Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Examining dual language immersion program instructional practices with regard to cognitive load theory
(USC Thesis Other)
Examining dual language immersion program instructional practices with regard to cognitive load theory
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 1
EXAMINING DUAL LANGUAGE IMMERSION PROGRAM INSTRUCTIONAL
PRACTICES WITH REGARD TO COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY
by
Martin Butterick
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2019
Copyright 2019 Martin Butterick
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 2
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank the members of my committee, especially my
chair Dr. Artineh Samkian. It was through her guidance and my committee’s level of expertise in
their resepective fields that I was able to take this dissertation far beyond what I had ever hoped
to achieve. It has been said that a good dissertation is a done dissertation, but the three of you
helped make this truly good.
For my classmates that I shared this journey with, thank you for all of the wonderful
memories that you have given me. I would like to specifically recognize Dr. Amber Bradley, Dr.
Juliana Calhoun, Dr. Kimberly Klopfer and Dr. Lawton Gray, each of whom provided technical
and moral support consistently throughout the writing process. I would also like to give a
gigantic thanks to Apoorv Gaur and Dan Hubbs, two colleagues without whose support at work I
would never have accomplished this degree. And to Kristian and Shaundell, I’m thankful to have
gotten to see you two every Wednesday night and appreciate your help decompressing from the
stress of the doctoral program (and I know many classmates who feel the same way).
Finally, I would like to thank my boys Corey and Brady and their mom So Young Kim. It
was extremely difficult to be away from my kids so many nights to finish this process, but
knowing that there was another parent there to love them and care for them made the sacrifice
bearable.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 3
Table of Contents
List of Figures 5
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 6
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 13
Significance of the Study 13
Definition of Terms 14
Organization of the Study 15
Chapter Two: Literature Review 16
History of Dual Language Immersion Programs 16
DLIP Structure 19
DLIP Pedagogical Approach 22
Natural Approach v Explicit Instruction 23
Academic Achievement 25
Separation of Languages 27
Influence of EL Instructional Techniques 29
DLIP Challenges and Suggested Solutions 34
Overview of Cognitive Load Theory 37
Miller’s Influence on Cognitive Load Theory 39
Automatic Processing 42
Effects on Extraneous Load 43
Redundancy Effect 43
Split-Attention Effect 44
Expertise Reversal Effect 44
Optimizing Cognitive Load 45
Instructional Techniques Driven by CLT 48
Formulation of Schema 48
Automation of Mental Processes 53
Utilization of Dual Modalities 54
Conceptual Framework 57
Chapter Three: Methods 61
Research Design 61
Sampling and Population 62
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures 64
Data Analysis Procedures 67
Credibility and Trustworthiness 69
Ethics 71
Chapter Four: Findings 73
Case Studies 73
Case Study 1: Ms. Harrison at Buchanan Elementary 74
Case Study 2: Ms. Martell and Ms. Lee at Van Buren Elementary 77
Case Study 3: Ms. Jackson at Fillmore Elementary 81
Observed Teaching Strategies 83
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 4
Schema Development 84
Perspective Taking and Activating Prior Knowledge 85
Partially Completed Problems 88
Previewing Materials 91
Dual Modalities 93
Audio with Images and Realia 94
Audio with Written Text 99
Audio with Physical Movements 103
Automaticity 109
Teacher Perceptions of Observed Techniques 113
Summary 116
Research Question 1 116
Research Question 2 117
Chapter Five: Implications, Limitations and Future Research 119
Summary of Findings 120
Limitations of the Study 125
Suggestions for Future Research 127
References 131
Appendix: Interview Protocol 147
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 5
List of Figures
Figure 1: Example of word wall from Buchanan Elementary 33
Figure 2: Example of process grid from Van Buren Elementary 33
Figure 3: Conceptual framework 59
Figure 4: Daily schedule in Ms. Jackson’s class 95
Figure 5: Manipulatives projected on video screen in Ms. Jackson’s class 97
Figure 6: Listening station in Ms. Harrison’s class 100
Figure 7: Concepts with images on whiteboard in Ms. Jackson’s class 107
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 6
Chapter One
Overview of the Study
As the world has become more of a global community, with increased worldwide trade,
ease of travel over longer distances and instant worldwide dissemination of information thanks to
the internet, the utility of a person being multilingual has grown. Being multilingual is beneficial
for several reasons, ranging from the professional to the interpersonal to the academic.
Multinational companies, for example, have a clear need to do business in multiple languages,
and there are many jobs that will pay a premium for employees who are bilingual (Chau, L.,
2014). Even something as simple as communicating with our neighbors and other members of
our community can be aided by speaking a second language; in the United States alone, there are
at least 350 different languages spoken, with over 20% of the population speaking a language
other than English at home (United States Census Bureau, 2015). And the benefits extend
beyond one’s occupation or neighborhood – studies have shown that students who are bilingual
perform academically just as well as and in some cases better than their classmates who only
speak English (Adesope, Lavin, Thompson, & Ungerleider, 2010).
With bilingualism providing such a wide array of benefits, it is important to consider how
we are fostering acquisition of this skill in our society. Given that education is compulsory in the
United States, it stands to reason that formal education is an appropriate place to teach children
different languages. Even though many states do not have an official foreign language
requirement to graduate from high school (Education Commission of the States, 2007), it is
common for high schools to offer foreign language classes for those students who are applying to
college or who elect to take those classes out of personal interest. Increasingly, though, educators
have advocated for bilingual programs at the middle school and elementary school levels to help
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 7
position students for success in this now globalized world, with the idea being that starting
language instruction early gives students a greater amount of time to learn the language (Curtain
& Dahlberg, 2010). Yet according to language acquisition experts, mastering a second language
at an early age generally occurs in one of two settings: 1) in an informal, natural environment,
i.e. a household and/or community where both languages are used regularly, or 2) in an academic
environment where the second language is the language of instruction (Hamers & Blanc, 2000).
For those students who do not grow up in a bilingual environment, learning a second language in
school may be their next best option, but because most language instruction in the US occurs
during limited segments of the school day, it is unlikely that mastery of the second language will
develop.
Perhaps it is no coincidence then that one of the fastest-growing and most promising
methods for teaching secondary languages to younger students is through dual language
immersion programs (DLIPs) (Gross, 2016). DLIPs mix native English speakers with native
speakers of a second language (referred to in the DLIP vernacular as the “target language”), and
then teach the normal grade-level material, using the target language up to 90% of the time. As
students move up in grade level, the balance between instruction in the target language and
instruction in English moves to a 50/50 balance. DLIPs have been shown to produce higher
levels of target language proficiency than other academic language programs (Curtain &
Dahlberg, 2010; Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008), with results that approach the proficiency of
people who grow up in bilingual households.
What is unique about DLIPs compared to other language programs, though, is the fact
that language learning occurs through the instruction of grade-level material. By maintaining
high academic standards, DLIP students end up achieving target language proficiency while also
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 8
testing at or above grade level academically (Thomas & Collier, 2003). With high-stakes testing
being used to make decisions from discontinuing program funding to raises for teachers to grade
advancement for students (Nichols & Berliner, 2007), the fact that DLIPs can provide the benefit
of bilingualism without any sacrifice to academics makes it the most appealing format for
language instruction. However, while the research on DLIPs has grown, there is a lack of data on
what exactly is happening in the DLIP classrooms that makes them so successful. Understanding
the classroom techniques DLIP instructors are using to achieve those results could provide a
more detailed template for new DLIPs, leading to greater expansion of these types of programs
and in turn opening the door for a greater number of students to reap those benefits. The purpose
of this study is to uncover possible explanations for the language-acquisition and academic
success of dual language immersion programs (DLIPs). The importance of understanding how
DLIPs achieve their success is tied to the rising value of bilingualism in today’s world, as well as
the prevalence of high-stakes academic testing.
Background of the Problem
Dual language immersion began in 1963 at Coral Way Elementary in Miami, aiming to
serve the children of Cuban immigrants. At the time, the goals of the program were simple: make
sure the students learn English while maintaining both their fluency in Spanish and their Cuban
culture (Sanchez, 2011). As the DLIP concept has grown across the United States and various
guiding principles have been established (Howard, Sugarman, Christian, Lindholm-Leary &
Rogers, 2007), the two tenets of biliteracy and biculturalism have remained core goals, with
additional academic goals layered onto these linguistic and cultural objectives.
As DLIPs spread slowly over the next 30 years, they did so within the context of a
growing English Only movement in the United States. Several states passed legislation that made
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 9
English their official language and there was a proposal to make it a constitutional amendment as
well, reflecting a social climate that was growing less supportive of foreign language education.
Proposition 227 in California and Proposition 203 in Arizona, among others, prohibited many of
the accommodations for English language learners, including instruction in the student’s native
language, which is part of the defining structure of DLIPs. Shortly thereafter, the passage of No
Child Left Behind put a greater emphasis on academic achievement, setting ambitious goals for
schools and threatening strict penalties for failure. It is likely more than a coincidence that during
this same time, DLIP research began to emerge drawing a connection between second-language
learning and academic achievement, highlighting the results of native English speakers. A 2002
analysis of DLIPs in four different states demonstrated that students in these programs regularly
outperformed their peers in traditional English classrooms, which was on top of their
development of bilingualism (Thomas & Collier, 2002). Later studies continued to add evidence
that DLIPs produced above average academic outcomes for their students.
Despite a growing body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of DLIPs,
implementing an effective DLIP was still a tremendous challenge. The top requirement
administrators identified for a program to be successful was having a quality staff (Montone &
Loeb, 2000), which can make it difficult to maintain program success should the program
experience staffing turnover. Other administrators expressed frustration at how little DLIP-
specific training their teachers received during certification (Williams, 2015). Even with
thorough DLIP guidelines established by EL experts such as Donna Christian and Kathryn
Lindholm-Leary, there are very few empirical studies on the nature and effectiveness of DLIP
classroom procedures, leaving the choices of how to best achieve the DLIP goals in the hands of
each individual teacher. Confronted with a classroom of students with varying degrees of
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 10
language proficiency as well as varying degrees of academic content knowledge, finding ways to
help every student achieve biliteracy in both languages, while also keeping students on track
with their academic content – all within the limited hours of a standard school day – is a
challenge which requires instruction to be as efficient and as effective as possible.
One educational theory that DLIP instruction could benefit from is cognitive load theory.
Over the past 30 years, as we have come to better understand how the human brain processes and
stores information, instructional designers have used cognitive load theory as a basis for
structuring effective and efficient instructional methods. Cognitive load theory looks at the ways
that a person’s mental resources are used during learning and devises strategies for using those
resources more efficiently. Within the framework of cognitive load theory, one would predict
that DLIPs, with their combination of new vocabulary and language structure learning along with
academic content learning, would be more likely to produce cognitive overload in their students
(and thus reduce learning) than would occur in a single-language classroom. Yet the fact that
average to above average academic learning occurs, in conjunction with second language
acquisition, indicates that cognitive overload appears to be happening less frequently than in a
single-language classroom, and thus there may be instructional techniques being utilized that
serve to manage cognitive load for DLIP students, intentionally or not.
Statement of the Problem
While every topic of instruction can benefit from accounting for demands on a learner’s
working memory and tailoring lessons to optimize a student’s cognitive load, this approach is
essential for topics that have a higher degree of complexity and in which the learners have little
expertise or prior knowledge. Dual language immersion programs are prime examples of this
type of topic, as every student will be new to one of the languages, especially in their first years
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 11
of the program, as well as just beginning to develop their schemas for academic content. In fact,
the combination of learning vocabulary and language structure in a new language while
simultaneously learning new academic facts and concepts would lead cognitive load theorists to
predict that students would be likely to suffer cognitive overload in this environment, and that
learning would be negatively affected. But the opposite is the case: students are learning in this
environment, testing above average on grade-level academic content while developing literacy in
a second language. Yet because the vast majority of DLIP research focuses on measuring
outcomes, there is little explanation regarding what is taking place in the classroom that is
producing these results.
Because studying academic topics in a second language adds a layer of complexity to the
learning environment, proponents of cognitive load theory would look at the successes of DLIPs
along with the challenging environment in which these successes occur and posit that
instructional techniques that either help manage or circumvent cognitive load must be taking
place in DLIP classrooms. In a traditional language learning environment, a student expends all
of their energy and attention to the details of learning the language – vocabulary, verb
conjugation, sentence structure – all towards the end of being able to understand and
communicate in that language. But in a dual language immersion environment, the student is
immediately being taught academic content in a language that they are still learning, with the
expectation being that the language will be partially acquired through the process of learning the
academic content. Within this learning environment, it is likely that DLIP students will split their
attention to some degree between trying to comprehend the language and trying to learn the
content, which can put additional strain on each individual’s cognitive load, unless techniques
that are consistent with CLT methods for managing cognitive load are being utilized.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 12
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was twofold. First, I intended to observe those instructional
practices that exist within various dual language immersion programs which make use of dual
modalities, develop automaticity and build schema, either intentionally or unintentionally. By
cataloging the practices that are already in use, I hope this exploratory, descriptive study can
serve as a foundation for building a more robust set of DLIP instructional principles that is
grounded in cognitive load theory.
Second, I intended to assess the instructors’ perceptions of some of the observed
instructional techniques that were consistent with cognitive load theory. Understanding the
perceived effectiveness of those techniques can serve as the first step in determining if CLT
might explain some of the success of DLIPs. Also, exploring whether teachers are intentionally
implementing instructional practices guided by CLT can help shed light on the degree to which
CLT influences DLIP instructional design. It seems possible that some instructors may utilize
effective classroom practices without understanding the theory behind why they work: practices
may be mandated from a curriculum coordinator or district administrator, they may have been
observed in use and then adopted, or even discovered through trial and error. Knowing the
instructors’ levels of intentionality could inform recommendations for professional development
courses for DLIP instructors. If most instructors are unaware of the principles of cognitive load
theory, educating them on this topic could help them understand why particular classroom
techniques are effective, as well as supply them with the knowledge to develop new techniques
that make optimal use of students’ working memory, which in turn could further benefit DLIP
student language and academic learning.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 13
In order to fulfill this twofold purpose, this study examined three classrooms in three
different grade levels, each from a different school district, in an effort to capture as much
variety in instruction as possible. One week was spent in each classroom cataloging incidents of
instructional practices that make use of dual modalities, which build and expand students’
schema and develop automaticity. After the observations were completed in each classroom,
there was an interview with each instructor to discuss their teaching background, some of the
instructional techniques that were observed, as well as the thought process behind the
instructional choices that were made, in an effort to determine if the use of dual modalities,
training for automaticity and the building of schema were done explicitly and intentionally or if
they were just a coincidental by-product of the instructor’s preferred techniques. The results from
the observations and interviews were then coded and analyzed, with each classroom presented as
an individual mini-case study, and the various instructional practices that were observed
presented in three different sections, with each section focusing on one of the three CLT
principles.
Research Questions
This study had two research questions:
1. What instructional methods are observed in the DLIP classrooms that employ the
cognitive load theory methods of schema building, training for automaticity and/or use of
dual modalities?
2. What are the teachers’ perceptions of the observed instructional methods?
Significance of the Study
Because there is very little research into how cognitive load theory may be effectively
utilized in the DLIP environment, this study served to first consolidate in one place a sampling of
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 14
instructional techniques that are already being used which adhere to the tenets of CLT. As stated
above, this list could then serve as a jumping-off point for those interested in building a set of
DLIP instructional principles that attempts to optimize use of a learner’s cognitive load.
This study also aimed to identify the ways in which the current DLIP pedagogy creates
an effective learning environment for DLIP students despite the inherent challenges of the
format. There are studies that show that DLIP students at times outperform English-only students
(Collier & Thomas, 2005; Lindholm-Leary, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 2002), and there is
literature that details what principles a successful DLIP program should follow (Calderon &
Minaya-Rowe, 2003; Carrera-Carrillo & Smith, 2006; Howard et al., 2007; Lindholm-Leary,
2001), but there is a dearth of information about why seemingly effective DLIP practices work.
