite

research having shown an advantage for bilinguals in their language abilities, this has not been

found in all studies (Wodniecka, Craik, Luo, & Bialystok, 2010). A number of suggestion have

been made as to why this discrepancy occurs. One is that since bilingual children are exposed to

two languages, they spend less time developing their knowledge of and ability in either (Singh,

2018; Paradis & Jia, 2017). Essentially, there is concern that splitting time between two or more

languages in effect splits children’s attention and capability as well. In addition, children are

forced to differentiate words, syntax, and other elements of each language they are learning, a

potentially mentally taxing effort. A similar problem occurs over phonology and pronunciation,
 4

wherein two languages may feature different sounds produced by the same single or combination

of letters (Singh, 2018). Languages which are vastly different are thought to produce a greater

difficulty for young learners especially. This could be a serious concern especially in English-

dominant countries, which tend to accept many immigrants from different language families

altogether. English L2 learners whose first language was Mandarin or Cantonese have been

shown to initially trail English L2 learners of other languages in verb morphology specifically, as

the Chinese languages lack tense and agreement morphology (Paradis & Jia, 2017). Furthermore,

languages which utilize completely different means of organizing speech and sentence structure,

such as French and Mandarin, may lead young bilingual learners into a web of difficulty. In one

study, aimed at determining the effects of bilingual on infants’ literacy, 40 infants between 7 and

8 months were tested. Half were English-monolinguals while the other half spoke Mandarin as a

second language. The results of the study found no major discrepancy between the abilities of

monolingual and bilingual students in recognizing English words (Singh, 2018). However, the

factor of age may have played a role, which will be examined later in this paper. Although

bilingual children have not been shown to have a serious detrimental malus to their vocabulary

development, evidence from studies in the last decade have given rise to the concern that their

vocabulary development in the dominant monolingual language lags behind that of their

monolingual peers (Singh, 2018). Thus, recent evidence points toward a negative effect on one

element of bilingual’s learning of the dominant language of where they live, but not their overall

language skills. Another factor is that studies have shown that bilingual children learning English

as a second language may not catch up to their English monolingual peers for some time, despite

the suggested benefit of bilingualism (Paradis & Jia, 2017). Additionally, studies conducted in

the Netherlands have found bilinguals to have weaker reading comprehension than their
 5

monolingual peers overall, not just in a specific language (Cox, 2017). To determine the veracity

of these claims, longer-term studies must be consulted. A three year study was conducted aimed

at determining how long this process of bilinguals catching up in their L2 may take. It tested 21

bilingual English L2 children in Canada beginning between 8 and 9 years old, split almost evenly

between Cantonese and Mandarin native speakers. The results of this study suggest that bilingual

children who began learning their second language at a latter stage than their first are able to

match the ability of monolinguals in several sub-elements of their L2, such as vocabulary size

(Paradis & Jia, 2017). However, factors such as the difficulty of language tasks presented affect

the timeline for L2 learners to meet the level of native speakers. Additionally, as in younger L2

learners, personal factors such as their learning and language environments affect individual their

rate of achieving fluency (Paradis & Jia, 2017). Despite these findings, another 10 year study

tracking 91 English L2 learners from grades 1-6 found that although they began to close the gap

in the English vocabulary of them and their English L1 peers, they had yet to achieve parity by

Grade 6 and the gap continued to exist (Farnia & Geva, 2011). As the growth rate of the

vocabulary of both sets of learners began to slow at a similar rate, the gap between them may

continue to exist permanently (Farnia & Geva, 2011). This contrasts with the findings of Paradis

