International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism

ISSN: 1367-0050 (Print) 1747-7522 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Dual language programs: an exploration of

bilingual students’ academic achievement,
language proficiencies and engagement using a
mixed methods approach

Janina Brutt-Griffler & Eunjee Jang

To cite this article: Janina Brutt-Griffler & Eunjee Jang (2019): Dual language programs: an
exploration of bilingual students’ academic achievement, language proficiencies and engagement
using a mixed methods approach, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2019.1616670

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1616670

Published online: 28 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 166

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbeb20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1616670

Dual language programs: an exploration of bilingual students’

academic achievement, language proficiencies and engagement
using a mixed methods approach
Janina Brutt-Griffler and Eunjee Jang
Department of Learning and Instruction, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Employing a mixed-methods research design, this study examines how a Received 7 September 2018
newly designed dual language program in an urban school advances Accepted 5 May 2019
language proficiencies among Spanish-English bilingual 6th graders in
KEYWORDS
relation to content area achievement as measured on NYS standardized Dual language programs;
tests in English Language Arts and Math. It further investigates how English language learners;
students’ emotional (school identification) and behavioral engagement bilingual teachers;
(language learning commitment) relate to bilingual language multilingual proficiency
proficiencies. The results drawn from both quantitative and qualitative perspective theory; student
data indicate that bilingual students benefitted from attending a dual engagement; academic
language program. It contributes positively to students’ academic achievement
achievement, bilingual school identification and commitment to
language learning. With respect to language development, the study
found that English proficiency in productive skills was positively
correlated with standardized test scores. Spanish proficiency was
positively correlated with students’ commitment to language learning.
Spanish and English languages play different but equally important
functions in the dual language program. However, students, face
challenges in sustaining learning the two languages in school; we show
that students experience a gradual language shift from Spanish to
English. The study underscores the potential benefits of a multilingual
proficiency perspective theory among the students and in preparing
bilingual teachers.

Introduction
The two languages in class – both languages are needed. This is a bilingual school and you have to speak the two
languages. When, you know English, the teacher is going to know, like, very good. I taught him to speak English,
to read, so one gets pride in one-oneself. So that she knows that she has taught him in English and Spanish.
(Student Interview, Bryan, 2016)

English language learners (ELLs) are a rapidly growing part of the K–12 student population. According
to the most recent statistics available from the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) in the
Digest of Education Statistics, more than 4.8 million ELLs (or approximately 10% of public school stu-
dents) were enrolled in U.S. public schools in Fall 2015 (NCES 2016). Most of them (73%) were con-
centrated in lower grades (kindergarten through sixth). 16.3% of kindergarteners were ELL students,
with the share of ELLs gradually decreasing, reaching 8.2% in grade 6 and 3.9% in grade 12. New York
State (NYS) is one of the five states with highest ELL population along with California, Texas, Florida,
and Illinois (National Clearing house for English Language Acquisition 2018). In NYS, there are

CONTACT Janina Brutt-Griffler bruttg@buffalo.edu

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. BRUTT-GRIFFLER AND E. JANG

approximately 250,000 ELL students, which represents 8.8% of the student population in 2016. A sub-
stantial portion of them are in lower grades (57.1%), as is the case nationally (New York State Edu-
cation Department 2018a). While ELLs in NYS speak more than 200 different languages, Spanish is
the top ELL’s home language (64.9%). Over half of all ELLs were in elementary school grades (57.1%).
Even though schools across the U.S. are growing in linguistic and cultural diversity, there remains a
lack of instructional programs, curricula, and instructional services that cater to ELLs to develop their
heritage languages (HLs)1 alongside English in schools (Gándara and Escamilla 2016; Wright 2015;
Wilson 2011). The majority of ELLs receive English immersion instruction in schools with little time
allocated to their L1 development and literacy (Wright 2015; Wilson 2011). At the same time, there
is growing evidence that HL literacy among students plays a significant role in their academic
success, especially with respect to their postsecondary four-year college attendance. Based on a
nationally representative large-scale longitudinal dataset representing different ethnic groups and
languages, Jang and Brutt-Griffler (2019) have shown that Latinx students who had high levels of lit-
eracy (writing and reading in Spanish) tended to enroll in four-year colleges as opposed to two-year
colleges, with the former giving students greater socioeconomic mobility. The study showed that HL
literacy proficiency was a positive predictor of Latinx students’ four-year college attendance, after
controlling for their individual and family background. From the standpoint of curricula, there has
been greater effort made to build dual language programs in schools that potentially meet this chal-
lenge of developing students’ first language literacies alongside that of English (Baker 2011; Brutt-
Griffler 2017; García, Kleifgen, and Falchi 2008; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006).
This research study focuses on examining how a dual language program that has been recently
designed in a New York State (NYS) school potentially aids Grade 6 students in their academic
achievement as well as in their school engagement, which we hypothesize impacts their academic
performance. The study draws on a larger two-year research study that includes multiple grades
(Grade 2, Grade 3 and Grade 6) and whose overall objective has been to provide the school with evi-
dence-based recommendations on the effectiveness of the dual language program design, its
instructional practices, and teacher professional development needs. This contribution focuses on
Grade 6 and employs a mixed-methods research design to answer three major research questions:

(1) In what ways does the newly designed dual language program advance language proficiencies
among Spanish-English bilingual 6th graders;
(2) How does it relate to content area achievement as measured on NYS standardized tests in English
Language Arts and Math;
(3) How are 6th graders’ behavioral and emotional engagement in the dual language program inter-
related, and how is it related to bilingual language proficiencies?

Literature Review
Dual language programs
Dual language programs have become one of the major educational curricular designs for promoting
bilingualism and language maintenance (cf. Baker 2011; Brutt-Griffler 2017). These programs are
defined in many different ways and implementations in practice may not always be identical;
broadly, they refer to a number of content-based language learning programs, as listed on Figure
1 (U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition 2015). The aims for these
programs are development of (1) bilingualism (full proficiency in both languages), (2) biliteracy, (3)
grade-appropriate academic achievement, and (4) sociocultural competence (Gándara and Escamilla
2016; Howard et al. 2018). They are designed for both ELLs and English-speaking students; content-
area and literacy instructions are delivered in both home language and English.
In NYS, 604 bilingual programs operated in 2015–2016 school year; 239 of them were dual
language programs and 365 were transitional bilingual education programs (New York State
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 3

Figure 1. Overview of the key attributes of dual language education programs by program type. Retrieved from Dual language
education programs: Current state policies and practices. Copyright [2015] by U.S. Department of Education, Office of English
Language Acquisition.

Education Department 2016). The majority (87%) of dual language programs are offered in Spanish.
NYS also pursues the same goals for dual language programs: ‘Dual Language (DL) programs seek to
offer students the opportunity to become bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural while improving their
academic ability’ (New York State Education Department 2018b). In addition to the overall goals
for the dual language programs, the NYS Education Department’s Office of Bilingual Education
and World Languages describes as its mission for ELLs as follows:
To ensure that all New York State (NYS) students, including English Language Learners (ELLs), attain the highest
level of academic success and language proficiency. We strive to ensure that all students’ individual educational
paths and socio-emotional needs are met in multiple languages leading them to college and career readiness.
(New York State Education Department 2018c)

In accordance with this mission, our research study aims to help the school examine whether the
newly designed dual language program for Grade 6 helps to ‘attain the highest level of academic
success and language proficiency’ so that the school can make the requisite policy decisions.
Second, given the bilingual nature of the learners, we hypothesized, based on the existing literature
(Chiu et al. 2012; Sánchez, Colón, and Esparza 2005; Voelkl 2012) that when students have positive
associations with their school, it will be positively, albeit indirectly, related to their academic achieve-
ment and engagement with learning. This is especially important for bilingual learners given that
language and second/bilingual language learning is tied with one’s identity and learner’s investments
(cf. Dewaele 2013; Norton 2013; Pavlenko 2012).
4 J. BRUTT-GRIFFLER AND E. JANG