By theorizing that optimal management of cognitive load might be one reason such practices are
providing positive results could hopefully lead to further research investigating the topic.
Definition of Terms
Dual language immersion programs (DLIPs) are those programs where at least 50% and
up to 90% of instruction takes place in a language other than English. Typically around half of
the class will be comprised of native English speakers, with the other half consisting of native
speakers of the target language.
Modality refers to the different channels through which a person’s brain can process
incoming information. As studied through cognitive load theory, it is believed that there are two
such modalities: audio and visual.
Schema refers to a framework of interrelated information that can be treated by working
memory as a single piece of information from a cognitive load standpoint.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 15
Target language refers to the primary language of instruction within the DLIP
environment, which in the United States can be any language other than English.
Organization of the Study
This study is broken down into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the issue
I examined, providing a general background of the problem, along with explaining the problem I
looked at, the research questions that drove the study, how the findings are presented, my
purpose for conducting this study and the potential significance of the findings.
Chapter 2 provides a more in-depth look at what literature exists regarding dual language
immersion programs and cognitive load theory, focusing on pedagogical principles and practices.
As both DLIPs and cognitive load theory have seen increases in popularity in recent years, the
empirical research included will be limited to the last 30 years.
Chapter 3 details the research methods I used in this study, including a detailed research
design, the protocols that were used during data collection, a justification for the choices made, a
summary of potential assumptions and limitations that could have impacted the study, and a
review of the code of ethics that governed the collection of data and the analysis that followed.
Chapter 4 summarizes the research findings, providing mini case studies of each school
site that was observed as well as organizing observed instructional practices into the cognitive
load theory categories of building schema, utilizing dual modalities and developing automated
processing of information (automaticity), as well as providing an overview of the teachers’
perceptions of some of the observed instructional strategies.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the conclusions that can be drawn from the research,
noting the limitations of the study and providing recommendations for future research.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 16
Chapter Two
Literature Review
The purpose of this study was to uncover what drives the effectiveness of the
instructional practices of dual language immersion programs. With the difficulty inherent in
learning language and content concurrently, I began with the theory that DLIP instructors must
be utilizing teaching strategies that help manage the cognitive load of their students, given the
research that shows higher outcomes for DLIP students compared to peers. The intent of the
study was to observe different DLIP classrooms, tracking those instructional methods that are
consistent with the recommendations of cognitive load theory, and then to interview those DLIP
instructors regarding those practices. To inform this research, this chapter includes a background
on the history, program structure and pedagogical approach of dual language immersion
programs, as well as an explanation of cognitive load theory and suggested pedagogical practices
based on CLT research. While there are no specific pedagogical practices outlined in the DLIP
literature, I drew more generally on the overarching principles that guide DLIP instruction, as
well as the principles from various established protocols from the field of teaching English
learners.
History of Dual Language Immersion Programs
Dual language immersion programs (DLIPs) are foreign language programs where
English language learners who share a common primary language are combined with English-
speaking students, with academic instruction taking place in both languages (Lindholm-Leary,
2001). Since their inception, dual language programs have gone by a variety of names: Two-Way
Immersion, Two-Way Bilingual Education, Dual Immersion and Dual Language Immersion, to
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 17
name a few. All of these programs are similar in structure and as a result lend themselves to this
study, but for the purposes of this research we will refer to them all as DLIPs.
The first DLIP began in 1963 at Coral Way Elementary School in Miami under the
leadership of Principal J.L. Logan. The program began as an experiment, one designed to
accommodate the influx of Cuban immigrants to the area while providing Spanish language
instruction to the English-speaking community as well. The stated goals of the program were to
help all students achieve biliteracy in English and Spanish and to promote biculturalism between
the two groups (Sanchez, 2011). Overall the program was extremely popular and quickly grew to
the point where the entire school was comprised of dual language immersion classrooms (letter
from J.L. Logan, 1967).
Despite the success of the Coral Way program, dual language programs were slow to
catch on nationally. One likely reason for this was the “official English” movement in the 1980s.
Initiated by Senator S.I. Hayakawa, who first proposed a Constitutional amendment to make
English the official language of the United States and who founded U.S. English, a leading
“official English” advocacy group, the movement eventually led to English language ballot
measures in 44 states, with 16 states adopting English as their official language (Citrin,
Reingold, Walters & Green, 1990). There were still only around 50 dual language programs in
existence in the early 90’s, but growth has since accelerated, with estimates of over 1400
programs in the United States today (Dual Language Schools.org, 2017). This represents an
average growth rate of 13% per year, with California and Texas leading the way (American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2016).
One factor that inspired the growth was the addition of federal funding for dual language
programs (Christian, 1996). Beginning in 1994, DLIPs were eligible to apply for grants under
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 18
Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). With the passage of No Child
Left Behind in 2002, funding moved from Title VII to Title III of ESEA, which made schools
and districts automatically eligible for funds based on a prescribed formula. Because of this
change, the federal government was able to distribute funds to more school districts, providing
broader support for these programs, and schools no longer had to worry about a denial of a grant
stripping their DLIP of funding (McCann & Bowen, 2014).
Another important factor that has led to the rise in DLIPs involves a shift in perception
regarding second languages. One of the tenets of the English-only movement was the belief that
assimilation into American culture was essential for immigrants to achieve social integration and
economic independence (Citrin et al., 1990), which would benefit the overall social, economic
and political atmosphere of the country (Chavez, 1995). The consequential withdrawal of native
language academic support, though, made it even harder for ELs to succeed in mainstream
classrooms, and the result was the development of a more remedial curriculum tailored to their
perceived needs. While well-intentioned, this point of view inherently frames the native language
of non-English speakers as a deficit to be overcome (Scanlan, 2007), and research has since
indicated that language-minority students who are placed in remedial courses not only fail to
close the achievement gap, but often fall further behind their English-speaking counterparts
(Garcia & Gopal, 2003). Valencia (1997) describes the deficit model as a manner of blaming the
academic failures of minority group students on deficiencies inherent to that group while
ignoring the impact of systemic inequalities on student outcomes. He notes that this view leads to
the defining of these groups as being “at risk,” which in turn drives the way educational policy
for these groups is developed (Valencia, 1997). It follows that, when one assumes that minority
groups do not have the ability to learn academically-challenging material, they must be provided
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 19
a more watered-down, remedial curriculum, something that is more in line with their capabilities.
The obvious result, though, is a vicious cycle of a) minority students being placed in remedial
courses due to their perceived lower ability, b) minority students being exposed to less
academically rigorous material than the mainstream curriculum, c) minority students learning
less than their mainstream counterparts, d) minority students appearing to be less capable than
their mainstream counterparts due to their remedial education, and then back to the beginning, e)
minority students being placed in remedial courses due to their perceived lower capability.
As the problems with the deficit model of thinking have become apparent, perceptions
have shifted toward a perspective that views the minority language as a resource, a bank of
knowledge which could be added to rather than replaced, and which can add value to a
classroom community (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Ruiz, 1984). Referred to as an additive
bilingual environment (Lindholm, 1990), this change in perception has not only resulted in many
to view non-English speakers as having assets in their native language, but many parents of
English-speaking children also seeking out DLIPs, as they consider achieving bilingualism to be
a desirable outcome for their children (Fortune, 2012; Gomez, Freeman & Freeman, 2005).
DLIP Structure
As mentioned above, dual language immersion program classes are comprised of native
English speakers along with native speakers of the target language. Ideally, DLIPs will have a
class composition of 50% English speakers and 50% target language speakers, though a 2:1 ratio
in either direction can still be effective (Lindholm-Leary, 2010; Rosado, 2005). The idea behind
having an equal number of native speakers in each language is to provide ample opportunities for
students to practice the language they are learning with a native speaker, which has been shown
to boost the language acquiring process (Ballinger & Lyster, 2011; Howard et al., 2007). Many
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 20
of these interactions occur in pairs or small groups, where native speakers serve as individual
models for proper language usage and may provide other one-on-one assistance to their
classmates (Angelova, Gunawardena & Volk, 2006; De Jong & Howard, 2009). For students to
work in groups of two or three with native speakers of both languages represented, then, there
must be a relatively equal number of speakers of each language in the class.
The majority of DLIP programs in the United States begin in kindergarten and end during
the elementary school years (Dual Language Schools.org, 2017). This duration is consistent with
research that shows that, for a student to achieve academically at grade-level in their second
language, they need a minimum of six years of content-based instruction in the target language
(Pufahl & Rhodes, 2011; Saunders & O’Brien, 2006). For those students that are unable to begin
the program in kindergarten, they are generally not allowed to join any later than first grade,
unless they are able to demonstrate exceptional literacy skills in the target language. Otherwise
students entering after that point would be too far behind and would be expected to struggle to
keep up with the coursework (Boyle, August, Tabaku, Cole & Simpson-Baird, 2015). Recent
years have seen some growth in the number of high school DLIPs (Gross, 2016), but with the
restriction on joining the program beyond first grade, natural attrition only reduces the number of
people in the program from one year to the next. As a result, most school districts do not find it
feasible to continue their DLIPs beyond the elementary grades (Christian, 1996).
There are two main models for DLIP, which are known as the “90/10” and “50/50”
models. In each, the numbers refer to the amount of instructional time that occurs in each
language. Approximately 75 percent of all programs fall under one of these two categories, with
more 90/10 programs in the western U.S. and more of the 50/50 model throughout the rest of the
country (Christian, 1996). In the 50/50 model, instruction is provided in English half of the time
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 21
and in the target language the other half of the time, beginning in kindergarten and continuing
throughout the entire program. In the 90/10 model, 90 percent of the instruction is provided in
the target language starting in kindergarten, with each year layering in additional English
instruction until eventually instruction is 50 percent in each language, which is usually by 4th
grade (Lindholm-Leary, 2012).
Theoretically in the 90/10 model, either English or the target language could be used the
majority of the time, as DLIP classes are comprised of equal amounts of learners of each
language. The reason the target language is used 90% of the time is because it is the non-
dominant language in American society and, as a result, there is less chance of receiving support
in the target language outside of school (Howard et al., 2007). Students in the United States have
regular opportunities to use English in their daily life, even if it’s not the language they speak at
home, and students are much more likely to come across academic uses of English outside of
school than they are in the target language (Thomas & Collier, 1997). Also, because the 90/10
split occurs during the earliest years of schooling, classwork tends to be more hands-on and less
academically challenging, which can make the language learning process a little bit easier
(Calderon & Minaya-Rowe, 2003).
Finally, there are a variety of methods for allocating instruction between the two different
languages. Some programs divide it by time, teaching in one language in the morning and the
other in the afternoon, or changing languages on a day-by-day or week-by-week basis (Christian,
1996). Some of these programs also use two teachers, having each teach in one of the languages
(Gomez, Freeman & Freeman, 2005). Others determine the language of instruction by the topic
being taught, in order to ease the necessity to learn technical terms in multiple languages and to
reduce the amount of redundancy in instructional content (Howard et al., 2007; Torres-Guzman,
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 22
Kleyn, Morales-Rodriguez & Han, 2005). There has not been research that compares the
effectiveness of one particular manner of allocating instruction to another; rather, schools
frequently choose a structure due to budgetary or other operational limitations (for instance, if
they are unable to find enough bilingual teachers to support their program, they may be forced to
use two monolingual teachers). Whichever method a school uses to distribute instruction within
the two languages, the percentage of content taught in each language is still determined by the
model they employ, either 90/10 or 50/50.
DLIP Pedagogical Approach
There are three pedagogical objectives of dual language immersion: along with achieving
biliteracy and bilingualism for all students and fostering biculturalism among students – the two
original objectives of the Coral Way program – DLIPs also aim to have students achieve
academically at grade level or higher (Boyle et al., 2015; Howard et al., 2007). With the 1994
adjustments to ESEA, which revised and expanded the Bilingual Education Act and expanded
the focus of Title VII, all students were now expected to be held to higher academic standards.
This change was further reinforced by the passage of No Child Left Behind in 2001, which
mandated that all children, including those with limited English proficiency, must meet the
school’s Adequate Yearly Progress goals and achieve at grade level or higher. Yet these three
objectives are not purely due to legislative changes; they are also founded on research that ties
language to cognition. Specifically, the linguistic and academic goals stem from research that has
shown evidence of the following:
1. It takes approximately six years to acquire a second language well enough to comprehend
academic content.
2. Academic learning in one language transfers to another language.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 23
3. Second language development has a positive effect on brain development. (Cummins,
1992; Torres-Guzman, 2002).
Perhaps because of the presence of three different instructional goals – biliteracy/bilingualism,
academic achievement and biculturalism – the fundamental principles of DLIP that guide how
these goals are achieved are not derived from one particular theory of language acquisition.
Rather, those principles draw largely on two conflicting theories by Stephen Krashen and Jim
Cummins. The ways in which each theory informs DLIP principles will be explored below.
Natural Approach vs Explicit Instruction
One fundamental principle of the DLIP model of instruction is that language should be
learned through the teaching of content, rather than through the teaching of grammar and
translation, as is done in a traditional foreign language class (Boyle et al., 2015). This approach
is consistent with the “natural approach” to language learning, which emphasizes language
learning through communication rather than through explicit grammar instruction (Krashen &
Terrell, 1983). The natural approach is founded on Krashen’s acquisiton-learning hypothesis
(1982), which distinguishes between language that is explicitly learned and language that is
naturally acquired. Through the language-acquisition process, students subconsciously gain a
deeper understanding of the language being learned and in turn are able to more closely mirror
the conversational fluency of native speakers (Krashen, 1982). Analysis of DLIP outcomes has
shown this model to be more effective than either the grammar and translation approach or
traditional English language learner programs in producing biliteracy (Collier & Thomas, 2004;
Lindholm-Leary, 2011; Short, 1993).
This is not to say that DLIP models never include deliberate language instruction. Rather,
DLIP recommended practices occasionally bridge Krashen’s theory and the theories of Jim
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 24
Cummins. In Cummins’ theory of language acquisition (1979), he draws a distinction between
basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency
(CALP). In some ways Cummins’ theory is similar to Krashen’s theory, in that it recognizes that
one type of communication (BICS) is learned more naturally, while the other (CALP) requires
more deliberate language instruction. Cummins contends, though, that due to its higher degree of
difficulty along with its importance in the academic environment, CALP is actually the critical
factor in a student achieving true fluency, and thus deliberate instruction is an essential part of
language learning (Cummins, 1979).
Howard et al. (2007) incorporate aspects of Cummins’ theory into their guiding
principles of DLIP. While still emphasizing the importance of instruction taking place in the
target language, they offer suggestions for when and how explicit language instruction should be
used. Specifically, they suggest strategically integrating grammar and verb conjugation into
content instruction so that it can be learned in a meaningful context. An example given of this
would be using a history text to teach the appropriate past-tense conjugations of verbs (Howard
et al., 2007). In this way, classroom instruction can provide direct assistance to students in the
language learning process while maintaining academic content as the primary vehicle for
language learning. Lyster and Tedick (2014) echo this sentiment, noting that current researchers
favor a more intentional focus on directed language instruction in immersion pedagogy. In
reviewing studies from the past 10 years (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Fortune, Tedick &
Walker, 2008; Lightbown, 2014), they found that almost all suggested changes to dual
immersion instructional practices involve an integration of language and content (Lyster &
Tedick, 2014).