& Jia, who suggested that although some L2 learners will require more time to achieve linguistic

parity, it will occur at some point. While the authors of this study suggest that L2s may never

fully catch up, further studies are needed to determine this concretely. Although the L2 learners

in this study included Portuguese, Punjabi, and Tamil L1s, the common L1 was English. In order

to fully universalize this claim, further studies are required in different majority languages, and

for a longer term study past Grade 6. Another study, questioning how bilingual children compare

to monolinguals in letter and category fluency tests, was conducted in Iran. 1,600 children from
 6

primary schools were given these tests, including 600 Persian monolinguals from Tehran, 500

bilinguals from a Turkish-Persian area, and 500 from a Kurdish-Persian area. The number of

children was roughly evenly distributed among the three groups, gender, and grade levels

(Kormi-Nouri, A. Moradi, S. Moradi, Akbari-Zardkhaneh, & Zahedian, 2012). The results of the

study were mixed, with bilingual students performing better in the letter fluency test while

performing worse in the category test. The authors note that this discrepancy has been found in

previous research (Kormi-Nouri et al., 2012). Together with the previous study, this illustrates

how language is composed of a number of elements, which can differ in terms of their

correlation to bilingualism. These and other studies have shown this specific issue to be complex.

Overall, these studies and earlier research have illustrated the uncertainty of the absolute benefits

of bilingualism in terms of linguistic ability, which will require further studies to determine.

Bilingualism and Cognitive Function

Prior to the 1960s, research had generally suggested a negative cognitive effect due to

bilingualism (Arefi & Alizadeh, 2008), however, recent studies have shifted the tone. In a review

and analysis of 63 studies concerning bilingualism and cognitive ability, Adesope et al.

concluded that there exists an overall cognitive benefit due to bilingualism. However, outcomes

varied among these studies, with some finding negative associations with bilingualism (Adesope,

Lavin, Thompson, & Ungerleider, 2010). In 2008, a study of children in Grades 1, 3, and 5 in

Iran was performed, seeking to determine the effects of bilingualism on cognitive development.

The children were divided evenly among Farsi monolinguals, Kurdish-Farsi, and Azari-Farsi

bilinguals (Arefi & Alizadeh, 2008). When tested using tasks based on Jean Piaget’s dimensions

of operational thinking, including quantity and weight conservation, and spatial conservation, the

study found no significant difference between the scores of bilingual and monolingual children
 7

on these tasks, in line with previous studies (Arefi & Alizadeh, 2008). However, this reliance on

one specific realm of cognitive studies does not encompass all measures of cognitive

development. As well, the authors note that learning an additional language may come easier to

bilinguals, as their brains have already been conditioned to new linguistic development (Arifa &

Alizadeh, 2008). Another study, partly aimed at uncovering the effects of bilingualism on

cognitive abilities, found contrasting results. The authors hypothesis that bilingual children

would have an advantage in executive function, the collection of mental abilities including self-

control of attention which benefit one’s ability in non-linguistic tasks, was proven supported by

the results, which found that monolinguals had slower reaction times in a word retrieval test than

bilinguals (Mueller Gathercole, Thomas, Jones, Guasch, Young, & Hughes, 2010). In a prior

task, bilinguals likewise outperformed their monolingual peers, suggesting an overall benefit

(Mueller Gathercole et al., 2010). The discrepancy between these studies can likely be attributed

to the different standards of measure cognitive ability, illustrating the difficulty of determining

the general effects of bilingualism on cognitive development. In an attempt to do so, studies

involving adults should be consulted also. A study conducted to identify “cognitive predictors of

individual differences in adult foreign-language learning” (Brooks & Kempe, 2012, p. 281)

compared a diverse group of adults in New York aged 17-41 on their ability to learn Russian.