Student engagement
Educators have given significant attention to engagement because of not only its critical influence on
students’ academic success (Eccles, Allan, and Ulrich 1998; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004;
Wang and Holcombe 2010), but also its malleability; it can be affected by contextual factors including
teachers’ instructional practices (Cooper 2014; Hospel and Galand 2016; You and Sharkey 2009).
However, it has been understudied in the field of applied linguistics (Philp and Duchesne 2016),
especially with respect to bilingual learners. Engagement is responsive to educational contexts
and its outcomes and the degree differs across contexts (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004; Fre-
dricks and McColskey 2012). As such, it necessitates further research on particular curricular contexts.
Engagement is a meta-construct, which encompasses two or three primary components: behav-
ioral, emotional or affective, and cognitive engagement2 (Fredricks and McColskey 2012; Skinner et al.
2008). In this study, we explore bilingual student engagement suggesting on a two-component con-
ceptual model consisting of behavioral and emotional dimensions in the learning context. The focus
is on the bilingual students’ behavioral and affective domains that pertain to language learning in the
context of a dual Spanish-English language program. In order to assess two dimensions of engage-
ment, bilingual students’ school identification (as an indicator of emotional engagement) and
language commitment (as an indicator of behavioral engagement) are being analyzed
simultaneously.

School identification and language commitment

School identification is a form of emotional engagement (e.g. interest, identification, belonging,
value, and attitude) and refers to students’ attitudes toward school and school work (Finn 1989; Fre-
dricks et al. 2011; Voelkl 2012). It primarily consists of two components: students’ sense of belonging
in school and their feeling that school and school outcomes are valuable (Finn 1989; Finn and Zimmer
2012; Voelkl 2012). The notion of school identification has been used as a lens to understand stu-
dents’ social relations within school and their orientation toward school, classwork, and teachers.
Extensive research has revealed that students’ positive identification with school – positive feeling
of belonging, valuing, and being valued by others within school context – is related to students’
intrinsic motivation, participation in academic activities, academic efforts, autonomy, and self-
esteem, and identity formation (Finn 1989; Finn and Zimmer 2012; Fredricks et al. 2011; Lawson
and Lawson 2013; Osterman 2000).
At the same time, there is a lack of empirical evidence relevant to language learning and bilingual
students’ school identification (cf. Hughes et al. 2015) who may be presented with conflicting choices
and identities (cf. Norton 2013; Pavlenko 2012). A marked lack of research is likely due to two major
reasons. First, as Swain (2013) claims, emotional aspects of language learning are largely neglected.
Even though language learning involves cognitive, social, and emotional processes, research in this
regard has traditionally focused predominantly on cognition, with emotional dimensions being
‘poorly studied, poorly understood’ (205). Another reason might be attributed to different measure-
ment levels. According to Philp and Duchesne (2016), engagement has been amply studied at
different contextual levels (e.g. school, community, classrooms, and activities/tasks) in a wide
range of disciplines, whereas most studies in the realm of language learning, have been done at
either activities/tasks or classroom levels. The present study, therefore, aims to broaden the scope
of research by examining Spanish-English bilingual students’ school identification within the bilingual
school context.
Behavioral engagement refers to students’ behavioral participation in their academic activities and
schoolwork. It broadly includes efforts or investment, positive conduct, and participation in school-
related activities (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004; Skinner et al. 2008). Many indicators of
behavioral engagement are well known to be positively related to diverse aspects of student aca-
demic outcomes including standardized test scores, GPA, school retention, and graduation (Finn
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 5

and Zimmer 2012; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004). In our study, we direct our attention toward
students’ efforts in language and literacy development. We view our participants’ language learning
from the standpoint of the multilingual proficiency perspective theory (Brutt-Griffler 2017) that posits
language as knowledge among language learners/users. Taking knowledge as its point of departure,
‘multilingual proficiency becomes an objective measure of language learning from its incipient stages
all the way through the attainment of advanced level of proficiency in multiple languages’ (223). It
views learning another language as ‘the expansion of the learner’s body of knowledge’ in the
sense that knowledge of language acquired in studying languages in turn ‘aids learning additional
languages’ (222); furthermore, student’s developing multilingualism is a resource that needs requisite
curricular and instructional supports.
We use student perceived efforts they expended in learning both Spanish and English language
and home literacy practices in both languages as an indicator of behavioral engagement on their way
to achieving multilingual proficiency. Previous studies report that commitment to learning and being
on task have positive association with academic outcomes. For example, Gettinger and Martha J
(2012) outlined the links between the amount of time students engaged in their own learning and
academic achievement, finding these relationships to be positive.
Compared to under-researched emotional engagement, the effects of behavioral engagement on
student achievement are well documented. However, too few empirical studies have been con-
ducted to investigate how each dimension of engagement is interrelated and how they work
together to improve students’ academic achievement (Janosz 2012; Li and Lerner 2013). It is generally
accepted that there exist internal dynamics among each component of engagement (Fredricks, Blu-
menfeld, and Paris 2004; Skinner et al. 2008). Components mutually reinforce each other, and one
component can mediate the others (Philp and Duchesne 2016; Skinner et al. 2008). Nevertheless,
many questions regarding interrelationships between components remain unanswered (cf. Janosz
2012).
School identification has been known to impact other types of engagement (e.g. behavioral or
cognitive), which in turn, brings positive academic consequences (Finn 1989; Finn and Zimmer
2012; Osterman 2000; Voelkl 2012). Finn (1989) maintains that behaviors are guided by attitudes.
Skinner et al. (2008) outline the relationships between emotional and behavioral engagement,
suggesting that engaged emotion is likely to result in more overt behavioral engagement. Along
these lines, school identification can function as an anchor to enhance students’ intentional efforts
and engaged behaviors, which leads to academic outcomes. Students who experience a positive
sense of school community tend to put out more effort into their learning (Osterman 2000).
To address this relationship, this study takes into consideration two dimensions of bilingual
student emotional and behavioral engagement in language learning simultaneously, as compared
to previous studies that have narrowly investigated a single dimension only (cf. Philp and Duchesne

Figure 2. Relationships among affective engagement, behavioral engagement, and academic outcomes.
6 J. BRUTT-GRIFFLER AND E. JANG

2016). Figure 2 posits a two-component bilingual student engagement model consisting of behav-
ioral and emotional dimensions in the learning context. The conceptual model charts paths to
examine how school identification (a measure of behavioral engagement) is indirectly related to
language proficiency through language learning commitment (a measure of emotional engage-
ment). Our working hypothesis is that bilingual students’ identification with school will contribute
positively to their commitment to learning languages. Language learning commitment, in turn, is
expected to relate to advancing bilingual language proficiency. In the case of our research partici-
pants, it pertains to students’ learning commitment to both Spanish and English.
In addition, Table 1 provides an itemized portrait of how we operationalize the constructs in our
data collection instruments; we provide more detail in the methods section of the study.

Methods
Participants and context
Participants in this study are 53 students in Grades 6 in the academic year 2016 (N = 23) and 2017 (N
= 30); they attended a dual language program in the urban school in the largest school district in
Western New York. As shown as Table 2, 45% of the sample were girls and 55% were boys. They aver-
aged 12 years old, ranging from 12 years to 14.5 years. 75% were born in Spanish-dominant societies
(mostly in Puerto Rico), and 25% were born in the English-dominant portions of the U.S. Of those who
came from Spanish-dominant societies, they had lived in English-dominant parts of the U.S. for 4.5
years and attended the current bilingual school for 3.8 years, on average. The majority of students
were identified as ESL students (83%) and 10% was not. Only 7% of the students exited from ESL
status.
Our data shows that Spanish was Grade 6 students’ dominant language. It was not only the
primary language spoken at home, but it was the most comfortable language for them to speak.
A sizable majority (86%) of students spoke Spanish at home. 14% of students reported that they
used English and Spanish equally; one student used only English at home. By contrast, when
asked what language they felt most comfortable speaking, a little more than half of students
(51%) felt most comfortable speaking in Spanish, and 35% felt most comfortable speaking in
English. The remaining 14% were comfortable with both English and Spanish equally.
During the years when the research was conducted (2016–2018), ELLs in this school are signifi-
cantly underperforming compared to their peers across the state, as 2015 English Language Arts
assessment scores in Table 3 attest.
The nascent dual language program that the school designed to build bilingual and bicultural
competences among students in Grade 6 is located in a Bilingual Academy in a large urban district.