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 25
Academic Achievement
In addition to the biliteracy benefits, teaching content in the target language also has
academic benefits. Cummins’ theory of a common underlying proficiency (CUP) to all language
learning (2000) states that when knowledge is learned in one language, the skills that went into
that knowledge acquisition become part of a general bank of skills that can be applied to learning
in other languages as well. Furthermore, once students learn both the academic content and
vocabulary in their primary language, they will more easily understand those words in their
secondary language and transfer will occur naturally (Hayes, Rueda & Chilton, 2009). For
English language learners, there is evidence that content learned in one’s native language
transfers to English, as the academic knowledge in the native language provides a context for
learning new vocabulary (Torres-Guzman, 2002). In one study on this topic, Cunningham and
Graham (2000) investigated how Spanish immersion instruction affected native English
vocabulary. They compared 30 fifth and sixth-grade immersion students with 30 students in
traditional English-only classes on their performance on a picture-based vocabulary test and a
Spanish-English cognate test. On both tests, the immersion students showed superior English
language skills compared the students in traditional classes, despite spending the majority of
their instruction time in Spanish, supporting the idea that knowledge in one language can transfer
to another (Cunningham & Graham, 2000).
A landmark study by Thomas and Collier in 2002 provides further support for this,
finding that all students in DLIPs – both the native English speakers and the English language
learners – are more likely to achieve academically at or above grade level in their second
language than students in other formats, and that DLIPs were the only instructional program
where English learners closed more than half the achievement gap with English speakers.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 26
Thomas and Collier selected five school districts in four regions of the U.S. and tracked the
progress of every language minority student for five years, evaluating the students’ performance
on standardized tests, such as the ITBS, CTBS and the Stanford 9, along with other district
measures of academic success. With each year of testing counting as a single academic record,
they analyzed over 200,000 records, spanning eight different types of programs for language
minority students. They performed a quantitative analysis on each district individually as well as
a general analysis of all districts as a whole, measuring each group of students’ normal curve
equivalent (NCE) scores, which is similar to reporting the percentile in which each student
placed overall among all students. Their findings show DLIP students consistently outperforming
English learners in all other programs for language minority students on both math and English
assessments, achieving at over the 50
th
NCE in each, which is the average result for all students
(Thomas & Collier, 2002).
Other studies have since produced similar results, reinforcing the value of DLIP
instruction (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Genesee, 2008; Howard, Sugarman & Christian, 2003;
Lindholm-Leary, 2011, RAND Corporation, 2015), though some research has found that English
language learners, during their early years in DLIPs, may lag behind their peers who are in
English-only classes. In those cases, though, English learners in DLIPs typically catch up to and
pass their peers academically by the end of elementary school (Fortune, 2012; Turnbull, Hart &
Lapkin, 2003; Valentino & Reardon, 2015).
Finally, some research asserts that DLIP students achieve at higher rates because content
instruction in DLIPs needs to not only be academically challenging for students, but that it needs
to integrate higher order thinking (Howard et al., 2007). Examples of higher order thinking
would be the top sections of Bloom’s Taxonomy, which include categories of analysis,
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 27
evaluation and creation (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). For instance, for a DLIP to be
successful, it is not enough to produce students who simply understand what is being said and
remember some of the key points from a lesson, they need to reach a level of language
comprehension where they can analyze ideas and create in the target language (Howard et al.,
2007).
Separation of Languages
Another defining principle of DLIP linguistic pedagogy is that the two languages of
instruction are kept completely separate from one another (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Lindholm-
Leary, 2001). One benefit of this practice is that, by requiring one language or the other to be
exclusively used, every student is given the opportunity to use his or her second language in a
meaningful academic setting, which has been shown to create a positive environment for both
language and content learning (Goldenberg, 2008; Kong, 2009). Kong’s (2009) study of more
than 20 middle-school immersion schools in Hong Kong and Xi’an, China looked at techniques
for achieving language and content learning simultaneously. One of her findings was that, when
students were given greater opportunity to use the target language, the quality of content-based
responses improved. In these schools, increased opportunities to use the target language emerged
when the lesson structure shifted from a teacher-centric model to one with more student-student
interactions (Kong, 2009).
Emphasizing student-to-student exchanges is consistent with the DLIP strategy of
utilizing a reciprocal interaction model of teaching with students, rather than a traditional
teacher-centered model (Howard et al., 2007), a dynamic that gives students greater opportunity
to serve as language models for their peers when their primary language is being featured
(Swain, 2005). Panfil (1995) performed a qualitative study of an elementary school DLIP
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 28
program, specifically looking at the significance of peer interactions with regard to linguistic
development and academic achievement. She found that when students are working in small
groups, those members whose primary language is the current language of instruction act as
models for the language learners, helping the language learners to learn new words,
demonstrating proper verb usage and sentence structure, and assisting with the proper
pronunciation of words. She also found that peer modeling was important to academic
achievement, especially in the younger grades, where teachers used native speakers to model
what academic work was to be done because they were able to better understand the teacher’s
directions (Panfil, 1995). Kong (2009) observed students benefiting from peer interactions by
using those moments to prepare verbal responses that were later to be presented to the teacher,
checking on pronunciation and word choice and rehearsing the correct phrasing with one
another. These studies provide further support for the conclusion that students that have regular
sustained interactions with native speakers of another language see greater language
development (Poupore, 2016).
Not everyone agrees that the separation of languages is the ideal instructional model for
DLIPs, though. Because of the way Cummins’ CUP theory postulates that knowledge transfers
from one language to another, he advocates for a more flexible use of both languages, allowing
students to use their native language when it will aid with comprehension. Furthermore, he
suggests that a student’s prior knowledge, skills and experiences gained in their primary
language should be intentionally leveraged to help provide background information and context
for new learning (Cummins, 2007). Among language theorists, the concept of translanguaging
(Baker, 2001) has gained traction during the past decade as well, the idea being that the entire
language repertoire that an individual has access to informs the way in which they communicate.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 29
As a result, being bilingual becomes less about being fluent in two separate languages and more
about the way that an individual integrates all of their language knowledge, utilizing different
parts of each language based on social situations and other context-specific information.
In practice, it has been seen that instructors often break from the DLIP norm and mix
languages. Takahashi-Breines (2002) observed a 3
rd
-grade DLIP classroom in New Mexico
where a frequent mixing of languages occurred. This class was led by a highly experienced
teacher (6 years of DLIP instruction and 17 years teaching overall) who was also educated in the
theories of second language learning, obtaining a master’s degree in the subject. Based on her
expertise, she would make an exception to the separation of languages policy and allow a mixing
of languages whenever she felt non-native speakers were having comprehension issues. It should
be noted that she did not allow these exceptions purely in an effort to improve learning in the
moment, but more often as an attempt to avoid student frustration and a subsequent loss of
motivation, which could affect learning in the long run (Takahashi-Breines, 2002). In Ballinger
and Lyster’s 2011 study of a K-8 DLIP school, they also found instances where the separation of
languages was relaxed. They noted that it was generally done in the earlier grades, at times when
the teachers determined that the use of English was necessary for classroom management
(Ballinger & Lyster, 2011). Despite this evidence that actual DLIP practices do not always
conform to a complete separation of languages, the DLIP instructional model still maintains that
language separation provides the best environment for achieving biliteracy and bilingualism.
Influence of EL Instructional Techniques
Though the foundation of DLIP instruction rests firmly on the language-learning research
that supports the principles listed above, instructional techniques designed specifically for the
DLIP environment are still in the early stages of development. With that being the case, it is not
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 30
surprising that DLIP instructors rely on a variety of the more developed EL programs and
certification processes to guide what takes place in the classroom, especially considering that the
general principles for DLIPs sprung from that same research base. Therefore, to understand what
DLIP instructors are likely to do in the classroom, it is worthwhile to have a general
understanding of some of the more prominent EL teaching protocols.
Perhaps the most long-standing methodology is the set of practices known as TESOL,
which stands for Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. TESOL originally began as
a professional organization in 1966, but over time developed into an educational program that
provided certification of training in TESOL best practices. Early TESOL protocols focused on
preparing EL instructors in language learning theory and practice, teaching second language
skills, program design and materials, and research and technology (Grosse, 1991). Currently,
TESOL teachers may learn a variety of approaches to language instruction and incorporate
multiple models into their classroom. Those approaches may include:
1) The Rassais method, which views language and culture as one inseperable entity.
2) Total Physical Response, which looks to integrate speech with actions.
3) The lexical method, which focuses on teaching common word combinations and
phrases rather than providing direct grammar instruction.
4) The communicative approach, which emphasizes the use of language in a variety of
situations and contexts.
5) Content-centered language learning, which states that the target language should be
used for academic subjects such as mathematics, science and social studies.
6) Whole language approach, which focuses on making meaning from the language and
deemphasizes things like grammar, spelling and punctuation.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 31
7) Audiolingual method, which works on the development of listening and speaking
skills (American TESOL Institute, n.d.).
Another common approach to instruct ELs is Specially Designed Academic Instruction in
English, or SDAIE. Beginning in California, SDAIE was initially intended as a bridge for those
students who had gained some proficiency in English but were not yet ready for full-time
instruction in English. Over time, though, as a decrease in bilingual education was met with a
growing influx of immigrants to the United States, SDAIE became a set of tools that
monolingual instructors could use to help teach ELs that were placed in English-only classrooms
(Cline & Necochea, 2003). The original SDAIE model is based on eight principles:
1) Connect to Previous Learning
2) Visuals, Manipulatives, Realia and Technology
3) Low Risk and Safe Environment
4) Multiple Access Points
5) Cooperative and Interactive
6) Chunking and Webbing
7) Respectful of Learner
8) Primary Language Support
While this model has evolved a bit over time, the basic principles continue to provide a
foundation for EL instructors. Looking at the principles in more detail, some of the specific
teaching guidelines that SDAIE supports include the importance of building schema and
activating prior knowledge, emphasizing the value of cultural knowledge and experience, using a
variety of visuals and realia, such as graphic organizers and word walls, to make unknown
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 32
concepts more comprehensible, as well as incorporating demonstrations and modeling of the
behaviors to be learned in any lesson (Sadek, n.d.),
Figure 1. Example of word wall from Buchanan Elementary
Another prevalent EL instructional model is called Guided Language Acquizition and
Design (GLAD). GLAD began in Southern California in the mid-1980’s as a method for a group
of teachers to provide support for a classroom of refugees who were non-English speakers. Over
the course of the next 10 years, with the help of educational researchers, instructional protocols
were developed, federal and state funding was secured and the program was taken to the Orange
County Department of Education before being distributed nationally (Hanigan, 2018). Much like
SDAIE, GLAD is founded on the principles of emphasizing the importance of teaching academic
language, providing cultural responsiveness, tapping prior knowledge and building new schema,
and utilizing a variety of visuals and demonstrations to aid with student comprehension. In
practice, certified GLAD instructors use classroom tools and tactics such as:
1) Graphic organizers
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 33
2) Word walls
3) Process grids
4) Pictorial input charts
5) Peer modeling
Figure 2. Example of process grid from Van Buren Elementary
The GLAD methodology has shown a positive impact on vocabulary development and literacy
(Project Glad Study, 2015), and in recent years there have been DLIP programs which have
adopted the GLAD model as their primary set of teaching protocols (Dual Language Education
of New Mexico, 2017; Mozingo, 2018). These three EL instructional models, along with others,
can help provide DLIP instructors with guidance on successful teaching techniques they can use
in an academic environment with language learners. While many of the techniques used in the
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 34
EL models may prove to be the most effective protocols available for DLIPs as well, it is
important to recognize that there is an added dimension to the DLIP environment that
differentiates it from the traditional EL environment for which those protocols were developed,
and there is still further research and development of DLIP-specific instructional materials to be
done before that can be determined.
DLIP Challenges and Suggested Solutions
Even though DLIPs are generally successful at producing biliteracy and academic
achievement, these goals are not accomplished without overcoming some difficult instructional
challenges. As mentioned in Chapter 1, DLIP instructors face an environment with students that
have varying degrees of content knowledge and wide ranges of proficiency in two different
languages.
One fundamental challenge that all DLIP instructors face involves tailoring content to the
appropriate level for an academically and linguistically diverse class (Howard & Loeb, 1998).
Students in any classroom setting will not share the exact same prior knowledge and
understanding of a topic, but the multilingual nature of a DLIP class adds varying levels of
language comprehension to the equation, which makes lesson planning even more challenging
(Fortune, 2012). Considering that one of the principles of DLIP instruction is that students learn
grade-level core academic content, DLIP instructors must always be searching for ways to make
content accessible for the non-native speakers without compromising academic standards
(Takahashi-Breines, 2002).
In general, suggested solutions to this issue involve giving students multiple types of
information to assist in comprehension and mastery of academic material (Christian, 1996).
Calderon and Minaya-Rowe (2003) suggest a variety of different options for utilizing visual aids
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 35
to augment instruction, many of which come from EL instructional models, including the use of
pictures, drawings, videos, graphic organizers or physical objects from day-to-day life. These
teaching aids can help with comprehension when beginning learners are struggling with the
language, and they can also make abstract concepts more understandable for all learners by
visually referencing things with which the students are already familiar (Calderon & Minaya-
Rowe, 2003). Experiments and other types of hands-on types of projects can be used as a means
to facilitate experiential learning (Carrera-Carrillo & Smith, 2006), and the incorporation of
songs in the target language into the curriculum can help not only with vocabulary learning
(Schon et al., 2008), but can also reduce some of the anxiety that students may feel when using a
new language (Dolean, 2016). Many of these techniques are also consistent with sheltered
instruction principles, which is an instructional approach for teaching grade-level content to
English language learners that uses a variety of non-verbal methods as a regular part of
instruction (Carrera-Carrillo & Smith, 2006; Freeman & Freeman, 1988).
Another common challenge in the DLIP environment is maintaining use of the target
language by the students, especially when they are working in small groups or conversing off-
topic (Ballinger & Lyster, 2011; Fortune, 2012). A 2012 study of DLIP instructors by the Asia
Society found the “ability to motivate students to stay in the target language” (p. 31) as one of
the most-critical skills for a successful immersion teacher. Still, when placed in situations where
they have the choice over which language they use, students overwhelmingly tend toward using
English (Carranza, 1995; Freeman, 1996). Sometimes students will use English for
comprehension reasons, either because they don’t know the word to use in the target language or
because they perceive that they will not be understood (Ballinger & Lyster, 2011). Others
theorize that this dynamic is partially due to societal pressures to assimilate, even in a classroom
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 36
structure where the target language and its associated culture are overtly respected and valued
(Tarone & Swain, 1995), and partially due to students recognizing English as the dominant
language in the U.S. and responding to the power implications that go along with that
(McCollum, 1993).
Proposed solutions to this issue are scarce. Of the few that exist, most mention the basic
practice of having the instructor repeatedly remind students to speak in the target language. More
specific suggestions include having the teacher make sure to not accept responses in English
from students when the target language is being used (Takahashi-Breines, 2002) and having the
teacher be sure not translate any portion of conversations with students into English (Thomas &
Collier, 1997). Both of those options are consistent with DLIP pedagogy, but are only applicable
during teacher-student interactions and thus do not address students’ language choice during
student-to-student interactions. In Ballinter and Lyster’s 2011 study of three dual-language
immersion classrooms, they found that the 8
th
-grade instructor was able to successfully inspire
his students to consistently speak in the target language even when conversing in small groups,
something that the 1
st
-grade and 3
rd
-grade teachers were unable to do. This teacher was observed
actively pushing his students to use the target language while working in small groups, and he
was the only teacher in the study that stated that is was his expectation that his students would
use the target language with one another. It is possible that part of his success is due to the age of
the students and that, having been in dual immersion for so many years, that they are simply
more proficient in the language and therefore more comfortable using it. However, in interviews
with those students, they credited the teacher consistently holding them to the expectation of
speaking only in the target language as an important motivating factor in maintaining that
standard (Ballinger & Lyster, 2011).
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 37
Understanding the unique obstacles that DLIP instructors face highlights the balancing
act that they must perform in order to be successful. They need to find ways to make content
comprehensible for all students while still challenging them in ways that advance their learning.