The 16 bilinguals in the group performed better on testing, illustrating the hypothesized transfer

of knowledge from a second language when learning a third, thus giving bilinguals a distinct

advantage (Brooks & Kempe, 2012). It should be noted that this advantage stems from the

additional ways of thinking that a second language may provide to a bilingual learner, and may

not be seen between all languages. Determine this would of course demand further studies

involving a multitude of language families. In another study featuring North American adults
 8

from 18-88, a task measuring non-verbal cognitive abilities was utilized. The results were that

monolinguals performed better on this task, which the authors suggest may have been due to fact

that although bilinguals may benefit from greater cognitive ability than monolinguals, their

mental processing may in fact be less efficient, being split between two languages (Wodniecka et

al., 2010). This could result in a negative outcome compared to monolinguals, however this

requires further research to determine the extent of this effect. He distinction between overall

cognitive benefit and the results of testing leave an imperfect impression of how beneficial

bilingualism truly is in this case.

Bilingualism and Memory

Studies concerning the effect of bilingualism on memory mainly focus on adult learners,

likely due to the knowledge that memory ability generally decreases in later adulthood, making

any effect of bilingualism significant. In a study seeking to determine these effects using two

memory-based tasks, a general advantage in memory capabilities was found among bilinguals

(Wodniecka et al., 2010). However, the authors highlight the importance of other factors, which

will be examined later in this paper. Additionally, memory-based research involving young

children should be conducted, in order to present a fuller picture of the effects on memory. This

is especially important as some studies examining children with a limited grasp on their L2 have

shown a strong relationship between their phonological short-term memory and their ability to

develop their L2 vocabulary (Farnia & Geva, 2011). Thus, the effects of memory and becoming

bilingual may also be related to this focus. Overall however, more studies into the relationship

between bilingualism and memory are required, as well as a larger scope in terms of age and

languages examined, as English is almost always featured in similar studies.

The Limitations and Scope of Findings on the Effects of Bilingualism

 9

While current research has presented a number of effects of bilingualism in many

regards, there exist questions over the limitations and scope of these effects. In this section, the

extent to which the effects of bilingualism are related to the age of learners, specific subject

fields, and learners’ exposure to both languages, at home and in school, will be questioned.

Effects of Bilingualism Across Age Groups

The first major question is whether the effects of bilingualism, whether positive or

negative, remain the same with age. Essentially, will a fully grown bilingual adult have the same

benefits or face the same challenges as a bilingual child? A study of 42 Australian Italian-

English bilinguals, evenly split between younger and older adults aged 19-41 and 47-80,

respectively, compared the two groups on their processing of words in both languages

(Siyambalapitiya, Chenery, & Copland, 2009). The results of quantitative testing revealed that

the younger bilinguals were able to identify cognates quicker than noncognates, while the older

group on average recognized noncognates quicker. The authors suggest that this shift may be the

result of the similarity of cognates between English and Italian leading to cognitive slowdown

among the older group, which would relate to research which has shown “poorer inhibitory

mechanism with increasing age” (Siyambalapitiya, Chenery, & Copland, 2009, p. 552).

However, the relatively small sample size of this study makes it difficult to concretely establish

these as universal effects. Conversely, Wodniecka et al. concluded that the advantage which the

bilinguals in their study were found to posses was most applicable to older adults, being quite

limited among younger adults (2010). Of course, these are two different effects, but the

discrepancy illustrates the difficulty of claiming an overall benefit towards either younger or

older learners. Kormi-Nouri et al. similarly found a changing effect based on age, even withing a

short timespan, in their study of Iranian children. They noted that the older bilingual primary
 10

school children performed worse than monolinguals on the categorization test, suggesting that

that this is due to the existence of an “interference” (Kormi-Nouri et al., 2012, p. 359) between

languages which occurs when bilinguals reach a state of balance between both languages after

several years of having learned their second language. Again, the development and evolution of a

person, even within a few years, is shown to have potentially large ramifications for the benefit

they may possess by being bilingual. Cox’s study specifically sought to determine whether older

bilingual adults would exhibit the same benefits to learning a third language as younger adults,

noting that no prior studies had attempted to do so (Cox, 2017). 45 adults over 60, including both

English monolinguals and English-Spanish bilinguals, were tested on their ability to determine

syntax-based elements of Latin sentences using a computer program. The results indicated that

they had the same benefit to learning at third language as younger monolinguals (Cox, 2017).