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings of School Identification and Language Commitment (N = 30).
Factor
Variable M SD loadings
School identification (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73)
1. Respect shown to different cultures by school staff. 8.87a 1.81 0.61
2. Respect shown to students by the teachers. 7.87a 2.73 0.60
3. Friendliness of the adults in the building. 8.17a 2.26 0.80
4. Availability of my teachers for extra help. 8.52a 2.29 0.75
5. I am proud to be a student in a bilingual school where both languages are used on a daily 4.50b 0.94 0.48
basis.
6. Learning in school in both Spanish and English will help me do well in school and on tests. 4.27b 0.74 0.74
Language commitment (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84)
1. I put maximum effort to learn Spanish and English in school. 4.40b 0.97 0.84
2. I read a lot in Spanish when I am at home or when I have free time. 3.61b 1.34 0.71
3. I read a lot in English when I am at home or when I have free time. 3.00b 1.39 0.66
a
Responses were made on a 10-point Likert scale with 1 for the most negative and 10 for the most positive.
b
Responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 for strongly disagree and 5 for strongly agree.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 7

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Characteristics (N = 53).

N Percent Mean SD Min max
Gender
Girls 24 45%
Boys 29 55%
Place of Birth
foreign-born 40 75%
U.S.-born 13 25%
ESL status (school record)
ESL 40 83%
Non-ESL 5 10%
Exited ESL 3 7%
Age (months) 53 147.40 9.33 132 174
Time in the U.S. (months) 42 54.40 35.04 8 132
Time in school (months) 53 45.91 29.29 8 103
Time in ESL program (years) 48 4.67 2.81 0 9
Comfortable language
Spanish 26 51%
English 18 35%
Spanish and English equally 7 14%
Language at home
Spanish 43 86%
English 7 14%
Use of Spanish outside school 52 3.19 0.89 1 4

The Bilingual Academy typically serves a total of 728 students in K-8; it is predominantly Latinx
(82.4%) with a high concentration of ELLs (52%). The second largest ethnic group is African American
students (10%). The research team that was asked to provide assessment of the new dual language
program for Grade 6 had established productive working relationships with the principal, staff, tea-
chers, administration, students, and parents. Students in the dual language program typically began
their school day with a literacy block in English language arts (ELA) and then would move to the
Spanish language arts (NLA) block that mirrored the length and the academic objectives for Grade
6 (see the school day plan below). The literacy teachers who worked in ELA (two English literacy tea-
chers in each class period) and two Spanish bilingual teachers in NLA curriculum collaborated on
setting learning outcomes for units and monitored student performance. Subsequently, during the
school day, students moved to a math block that was offered in English. After lunch break, they
pursued Social Studies/Science in Spanish and finally moved to a period where they worked on
writing in both Spanish and English (Table 4).
As can be seen in Figure 3, teachers in ELA as well as in NLA explicitly identified daily language and
content objectives for students and often posted those in the classroom to keep students’ focus as
well as to aid classroom management.

Data collection
We employed a mixed-methods approach with a convergent design (Creswell and Plano Clark 2017).
The main purpose of this design is to ‘use simultaneous integration or merging to develop integrated

Table 3. Comparison of the School’s ELA Assessment Results to Statewide Averages for ELLs (New York State Education Department
2015).
Grade % Level 1 (current school) % Level 1 (NYS) % Proficient (current school) % Proficient (NYS)
3rd 98% 70% 0% 7%
4th 91% 68% 0% 6%
5th 98% 77% 0% 3%
6th 83% 76% 0% 2%
7th 100% 84% 0% 1%
8th 93% 78% 0% 2%
8 J. BRUTT-GRIFFLER AND E. JANG

Table 4. Grade 6 School Day Plan.

A B C D E F
Homeroom 7:55–8:15 Breakfast
Period 1 8:15–9:00 Differentiation
Period 2 9:00–9:45 Music Music Phys. Ed Phys. Ed Art Art
Period 3 9:50–10:35 English Language Arts
Period 4 10:40–11:25 Native Language Arts
Period 5 11:30–12:30 Math
Period 6 12:30–1:00 Lunch
Period 7 1:00–1:45 Social Studies / Science (Spanish)
Period 8 1:45–2:15 Writing (Spanish & English)
Homeroom 2:15–2:30 Dismissal

results and interpretations that expand understanding, to provide comprehensive results, and/or vali-
date and confirm results’ (Creswell and Plano Clark 2017, 222). We gathered both qualitative and
quantitative data concurrently and analyzed them separately. In the interpretation phase, we
linked, compared, and combined both datasets to ‘answer interlocking research questions’
(Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009, 266). Corroboration of both qualitative and quantitative datasets pro-
vides an enriched and more nuanced understanding and ensures the validity of study (Creswell 2009;
Creswell and Plano Clark 2017; Dörnyei 2007; Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009).
Quantitative data were collected from 53 consented students using a student questionnaire and
school records. The student questionnaire asks students to provide detailed information on their
demographics, language history (home language, and preferred language), and language profi-
ciency, and engagement (school identification and language commitment). For language proficiency,
students were asked to self-evaluate for each language skill (listening, speaking, reading, and writing)
separately for English and Spanish on a 10-point scale ranging from 1 (no ability) to 10 (high ability).
We checked the internal consistency of student self-rated language proficiencies using Cronbach’s
alpha. There were good internal consistencies across four language skills for each language (alpha
= 0.80 for English and alpha = 0.82 for Spanish). For a validity check, students’ self-ratings were com-
pared to standardized New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT)
scores. Students’ ratings, except for English listening, agreed with NYSESLAT scores, showing moder-
ately strong correlations (rWriting = 0.54, p < 0.001; rspeaking = 0.49, p < 0.01; rreading = 0.44, p < 0.01).
Unfortunately, standardized benchmark data on student Spanish proficiency was not possible to
collect, and thus it could not be compared with students’ perceived Spanish proficiency. However,
given the correlation of students’ self-reporting on English with standardized NYSESLAT scores, we
have confidence in students’ self-reporting.
In order to gather information on students’ academic achievement, we also collected school
records containing students’ standardized NYS test scores in ELA and Math for the school years
that students attended the current school. All standardized scores were accessed by the school
giving the researchers permission to come to school at the school’s convenient time to access it
from its datasets.
With respect to the questionnaire on student engagement (school identification and language
commitment), it was additionally collected from the 2017 cohort (N = 30) to inquire how students
engage in school and their language learning. During the first year of the two-year research
period (2016 cohort), our ongoing classroom observations in Grade 6 brought out the importance
of student engagement. Accordingly, we operationalized student engagement drawing on relevant
studies (Fredricks and McColskey 2012 and Voelkl 2012). Subsequently, we revised and expanded the
student questionnaire to systematically capture students’ emotional and behavioral engagement. We
were able to implement the expanded questionnaire for the 2017 cohort only. For most scales,
response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Some of the responses
were reported on a 10-point scale 1 (the most negative) to 10 (the most positive). Details are pre-
sented in Table 1.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 9

Figure 3. Daily objectives in the classroom in the dual language program.