For those students who might be struggling with either language or content learning, any mental
energy spent on unnecessary tasks could undermine the learning process, while for more
advanced students, efficient teaching methods may free up mental capacity that could be used for
further learning objectives. Because the efficient use of mental capacity can benefit students of
all skill levels, it is important to account for the mental load generated by different tasks during
the instructional design process. To do that effectively requires an understanding of cognitive
load theory.
Overview of Cognitive Load Theory
Cognitive load theory (CLT) (Sweller, 1988) is an instructional theory that stems from an
understanding of how human cognitive architecture operates. This architecture is comprised of
two types of memory: the first is working memory, sometimes referred to as short-term memory,
which can only hold a few items at a time and for a short duration, usually estimated at around
10 seconds. Whenever a person is consciously thinking about something, it is being held in one’s
working memory. The second type of memory is long-term memory, which is a person’s
permanent store of all information learned and is theoretically unlimited in its capacity. Anything
that a person knows can be recalled from his or her long-term memory into working memory
when needed, contingent on there being mental capacity available (Sweller, 1988). Because
working memory serves as the limiting factor in a person’s learning, finding ways to optimize its
usage or to circumvent it altogether are critical aspects of instructional design (Taylor, 2013).
The amount of one’s working memory capacity that is in use while learning is referred to as
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 38
one’s cognitive load. The more complex the topic being learned, the higher the cognitive load,
and when the complexity of a topic exceeds a student’s maximum cognitive load, learning does
not occur (Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas, 1998).
Cognitive load can be further broken down into three parts: intrinsic load, extraneous
load and germane load (Sweller, 1994). Intrinsic load is based on the material being learned – the
number of elements being learned at one time, how much interactivity there is among the
elements and the overall difficulty of the topic. It is also measured with respect to a student’s
previous knowledge, as the more experience a student has in a subject, the lower the intrinsic
load for that student. It is generally believed that there is no way to adjust intrinsic load short of
breaking the lesson down into smaller sub-lessons (Sweller, 2010). Extraneous load refers to any
portion of a lesson that takes up mental resources but doesn’t contribute to learning. This
includes information that is non-essential to achieving the instructional goal of the lesson, as well
as factors of instructional design that require a student to use mental resources on something
other than the instructional goal (Schnotz & Kurschner, 2007). Minimizing extraneous load was
the initial objective of cognitive load theory and is still one of the fundamental goals in CLT-
based instructional design (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Germane load is essentially the opposite of
extraneous load. It is comprised of portions of the instructional design or other non-content
thinking that helps with learning (Sweller, 1994). As it was originally conceived, it referred
specifically to the mental resources utilized in the construction of schema (Sweller et al., 1998),
but since then, other researchers have expanded the definition to include all cognitive processes
that can improve learning, such as implementing learning strategies (Schnotz & Kurschner,
2007).
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 39
Miller’s Influence on Cognitive Load Theory
Several of the fundamental concepts that provide the foundation for cognitive load theory
can be traced to a 1956 paper by George Miller. The first of which is the idea of measuring the
limits of working memory in number of units, rather than in amount of information. In his paper,
Miller summarized four studies that evaluated how well people could differentiate between and
remember different items in succession. He discovered a pattern in the results of those studies
that led him to make a distinction between information we process through “absolute judgement”
and information we process through “immediate memory.” He noted that absolute judgment is
limited by the total amount of information we have, but immediate memory is limited by the
number of discrete items to be remembered (Miller, 1956). Miller’s concept of immediate
memory is analogous to the idea of working memory as it is used in cognitive load theory.
At the same time, Miller (1956) came up with an approximation for the number of items
that individuals could hold in their immediate memory. In the studies he examined, participants
were asked to perform a variety of tasks where items were compared along a singular dimension:
classify pitch or volume of different sounds, length of lines, saltiness of different flavors, and
color or brightness of images. In each study, the number of items that the participants were
required to evaluate at a single time was increased incrementally, with number of correct
responses without error recorded at each level, until a threshold was reached where all
participants were unable to complete the task without error. Despite the diversity of evaluation
skills required in these different studies, the total range of respondents’ mental capacity in all
four studies was to accurately assess between three and fifteen items, with the average being just
under seven. The consistency of results across different sensory tests led Miller to conclude that
the seven item average must represent the general capacity of working memory (Miller, 1956).
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 40
This conclusion was universally accepted by the cognitive science community and went
relatively unchallenged for the next 40 years, as the research community concentrated on
examining the length of time an item could be held in working memory rather than the number
of items (Cowan, 2015).
In the 1990s, though, researchers began to rethink the “magical number seven” (Miller,
1956), theorizing that the limits of working memory might be even lower. In 2001, Cowan
published his analysis of recent research, concluding that the working memory limit was actually
four items. In his analysis, he identified an issue called “chunking” as a potential confounding
variable in earlier studies (Cowan, 2001). The theory of chunking was another important idea
that came from Miller’s 1956 paper. The concept involves associating multiple pieces of
information with one another and forming them into a larger single mental unit, which makes it
easier for individuals to recall these elements. Due to working memory being limited by the
number of units it can process at one time rather than by the amount of information, the chunking
process makes it possible for individuals to hold a greater amount of information in their
working memory than if that information was processed as discrete units (Miller, 1956). Cowan
(2001) noted that there were some studies where the chunking process was neither measured nor
controlled for, making it possible that higher working memory results were achieved by
participants utilizing this process. In support of this theory, Cowan noted that in other studies
where participants were inhibited from creating chunks of information, working memory limits
were consistently found to be between three and five elements (Cowan, 2001).
Though Miller’s working memory limitations were quickly adopted, the importance of
chunking in the memory process wasn’t fully appreciated for about 10 years, until a 1966 study
by De Groot. In his study, he compared chess players of differing skills in their ability to
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 41
remember and recreate various chess board configurations. He found that the greater the level of
expertise, the better the player’s recall was on memory exercises that involved chess board
configurations from actual games. Experts were able to recall the configuration of the pieces
more quickly, more accurately and with less mental effort than both intermediate players or
novices. Yet on memory exercises involving random placement of pieces, expertise level had no
effect on recall performance. It was reasoned that experts’ superior recall was based on their
ability to identify in-game groups of pieces as single chunks of information, based on their
greater knowledge of chess strategy and prior game history (De Groot, 1966). These findings
were expanded on by Chase and Simon (1973), who measured the number and sizes of chunks
recalled by chess experts versus chess novices. They found that both groups remembered a
similar number of chunks, but experts’ chunk size was much larger. More information in a single
chunk translates to a greater level of information recall, which was consistent with the results of
De Groot’s study (Chase & Simon, 1973).
As he formulated cognitive load theory, Sweller (1988) took Miller’s idea of chunking
and incorporated it into the concept of schema acquisition. Schema refers to the mental
frameworks into which people automatically organize related information. As a person gains
knowledge, that new information is organized and integrated into existing schema whenever
possible, or into a new schema if it is a novel topic that is being learned, and the larger a person’s
schema on a subject, the greater their level of expertise. Building on another of Miller’s findings,
it is also believed that all of the information in a particular schema can act as a single element in
working memory (Sweller, 1988). Because of this principle, as a person’s schema on a particular
subject grew, the more information that person could hold in their working memory without
generating additional cognitive load, which in turn led to a greater level of comprehension and
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 42
the ability to tackle problems with higher complexity (Van Gog, Kester & Paas, 2001). Sweller
identified schema acquisition as a primary factor in developing problem-solving skills (Sweller,
1988) and as a fundamental process for achieving mastery in a subject (Sweller, 1994).
Automatic Processing
Schema acquisition alone, though, would not lead to expertise. To achieve full mastery of
a topic also required automation of mental processes, or automaticity (Sweller, 1994).
Automaticity refers to the ability to perform a routine task unconsciously with both speed and
accuracy while consciously performing another task (Bloom, 1986). Because the process is
unconscious, it generates a low amount of cognitive load, allowing mental resources to be
directed toward other aspects of learning. Without automation, performance requires conscious
thought, which makes the process slower and more prone to error (Sweller, 1994). If you think of
the human mind as a vehicle, schema acquisition is the process of building a more and more
powerful engine for the vehicle, while automation involves driving that vehicle as fast as
possible. Both processes are critical for achieving maximum results.
Schneider and Shiffrin (1977) first demonstrated the benefit of automaticity in a study
where participants were asked to distinguish the presence of specific numbers and letters on sets
of cards that included other letters and numbers. On some trials, the target letter or number
would be incorporated exclusively with other items from the same category; on other trials, the
target letter or number was incorporated exclusively with items from the opposite category.
Schneider and Shiffrin found that, on the trials with a target item embedded in items from the
opposite category, response time and accuracy did not change with added complexity, while in
the other scenario added complexity increased response time and decreased accuracy. It was
concluded that the first scenario allowed for a search process that could easily be automatized,
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 43
which resulted in superior performance (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977). Other studies have
produced similar results within the domains of arithmetic learning, algebra problem-solving and
estimation of time intervals (Blessing & Anderson, 1996; Brown & Bennett, 2002; Kotovsky,
Hayes & Simon, 1985; Woodward, 2006).
Effects on Extraneous Load
Yet even though Sweller (1994) identified early on that schema development and
automation of processes were the key factors in developing expertise, it was not immediately
apparent that cognitive processes that enabled the development of those skills were beneficial
parts of cognitive load. Sweller’s earliest version of cognitive load theory only recognized
intrinsic and extraneous load, and because intrinsic load was considered to be largely immutable
(Sweller, 1988), much of the research into cognitive load theory centered on finding ways to
minimize extraneous load. The result has been the uncovering of various situations where a
learner’s cognitive load is negatively affected due to instructional design.
Redundancy effect. One such effect is called the redundancy effect (Chandler &
Sweller, 1991). In this effect, when instruction includes graphical images that are self-
explanatory, redundant textual information can add to cognitive load without providing any
instructional benefit. Chandler and Sweller (1991) performed a series of six experiments to test
the impact of integrated instructions, four of which focused specifically on the effect of
redundant information. They tested students on how well they learned electrical circuitry and
biological blood flow diagrams, given instances where the information provided in the diagrams
was considered to be self-explanatory. Some participants were given the diagrams alone, while
others were given redundant information along with the diagrams. In three of those studies, they
found that students who were exposed exclusively to a self-explanatory diagram spent less time
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 44
learning the material and performed better on testing than students who were exposed to the
same diagram but with non-essential explanatory text added, and in the fourth study the two
groups had similar test results. The conclusion was that the redundant information was not only
non-essential, but actually impeded learning (Chandler & Sweller, 1991).
Split-attention effect. Another effect that emerged from research on integrated
instructions is called the split-attention effect (Chandler & Sweller, 1992). In examining
instructional diagrams used in geometry, Chandler and Sweller (1992) noticed that the diagrams
frequently did not include any integrated explanations; rather, explanatory information was
presented in a separate table, sometimes on a completely different page. Theorizing that
switching attention back and forth between a diagram and an explanation would add to students’
cognitive load, they tested this hypothesis and found that students who were given a diagram that
had integrated explanatory information learned the information more quickly and performed
better on testing than those given traditional non-integrated materials. In a second experiment,
they again tested the value of conventional versus integrated materials, this time using published
educational psychology research articles in place of geometry diagrams. In this version of the
study, one group received an article that integrated the methods section with the findings section
while the other received a traditionally-organized article. As in the first experiment, participants
that were given the integrated materials spent less time learning the material yet achieved a
higher score on a test of content knowledge (Chandler & Sweller, 1992). These studies show that
changes in instructional practice can improve learning by reducing cognitive load.
Expertise reversal effect. An additional effect is called the expertise reversal effect,
which was discovered upon a review of studies that examined the interaction between
instructional techniques and levels of learner experience (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler & Sweller,
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 45
2003). In this effect, it was found that instructional design that is helpful for beginners can
actually have a negative effect on learning for experts. This review included studies that looked
at the split-attention effect (Chandler & Sweller, 1991), reading comprehension (McNamara,
Kintsch, Songer & Kintsch, 1996) and the use of worked examples (Renkl, Atkinson & Maier,
2000), among others. In each study, it was found that, while beginners benefited from instruction
that included additional explanatory material, experts performed worse with the same material
(Kalyuga et al., 2003). The understanding is that the expertise reversal effect is a result of the
schema that experts possess – because they already have a robust framework of knowledge in
their area of expertise, explicit instructions are often not only unnecessary, causing experts to
spend extra time cross-checking the information in the instructions against their prior knowledge,
but can also result in additional cognitive load due to this additional work, which may negatively
impact learning. The lesson from the expertise reversal effect is that it is not enough to simply
implement different instructional techniques based on previously-established CLT learning
effects, but rather that it is critical to account for each student’s level of expertise during
instructional design whenever possible (Kalyuga et al., 2003).
Optimizing Cognitive Load
While the discovery of these various effects helped identify ways to reduce extraneous
load, other cognitive load theorists were beginning to look for ways to improve the use of
working memory. Informed by the importance of schema building, the concept of germane load
was introduced the late 1990s to help explain positive cognitive load that wasn’t intrinsic to the
material being learned (Sweller et al., 1998; Van Merrienboer, 1997). Germane load was initially
defined as mental resources that contributed exclusively to schema development (Sweller et al.,
1998), but it has since grown to encompass all cognitive processes that facilitate learning, such
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 46
as study strategies or conscious mental effort (Schnotz & Kurschner, 2007). With the
introduction of germane load to cognitive load theory, there emerged an additional objective to
be considered: not only should extraneous load be eliminated, but available mental capacity
should be filled with processes that contribute to germane load (Sweller et al., 1998).
Around the time that the concept of germane load was introduced, another cognitive
effect was theorized called the modality effect (Mayer & Moreno, 1998). This effect built on
Baddeley and Hitch’s theory of working memory (1974), which stated that the human mind has
two different channels for incoming information, a visuo-spatial channel for processing images
and a phonological channel for processing verbal language, which can combine to absorb two
different types of information at the same time. Moreno and Mayer (1999) tested their theory the
following year in a study that compared three groups of students: one that viewed instruction
comprised of written text integrated with images, one that viewed instruction comprised of
written text that was physically separated from the images, and one that used verbal instruction
in conjunction with the images. The reason the two different text groups were included was to
isolate the split-attention effect from the modality effect. They found that the group that received
verbal instruction along with images scored higher than both other groups on tests of verbal
recall, transfer of knowledge, and matching of verbal and visual information, leading to the
conclusion that instruction in this format results in a more efficient use of working memory than
images combined with written text (Moreno & Mayer, 1999).
The timing of these two developments may have been more than just coincidence. Both
reflect a changing way of looking at cognitive load, one where lower cognitive load is not always
better and where the most effective instructional designs should focus on optimizing cognitive
load instead of just reducing it (Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbers & Van Gerven, 2003). Schema
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 47
building, automation of processes and the use of dual modalities all serve this goal of cognitive
load optimization. None of them address the reduction of extraneous load, which focuses on
freeing up mental capacity. Rather, each is a method for working around the natural limitations
of the mind and for maximizing the use of mental capacity (and the resultant learning) by
inputting greater amounts of information into working memory (Kirschner, Paas & Kirschner,
2009).
It should be noted that, as the building of expertise and availability of dual modalities
moved to the forefront of cognitive load theory, the concept of reducing extraneous load wasn’t
abandoned; instead, the new focus resulted in innovative ways to examine extraneous load
effects. One such discovery was the transient information effect, which sheds light on the way
the modality effect can influence extraneous load (Leahy & Sweller, 2011). Leahy and Sweller
(2011) found that the benefits derived from incorporating verbal instruction in place of written
text can be completely negated if the learner has to devote significant cognitive load to
remembering the verbal instruction, rather than having the written text available as a reference.