Thus, this study suggests that some benefits of bilingualism remain into older age. Overall, these

studies have shown that the division of bilinguals based on age seems to differentiate some of the

effects that bilingualism has on learning, although no overall consensus can be made currently.

Effects of Bilingualism in Non-Linguistic Subjects

A second consideration is the extent of the effect of bilingualism in subject fields aside

from language, which as mentioned prior is the central focus of research. Some research has

focused on math, such as Leikin’s study of the effect of bilingualism on mathematical creativity.

The study involved 37 kindergarten children in Israel, of which 14 were Hebrew monolinguals

and 23 Hebrew-Russian bilinguals, and utilized two rounds of visual and spatial tasks. Leiken

hypothesized that bilingual students would display greater creativity then monolinguals. In line

with this, the bilingual students did show higher levels of creativity in problem-solving, as well

as performing better overall, although a significant difference only appeared in the second round
 11

of testing (Leiken, 2013). The specific focus on math was noted by Leiken as well, who also

hypothesized that the creativity used in general and in math are distinct, and the influence of

bilingualism on each is as well. The two tasks each relied on one of these types of creativity, thus

the lack of correlation between the scores of each group of children led Leiken to confirm this

hypothesis (2012). What this means is that the effect of bilingualism on creativity is itself

divided into smaller areas of investigation. Although this study only involved young children,

this gives an even greater importance to further research related to math and other subjects. In

another study involving over 2,000 Chicago-area students from Grades 3-5, of which only a

small minority were bilingual, students were given standardized tests in math for each

appropriate grade level (Marian, Shook, & Schroeder, 2013). Although standardized tests have

been criticized often, in this case they provide a common paradigm through which to mono- and

bilingual students. In this case, English-native bilinguals outperformed monolinguals in math

(Marian et al., 2013). It must be said however, that this benefit may stem from their being placed

in bilingual classrooms, rather than simply being bilingual themselves. This impact of learning

environments will be covered later. Other studies have focussed on science, including a recent

albeit small study questioning how bilingual students use their bilingualism in this subject and

the unique language of science. 16 Swedish-Turkish bilinguals between the ages of 13 and 14 in

a suburban Swedish school were interviewed. As five had been in Sweden for less than five

years, while the rest also used Turkish heavily, there was a reliance on Turkish as a means of

better understanding scientific terms and language by translating words from Swedish. However,

the authors note that these translations resulted in the proper or exact meaning of some science

concepts to be misconstrued (Ünsal, Jakobson, Molander, & Wickman, 2018). As a qualitative

study however, this presents only limited view into how bilingualism truly affects studying
 12

science. Therefore, more concrete research is required in order to determine an overall benefit, if

one exists. In addition to these subjects, there is little research into the effects of bilingualism, if

any, in others, specifically art. This is especially important considering the emphasis placed on

Content and Language Integrated Learning, the method of teaching students a subject through a

second language, therefore learning both simultaneously. Thus, uncovering any potential effects

of bilingualism in the thinking, understanding, and processing phases of learning in school

overall will require further effort.

Exposure and Use as Factors in the Effects of Bilingualism

A third element which has been suggested to determine the scope and degree of the

effects of bilingualism is the exposure of bilinguals to both languages. Singh notes, for example,

that the likely greater exposure to English that the bilingual infants studied had may have

improved their linguistic abilities in comparison to those of a similar age examined in another

study using similar tasks, which found that bilingual infants performed worse than monolinguals

(2018; Polka, Orena, Sundra, & Worrall, 2017). Paradis and Jia also note this impact on English