We conducted in-depth qualitative semi-structured focus group interviews with 39 students who
voluntarily consented to be interviewed in Grade 6 (both 2016 and 2017 cohorts). Interviewing, as
Creswell (2013) notes is ‘embedded within a larger sequence of research’ (163), which in our case
lasted two years of data collection in the school and included multiple sources of data (e.g. classroom
observations, surveys with teachers, administrators and students, learning outcomes on standardized
NYS tests). In planning our interviews with students, we systematically followed the steps suggested
by Creswell (2013) that include identifying and piloting interview questions, selecting interviewees
and deciding on the type of interview, recording procedures, interview protocol and consent
10 J. BRUTT-GRIFFLER AND E. JANG

forms as well as the place and time for interviews (165–166). Our overarching goal was to obtain rich
narratives of students’ shared experiences and perspectives about their learning in a dual language
program (see the interview protocol in the Appendix). It contained questions covering students’
opinions about the school, the dual language program, and bilingual teachers, their use of languages
in school and home, and after school literacy practices. Based on classroom observations, the pilot
interviews and the literature, we selected a focus group interview format with 2 or 3 students;
each interview was conducted by two bilingual interviewers (Spanish/English) who were trained in
conducting qualitative research. Given that only 14% of our sample felt most comfortable with
English and Spanish and we encouraged students to use the language(s) they felt most comfortable
with to express themselves. Furthermore, as Creswell (2013) notes, ‘Focus groups are advantageous
when the interaction among interviewees will yield the best information, when interviewees are
similar and cooperate with each other … and when individuals interviewed one-on-one may be hesi-
tant to provide information’ (Creswell 2013, 164). We took care that each participating student con-
tributed equally and no one dominated the interview.
We collected 23 rounds of student group interviews. The language of interview was English,
Spanish, or both languages together according to the students’ preference – English (N = 15),
Spanish (N = 5), and both languages (N = 3). Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes and
each session was audio recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim by a bilingual speaker
and double checked by a second bilingual researcher for accuracy in transcription and translation.

Analytic approach
For qualitative analysis, transcribed student interview data were analyzed using open, axial, and
selective coding procedures (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Based on the first round of reading of tran-
scribed interview data, we developed a short list of preliminary codes. After revisiting and reviewing
interview data several times, we expanded initial codes and combined them into thematic categories.
Data was then classified and assigned to corresponding categories (Creswell 2013). We finally
selected and analyzed thematic categories that matched with our quantitative data. In each
coding phase, we went through a moderation process to ensure coherent and reliable outcomes.
To analyze data quantitatively, descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and corre-
lation analyses were conducted. We carried out an EFA using principal components analysis to sum-
marize students’ responses and construct two scales measuring bilingual students’ school
identification and language commitment. We used a Direct Oblimin rotation, because dimensions
of student engagement were assumed to be correlated with one another. Factors with eigenvalues
> 1 and factor loadings > 0.4 were retained. These factors accounted for 59% of the total variance.
School identification was measured with six items including two key components – a sense of
school belonging and valuing. Language commitment was derived from three items. The specific
items and Cronbach’s alpha or a measure of internal consistency are detailed in Table 1 in Literature
Review section. In order to answer our three research questions, we performed correlation analyses.
Details of analyses and purposes are described in the Results section, before correlation results are
provided.
After analyzing quantitative and qualitative data sets separately, we subsequently integrated them
into themes to answer our three main research questions. In what follows, we present the quantitat-
ive results first, followed by the corresponding qualitative data.

Results
Language proficiency and Observed language shift
According to students’ self-rated language proficiency in Spanish and English, they were more profi-
cient in Spanish than English (see Figure 4).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 11

Figure 4. Student self-rated language proficiency scores.

The study participants rated their level of Spanish proficiency higher than English proficiency.
They felt most confident in listening, followed by speaking, writing, and reading. This holds true
for both English and Spanish. Details on means and standard deviations are presented in Table 5.
Even though the students rated themselves as more proficient in Spanish than English, they
appeared to experience a gradual language shift from Spanish to English. The following graphs
display the overall association patterns between language proficiency and the length of time stu-
dents attended the current bilingual school. The x-axis is the length of time (month) in bilingual
school, and the y-axis shows the overall language proficiency (based on students’ self-reports).
Each dot on the graph represents individual students. For example, A in the graph below denotes
a student who attended the school for approximately 25 months and had low confidence in
English. B denotes a student who attended the school for approximately 100 months and had
high confidence in English speaking.
All four English skills showed a positive upward tendency, which indicates that students who
attended the current school longer were more likely to feel that they were proficient in English. Stu-
dents’ speaking and reading skills had the strongest positive relationships, as steep slopes on the
graphs in Figure 5 show. Correlational analysis also shows that length of time in school was positively

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement.

2016/2017 cohorts (N = 53)
Mean SD Min Max
English composite score 28.96 8.12 5 40
English listening 7.92 2.54 1 10
English speaking 7.19 2.49 1 10
English writing 7.10 2.89 1 10
English reading 6.85 2.53 1 10
Spanish composite score 34.33 7.48 8 40
Spanish listening 9.26 1.70 2 10
Spanish speaking 8.79 2.27 1 10
Spanish writing 8.74 2.03 1 10
Spanish reading 7.60 3.04 2 10
Standardized test scores
ELA 250.48 25.53 201 322
Math 267.73 26.29 205 333
12 J. BRUTT-GRIFFLER AND E. JANG

Figure 5. Relationships between English proficiency and the length of time in bilingual school.

Figure 6. Relationships between Spanish proficiency and the length of time in bilingual school.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 13

related only with English speaking proficiency (r = 0.58, p < 0.001) and reading proficiency (r = 0.65, p
< 0.001).
By contrast, Spanish proficiency and length of time in school were negatively related to each other
(See Figure 6). Spanish speaking and writing proficiency, in particular, was weakly but negatively cor-
related with students’ length of time in school (rspeaking = −0.33, rwriting = −0.32, p < 0.05). Students
who attended the current bilingual school longer were less likely to perceive that they were proficient
in Spanish speaking and writing. Interestingly, students seemed to perceive that they maintain their
Spanish reading proficiency (see bottom left of Figure 6), even though it was statistically insignificant.
Such contrasting trends of students’ language development and their incipient language shift,
due apparently to the perceived need to learning English over Spanish, were evident in the
student interview data as well. When asked about their preferred language and willingness to main-
tain and develop Spanish language proficiency, the majority of students responded that they gave
more priority to English language learning. Their strong aspirations for English learning seemed to
be driven by not only their own instrumental reasons but also home and school environment
factors. As one student mentioned, ‘I love Spanish, but I also have to learn English … because I
need English. I need it for my life and for my future’ (Student interview, Joshua3, 2016), nearly
one-third of students perceived the practical value of English proficiency (e.g. better jobs, a better
life, or a better future).
Likewise, students’ sense of family obligation was also seen to drive the students to learn and
develop English. Almost half of students reported that they had external pressure to act as language
broker for their family members, and that motivated them to learn English over Spanish.
Excerpt 1:

Victor: Since I already know Spanish, I need to learn a little bit more English. So, I don’t like NLA [Native Language
Arts] that much, and ELA [English Language Arts] is better because it helps me with my English. (…) I don’t [know]
how, translate in English because my mom says, I help my mom speaking it [English], but when someone says
something, I don’t know what to say because I don’t know. I prefer English. (Student interview, Victor, 2017)

As for other important external factors, students’ excerpts underscore the role of the immediate
presence of interlocutors and bilingual teachers in school and the students’ perceived ease of com-
munication in school:
Excerpt 2:

Interviewer: Which language do you prefer to use?

Paola and Luis: English

Interviewer: Okay, go ahead, talk to me, why English?

Paola: Because all of the teachers, almost all of the teachers speak English … than Spanish.