This effect was identified in a pair of studies comparing single to dual modalities. In the instance
where the verbal instructions were long, participants that had access to written instructions
outperformed those that had verbal instructions, and when the verbal instructions were shortened,
the participants that had verbal instructions outperformed those that were given written
instructions. The implications are that, when verbal instructions are overly complex or lengthy,
working memory can be overloaded, and having printed instructions available instead could be
better for learning (Leahy & Sweller, 2011).
The biggest challenge with any attempt to optimize germane load is that there is presently
no sure-fire way to measure the different segments of cognitive load (Kirschner, Ayres &
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 48
Chandler, 2011). One cannot know for certain how much load a particular activity generates for
an individual, nor how much space is available in working memory at a particular moment.
Research that demonstrates instances where both higher cognitive load and better performance
are present draw the conclusion that the results are due to germane load, but those are largely
post hoc explanations rather than conclusions drawn from cognitive load measurements (de Jong,
2010). There are also several different methods for measuring overall cognitive load (Sweller et
al., 1998), but nothing that has been successfully adapted to measure the different segments
(Kirschner et al., 2011). Until reliable measures are developed, the best option is to utilize
instructional techniques that are consistent with the principles of cognitive load theory while
paying close attention to the experience of each individual learner, aiming to deliver information
with the appropriate difficulty at the appropriate time (Kalyuga & Sweller, 2004).
Instructional Techniques Driven by CLT
Considering that the focus of this study is to identify and catalog various instructional
practices that are used in a dual language immersion environment which are also consistent with
the goal of optimizing cognitive load, it is important to be familiar with some of the
recommendations that are derived from the cognitive load theory literature. More specifically,
instructional practices that assist with the formulation of schema, the automation of cognitive
processes and the utilization of dual modalities will be highlighted, as those are the three
methods for bypassing the inherent limitations of working memory (Kirschner, Kirschner &
Paas, 2006).
Formulation of Schema
While schema-building is the way the human brain automatically organizes information,
some instructional techniques provide a better schema-building environment than others. In his
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 49
original formulation of cognitive load theory, Sweller (1988) identified two skills that are
universal to schema-building in any domain that requires problem-solving: 1) identifying
problem states and 2) learning the moves associated with solving each problem state. These
findings are based on his earlier research into problem solving in mathematics, where he found
that novices and experts employed different solving strategies (Cooper & Sweller, 1987; Sweller
& Cooper, 1985). Novices would use a technique called means-ends analysis, which involves
working backward from the goal toward the initial state in incremental steps. Experts, on the
other hand, would immediately begin solving problems in a forward-working sequence, using
their experience to recognize the problem state and recall how they had solved similar problems
previously.
Means-ends analysis is an effective way to come to a solution – and may be the best
option for a student who doesn’t have much schematic knowledge in mathematics – but it has
two main drawbacks. First off, means-ends analysis produces high cognitive load, due to the
need to keep track of the goal state, the current problem state, the relationship between those two
points, and what moves are possible to narrow the distance between the two. Second, the
cognitive processes that are generating the high cognitive load are not the same processes that
contribute to schema-building. Evidence for this comes from Sweller’s earlier research into maze
problems (Sweller & Levine, 1982), where 24 psychology students were tested on their ability to
navigate a maze while blindfolded. Half of the group had the end of the maze identified for them,
while the other half did not, in order to test the effects of the presence of a goal on solving
strategies and efficacy. Each participant was also asked to solve the maze twice, to test how well
each group learned the structure of the maze during the first time solving it. The results were
that, for those students who had been given information about where the goal of the maze was
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 50
located, they ended up making more mistakes during the solving process and demonstrated less
knowledge of the maze structure than the group who had no goal (Sweller & Levine, 1982). The
implication of the two drawbacks to means-end analysis is that practice problems do not
contribute to schema development for beginners, and at times may even result in cognitive
overload (Sweller, 1988).
There are a number of instructional techniques, though, that make use of example
problems but that provide more opportunity for schema development. One technique is the use of
goal-free problems (Sweller, 1988). A goal-free problem is one where there is not a specific end
goal that the student must reach, but rather they are prompted to explore a problem space. For
example, rather than giving a student a geometrical diagram and asking them to solve for a
specific designated angle, the student could be asked to solve for as many of the pictured angles
as possible. Ayres (1993) demonstrated the benefits of goal-free problems in a study of 67 junior
high students. Using the geometry example from above, half of the students were given a
problem set consisting of goal-free problems and the other half were given traditional problems.
He found that students who were given goal-free problems were more likely to find the correct
path to a solution and produced a greater number of correct answers than those assigned
conventional, goal-oriented problems. One caveat regarding goal-free problems is that, if the
problem space is too large, it can lead to fruitless searches and an inefficient use of cognitive
load, so it is important to make sure the problem space is manageable (Ayres, 1993).
Another technique that can help manage cognitive load and lead to schema acquisition is
the use of worked examples. Worked examples show a problem along with a step-by-step
solution to that problem. This technique is effective at schema acquisition because it allows the
student to see the problem state along with the demonstration of the different problem-solving
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 51
moves that are required for the solution (Sweller, 1994). Several studies have demonstrated that
the use of worked examples results in better learning than the use of problems, and does so with
less mental effort (Paas & van Merrienboer, 1994; van Gog, Kester & Paas, 2011; van Gog, Paas
& van Merrienboer, 2006), though there is also research that specifically tests the use of worked
examples with both novices and experts and finds that they are only effective with novices
(Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovinen & Sweller, 2001). This finding is consistent with Sweller’s (1988)
findings, as well as with both the redundancy effect and the expertise reversal effect, and
suggests the benefit of a technique called fading, which refers to a gradual shift from worked
examples to problems as a learner gains expertise in a subject. When utilizing fading, novice
students begin with studying a worked example, then are given worked examples with one step
of the solution removed, which they are then to fill in. In each iteration of this process, another
step of the solution is removed until students are fully solving problems on their own. Renkl,
Atkinson, Maier and Staley (2002) originally tested this theory in a pair of experiments on 9
th
-
grade students and university students. In each experiment, one group of students was given a
series of worked examples along with a series of similar problems to be solved while the other
was given a series of problems that faded from worked example to problem solving. Students
were then given related problems, with performance on that problem set reflecting how well the
learned information transferred. In both experiments, they found that fading resulted in more
effective transfer of knowledge than a combination of worked examples and problems (Renkl et
al., 2002).
A similar technique to utilizing worked examples is assigning students partially
completed problems and asking them to finish them (Sweller, 1994). With these types of
problems, students are still provided some of the scaffolding of a worked example but are
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 52
required to generate portions of a solution on their own as well. In one of the first studies on the
subject, van Merrienboer and De Croock (1992) examined the effectiveness of partially
completed problems for a group of computer programming students. In their study, 40
undergraduate students were asked to learn basic graphics programming, with one group being
given simple programming problems that were partially completed and the other being required
to generate a similar program in its entirety. They found that the group that was given the
completion problems implemented superior learning procedures and displayed superior
programming knowledge on both multiple-choice and free response tests compared to students
given traditional problems (van Merrienboer & De Croock, 1992).
Finally, a suggested technique for students with a higher level of expertise is called
perspective taking (Wetzels, Kester & ven Merrienboer, 2011). Perspective taking is a method
for activating a previously-constructed schema on a topic so that newly introduced information
will be learned more easily and more thoroughly. In this technique, a student is asked to read a
passage or otherwise study materials from a specific perspective, such that the student’s prior
schema of both the topic of study and the perspective they are taking are activated in the
student’s mind, and new information is then connected to those schema. The idea builds on a
study by Anderson & Pichert (1977), in which they gave participants a passage describing two
boys in a house. One group was instructed to read the passage from the perspective of a
prospective home buyer, while the other group was to read it from the perspective of a burglar.
Different details in the passage were constructed to be more relevant to each perspective, and the
results were that each group, depending on the perspective from which they read the passage,
was more likely to remember the details constructed for that perspective (Anderson & Pichert,
1977). Wetzels et al. (2011) adjusted the concept to activate prior academic learning, instructing
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 53
a combination of 63 high school and medical students to recall what they knew on blood flow
before receiving further instruction on the topic. In their study, students were told to study a
diagram of the way blood flows through the heart, with instructions to consider the diagram from
the perspective of a blood cell travelling along the circulatory path. Perspective taking was found
to be beneficial for the medical students, who had a higher level of expertise on the topic,
resulting in greater recall of newly learned information. Benefits for the students with limited
prior knowledge were minimal (Wetzels et al., 2011).
Automation of Mental Processes
Unlike strategies for schema development, there is very little research into how to
facilitate the automation of mental processes. Sweller (1994) notes that switching from
controlled processing to automatic processing is not something that happens in a single moment,
but is a change that is slow and continuous and happens as a result of increased familiarity with a
domain. Bloom (1986) adds that automaticity is necessary to reach top-level performance, but
experts are not done once they reach that stage – maintaining automaticity requires regular
repetition, or else they will experience a degradation of their skills. In short, automaticity is the
result of time and practice (Sweller, 1994; Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas, 1998) and the
specific strategies for developing automaticity that will be presented are all variations on this
theme.
Bloom (1986) describes the automation process as one that occurs in stages. Any mental
process that is to be automated needs to be broken down into its most basic pieces, and those are
learned to the point of automation first. Those basic pieces are then combined to form larger
units, which are practiced repeatedly until that series of pieces is automated. The pattern of
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 54
assembling and practicing larger and larger series of pieces continues until the entire mental
process is automated (Bloom, 1986).
Brown and Bennett (2002) tested the role of practice in building automaticity as well, in a
study that asked participants to perform two tasks at the same time. Participants had to designate
time passing in regular intervals approximating five seconds while also tracking a light that was
moving around an oval. Participants were evaluated on the consistency of their responses. Initial
testing resulted in high variability in performance on both tasks, but after some practice on the
tracking task, consistency for both tasks increased. The conclusion was that the automation of the
tracking task freed up additional working memory that was then utilized in the timekeeping task
(Brown & Bennett, 2002).
Woodward (2006) examined the development of automaticity with regard to
multiplication facts and proposed a process that integrated instruction on strategies for
multiplication with timed practice drills. The participants were all below grade-level in their
multiplication skills, and the results were mixed, with the group receiving integrated instruction
achieving highest on some measures and the group receiving only timed drills achieving highest
on others. Both groups showed overall improvement, with one group performing better on
factual knowledge and the other on computations (Woodward, 2006). If we consider the explicit
teaching of multiplication strategies to fall under schema-building, though, as it should according
to cognitive load theory, that leaves practicing timed drills as the suggested instructional
technique for automaticity to be drawn from this study.
Utilization of Dual Modalities
The third way to optimize cognitive load during learning is through the use of dual
modalities. As mentioned above, the theory behind dual modalities is derived from Baddeley and
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 55
Hitch’s (1974) theory of working memory, which posits that the human mind has both a visuo-
spatial sketchpad for processing images and a phonological loop for processing verbal language,
and that both channels can receive and process information at the same time. The discovery of
the modality effect within cognitive load theory (Moreno and Mayer, 1999) builds upon this
concept, providing evidence that information presented with a combination of images and verbal
presentation is more effective than images combined with written text. Thus the choice to use
dual modalities rather than a single modality whenever possible during content design is the
fundamental instructional technique for this section.
Note that some of the other effects mentioned earlier provide insight regarding when the
use of dual modalities might not be effective, though, along with ways to make use of them more
efficiently. One such technique comes from research on the split-attention effect (Chandler &
Sweller, 1992). Though the original study examined the impact of text that was physically
separated from a diagram, noting that requiring a learner to hold one portion of the information
in their working memory while searching for the other portion creates extraneous load (Chandler
& Sweller, 1992), a similar effect can occur when the verbal portion of the presentation is not
synchronized with the visual portion. Moreno and Mayer (1999) refer to this as the temporal
contiguity effect – when visual and auditory content is not presented together, one portion must
be held in working memory while waiting for the other portion to be presented. The solution is to
synchronize the content, such that both modalities are presented together (Moreno & Mayer,
1999). Research shows that this will not only reduce extraneous load, but will also result in better
comprehension by students (Mayer & Moreno, 2002).
Another technique derives from the transient information effect (Leahy & Sweller, 2011).
While the basic rule of dual modalities is that the auditory component of a presentation should
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 56
have no written compliment duplicating that information, there can be instances where the verbal
content can be too much for the learner to remember, resulting in cognitive overload and lost
information. One example from a later study by Leahy and Sweller (2016) occurs during a
segment of a geometry presentation that involves a mathematical equation. In that stage, all other
written text was converted to audio instructions and removed from the diagram, but the written
version of the equation remained on the slide in conjunction with having it narrated. It was
reasoned that remembering the equation would be virtually impossible for students and that
removing it would be counter-productive to learning. Though not the focus of that study, the
implication of that choice is that, in situations where the verbal content is either too long or too
complex for the student to remember, the duplication of information in written form can result in
better learning (Leahy & Sweller, 2016).
Finally, another instance where written text with pictures can be superior to verbal
presentation is in the case of learner-paced instruction. Savoji, Hassanabadi and Fasihipour
(2011) examined the effectiveness of a computer-based multimedia presentation using either on-
screen text or narration. They tested 80 third-grade girls using four different computer-based
presentations on how the lightning process works, altering both the level of interactivity and
whether text or narration was used. Based on past research, they anticipated that students given
presentations with narration would outperform those given presentations with on-screen text, but
their findings indicated the opposite, that the participants who were provided on-screen text
outperformed those who were provided narration on tests of retention of information and transfer
of knowledge. The explanation is that, because the computer program provided a learner-based
environment, students could take as long as they needed to process the information, which
allowed for more complete learning of the material. This conclusion is supported by data from
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 57
the study, which indicates that the students who received on-screen text spent about 40% more
time on the presentation (Savoji et al., 2011). The instructional technique then would be to move
away from the use of dual modalities when the instruction is learner-paced, as long as the student
also has the freedom to take as long as necessary to learn the material.
Conceptual Framework
As previously noted, the structure of dual language immersion programs is such that
students are simultaneously learning grade-level academic content along with the language in
which it is being delivered. Based on cognitive load theory, one would think that students in this
environment would would be more likely to suffer cognitive overload than in a single-language
classroom and that learning would be diminished. But based on evaluations of DLIP outcomes,
the opposite is the case – students in DLIPs tend to academically outperform their non-DLIP
peers. The DLIP literature is clear about which overarching principles guide instruction, yet with
scant empirical research regarding which specific instructional practices are driving this success,
it is still unclear exactly how these results are being achieved. So how is cognitive overload
being avoided?
This study examined DLIP instructional practices through the lens of cognitive load
theory, to better understand how techniques are being used to help manage students’ cognitive
load and to help circumvent the limitations of working memory. Specifically, this conceptual
framework integrated Kathryn Lindholm-Leary’s model of guiding principles for dual language
immersion programs with the segment of John Sweller’s cognitive load theory that focuses on
methods for maximizing the use of working memory. Lindholm-Leary’s model is represented in
the conceptual framework with the sections that are in blue. The DLIP principles she has
identified include many of the items discussed in the DLIP section of this chapter, such as
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 58
separation of languages, language being taught through content and maintaining high academic
standards. These principles theoretically lead to the three target outcomes of DLIP programs,
which are bilingualism/biliteracy, academic achievement and biculturalism. This is represented
by the light blue arrow leading to the blue box at the bottom of the diagram.