L2 learning (2017), while Wodniecka et al. suggest that the degree to which a second language is

used may be even more influential in one’s ability than how early they learned it (2010). Thus,

the exposure of bilinguals to each language can radically affect their abilities and performance.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, fluency and use are also important, as Cox notes that evidence suggests

that the degree to which an individual is adept at both languages as well fuels the advantage for

bilinguals in learning additional languages (2017). Kormi-Nouri et al. similarly suggested that

older bilingual children enrolled Persian monolingual programs performed worse than younger

ones due to having increasingly lost their grasp of their first language over time (2012). The

study of Welsh children by Mueller Gathercole et al. found that teenage bilinguals from Welsh-
 13

only and English-Welsh mixed households performed better than bilinguals from English-only

households, attributing it to their more balanced use of both languages, while in a one task

Welsh-only household bilinguals performed worse on English fluency, due to a lack of common

use (2010). Significant attention has also been paid to two-way bilingual programs, those in

which both languages are utilized fairly evenly, instead of traditional programs in which the

region dominant language is emphasized, often with the goal of assimilation. In such programs in

which a minority language is used for at least half of the total instructional time, students’ grasp

of that language has been shown to improve consistently, without negatively affecting the

majority language (Cummins, 2015). Marian et al. hypothesized that students in a two-way

bilingual program whose first language was a minority language would perform better than those

in majority language-focussed program. Of the 232 bilingual primary school students, 157 had

Spanish as their first language, with 134 enrolled in a two-way program and 23 in English-

dominant classrooms, the remaining 75 were English-native bilinguals in a two-way program.

The results suggested that two-way programs benefitted bilingual students in this age group

overall, both majority- and minority-language, as the math and reading scores of its students

increased each grade, especially in math, while those of students in the English-led bilingual

program did not (Marian et al., 2013). The authors suggest that the Spanish-native portion of the

two-way students benefitted especially as they received instruction in their first language as well

as English, unlike those in the English-focussed program who were instructed on these subjects

in their first language. However, they also note that the students in this study were not tested

prior to entering the program, meaning that they could have simply performed better even

without the effects of the program (Marian et al., 2013). Additionally, the sample sizes of the

three groups aside from the monolingual English students were relatively small, making a
 14

definite statement difficult. Similarly, Leiken hypothesized that bilingual children in his study

who were enrolled in the two-way bilingual Hebrew-Russian class would perform better than

bilinguals in the Hebrew-instructed class. However, the results displayed no discernible

difference among these two sets of bilinguals in terms of creativity (Leiken, 2013). Despite this,

he suggests that continued enrollment in two-way education can “contribute more prominently to

the development of creativity in problem solving” (Leiken, 2013, p. 442). In addition, this is only

a single paradigm of measuring the benefit of two-way programs. A qualitative study by

Lindholm-Leary and Borsato sought to examine how bilingual students who were in a two-way

program in their elementary years fare academically up until the end of high school, noting the

lack of research into this area specifically (2005). The study involved 139 students in a

California high school, nearly evenly split among Grades 9-12, of which 92 were mainly

Spanish-speaking Hispanics, 29 mainly English-speaking Hispanics, and 18 mainly English-

speaking Euro-American students. They were questioned on a number of issues including

desired career paths, attitudes toward school, and their average grades in a variety of subjects.

The results of the questionnaires suggested that bilingual students in two-way programs have an

overall positive attitude concerning school, particularly math, and faired at least averagely in

math since entering middle school (Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2005). However, a lack of a

comparable set of non-two-way program students leaves this information somewhat untenable.

Overall, two-way programs seem to generally benefit bilingual students more than traditional

majority-language programs. In effect, they accentuate any positive effects that bilingualism may

present to learners during their school years.

Outside Factors Relating to the Effects of Bilingualism

 15

So far, what have been discussed are the effects of bilingualism on learners and the range

of these effects in a number of considerations. What is left to be discussed is two significant

factors that can affect a bilingual learner’s abilities and the effects of bilingualism themselves,

the role of teachers and socioeconomic considerations.