Interviewer: So, you want to be able to connect with your teachers [Paola nods in agreement]. Okay, what do you
think? [referring to Luis]

Luis: English because it’s an easier language for me and since all almost every teacher understands the English. It’s
easier for me to talk with [them].

Interviewer: So, it’s sort of, you’re able to communicate with them better in English unless they’re bilingual?

Both: Yeah. (Student interview, Paola and Luis, 2017)

The above excerpt indicates that a language spoken by authority figures, in this case teachers, in their
school contributes to students’ choices and ultimately development of bilingual competences. It
might call for school-wide efforts to create an ethos and environment that values students’ bilingu-
alism and biculturalism.
14 J. BRUTT-GRIFFLER AND E. JANG

Even though language shift emerged as students put more importance on English language learn-
ing for various reasons, our qualitative data capture how the dual language program aided students’
positive self-image. The following interview illustrates how students positioned themselves as
Spanish-English bilinguals who are proud of their heritage and aspire to learn both languages.
Excerpt 3:

Interviewer: Do you consider yourself a bilingual student?

Mia: Yeah, because I know both languages and I can understand both. I grew up with both languages. Spanish is
like, comes from my heritage and I will always have that. And English is what I learn and what I keep learning. So, I
will always [have] that too. (Student interview, Mia, 2017)

Language proficiency and academic achievement

The students in our sample were well below expected standards for the grade level. They did not
meet the NYS learning standards in either ELA or Math, as indicated by NYS standardized tests.
They scored 250.48 on ELA and 267.73 on Math out of a possible range from 120 to 420 (see
Table 5). Scores in ELA and Math that our study participants attained correspond to the lowest per-
formance level on the state tests.
To examine how students’ self-rated language proficiency is related to their academic achieve-
ment measured by NYS ELA and Math scores, the correlational analysis was conducted (Table 6). Stu-
dents’ self-rated language proficiency in Spanish and English showed different relationships to their
standardized test scores. Proficiency in productive skills in English was found to be positively corre-
lated to standardized test scores. Specifically, students who viewed themselves as proficient in
English writing reported higher scores in the ELA test (r = 0.42, p < 0.01). Those perceived to be profi-
cient in English speaking reported high scores in the math test (r = 0.36, p < 0.05). However, none of
the Spanish proficiency reported was associated with the test scores among these groups of Grade 6
students.
The results are not surprising given that students were tested and instructed in math through the
sole medium of English. Since English was the language of the test or only language to track what
students learn in the school in terms of academic content knowledge on the NYS standardized
tests, the positive relationships might only exist in English proficiency. As Thomas and Collier
(2012) argue, it requires a minimum of six years of bilingual instruction for ELLs to thrive academically
and linguistically. Students in this study, however, attended the dual language program for 3.8 years,
on average. The statistical relationships we found here might be attributed to students’ short periods
of bilingual instruction, so that the results need to be interpreted in light of instructional periods.
Another possible reason might be students’ perception, as reflected in interviews, of English as
the academic and test language (Excerpt 4–5). The Excerpt 5 shows how they purposefully and stra-
tegically selected between the two languages depending on the purpose and context.
Excerpt 4:

Interviewer: In what language do you read at home? Spanish or English?

Kevin: English. I have to understand English for the test, obviously. (Student Interview, Kevin, 2017)

Table 6. Correlations among Language Proficiency (student report) and Standardized Test Scores (N = 53).
English English English English Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish
listening speaking Reading writing Listening speaking reading writing
ELA 0.16 0.28 0.25 0.42** −0.06 −0.09 0.13 −0.28
Math 0.28 0.36* 0.26 0.25 −0.08 −0.13 0.00 −0.20
Note: *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 15

Excerpt 5:

Interviewer: Do you speak Spanish with them [siblings] or English basically?

Mia: Spanish, Spanish and English. It’s kindda leveled out.

Interviewer: When would you typically speak English with them?

Mia: If we are talking like about stuff about school then we’d speak in English, and Spanish for all talk like when
we’re having a serious conversation or something. (Student Interview, Mia, 2017)

Even though our quantitative results did not show how Spanish proficiency was related to stu-
dents’ academic achievement, our qualitative data show how students benefitted from learning
both languages, and how the two languages function in concert to support their learning. In inter-
views, students firmly asserted that they shuttled between two languages ‘to learn more’ and ‘to
understand things better’ (Student Interview, Lucas, 2016).
Excerpt 6:

Interviewer: Does Spanish help you [in the test]?

Mia: Yeah, a lot! Because I can understand because they taught English and then Spanish. We got both. I can
understand Spanish and English a little, and when I read in Spanish, I can see what [they] say in English.
(Student Interview, Mia, 2017)

Excerpt 7:

Interviewer: Do you feel that the way you’re learning Spanish is helping your English as well?

Bianca: Yeah, I think so. So if, in Spanish I don’t know what to do, I can just reread it in English and know it. Or if I
don’t know something in English, I can just reread it but in Spanish. (Student interview, Bianca, 2017)

As such, students clearly viewed Spanish as a legitimate tool of learning and linked it to their aca-
demic work.

Language proficiency, school identification, and language commitment

As part of our data analysis, we examined the relationships between students’ language proficiency,
school identification, and commitment to dual language learning by using correlational analysis
(Table 7). Comprehensive information on student school identification and language commitment
were collected in 2017. The analyses in this section are thus restricted to 2017 cohort only.
Descriptive statistics in Table 1 indicate that students exhibited a high level of school identifi-
cation. Such a positive sense of school identification also showed a positive relationship with
language commitment (r = 0.39, p < 0.05, shown in Table 7). Put differently, students who strongly
identified with school – namely, those who felt a strong sense of belonging to the school and

Table 7. Correlations among School Identification, Language Commitment, and Language Proficiency (N = 30).
School identification Language commitment
Language proficiency English listening proficiency 0.07 0.06
English speaking proficiency 0.04 0.01
English reading proficiency −0.16 −0.16
English writing proficiency 0.13 0.26
Spanish listening proficiency 0.22 0.17
Spanish speaking proficiency 0.18 0.46*
Spanish reading proficiency 0.17 0.42*
Spanish writing proficiency 0.25 0.63**
Engagement School identification -
Language commitment 0.39* -
Note: *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
16 J. BRUTT-GRIFFLER AND E. JANG

valued their bilingual school and school activities – also reported that they put out more effort in
language learning in and outside of school. Our qualitative data also captured this relationship,
showing students’ pride in being part of the bilingual school and their engaged participation in
learning.
Excerpt 8:

Interviewer: Do you remember a moment this year when you did a good job with writing or you wrote something
[well] in English?

Bryan: In Science

Interviewer: In science, and why do you believe it turned out so wonderful?

Bryan: Because I focused, Because I focused well in class. Changing the topic, in [student’s country of birth], I
wasn’t focusing well in my classes. For that reasons, like, I was getting held up … and all that. Because here I
am focusing more and I feel and I feel more energy to take classes.

Interviewer: The topic interested you?

Bryan: Yes, it interests me and all that. In [student’s country of birth] I goofed off … I didn’t care. (Student inter-
view, Brian, 2016)

In addition, our qualitative data uncovered the importance of teacher support, essential components
in our measure of school identification. During interviews with students, it was evident how much
students appreciated bilingual teachers’ emotional support (Excerpt 9), and how students linked tea-
chers’ support to their academic work (Excerpt 10).
Excerpt 9:

Interviewer: If you were to select just two things that you like the most about ELAs, what would that be?

Mia: Almost every class we have ELA, they give us a talk about how much they care and how much we should
really care about our work.

Interviewer: So, you like the fact that teachers appreciate you and tell that and make your work important.

Mia: [nods in agreement]. (Student Interview, Mia, 2017)

Excerpt 10:

Interviewer: What do you like about the bilingual teacher?

Andres: She can help us in anyway.