Between the DLIP principles and outcomes, represented in the conceptual framework by
the red section, are the CLT methods for maximizing the use of working memory. Those three
methods are schema development, automaticity and the use of dual modalities. It is the premise
of this study that, due to the high cognitive load that should theoretically be generated in the
DLIP environment, the success of DLIPs must involve instructional methods that result in a
more efficient use of working memory. Because of the explanatory effect of how DLIP
methodology leads to the achievement of DLIP outcomes, the CLT methods are placed over the
light blue arrow that leads from one to the other.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 59
Figure 3. Conceptual framework
As each of these CLT methods provides insight into how students can mentally process
materials that have a high degree of difficulty and complexity, this study theorized that
instructional practices that are in line with cognitive load theory must be taking place in the
DLIP classroom for the outcomes reported to be achieved. If this is in fact true, it would partially
explain how DLIPs are achieving their academic and language learning results. Furthermore, this
study notes that the ability of DLIP programs to foster attitudes of biculturalism should not be
affected by the difficulty or complexity of DLIP subject matter, and thus the CLT methods that
maximize the use of working memory should have no effect on this outcome. Therefore, because
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 60
the purpose of this study was only to understand the ways in which the CLT methods highlighted
in the red box may explain DLIP outcomes, biculturalism was not explored and is represented in
the framework in gray. Finally, as this study aimed to provide insight into the practices that
influence the success of DLIPs as a whole rather than measuring and explaining the success of a
few specific instructors, I did not collect data on the learning outcomes of the students in the
specific classrooms observed.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 61
Chapter Three
Methods
This chapter outlines the research methods and overall research design that were
employed in the course of this study, including the sampling approach, data collection, and data
analysis procedures, along with addressing issues of credibility, trustworthiness, and ethics. This
study aimed to provide insight into how DLIPs achieve their academic and biliteracy outcomes,
specifically looking for ways that cognitive overload was being avoided in the context of
instruction. Based on the conceptual framework outlined in Chapter 2, I looked for the presence
of instructional techniques that helped manage cognitive load and then explored teachers’
perceptions about those different techniques. To recap, this study aimed to answer the following
two questions:
1. What instructional methods are observed in the DLIP classrooms that employ the
cognitive load theory methods of schema building, training for automaticity and/or use of
dual modalities?
2. What are the teachers’ perceptions of the observed instructional methods?
Research Design
As the purpose of this study was to understand if the success of DLIP programs may be
partially explained by the utilization of instructional techniques that are consistent with cognitive
load theory, a qualitative approach was the most appropriate method to employ for multiple
reasons. First, examining the instructional techniques that are used in the DLIP classroom could
be seen as examining the processes of the classroom – noting what is done, how it is done and
why – which is one of the primary purposes of qualitative research. Maxwell (2013) notes that
qualitative research is especially suited for uncovering the processes that lead to various
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 62
outcomes, so as to better understand how they are achieved. To get at how DLIPs achieve their
success in academic and bilingual achievements, one must understand the processes that are
taking place in those classrooms.
Second, this study gathered data on the instructional practices of DLIPs that were taking
place in specific classrooms, a research structure which led to treating each classroom as a mini-
case study. Case studies are one of the hallmarks of qualitative research and Merriam (2009)
argues that case studies are most aptly defined by the fact that research occurs within a bounded
system. It is the process of deciding the limits of what is going to be studied as well as the
environment in which it will be studied that defines each case. By delimiting the research to the
instructional practices that occur within these discrete classrooms, case studies become the
natural vehicle for interpreting that data.
Third, the subject matter that this study attempted to uncover is not something that is
easily quantifiable; rather, the study looks at different manners of teaching whose efficacy is
most easily evaluated through each individual teacher’s perceptions. The quest for this data led
to the use of classroom observations along with teacher interviews as the two primary means of
data collection, both of which are most often used in qualitative research. While the “what” of
the instructional practices was certainly be an important part of the discovery process, the “how”
and the “why” were also important to explore, as those pieces of data were expected to shed
additional light on the sources of DLIP success.
Sampling and Population
This study sampled three DLIP classrooms, each from different school districts and
servicing three different grades, in an attempt to achieve a variety of DLIP instructional
environments. The selection of school sites was driven by a combination of purposeful and
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 63
convenience sampling. To try and best meet my research goals, I used a purposeful sampling
method in selecting which classrooms to observe, based on the qualifications needed for my
study (Merriam, 2009). Obviously, these needed to be DLIP classrooms, so only schools that
offered that type of program were considered. I also aimed to look at classrooms that had
average or above average outcomes regarding bilingualism and academic achievement, since that
is the feature of DLIP classrooms that I was trying to understand. While DLIPs on average tend
to produce above-average outcomes for students, that is not to say that all classrooms do, so to
best understand what instructional practices might be driving that success, it was preferable to
conduct observations in those classrooms that have been documented as producing above-
average results. It is noted, though, that value could still have been gained from observing any
DLIP classroom, such that if the selection set offered by the restrictions of convenience sampling
did not include a sufficient number of above-average classrooms, the study would still be
conducted.
In addition to purposeful sampling, pragmatically, convenience sampling played a major
role in determining where I collected data. First off, due to daily commuting restrictions, I
restricted potential school sites to those that were within a two-hour driving distance of my
home. This constituted approximately a 30-mile radius around my city of residence.
Furthermore, while I targeted schools based on my purposeful sampling needs detailed above,
ultimately the schools where I was allowed access defined the set of locations from which I
chose my final school sites. Determining if a classroom met these qualifications offered a unique
challenge, as there is no publicly-available metric for comparing the testing results from DLIP
classrooms in one school with those in another. As a proxy for that, I used national clearinghouse
data that ranked each school on standardized testing results, with the assumption being that, if
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 64
the school as a whole produced above-average results on those tests, it is likely that the DLIP
classrooms within that school did so as well. Because this study was restricted to schools in
Southern California, I used school-wide results on the California Assessment of Student
Performance and Progress (CAASPP) in English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics from
the 2016 school year, which were the most recent results publicly available at the time of the
study. Once the three schools were selected, I then enlisted the guidance of each principal to help
determine which DLIP classroom within the school should be observed, based on the principal’s
assessment of the quality of the instructor and which classroom was deemed to be the most
suitable for the study.
Ultimately all schools were recruited through my network of contacts that worked in
elementary education within Southern California. This eliminated the need to make any requests
to school administration to observe classrooms subsequent to those classrooms being selected, as
all initial contact with each school was made with the principal or assistant principal.
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures
As mentioned above, the research was structured to conduct a mini-case study on each
selected DLIP classroom, in an effort to determine whether CLT-based instructional techniques
were used and how those techniques may have been contributing factors to the success of the
program. To determine what instructional practices were utilized required classroom
observations. Observations are a critical tool for the qualitative researcher, as they allow us to
see how people act in their natural environment. Observations result in a first-hand record of
what actually happened in an environment (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009), and as a
result are the tool of choice when available. In order to gather observational data, researchers
will need to go to a particular site or location where the participants of the study normally spend
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 65
their time. While there, the researchers will want to take note of any details that pertain to their
research questions, which could include the physical setting, other people in the environment,
conversations or other interactions between those people, other subtle factors present in the
environment, and even the behavior of the researcher (Merriam, 2009).
Observations occurred for five school days within each of the four DLIP classrooms (as a
reminder, one of the school sites separated their DLIP instruction into two classrooms, one in
which teaching was done exclusively in English and the other in which teaching was done
exclusively in Korean). Observations took place during the entire school day, with the exception
of periods during lunch and during school-wide assemblies. Total observation time per school
site ranged between 25 and 28 hours, for a total of 80.5 hours of observation among the three
sites. During observations, I acted as a non-participatory observer to minimize my influence on
the learning environment (Patton, 1987). During observations, I used an observational protocol
suggested by Creswell (2009), which uses a framework with descriptive notes taken on one side
and reflective notes on the other. This structure allowed for a recording of observed instructional
techniques along with thoughts for interview questions, additional items that I should be looking
for, and other ideas that helped further the study.
Understanding how the observed practices may be contributing factors to the success of
the program, though, required a different data collection method. Due to research limitations, it
was beyond the scope of this study to empirically test the contribution of individual instructional
techniques to overall learning. The best available option for gaining this understanding was
through learning the teachers’ perceptions of the value of the different instructional techniques
that they employed, which was most effectively done through teacher interviews. Interviews are
one of the most important tools that a qualitative researcher can use to get at this type of
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 66
information. Merriam (2009) notes that interviews are needed to understand aspects of a situation
that we cannot observe, such as a person’s feelings or their interpretation of their environment.
Weiss (1994) also notes a number of reasons that interviews can be useful, including learning
about the challenges that people face in their day-to-day lives, learning about experiences
internal to the person, and learning about a person’s perceptions and interpretations of various
events and experiences in their lives. Overall, interviews allow us to grasp how those being
interviewed see their world, done through their terminology and their perceptions (Patton, 1987).
Each teacher was interviewed after the observations in their classroom were completed.
The format of the interview was semi-structured, beginning with a structured section in each
interview to cover background information on each teacher, followed by a section consisting of a
list of questions to be explored, which were generally asked in the order listed but were
rephrased as needed (Merriam, 2009). The structured questions asked about teaching background
and experience in both DLIP and non-DLIP environments as well as the teacher’s educational
background and their training in DLIP instructional methods. The exploratory questions asked
about what things a successful DLIP teacher would do in general, along with questions about
specific instructional techniques observed in each classroom and the teachers’ impressions of
those techniques. Follow-up questions were used to probe areas of interest as well as to establish
rapport and show respect for and interest in the information that the teachers were sharing. The
full interview protocol, which guided questioning and helped maintain focus on the topic of
interest, is included at the end of this dissertation (See Appendix A). Each interview was
conducted as soon as scheduling allowed after the observations of that teacher’s classroom were
completed. Three of the interviews happened within eight days of observations ending, while the
fourth happened 36 days later due to the availability of the teacher. The interviews ranged in
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 67
length from 42 minutes to 87 minutes for a total interview time of 4 hours 4 minutes, and were
audio recorded with the permission of the teachers. At the end of each interview, I wrote up a
brief set of reflective notes which served as the first step in the process of determining codes for
analysis. Each interview was then transcribed, with the transcriptions and field notes coded and
used to complete the data analysis.
Data Analysis Procedures
With the data being comprised of a collection of qualitative mini-case studies, I used the
qualitative data analysis approach suggested by Creswell (2009). His approach consists of a
series of steps ranging from the specific to the general, beginning with the gathering, organizing
and reading of data, coding the data by description and theme, then interrelating the
themes/descriptions and interpreting the data, with validation of the accuracy of the information
occurring throughout the process. He also notes that, while the process may appear linear, steps
may be performed out of order and may be repeated multiple times during the process (Creswell,
2009).
As mentioned in the above section, preliminary analysis began during the data collection
process, as notes taken during the interview process were used to inform potential codes. These
were added to a set of a priori codes, which were established based on the methods for managing
cognitive load suggested in the literature review and highlighted in the conceptual framework.
The set of a priori codes were used during the initial attempt at coding the data and helped
segment the interview and observational data while it was being organized into categories as a
preparation for analysis (Creswell, 2009). The gaps in the data that didn’t fit within the structure
of the a priori codes helped guide the development of additional codes, and then all existing
codes were broken down into more detailed segments as deemed appropriate.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 68
As pieces of data became associated with specific codes, I was also able to identify
general descriptions and overarching themes that described groups of effective instructional
techniques. This process further drove the organization of the data as the second round of the
coding process was completed. No follow-up interviews were conducted for this study, but I was
able to correspond with the teachers via email to clarify specific details about their educational
background. Finally, as the analysis got underway, additional themes and patterns for grouping
the data emerged, requiring a third round of the coding process before further analysis could be
performed.
The primary strategies for analysis came from Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) list of analytic
tools for qualitative research. Specifically, there are three techniques from their list that were
most appropriate for this study: the use of questioning, making comparisons, and looking for the
negative case. The use of questioning is a way of initially exploring data to begin the meaning-
making process (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Within this study, this process helped me determine
whether or not an instructional technique aligns with CLT and whether or not it appears to
enhance learning. The process of making comparisons was also a fundamental part of this study,
with both constant comparisons and theoretical comparisons being applied. Constant
comparisons are generally more straightforward, measuring the obvious aspects of something,
while theoretical comparisons are better at capturing something more intangible, such as a mood
or tone (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). When looking for CLT-based instructional techniques within
DLIP classrooms, I looked for both tangible evidence that would help with general classification,
such as the use of specific teaching aids, as well as intangible aspects, such as how students
reacted to different teaching strategies or response time to processes that appeared to have been
automated. Finally, looking for the negative case, which is an instance that does not fit the
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 69
pattern of other observations, is one step in the search for alternative explanations (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008). The importance of searching for alternative explanations is in its ability to reveal
to the researcher potential preconceptions or other biases that can affect the interpretation of
data. This concept will be explored further in the credibility section below.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
According to Merriam (2009), assessing the credibility – or internal validity – of a study
is tantamount to assessing its believability, asking “are the findings credible given the data
presented?” (p. 213). As I was looking for possible explanations for the above-average outcomes
produced by DLIPs, one threat to credibility was the possibility of selection bias. Because it was
beyond the scope of this study to test whether or not the students in the observed DLIP
classrooms were capable of above-average performance for reasons outside of what they were
exposed to in their classrooms, I did not have statistical data to disprove the possibility of
selection bias. Furthermore, it is possible that parents with children that would naturally perform
above average on testing may have a higher tendency to place their children in DLIPs, which if it
were the case could help explain DLIP results. This threat to credibility should be kept in mind
when reading my interpretation of the results of this study. Finally, because the instructional
techniques observed were evaluated based on their theoretical effect on cognitive load and not on
the actual management of cognitive load, the intent of this study was not to prove that the
observed instructional methods are causing the above average outcomes, but rather to indicate
the possibility that they are contributing factors.
There are a few methods that were employed during this study to help ensure credibility
and trustworthiness. Triangulation, which involves collecting data from multiple individuals,
settings, and methods, helped strengthen credibility by demonstrating that multiple data sources
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 70
support the same conclusion (Maxwell, 2013). The sample of DLIP classrooms was selected in
such a way so as to achieve the maximum variability possible within the limited sample size,
examining three classrooms in three different school districts and instructing three different
grade levels. Comparing results from these different environments is meant to help with
credibility in instances where similar results are found in different sites. In other words, the
themes that arose from different contexts should serve to strengthen the study’s findings. Also,
the collection of data through both observations and interviews allowed for further triangulation
to occur, as interviews with the teachers were used to help validate my interpretation of the
observational data.
In this last way, the interview process also served as a sort of member check, with the
idea being that the feedback I received from interviewees helped with establishing credibility
through the process of confirming and clarifying my interpretation of emergent findings
(Merriam, 2009). The process of interviewing the teachers about their perceptions of different
instructional techniques served to validate whether those observed techniques were potential
contributing factors to the above-average DLIP learning outcomes.
Finally, the literature on research methods states that credibility can be improved when
the researcher deliberately looks for data that supports alternative explanations for why
something is occurring. In an absence of strong supporting data for alternate explanations, one
can have greater confidence that the proposed explanation is correct (Merriam, 2009). The
deliberate search for alternative explanations was constantly on my mind throughout the data
analysis process in this study, as I was actively looking for alternate explanations for how DLIPs
could be achieving their bilteracy and academic achievement outcomes. Aware that the presence
of alternate explanations would result in weak evidence for the effectiveness of some
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 71
instructional techniques, those items are noted in Chapter 5 within the limitations section as well
as within the suggestions for future research. Also, given that, as the researcher, I was “the
primary instrument of data collection and analysis” (Merriam, 2009, p. 15), maintaining
awareness of possible alternate explanations helped me stay aware of my personal worldview
regarding DLIPs and any potential biases that I may have. Considering that the premise of this
study is that CLT-based instructional techniques are likely contributing to DLIP success, I hope
that by maintaining awareness of that predisposition I was able to avoid unconsciously trying to
fit observed obstructional techniques into that framework in the instances when it might not have
been warranted.
Ethics
To make sure that all potential issues were considered, I referred to Patton’s Ethical
Issues Checklist, as detailed in Merriam (2009). The most applicable issues that I considered
were confidentiality, explaining the purpose of the study, informed consent, and data collection
boundaries.