The Role of Teachers in Bilingual Education

Nieto notes that in the U.S., for example, most bilingual students—many of which speak

English as their second language—are placed in English-instructed classrooms with no support

(2017). Nieto calls for teachers to become more adept to teaching in classrooms featuring

students from a variety of linguistic bases, in effect to become “sociocultural mediators” (2017,

p. 129). By becoming knowledgeable of the research concerning bilingual education,

understanding the socioeconomic backgrounds of their students, and becoming “sociocultural

mediators”, teachers can help bilingual students—especially those whose language of instruction

is not their primary one—by creating connections between their school and home lives, where

the languages spoken are likely to be different (Nieto, 2017). Although Nieto focusses

specifically on English-medium classrooms and students whose primary language is not English,

I consider many of the points and suggestions to be fairly universal. The role that teachers have

on the development and experiences of their students in well-known. It should thus be

considered especially significant that their role in supporting bilingual students, and as a result

providing greater access to any potential benefits, is recognized. By promoting students’

bilingualism, teachers also promote biculturalism, allowing them to maintain their identity while

opening new paths to more effective learning (Nieto, 2017). Cummins notes the example of

South Africa, where the history of apartheid as an attack on cultural and linguistic identity still

affects bilingual students today. This occurs as that students are pushed towards increased
 16

instruction in English by parents who see it as the “language of power and social advancement”

(Cummins, 2014, 274). Thus, despite bilingual instruction proving beneficial in many respects

according to research, many students are neglected to receive it. In a qualitative study involving

Turkish-Dutch bilinguals aged 14-17 in Flanders, where bilingual instruction is rare, Agridag

found that students lacked knowledge in the possible benefits of bilingual education, minority

language were ignored in classrooms, and their use was actively discouraged by both teachers

and other school authorities, both actively and passively (2009). Thus, the willingness of teachers

and educators to recognize the unique linguistic and cultural identities of their learners is an

important factor in allowing the effects of bilingualism to bloom.

The Impact of Socioeconomic Status (SES)

Socioeconomic status is another important factor related to bilingualism. Nearly every

study consulted recognized this and mentioned the background of those included. Mueller

Gathercole et al. found that socioeconomic status did not correlate to the performance of students

in the physical task, however it did in the memory-based task (2010). This would suggest that

socioeconomic status affects certain elements of cognitive ability more than others. Lindholm-

Leary and Borsato noted that the Hispanic students in their study were generally faced with

lower socioeconomic conditions, however those in two-way bilingual programs still performed

better than those in traditional programs, similarly to their English-native peers, who were

generally of a better socioeconomic background. However, Marian et al. found that the overall

higher SES of English-native bilinguals correlated to their better overall performance than

Spanish-native bilinguals (Marian et al., 2013). Cummins highlights the fact that bilingual

students of a low SES face a greater difficulty in maintaining parity in either language with

monolinguals, as they require access to literature in both languages (2014). Overall,

 17

socioeconomic status seems to have a mixed effect on bilingual learners, although it is not hard

to imagine that a quite significant correlation could exist in many respects. However, more

specific research in a wider variety of foci with socioeconomic considerations in mind should

paint a clearer picture of this influence.

Conclusion

Discovering what effects bilingualism has on learning is a important goal considering the

number of bilingual learners globally and the increasingly connected world we live in. Overall,

the research examined in this paper has shown that bilingualism presents a number of positive

effects on learning in general. The many complications in determining the overall effects,

however, have been shown to make definitively stating the effects in a number of areas difficult.

Despite this, the literature highlighted in this paper has provided many insights into the general

effects of bilingualism, the extent and limitations of these effects, and outside factors which

affect the ability of bilingual learners. Through this literature and further research, including a

greater diversity of both researchers and the languages involved, the effects of bilingualism may

one day become clearer, if not able to be definitively stated.