Interviewer: She helps you to translate from language to another. Yeah? [signaling yes]. I want to ask you a ques-
tion about how you think you’re doing in school. You think you’re doing well in school?

Andres: I’m doing well.

Interviewer: Why do you think that you’re doing well? What makes you think?

Andres: Because the teachers are helping us [with] what we don’t know. (Student Interview, Andres, 2017)

Students evinced strong belief in their teachers, saying that ‘If you don’t know a word, he can help
you, if you don’t know how to solve a problem, he can help you. If you don’t know this, that he can
help you in both languages’ [Student Interview, Kevin, 2017].
Our statistical analysis has shown that language learning commitment was found to have positive
correlations with Spanish speaking, reading, and writing (rspeaking = 0.46, p < 0.05, rreading = 0.42, p <
0.05, rwriting = 0.63, p < 0.01). Students who exerted more effort in language learning in school or
read in English or Spanish at home also perceived that they were more proficient in Spanish speaking,
reading, and writing. Its relationship was strongest in Spanish writing. On the contrary, English
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 17

proficiency was not correlated with language commitment. This may be, in part, due to students’
extra effort to maintain Spanish at the level of home literacy and engagement, which we observe
in student interviews. As one student explained,
Excerpt 11:

Interviewer: Is it important for you to continue with Spanish?

Fernando: Yes, because if you learn English and Spanish, you know you come from your own language and will
never forget, but there are people who forgot. And it is better as my mother says, if you are learning English and
also learn Spanish. If I like a book in English, then the next day I have to read in Spanish, because it might be that
you forget your Spanish. (Student interview, Fernando, 2016)

Even though many students showed strong aspirations to learn both languages, they experienced a
gradual language shift from Spanish to English in school. They seemed to put intentional and extra
efforts in maintaining and developing Spanish proficiency to be Spanish-English bilinguals. For this
reason, their language commitment was positively related only to Spanish proficiency.
As to the relationship between school identification and language proficiency, clear evidence for
such a link was not detected in the current study and needs further investigation. What we found
were positive correlations between school identification and language commitment (per our concep-
tual model, see Figure 2) and between student reported Spanish proficiency and language
commitment.

Discussion
Employing a mixed-methods research design, our study explored how a newly designed dual
language program in an urban school advances language proficiencies among Spanish-English bilin-
gual 6th graders and how their language proficiencies were related to their school identification and
language commitment. To achieve these research aims, we qualitatively analyzed student focus
group interview data and quantitatively analyzed student survey data in conjunction with standar-
dized NYS test scores in English ELA and Math.
Interviews reveal that students come to view English as the language of schooling – as vested with
educational authority – because they can communicate with teachers most easily in it. They display
awareness of the lack of Spanish proficiency of many of their teachers; at the same time, they show
enormous appreciation for fully bilingual teachers who can not only communicate with them in both
languages but ‘help us [with] what we don’t know’ in either language. They value teachers’ profi-
ciency in both languages as much as they do their own ability to continue to progress in Spanish
even as they master English.
The results drawn from quantitative and qualitative data highlight the usefulness of what Brutt-
Griffler (2017) calls the multilingual proficiency perspective theory. Brutt-Griffler argues that conceiv-
ing the entirety of the learner’s linguistic repertoire as a holistic knowledge system better captures
the students’ learning experience. The notion of native speaker tends to cause us to forget that a stu-
dent’s L1, as they enter school, still requires significant development to achieve the competency of an
adult. Interview data from this study reveal that students in the sixth grade already show awareness
not only of language shift in reporting their increasing comfort in English use but a lack of continued
development in Spanish. Fernando, for example, not only worries about forgetting Spanish but rea-
lizes that his Spanish literacy will keep up with English only if he works as much on one as the other.
Fernando is thus concerned not simply about the English proficiency he needs to succeed in school
but his multilingual proficiency as a fully bilingual language user.
Students point to multilingual proficiency in another way as well. They value teachers’ proficiency
in both languages as much as they do their own ability to continue to progress in Spanish even as
they master English. They display awareness of the lack of Spanish proficiency of many of their tea-
chers; at the same time, they show enormous appreciation for fully bilingual teachers who can not
18 J. BRUTT-GRIFFLER AND E. JANG

only communicate with them in both languages but ‘help us [with] what we don’t know’ in either
language. Students come to view English as the language of schooling – as vested with educational
authority – both because it is the language in which they are tested but also because they can com-
municate with teachers most easily.
The notion of multilingual proficiency as a speaker’s linguistic proficiency across two or more
languages conceived as a holistic knowledge system helps us understand bilingual students’ aca-
demic achievement and their engagement in school and learning. While the notion of multilingual
proficiency does not specify that the learner has equal proficiencies in both languages, it affirms a
language as knowledge perspective and emphasizes that the learner draws on it in multiple ways
both in school and non-school contexts, as student narratives illustrate in this study. It also presents
new opportunities for how we prepare teachers to help learners make effective use of both
languages in school learning (see Brutt-Griffler 2017), and thus suggests that multilingual proficiency
is a critical part of a teacher’s knowledge base.
The multilingual proficiency perspective, like the dual language program, emphasizes that stu-
dents should be progressing in both languages so that progress in English does not mean losing
Spanish. In other words, as students progress through school grades and get older, they should
also be getting better in Spanish as well as in English. Our data for Grade 6 show that students
who attended the bilingual school longer were less likely to be proficient in Spanish speaking and
writing. Interviews confirm that they are aware of losing Spanish. Moreover, students’ narratives
show that they notice who is proficient in Spanish. They perceive that every teacher understands
English while many cannot interact fluently in Spanish and, therefore, it is easier for them to talk
with teachers in English. They are also sensitive to authority figures’ language allocations in the
school, which may inadvertently lead some to a conclusion that school is where you use English.
They are profoundly, if subtly, impacted by whether their teachers perform multilingual proficiency.
We find that ‘language shift’ takes place in the bilingual school and in the dual language program
where English dominates as the more frequently used language and tends to take over Spanish. As
previous studies (Lindholm-Leary 2012; Potowski 2007; Wright 2015) note, English is a dominant
societal language in the U.S., it is therefore challenging to maintain balance between the two
languages even within a dual language program and school. Our study shows that students’ own per-
ceived value of English as the academic and test language was not the sole source of their language
preference, which was influenced by the dominant language spoken by the teacher, underscoring
the importance of multilingual proficiency among teachers and presenting us with new opportunities
in terms of how we prepare teachers. At the same time, it also demonstrates that non-ELL teachers
contribute indirectly or implicitly to students’ language choice. It goes without saying that bilingual
teachers are active agents in bilingual students’ language and academic development. Their instruc-
tional practices and language knowledge are particularly important for bilingual students (Brutt-
Griffler 2017). Mainstream teachers can also play substantial roles in sustaining and developing bilin-
gual students’ balanced bilingualism. In that sense, as Carnock (2016, 17) has remarked, ‘all teachers
are teachers of ELLs.’ Our research provides support for the position that collaborative efforts need to
be made between bilingual teachers and mainstream teachers (Wright 2015).
Our findings of the relationship between students’ sense of school identification and their
language commitment also underscore the importance of schoolwide support. As we show in the
study, school identification is positively correlated to students’ commitment to language learning.
In other words, students who felt a strong sense of belonging to the bilingual school and valued
school activities also reported that they exerted more efforts in Spanish and English language learn-
ing. Considering that the two factors – respect shown to students’ cultures by school staff and the
friendliness of the adults in the school – constituted crucial components of our school identification
scale, students’ supportive relationships and positive emotional connection with adults in school
along with bilingual teachers can be important ingredients for students’ intentional efforts in learning
both languages. Our findings accordingly suggest the need for school-level efforts together with
classroom level interventions.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 19

