One-Way, Two-Way and Indigenous Immersion: A Call for Cross-Fertilization

TARA WILLIAMS FORTUNE and DIANE J. TEDICK

If names are not correct, language will not be in accordance with the truth of things.

Kung Fu-tzu Confucius (551–479 BC), Chinese Ethical Teacher – Founder of Confucianism

Foreign language immersion. Two-way immersion. Indigenous immersion. Early double immersion. Early total immersion. Structured English immersion. One-way partial immersion. Dual language immersion. What do these names actually mean?

Coming to terms with terminology can be difficult. When discussing schooling experiences in language and culture education on a global scale, the naming task becomes even more daunting. Public schools as dynamic social institutions are inherently messy places. They and the language immersion programs that exist within them welcome all students and families and develop in response to local needs and sociocultural contexts. Because of these pre-conditions, educational programs, in particular those that teach two or more languages through content, do not lend themselves well to simple categorization or labeling. However, given researcher interest in disseminating program-specific findings and educator interest in replicating successful models, labeling programs accurately and ensuring that program design and implementation cohere with the elected program's key characteristics become critical.

The challenge of assigning names to program models that exists for many bilingual and immersion educators and researchers is hardly surprising. Consider, for example, the following complexities:

• global exportation and proliferation of the Canadian French immersion program model and other forms of bilingual education, and the need for context-specific adaptation;

• use of public monies for school-based maintenance of minority languages and cultures, and the impact of local and national legislation and political agendas;

• vernacular use of the term 'immersion' to describe a teaching and learning methodology as opposed to an educational program model with distinct characteristics, and the confusion that naturally arises from such doublespeak; and

• negative connotations that evolve over time with labels such as 'bilingual' and 'English immersion' education in the US, and the misinformation that results.

To facilitate a clear use of terminology in this edited volume, we begin this introduction by briefly offering a literature-based, research-friendly description of 'immersion education.' We aim to ground this description in what immersion researchers have reported in earlier investigations and to explicitly identify defining core characteristics as well as acceptable programmatic variations. Such practices support accurate use of program labels and this, in turn, upholds the integrity of research findings published under the name of immersion education or as we suggest, its 'research-friendliness.' Within this section, we also present background information on the three types of immersion programs discussed within this volume: one-way foreign language immersion, two-way immersion and indigenous immersion. As volume editors, our characterization of immersion education delimits use of the term to programs that adhere to specific goals as well as well-defined program design and implementation features, which we identify. We then go on to articulate our rationale for bringing these various strands of immersion education together in one research-focused volume. Finally, we preview the contents and organization of individual chapters by section.

Immersion Education: A Literature-Based, Research-Friendly Description

The programs discussed in this volume were modeled after and inspired by one of two grassroots language education efforts, both of which emerged on North American soil in the 1960s: St-Lambert, Quebec's French immersion program in Canada (Peritz, 2006) and Miami-Dade County, Florida's Spanish/English bilingual program in the US (Ovando, 2003).

Canadian French immersion education

Canada's foreign language immersion program model originated during conversations among a small group of disgruntled English-speaking parents. Concerned about the growing importance of French/ English bilingualism in their community and motivated by a desire to bridge the cultural divide between Canadian Anglophones and Francophones (Lambert, 1995), they determined to create a more effective way to develop their English-speaking children's bilingualism and biliteracy. Engaging the expertise of a few local academics, this visionary parent group designed an elementary 'language bath' program alternative to the traditional 'Core' French program, lobbied hard and after two years launched the French immersion program with 26 English-speaking kindergarteners at Margaret Pendlebury Elementary School. The words 'language immersion' were adopted in October 1963 because the words 'language bath' did not seem sufficiently sophisticated for schooling (Peritz, 2006).

The first French early total immersion classrooms in Canada offered all subject matter instruction in students' second language (L2), French (Lambert & Tucker, 1972). Content instruction in French only continued through grade 3, and French was the language...