 18

References

Adesope, O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-

analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research 80(2),

207-245. doi:10.3102/0034654310368803

Agirdag, Orhan. (2009). Exploring bilingualism in a monolingual school system: Insights from

Turkish and native students from Belgian schools. British Journal of Sociology of

Education, 31(3), 307-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425691003700540

Arefi, M., & Alizadeh, S. (2008). The effects of bilingualism on cognitive development: A case

of bilingual children in Iran. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34, 12-18.

Brooks, P. J., & Kempe, V. (2012). Individual differences in adult foreign language learning:

The mediating effect of metalinguistic awareness. Memory and Cognition, 41, 281-96.

doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0262-9

Cox, J. G. (2017). Explicit instruction, bilingualism, and the older adult learner. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 29-58. https://doi-

org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1017/S0272263115000364

Cummins, J. (2014). How to reverse a legacy of exclusion? Identifying high-impact educational

responses. Language and Education, 29(3), 272-79. https://doi-

org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/09500782.2014.994528

Cummins, J. (2015). Intercultural education and academic achievement: A framework for

school-based policies in multilingual schools. Intercultural Education, 26(6), 455-468.

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/14675986.2015.1103539
 19

Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2011). Cognitive correlates of vocabulary growth in English language

learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(4), 711-738.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000038

Kormi-Nouri, R., Moradi, A., Moradi, S., Akbari-Zardkhaneh, S., & Zahedian, H. (2012). The

effect of bilingualism on letter and category fluency tasks in primary school children:

Advantage or disadvantage? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(2), 351-364.

doi:10.1017/S1366728910000192

Leikin, M. (2013). The effect of bilingualism on creativity: Developmental and educational

perspectives. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(4), 431-447.

doi:10.1177/1367006912438300

Lindholm-Leary, K., & Borsato, G. (2005). Hispanic high schoolers and mathematics: Follow-up

of students who had participated in two-way bilingual elementary programs. Bilingual

Research Journal, 29(3), 641-652. doi:10.1080/15235882.2005.10162856

Marian, V., Shook, A., & Schroeder, S. R. (2013). Bilingual two-way immersion programs

benefit academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(2), 167-186.

doi:10.1080/15235882.2013.818075

Mueller Gathercole, V. C., Thomas, E. M., Jones, L., Guasch, N. V., Young, N., & Hughes, E.

K. (2010). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: Digging deeper for the contributions of

language dominance, linguistic knowledge, socio-economic status and cognitive

abilities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(5), 617-664.

doi:10.1080/13670050.2010.488289

Nieto, S. (2017). Becoming sociocultural mediators: What all educators can learn from bilingual

and ESL teachers. Issues in Teacher Education, 26(2), 129-141.

 20

Paradis, J., & Jia, R. (2017). Bilingual children’s long‐term outcomes in English as a second

language: Language environment factors shape individual differences in catching up with

monolinguals. Developmental Science, 20(1), 1-15. doi:10.1111/desc.12433

Polka, L., Orena, A. J., Sundara, M., & Worrall, J. (2017). Segmenting words from fluent speech

during infancy--challenges and opportunities in a bilingual context. Developmental

Science, 20(1), 1-14. doi:10.1111/desc.12419

Singh, L. (2018). He said, she said: Effects of bilingualism on cross-talker word recognition in

infancy. Journal of Child Language, 45(2), 498-510.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000186

Siyambalapitiya, S., Chenery, H. J., & Copland, D. A. (2009). Bilingualism and aging: Reversal

of the cognate advantage in older bilingual adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(3), 531-

554. https://doi-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1017/S0142716409090262

Ünsal, Z., Jakobson, B., Molander, B., & Wickman, P. (2018). Science education in a bilingual

class: Problematising a translational practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(2),

317-340. doi: 10.1007/s11422-016-9747-3

Wodniecka, Z., Craik, F. I. M., Luo, L., & Bialystok, E. (2010). Does bilingualism help

memory? Competing effects of verbal ability and executive control. International Journal

of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(5), 575-595. https://doi-

org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/13670050.2010.488287