Another significant finding to emerge from this study is that English (not Spanish) was significantly
related to academic outcomes and Spanish (not English) was significantly related to the measure of
engagement. Students in the dual language programs exhibit positive self-image, with students
often positioning themselves as Spanish-English bilinguals who are proud of their heritage and
aspire to learn both languages. Therefore, instruction in both languages needs to be sustained
and to continue to grow for bilingual students. Previous studies put emphasis on a continued devel-
opment of both languages through sustained instruction. For instance, Lindholm-Leary and Borsato
(2006), in their meta-analysis, provided evidence supporting positive effects of students’ L1 in their
successful academic outcomes such as reading or math achievement, GPA, school completion,
college preparation, or attitudes toward school. Jang and Brutt-Griffler (2019) indicate that advanced
proficiency in heritage language, literacy skills in particular, brings academic success not only in sec-
ondary schools but positively correlates with postsecondary educational trajectories and college
choice. It is therefore important to design and implement a curriculum with a focus on maintenance
and development of biliteracy skills, or literacy skills in both English and Spanish. Attention to teacher
professional development and a multilingual proficiency perspective could enhance teacher edu-
cation in order to achieve the goals of a dual language program as explored in this research study.
There are some limitations that need to be addressed. The first is that language proficiencies of
students were rated by the students themselves. There are inherent limitations to self-reported
measures in terms of reliability and validity, although there is evidence of positive associations
with tested linguistic abilities (see Edele et al. 2015; Marian, Blumenfeld, and Kaushanskaya 2007).
Interpretation of our findings should be made in light of inherent limitations of self-reporting. Sec-
ondly, we investigated student engagement only with the 2017 cohort and more research with
larger samples will be informative and more generalizable. Lastly, even though our study hypoth-
esized the indirect role of school identification in bilingual students’ language proficiency through
language commitment, our findings were insufficient to prove the mediational role of school identifi-
cation. What we have shown is the correlations between school identification and language commit-
ment and between student-reported Spanish proficiency and language commitment. Our results,
nevertheless, do not necessarily mean that school identification is not conducive to bilingual stu-
dents’ language development. As discussed, prior empirical studies outside a bilingual education
context indicated that school identification (and emotional engagement) has an indirect relationship
with academic outcomes through students’ behaviors (Finn 1989; Finn and Zimmer 2012; Voelkl
2012). We recommend future research on this topic with large analytic samples and robust statistical
techniques such as structural equation modeling.

Notes
1. Heritage language broadly refers to ‘nonsocietal and nonmajority languages spoken by groups often known as
linguistic minorities’ (Valdes 2005, 411). In the United States, it usually means any language other than English
(Cummins 2005).
2. Academic engagement is viewed by some as the fourth dimension of engagement and by others as not the same
taxonomy (For a review, see Janosz 2012).
3. Pseudonyms are used for all studies reported.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Terra Foundation under Grant #76892.
20 J. BRUTT-GRIFFLER AND E. JANG

Notes on contributors
Professor Brutt-Griffler is the Academic Vice Dean of Education in the Graduate School of Education at the State Univer-
sity of New York, and she has served as the Head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, and Director of
Research Center in Comparative and Global Education. In these roles, she has directed research teams and programs,
developed undergraduate and graduate academic curricula. Brutt-Griffler has published numerous books and peer-refer-
eed articles in the field of education with a special focus on language/multilingual education, literacy development
among young learners, teacher and school leader professional development, and policy development and implemen-
tation to improve educational experiences and college access among all students. Dr. Brutt-Griffler recently organized
two major funded conferences for professional development among teachers and school leaders (https://terraed.org/
past-conferences/). She is the Editor of the International Journal of Applied Linguistics (Wiley-Blackwell).
Eunjee Jang is a PhD candidate at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Her research interests include bilingualism,
biliteracy, and academic and social integration of language-minoritized bilinguals.

ORCID
Eunjee Jang http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5965-5579

References
Baker, Colin. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 5th ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Brutt-Griffler, Janina. 2017. “English in the Multilingual Classroom: Implications for Research, Policy and Practice.” PSU
Research Review 1 (3): 216–228. doi:10.1108/PRR-10-2017-0042.
Carnock, Janie T. 2016. From Blueprint to Building: Lifting the Torch for Multilingual Students in New York State. Washington,
DC: New America.
Chiu, Ming Ming, Suet-ling Pong, Izumi Mori, and Bonnie Wing-Yin Chow. 2012. “Immigrant Students’ Emotional and
Cognitive Engagement at School: A Multilevel Analysis of Students in 41 Countries.” Journal of Youth and
Adolescence 41 (11): 1409–1425.
Cooper, Kristy S. 2014. “Eliciting Engagement in the High School Classroom: A Mixed-Methods Examination of Teaching
Practices.” American Educational Research Journal 51 (2): 363–402.
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L Plano Clark. 2017. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Cummins, Jim. 2005. “A Proposal for Action: Strategies for Recognizing Heritage Language Competence as a Learning
Resource Within the Mainstream Classroom.” Modern Language Journal 89 (4): 585–592.
Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2013. Emotions in Multiple Languages. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methodologies.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Eccles, Jacquelynne S., Wigfield Allan, and Schiefele Ulrich. 1998. “Motivation to Succeed.” In Handbook of Child
Psychology, 5th ed., vol.3, edited by William Damon, and Nancy Eisenberg, 1017–1095. New York: Wiley.
Edele, Aileen, Julian Seuring, Cornelia Kristen, and Petra Stanat. 2015. “Why Bother with Testing? The Validity of
Immigrants’ Self-Assessed Language Proficiency.” Social Science Research 52: 99–123.
Finn, Jeremy D. 1989. “Withdrawing From School.” Review of Educational Research 59 (2): 117–142.
Finn, Jeremy D., and Kayla S. Zimmer. 2012. “Student Engagement: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?” In Handbook of
Research on Student Engagement, edited by Sandra L. Christenson, Amy L. Reschly, and Cathy Wylie, 97–131.
New York: Springer.
Fredricks, Jennifer A., Phyllis C. Blumenfeld, and Alison H. Paris. 2004. “School Engagement: Potential of the Concept,
State of the Evidence.” Review of Educational Research 74 (1): 59–109.
Fredricks, Jennifer A., and Wendy McColskey. 2012. “The Measurement of Student Engagement: A Comparative Analysis
of Various Methods and Student Self-Report Instruments.” In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, edited by
Sandra L. Christenson, Amy L. Reschly, and Cathy Wylie, 763–782. New York: Springer.
Fredricks, Jennifer A., Wendy McColskey, Jane Meli, Joy Mordica, Bianca Montrosse, and Kathleen Mooney. 2011.
Measuring Student Engagement in Upper Elementary Through High School: A Description of 21 Instruments. (Issues &
Answers Report, REL 2011–No. 098). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Southeast. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 21