Confidentiality was held in the utmost importance in this study, even though the teachers
I observed did not express concern with this issue. As the dissertation was finalized, all teachers
and school sites were changed to pseudonyms. Only the most general geographic information
necessary to provide the proper context for the study was included, in order to allow for possible
replication or contemplation of transferability of the findings by others. Furthermore, none of the
data was presented in a way to identify any of the students within the observed classrooms. For
the minimal number of interactions with a student that were mentioned in the data, all descriptive
features were removed, including name, gender, race and any other characteristics that could be
used to identify the student.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 72
Beyond confidentiality, the teachers and other site administrators were also given a full
explanation of the purpose of the study and the methods to be used. Teachers were told that I was
looking at some of the more effective DLIP teaching strategies and how those strategies may
contribute to managing the cognitive load of the students. They were also told in advance that I
would be conducting follow-up interviews with them after observations were completed
regarding their teaching experience and their perceptions of different instructional strategies. All
of these details were included in the information sheet that each teacher was given prior to the
study, along with other details, such as the fact that the interviews will be audio recorded with
participant permission. They were also reminded at the beginning of each interview that they had
the freedom to decline answering any questions within the interview that they were
uncomfortable with without need for explanation and that they could stop the interview at any
time.
Finally, I attempted to define clear data collection boundaries prior to observations to
help counteract any ethical concerns. The data for this study was only based on observations of
instructional techniques in the classrooms; anything else outside of those parameters was
ignored. Inquiries during the interview sessions were guided by the interview protocol and
included reasonable follow-up questions that were pertinent to the study.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 73
Chapter Four
Findings
The purpose of this study was to investigate the instructional methods of teachers in dual
language immersion programs (DLIPs) through the lens of cognitive load theory, in an effort to
identify ways that these instructors might be reducing the chance of their students suffering
cognitive overload. As a reminder, the purpose of the study was to see what a sample of
successful DLIP teachers were doing to manage cognitive load. The study was based on the
assumption that students in DLIP programs, who are learning both a new language and new
academic content at the same time, are more likely to suffer cognitive overload than students in
single-language classrooms, who are learning only new academic content. Yet, as noted in
Chapter 1, students in a DLIP environment achieve, on average, greater academic and language-
learning outcomes than students in a traditional classroom. The first three chapters provided an
introduction to language-learning theory and cognitive load theory, identified some
recommended instructional practices that could potentially help with managing students’
cognitive load, and outlined how data would be collected in this study. This chapter will provide
a summary of the findings of this study, first describing the four different teachers that were
observed and key details of each of their classrooms and schools, and then reporting different
teaching strategies that were observed in their classrooms, organizing them by the three general
methods of managing cognitive load (schema development, developing automaticity, and use of
dual modalities).
Case Studies
This section provides an overview of each of the teachers that were observed as well as
their specific schools, summarizing details such as teacher education and background, grade
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 74
level observed, and the types of resources made available to them by their school. The case
studies are intended to give context and perspective on each of the DLIP learning environments
observed, and to provide enough information to allow the reader to envision how the teacher and
students interacted within those learning environments.
Case Study 1: Ms. Harrison at Buchanan Elementary
Buchanan Elementary School was a medium-sized elementary school, servicing
approximately 730 students in grades kindergarten through 6th grade. Roughly 94% of its
students were Hispanic or Latino and 96% were classified as socio-economically disadvantaged
(California Department of Education, 2016). At the time that observations for this study
occurred, the school was in its third year of offering a Spanish-English dual immersion program
and was utilizing a 90/10 DLIP model, with 90% of instruction taking place in Spanish in
kindergarten and the remaining 10% taking place in English. In this model, the amount of
instruction taking place in English increases by 10% each subsequent school year until
eventually a 50/50 split is reached in 4th grade. As first grade was the grade that I observed at
this school, 80% of instruction took place in Spanish, and the instructor had the freedom to
decide which topics would be taught in each language, as long as she maintained an 80/20 split.
Regarding the DLIP standard of adhering to a complete separation of languages, Ms.
Harrison felt that this was an important principle to uphold. She noted that, by keeping the two
languagues separate, it forces students to practice and appreciate both languages, which is
especially important for the learning of Spanish in an English-dominated society. As she put it,
When it’s Spanish time, you should only be speaking Spanish. Then, when it’s
English time, you should only be speaking English. I think, especially because
even at this age they’re going to be drawn to English when they’re out in recess or
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 75
even here. When they communicate with their friends or their peers, they’re going
to be drawn to communicating in English.
During observations, Ms. Harrison would occasionally make an exception to this rule when she
felt it was essential for comprehension, but largely stuck to this principle. Finally, Buchanan also
used one teacher for all instruction, which required the teacher to be bilingual in both English
and Spanish.
Ms. Harrison had been a teacher at Buchanan since the founding of the dual language
immersion program at that school in 2014. Prior to teaching in the DLIP program, she got a BA
in Liberal Studies and then her multiple subject credential. She spent parts of five years at two
different child development centers, where she worked with Spanish-speaking students who were
still learning English, before transitioning into a role providing one-on-one support for Spanish-
speaking students and students with special needs in a public school district. She then served as a
long-term substitute teacher for three different schools before eventually being hired on full-time
at Buchanan Elementary to teach in their dual language program.
The first-grade class observed was comprised of 90% Latino students, 5% caucasian and
5% African American. All but three students spoke at least some Spanish in the home, and the
majority of the class shared Latino cultural knowledge, such as food, music and holidays. Ms.
Harrison also had a teaching assistant present on most days, a graduate student who was
finishing her teaching credential. The assistant was able to help with teaching when the class
split up into smaller groups or was able to take over the teaching of the class when Ms. Harrison
had to deal with students individually, either due to disciplinary reasons or to focus on
specialized instruction for a subset of the class. For example, at one point each day the class
broke into small groups with each working at a different “station”; when Ms. Harrison was
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 76
teaching alone, she would float around the classroom checking in on each group intermittently,
but when she had her teaching assistant present, she would spend her entire time with one of the
groups while her assistant filled the role of checking in on the other groups. It was reported to me
that the teaching assistant was present in the class for 12 weeks and she was present for parts of
four of the five days that I observed.
The student desks in Ms. Harrison’s class were arranged in five squares, comprised of
four desks in each square. These desk groupings filled the center of the room, near the
whiteboard at the front of the room, with other group tables and open floor areas that were used
for the different “stations” mentioned above along the perimeter of the room. The walls were
covered with past writing assignments and art projects, as well as resources that the students
could refer to during class, such as a “word wall” that had vocabulary words they had learned in
class, letters of the alphabet with pictures of objects that begin with each letter, and the daily
schedule.
When asked about what parts of her education provided her training that was specific to
DLIP, Ms. Harrison stated that she didn’t feel that her education gave her much guidance in that
area. She explained that, as she was already fluent in Spanish, becoming DLIP certified only
required taking a Chicano Studies class and one additional course on dual language immersion,
in which they only covered “more like the propositions, the history of dual language education,
not the actual instruction.” As a result, in commenting on where the majority of her DLIP
teaching knowledge came from, she stated, “I think it just comes from my experience from
working at Child Development Center and then subbing. It's just that.”
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 77
Case Study 2: Ms. Martell and Ms. Lee at Van Buren Elementary
Van Buren Elementary School was a medium-sized elementary school that serviced
approximately 700 students in grades kindergarten through 6th grade. At the time of the study,
50% of their students were Asian and another 36% were white, with 21% of the student
population classified as English learners and 10% of the students considered socio-economically
disadvantaged. At the time that observations occurred, the school was in their eighth year of
offering a Korean/English DLIP program. Van Buren employed a 50/50 model, with half of the
instruction occurring in English and half in Korean in every grade. The school also employed
separate teachers for the English and Korean portions of the day, with one group of students
trading classrooms with another midway through the school day. As a result, I was able to
observe two different teachers at this site. Observations occurred in a fifth grade classroom. The
subject matter was rotated between languages on a monthly basis, so that each topic was taught
in Korean half the time and in English half the time.
Ms. Martell had been a DLIP teacher at Van Buren for eight years, which was since the
program began. She spent her first five years teaching kindergarten and the last three teaching
fourth, fifth and sixth grades. She began teaching on the Korean side and then moved over to the
English side in her sixth year. Prior to teaching, she spent three years as a behavioral assistant at
the school, providing support for children with autism. Ms. Martell earned a BA in Psycholology
and Asian-American Studies, then got a Masters degree in Education and a separate credential
for Bilingual, Crosscultural, Language and Academic Development (BCLAD). The BCLAD is
the California equivalent of the English Language Authorization that certifies a teacher is
qualified to work with English language learners.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 78
Ms. Martell grew up speaking Korean, learning Korean as her first language and
speaking it in the home. She lived in Korea for four years in elementary school and then attended
an English-speaking high school in Korea while still living in a Korean-speaking environment.
As the BCLAD was only offered in Spanish at her university, she just had to test for proficiency
in Korean before receiving her credential and was allowed to start teaching in the dual language
program after that.
In addition to her BCLAD credential, Ms. Martell has been able to augment her DLIP
knowledge through observations of other DLIP teachers, spending a few weeks conducting
observations in two other school districts, and in a pair of schools affiliated with the community
school program at a large local university. She also gained some theoretical knowledge from
different professional development opportunities, which included attending conferences and
participating in Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) training. Overall, though, Ms.
Martell said that “I think I got most of my training for teaching through grad school.”
The Korean language instructor at Van Buren was Ms. Lee, who was in her third year
teaching, all of which had been as a dual language immersion teacher in Van Buren’s school
district. This was her first year at Van Buren, having spent the prior two years teaching second
and third grade at Douglas Elementary. Her educational background includes receiving
Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Education. She also began a PhD program in literacy,
language and culture, before becoming a teacher.
Like Ms. Martell, Ms. Lee grew up in a Korean-speaking household, being born in Korea
and living there until she was 10, which was when her family moved to the United States. Even
after moving to the US, her parents were diligent about maintaining the use of Korean in the
home, which helped her continue to develop her Korean language fluency. She did not go
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 79
through any Korean-specific training before becoming a DLIP instructor, with her prior language
knowledge qualifying her for the position.
Ms. Lee did receive some additional experience and training during her transition to
becoming a teacher. She spent a semester as a volunteer in a kindergarten Korean-English DLIP
class at Van Buren as well as six months observing a fourth-grade DLIP class at another school.
By her own account, though, her most noteworthy training was the GLAD training that both Ms.
Martell and she went through. The primary purpose of GLAD is to instruct educators on a
methodology for providing effective English language development for non-native speakers. The
training consists of a seven-day seminar where teachers learn principles for how to structure oral
practice of English, different techniques for practicing reading and writing in a new language, as
well as techniques for making complex concepts understandable to students who are not yet
proficient in the language. Even though it was not designed with English-speaking students who
are learning a second language in mind, many of the concepts were based on research regarding
second language acquisition in general and thus provided useful guidelines for teaching all
students in a DLIP environment (Sanchez, 2015).
When asked about what specific DLIP training she received, Ms. Lee expressed that, as
she was going through the training process, she was surprised to find that there really was none.
The GLAD training was extremely helpful and guides much of her instructional design, but as
mentioned before, it was primarily designed with English language learners in mind. She had
also been surprised to find that the academic and language standards by which her students’
progress was evaluated were exactly the same as the English language standards that were used
for all non-DLIP students in the school - meaning that there were no school guidelines for
evaluating the Korean Language Arts (KLA) component of the curriculum. As a result, Ms. Lee
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 80
and the other Korean-English DLIP teachers at Van Buren and within the district had been
working together to develop the Korean-language curriculum and the KLA standards for testing
the students’ progress in Korean.
When both teachers were questioned about the importance of separating languages, Ms.
Martell was more supportive of a strict separation than Ms. Lee, but each recognized that it
wasn’t necessarily realistic to uphold that standard 100% of the time. Ms. Martell remembered
back to her first year teaching in a DLIP environment,
In kindergarten it was difficult because the kids really couldn’t speak to me in
Korean. And yeah, it was hard for me to, and I was working with a non-Korean
teacher, so I had to break, but I think it is very important for the target language
teacher to just speak Korean only at the younger ages so that the kids can think
that the teacher can only speak the language.
As the instructor that taught exclusively in English, she generally didn’t face the situation where
breaking from her language of instruction was necessary for comprehension.
Ms. Lee, on the other hand, was much more explicit about occasionally integrating
English into her instruction, and she noted that other practitioners at her school felt the same
way.
We started to include some English words in our sentences. And I think so far,
that has been really helpful because that just one word gives them a whole
meaning for them. And kids could see the Korean word and the English word and
they could understand both sides….I went to Chicago for four years and came
back, and the general environment, the understanding of the dual immersion
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 81
teachers was that English had to be introduced. Well, I don’t want to say had to
be, but…it would be more effective to do that.
Ms. Lee did not elaborate on how DLIP teachers were coming to that conclusion, so it could
have come from a pragmatic need to help some students with comprehension, but the timing
matches with the emerging recognition of translanguaging, so that could be a possible
explanation as well. Despite this philosophy, I did not observe Ms. Lee break from Korean at all
during my time in her classroom.
Case Study 3: Ms. Jackson at Fillmore Elementary
Fillmore Elementary School was a medium-sized elementary school that serviced
approximately 760 students in grades kindergarten through 5th grade. The school had 71% Asian
and 23% Hispanic students, with 69% of the student population classified as socio-economically
disadvantaged and 63% classified as English Language Learners. At the time of observations,
Fillmore was in their 4th year providing Spanish-English DLIP. The school employed a 50/50
model, with instruction occurring in both English and Spanish half of the time in every grade.
The teacher alternated languages based on a timer that she used, and would change languages
mid-topic at times, using a transitional phrase to signal the change of language to the students.
Fillmore also used a single instructor model, so the teacher had to be able to instruct in both
languages.
Ms. Jackson had been teaching for the majority of 29 years. After beginning with two
years of teaching English immersion for Spanish speakers, she moved to central California and
began teaching a largely migrant population. It was during this time that she decided she needed
to learn Spanish to better communicate with the families of her students, so she began taking
Spanish classes. As she said,
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 82
…it was during that time that I had direct contact with students who couldn't
communicate with me and their families, much less. So whenever I had to
communicate with them I had to work through an interpreter or if I wanted to
write a note home I had to get someone to translate it. And I missed being able to
build that connection and to really express myself directly to parents, so I started
learning Spanish at that time.
After a few years teaching in central California, Ms. Jackson moved to South America to further
solidify her Spanish, spending 16 months there working in English instruction.
Upon her return to the United States, Ms. Jackson transitioned into teaching in a Spanish-
English DLIP at a school in Northern California, though she taught exclusively on the English
side as she was still not fluent in Spanish. After teaching for a few years at this school, California
began requiring BCLAD certification for all dual language immersion teachers, so Ms. Jackson
left her position and moved to Central America for about a year before returning to the United
States and acquiring her BCLAD. With her BCLAD, she was able to get a position teaching the
Spanish side in a dual language immersion program in another city in Northern California.
Ms. Jackson spent the next three years at this new school, and it was there that she
received her greatest exposure to traditional DLIP teaching methods, as the program had been in
existence for 30 years and had established highly-structured classroom procedures and teaching
protocols. The school employed a 90/10 DLIP model, and during her time there Ms. Jackson
taught both a combination 2nd-grade/3rd-grade class and a combination 5th-grade/6th-grade
class, which gave her experience with two different language percentage splits. Her teaching
partner was a native Spanish speaker who taught the Spanish segments of the class, and she
stated, “I did have release time to observe my partner, because he was a very good teacher,”
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 83
specifically noting the way he incorporated images and songs into his teaching. As Ms. Jackson
put it, “He used a lot of drawings. He's a better artist than I am, so better for his class than
mine…He would do a lot of modeling, writing on the document camera to demonstrate, used a
lot of song and poetry in his class.”