Gándara, Patricia, and Kathy Escamilla. 2016. “Bilingual Education in the United States.” In Bilingual and Multilingual
Education, 3rd ed., edited by O. García, Angel M.Y. Lin, and Stephen May, 439–452. Cham: Springer.
García, Ofelia, Jo A. Kleifgen, and Lorrain Falchi. 2008. From English Language Learners to Emergent Bilinguals. Equity
Matters. Research Review No. 1. Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Gettinger, Maribeth, and Walter Martha J. 2012. “Classroom Strategies to Enhance Academic Engaged Time.” In Handbook
of Research on Student Engagement, edited by Sandra L. Christenson, Amy L. Reschly, and Cathy Wylie, 653–673.
New York: Springer.
Hospel, Virginie, and Benoît Galand. 2016. “Are Both Classroom Autonomy Support and Structure Equally Important for
Students’ Engagement? A Multilevel Analysis.” Learning and Instruction 41: 1–10.
Howard, Elizabeth R., Kathryn J. Lindholm-Leary, David Rogers, Natalie Olague, José Medina, Barbara Kennedy, Julie
Sugarman, and Donna Christian. 2018. Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education. 3rd ed. Washington, DC:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Hughes, Jan N., MyungHee Im, Oi-Man Kwok, Heining Cham, and Steven G. West. 2015. “Latino Students’ Transition to
Middle School: Role of Bilingual Education and School Ethnic Context.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 25 (3):
443–458.
Jang, Eunjee, and Janina Brutt-Griffler. 2019. “Language as a Bridge to Higher Education: A Large-Scale Empirical Study of
Heritage Language Proficiency on Language Minority Students’ Academic Success.” Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 40 (4): 322–337.
Janosz, Michel. 2012. “Outcomes of Engagement and Engagement as an Outcome: Some Consensus, Divergences, and
Unanswered Questions.” In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, edited by Sandra L. Christenson, Amy L.
Reschly, and Cathy Wylie, 695–703. New York: Springer.
Lawson, Michael A., and Hal A. Lawson. 2013. “New Conceptual Frameworks for Student Engagement Research, Policy,
and Practice.” Review of Educational Research 83 (3): 432–479.
Li, Yibing, and Richard M. Lerner. 2013. “Interrelations of Behavioral, Emotional, and Cognitive School Engagement in
High School Students.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42 (1): 20–32.
Lindholm-Leary, Kathryn. 2012. “Success and Challenges in Dual Language Education.” Theory Into Practice 51 (4): 256–262.
Lindholm-Leary, Kathryn, and Graciela Borsato. 2006. “Academic Achievement.” In Educating English Language Learners,
edited by Fred Genesee, Kathryn Lindholm-Leary, William Saunders, and Donna Christian, 176–222. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Marian, Viorica, Henrike K. Blumenfeld, and Margarita Kaushanskaya. 2007. “The Language Experience and Proficiency
Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing Language Profiles in Bilinguals and Multilinguals.” Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research 50 (4): 940–967.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2016. “Digest of Educational Statistics. Table 204.27. English language learner
(ELL) students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, by grade, home language, and selected
student characteristics: Selected years, 2008-09 through fall 2015.” National Center for Education Statistics.
Accessed 18 December 2018. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_204.27.asp?current=yes.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. 2018. “Profiles of English Learners (ELs).” CELA fast facts.
Accessed 5 September 2018. https://ncela.ed.gov/fast-facts.
New York State Education Department. 2015. “Herman Badillo Bilingual Academy-School report card data [2014–15].”
Accessed 5 September 2018. http://data.nysed.gov/reportcard.php?instid=800000052926&year=2015&createre
port=1&enrollment=1&38ELA=1.
New York State Education Department. 2016. “Ensuring Equal Education Opportunities for English Language Learners/
Multilingual Learners.” In. Washington, DC. https://edstream.ed.gov/webcast/Play/d765d204444d45738054
f55f758ecda61d.
New York State Education Department. 2018a. “New York State Education Department ELL Demographics & Performance
2015-2016.” New York State Education Department. Accessed 5 September 2018. http://www.nysed.gov/common/
nysed/files/ell_demographicperformance_2017-ver-1516.pdf.
New York State Education Department. 2018b. “Program Options for English Language Learners/Multilingual Learners.”
New York State Education Department. Accessed 5 September 2018. http://www.nysed.gov/bilingual-ed/program-
options-english-language-learnersmultilingual-learners.
New York State Education Department. 2018c. “Blueprint for English Language Learner Success.” New York State
Education Department. Accessed 5 September 2018. http://www.nysed.gov/common/nysed/files/nys-blueprint-for-
ell-success.pdf.
Norton, Bonny. 2013. Identity and Language Learning: Extending the Conversation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Osterman, Karen F. 2000. “Students’ Need for Belonging in the School Community.” Review of Educational Research 70 (3).
Sage Publications, Inc.: 323–367. doi:10.2307/1170786?refreqid=search-gateway:af731c21df7b0a6677a4fd48e8
f056e7.
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2012. “Multilingualism and Emotions.” In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism, edited by M.
Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, and A. Creese, 454–469. Abingdon: Routledge.
Philp, Jenefer, and Susan Duchesne. 2016. “Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom.” Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 36 (May): 50–72.
22 J. BRUTT-GRIFFLER AND E. JANG

Potowski, Kim. 2007. Language and Identity in a Dual Immersion School. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sánchez, Bernadette, Yarí Colón, and Patricia Esparza. 2005. “The Role of Sense of School Belonging and Gender in the
Academic Adjustment of Latino Adolescents.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 34 (6): 619–628.
Skinner, Ellen, Carrie Furrer, Gwen Marchand, and Thomas Kindermann. 2008. “Engagement and Disaffection in the
Classroom: Part of a Larger Motivational Dynamic?” Journal of Educational Psychology 100 (4): 765–781.
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swain, Merrill. 2013. “The Inseparability of Cognition and Emotion in Second Language Learning.” Applied
Psycholinguistics 46 (2): 195–207.
Teddlie, Charles, and Abbas Tashakkori. 2009. Foundations of Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, Wayne P., and Virginia P. Collier. 2012. Dual Language Education for a Transformed World. Albuquerque, NM: Dual
Language Education of New Mexico-Fuente Press.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition. 2015. Dual Language Education Programs: Current
State Policies and Practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition.
Accessed 14 May 2019. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Dual-Language-Education-
Programs-Current-State-Policies-Feb-2017-rev.pdf.
Valdés, Guadalupe. 2005. “Bilingualism, Heritage Language Learners, and SLA Research: Opportunities Lost or Seized?”
The Modern Language Journal 89 (3): 410–426.
Voelkl, Kristin E. 2012. “School Identification.” In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, edited by Sandra L.
Christenson, Amy L. Reschly, and Cathy Wylie, 193–218. New York: Springer.
Wang, Ming-Te, and Rebecca Holcombe. 2010. “Adolescents’ Perceptions of School Environment, Engagement, and
Academic Achievement in Middle School.” American Educational Research Journal 47 (3): 633–662.
Wilson, David M. 2011. “Dual Language Programs on the Rise: ‘Enrichment’ Model Puts Content Learning Front and
Center for ELL Students. Harvard Education Letter, 27 (2).” The Harvard Education Letter 27 (2): 4–5.
Wright, Wayne E. 2015. Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice. 2nd ed.
Philadelphia: Caslon.
You, Sukkyung, and Jill Sharkey. 2009. “Testing a Developmental–Ecological Model of Student Engagement: A Multilevel
Latent Growth Curve Analysis.” Educational Psychology 29 (6): 659–684.

Appendix. Interview Protocol Questions for Participating Students

1. Why did you choose [name of school] as your school? How long have you been at this school? How do you like
attending this school now that you are in it?
2. About the dual language program
a. Tell me some of the things that you like about the ELA class:
b. What are 2 things that you like most about ELA classes?
c. Tell me about some of the things you do not like about the ELA class. Why?
d. Tell me some of the things that you like about the NLA class:
e. What are 2 things that you like most about NLA classes?
f. Tell me about some of the things you do not like about the NLA class. Why?
g. Would you like to continue learning Spanish in Grade 7? Why? Explain.
h. If you were able to make one change to NLA, what would it be?
i. If you were able to make one change to ELA, what would it be?
3. What do you like about the bilingual teacher, specifically, X’s group teaching?
4. Do you consider yourself a bilingual/monolingual student? Why or why not?
5. Explain.
6. The students’ academic success
a. Do you believe that you are doing well in school? Why do you think so?
b. How does this program help (or fail) to help you do well in school?
c. What kind of skills or knowledge do you need in order to do well later in life?
d. How does this program help (or fail) to help you be successful later in life?
7. After school literacy practices
a. What language(s) do you read in at home?
b. Where do you use Spanish besides your NLA classroom?
c. When you play with your friends, do you use English or Spanish?

Additional questions about the context of the school:

1. If you could change one thing about the school, what would it be?