Like Ms. Harrison and Ms. Martell, Ms. Jackson agreed that a strict separation of
languages should be the goal in a DLIP classroom, though she also admitted that she was not
able to achieve that standard all the time. She mostly attributed that to being a solo teacher who
had to teach in both languages; in comparison to her past experience where she taught
exclusively in the target language with a partner who taught exclusively in English, she did not
remember having any issues maintaining her use of Spanish 100% of the time. As she described
her current experience, “Sometimes during the time the other students are working on Spanish, I
have to instruct them in English. So then I’ll look up from teaching English when it’s Spanish
time and be speaking English.”
Observed Teaching Strategies
Within the four DLIP classrooms that were observed, there were many instances of
teaching practices being utilized that were consistent with recommendations from cognitive load
theory for managing the cognitive load of students; yet the methods observed did not derive
equally from the three cognitive load theory categories of schema development, automation of
mental processes (automaticity) and use of dual modalities. There were mostly examples of
techniques and strategies for developing schema and for utilizing dual modalities, with only
occasional instances of the teachers implementing techniques for developing automaticity. The
specific techniques observed within these three categories will be discussed below.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 84
Schema Development
For cognitive load theorists, developing schema is one of the fundamental processes of
learning. While many students may be able to comprehend new concepts at the time they are
being taught, for the material to be both understood and remembered, it needs to make its way
into a student’s long-term memory, which is done by connecting it to existing schema on the
subject. Therefore, finding the existing knowledge that serves as a frame of reference for new
information becomes a critical part of how new knowledge is created and then remembered and
stored for future use (Sweller, 1994). When sharing her opinion about what makes a successful
DLIP teacher, Ms. Jackson noted,
[Students] always need some background information that they can attach their
new learning to. We all do. But it's much more critical in language instruction,
that they have some sort of schema that they're hanging their new information on.
So it's always the teacher's responsibility to create the schema. If there's no
connection, to find a connection, to do something silly, to make a connection.
Considering that DLIP instructors are working in two languages, the challenge of
building schema can be even harder in that environment, as there may be language barriers to
overcome along with achieving comprehension of the material, and therefore effectively
employing various strategies for developing schema will be even more critical. In examining the
teaching techniques that DLIP teachers used in the classroom to help with schema development,
I first attempted to identify the use of teaching strategies from the literature that were detailed in
Chapter 2 – goal-free problems, worked examples, partially completed problems and perspective
taking. With the limited time in the field while conducting this study, it was not surprising that
some of these strategies did not show up during the observation periods. I also noted a couple of
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 85
other teaching strategies which I have referred to as “activating prior knowledge” and
“previewing materials” that exist within the cognitive load theory literature, but which are
sometimes conflated under the term “previewing materials.” As I considered the two to be
different strategies, I attempted to provide a clear delineation between how I used each term and
how they were distinguished from one another. . In the sections below, the strategies that were
observed will be further presented.
Perspective taking and activating prior knowledge. One common strategy that was
observed in each of the DLIP classrooms was the deliberate use of prior knowledge in teaching
new material and ensuring comprehension. While connecting new information to prior
information is one of the keys to learning in general, teachers do not always do so intentionally.
But in an environment where the combination of language barriers and new content intersect to
make learning more challenging than in the average classroom, it is even more important for
teachers to find ways to leverage information that they know their students have, whether it is
because it is fundamental knowledge from a previous grade or because it was explicitly taught
earlier in the school year.
Cognitive load theory literature identifies “perspective taking” as one of the strategies for
activating prior knowledge. This is an activity where students are asked to think about prior
knowledge that they have on a subject, and to do so from a specific perspective, usually one of a
person or object associated with the lesson. For example, a biology teacher may start a lesson on
circulation by asking her students to imagine what they already know about circulation from the
perspective of a red blood cell (Wetzels, Kester & ven Merrienboer, 2011). Activating prior
knowledge refers to the idea of bringing a student’s prior knowledge to the front of their mind so
as to make it easier for schema to develop. In the moment of learning, students may not always
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 86
know what parts of their prior knowledge connect to what they are learning; at other times, they
may have difficulty recalling prior information in the moment of learning. By bringing that
information to the front of mind at the beginning of a lesson, it becomes more likely that the new
information that is being learned will connect with that schema.
The specific strategy of perspective taking, though, is just one technique for activating
prior knowledge, so it may not be the exact technique chosen by a particular instructor. In fact,
child development literature discusses that most children do not develop the ability to effectively
view situations from another perspective until early adolescence (Santrock, 2013), and as a
result, it was not surprising that perspective taking was not used in the grades that I observed.
Because of this, I also looked for general instances of the instructor activating prior knowledge
by bringing that knowledge to the students’ conscious mind before beginning a related lesson.In
one example, Ms. Martell was observed activating prior knowledge before starting a new
exercise during a science segment with her fifth-grade class. Before she began a lesson on states
of matter, she displayed a slide labeled “Matter” that included pictures of a computer, a glass of
orange juice, and a teapot with steam coming out of it. She reminded the class of a previous
lesson where they had learned about solids, liquids and gases, noting that the pictures were there
to remind them of examples of those three states of matter. The exercise that followed had the
students working together in small groups to list five different properties of matter. Rather than
relying on the fact that her students would remember the earlier lesson on matter on their own,
Ms. Martell used a simple visual to represent what they had learned, and then explicitly referred
to it prior to starting the exercise, bringing that information to the front of the students’ minds
prior to asking them to build upon that information.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 87
Ms. Harrison also used the technique of activating prior knowledge with her first-graders
during an activity where the students were viewing slides that had images of different places,
actions, and modes of transportation. With each slide, Ms. Harrison asked for volunteers to
identify the place or mode of transportation, and based on the ease with which the members of
the class responded, these were clearly words that the students already knew. Once these words
were already in their mind, she had them draw the connection between the different modes of
transportation, noting how they can all be used to go places albeit in different ways. In expanding
upon her general teaching strategy of “building on something that they already know,” Ms.
Harrison explained that this lesson on transportation became her transition into teaching the class
the Spanish verb ir, which means “to go.” Ir, while a fundamental verb in Spanish, has an
irregular conjugation and can be challenging to learn. Ms. Harrison’s deliberate choice to
activate prior knowledge that the students were highly familiar with likely helped deflect some of
the difficulty of the lesson, and in turn helped some of those students avoid suffering cognitive
overload.
Ms. Jackson also had moments where she would remind students of prior information
they had learned as preparation for a lesson. In one instance, she began working with a small
group on a lesson regarding facts about cars from the early 20th century. Before they began, she
reminded the group of an earlier lesson about Mary Anderson, who invented windshield wipers.
She asked them a number of leading questions about that past lesson, asking if they remembered
her name, if they knew the Spanish word for windshield wipers, and other questions of that
nature. After she had refreshed their memories on the earlier lesson, they read a passage and
answered more questions about cars from long ago. Much like Ms. Martell, Ms. Jackson chose
not to rely on the students remembering the earlier lesson on their own, but rather actively
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 88
refreshed their memory, so that the information would be at hand and readily available to
connect with the new learning.
As demonstrated by the examples above, the use of the technique of activating prior
knowledge was one of the strategies used across multiple observed classrooms. Whether done
exclusively with verbal explanation or in conjunction with presenting visual images, the idea of
bringing existing knowledge to the front of the students’ mind before building on that knowledge
was one way that DLIP teachers assisted with the development of schema and theoretically
helped manage the cognitive load of their students.
Partially completed problems. The use of partially completed problems is another one
of the strategies for developing schema that was identified in the cognitive load theory literature,
and this strategy was observed being used to a small degree at each of the school sites. As
mentioned earlier, the benefit of using partially completed problems with respect to managing
cognitive load is that, especially for students who are still mastering the information being
learned, it is a way to break the learning down into smaller segments while still providing the full
framework of information. In essence, these types of problems provide scaffolding to students
while still challenging them to solve portions of the problems on their own (Sweller, 1994).
In her first grade classroom, Ms. Harrison used a partially completed problem in one of
her individual work stations where her students were practicing how to tell time. She provided
the students a worksheet with a series of clocks with different times of day pictured. Alongside
each clock, there was also a complete sentence stating the time of day with only the correct time
missing. The students needed to identify the time on each clock, filling in the blank in each
sentence with the correct time. When the class went over the answers as a group, though, Ms.
Harrison made sure each full sentence was read, rather than just checking the times on the clocks
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 89
that the students had to provide. In this way, Ms. Harrison added a layer of language-learning to
a simple first-grade time-telling exercise, but did so in a way that likely added minimally to the
student’s cognitive load in the process.
Ms. Jackson also used partially completed problems with her third-grade students. In one
instance, her class was working on developing their writing skills and they were given a few
sentence stems to choose from (“Yo pienso/creo/opino que debemos que hacer…,” each of
which roughly means “I think we should do…”), which they were to complete and write in their
notebooks. The academic content was a science segment on insects, and the students had to come
up with ideas on different insect studies they could perform. Ms. Jackson could have had the
students list the ideas as bullet points and still achieved the same learning result from the science
perspective, but like Ms. Harrison in the example above, she also included a language
component in the exercise by providing a sentence stem. Her students were then able to think
about the scientific information and practice writing complete sentences at the same time, while
minimizing the additional cognitive load the students may have experienced by providing the
sentence stem for them.
In another example, Ms. Jackson again used sentence stems, this time when she was
reviewing vocabulary definitions with the class. In this exercise, she had a list of vocabulary
words in her notebook, and she would ask one of the students to come up to the front of the class,
where they would be quizzed on the definition of each word. Rather than allowing the student to
just respond with the definition, though, she required the student to answer in a complete
sentence by filling in the sentence stem, “La palabra _____ significa _______” (“The word
_____ means _____”). As in the prior two examples, by adding this sentence stem to the
exercise, it turned a simple vocabulary quiz into a lesson that also reinforced how the
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 90
information should be communicated in a complete sentence, but did so in a way that did not
require the students to pull the additional vocabulary and the grammar rules out of their memory,
thus likely avoiding additional cognitive load.
Ms. Lee also used partially completed problems in one of her introductory lessons that
led up to her segment on Native Americans. As part of studying Native American history and
culture, her students were asked to identify similarities and differences between different tribes.
In preparation for that, Ms. Lee assigned a handout based on different ways to phrase the
concepts of similarity and difference in Korean – for example, phrases meaning “similarity,” “in
common,” “is like,” “it is the same” – where the students had to write sentences comparing
Northern and Southern California. While there were a couple of entries that listed a complete
question with no sample answer, most of the prompts involved a sentence stem with a blank to
fill in details about the different regions of California. For each question, though, the students
had to answer in complete sentences, resulting in an opportunity to also practice their language
skills while also communicating the similarities and differences of the Native American tribes
they were to study. This technique is another example of how a partially-completed problem can
be used to break down a larger learning objective into smaller tasks, in this case providing the
majority of a sentence in the first task with only a few blanks to be filled in with the students’
current knowledge and then later asking the students to remember and use the sentence
frameworks that were learned in conjunction with new knowledge they were acquiring about
Native American tribes.
As with the use of activating prior knowledge, the use of partially completed problems
was seen at all three school sites. Though much of the cognitive load research into the use of
partially completed problems focuses on breaking down a single-subject lesson into smaller
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 91
parts, in an environment like a DLIP classroom, where a single lesson may have multiple
learning objectives, separating those objectives would be another way to make use of this
technique. The teachers observed all found ways to provide scaffolding for the language-learning
objectives of the illustrated lessons while focusing on the content-learning objectives, but they
could just as easily have done the reverse and provided partially completed problems for the
content portion of a lesson while teaching language. Either would have been an effective way to
use this teaching technique, but only the former was witnessed during the observation period.
Previewing materials. Another technique that DLIP teachers were observed utilizing in
the classroom is the technique of previewing materials. For clarification, the term “previewing
materials” has been used in more than one way in education literature; sometimes it is used in the
same way as I have used the phrase “activating prior knowledge,” while at other times it can
refer to the technique of giving students some fundamental knowledge on a subject before a
lesson commences, which how I will use it here. Previewing materials can serve as the initial
framework on a subject before a more detailed and in-depth lesson follows, and by giving the
students basic information up front, it provides the foundation for schema on the topic and gives
them the framework for understanding and remembering what they are about to learn. This
technique is also consistent with Vygotsky’s theory of providing scaffolding for students, which
can be seen in many EL teaching models, and would provide benefits similar to providing
additional explanatory materials to beginners (Kalyuga et al., 2003).
One way that Ms. Lee would preview materials was by sending an audio clip of the next
day’s reading lesson to the students, so they could do some preparation before the actual in-class
lesson. She explained her approach by saying, “I sent them via email the recording of the story
that we’re going to be reading. So I record it myself and I just send it to them so they can review
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 92
it at home.” By sending an audio recording, it would give the students the opportunity to listen to
spoken Korean while following along with the reading at their own pace, and it would establish a
little bit of familiarity with the story prior to the instruction. Even if there was only partial
understanding of what Ms. Lee was reading, this technique gave the students a basic framework
for what they were about to learn the following day, and also gave them the opportunity to
identify trouble areas about which they would be able to ask clarification. Though she sent
previews to the entire class, for Ms. Lee, previewing materials was especially important for
students who might struggle either with the content or the Korean language. She mentioned that
specifically for one student that tended to struggle the most, “In terms of classroom activities,
most of the time I would go to the student and tell what we’re going to be learning first.”
Previewing, then, was her tactic for helping make sure the students who were most at risk of
struggling with the material were not going to be lost as the lesson began.
Ms. Harrison was also observed previewing materials with her first-graders when they
were about to enter a new topic that they hadn’t learned before. Her technique was to first teach
the students some of the vocabulary that they were going to come across in the future lesson,
then after a break, she would layer in more content-specific information. She explained it in the
following way: “Let’s say I’m teaching a unit on transportation…First I cover the vocabulary.
Then we read a passage. Scaffolding the language into the content.” During the previewing
segment, Ms. Harrison provided a picture with each new vocabulary word, along with providing
a clear explanation of what each word meant. In the instance that students in the class knew the
word, she allowed them to share what they knew about the word as well. She would then leave
the words and images posted while the class worked on the associated exercise. In one specific
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 93
instance, she went over a list of vocabulary words with pictures that she was showing on the
overhead; the class then had a sentence-correction exercise that used those different words.
These are two examples of the ways in which providing students preliminary exposure to
subject matter can assist with initial schema development, serving as a foundation for subsequent
learning and reducing the risk of cognitive overload. The previewing of materials can be done a
short tie in advance of the lesson, as done by Ms. Lee the evening before, or immediately before
the lesson, as done by Ms. Harrison, as long as the lesson occurs shortly enough after the
previewing for the new information to still be fresh in the students’ minds.
Dual Modalities
Using dual modalities is the second method that can be used to manage cognitive load.
The process of using dual modalities involves distributing instructional content between auditory
and visual channels, rather than teaching everything using only one channel. For example,
learning by exclusively reading printed materials can be improved upon by delivering some of
that information verbally while the students look at associated visual materials, such as charts,
graphs or other images. As cognitive load theory states, by presenting information to students
through both the visual and auditory channels at the same time, a greater amount of information
can be processed without suffering from cognitive overload. To achieve maximum efficiency,
the information must be organized so as to avoid adding extraneous cognitive load to the student,
but even when it is done less than perfectly there is a likelihood that the net effect will be
beneficial. There are also ways in which having the same information transmitted through
multiple modalities can reduce the chance of cognitive overload, if it helps with understanding
unfamiliar content or other information that if delivered through one modality would be too
difficult. We will see examples of each of these scenarios in this section.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 94
Audio with images and realia. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the primary way to manage
cognitive load through the use of dual modalities involves combining audio with images or
realia. Building on Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) theory of working memory and the modality
effect (Moreno & Mayer, 1999), as images transmit information through the visual channel, they
can be paired with audio information to help manage cognitive load. Providing students with a
visual representation of a word or concept that is being spoken can also help with
comprehension, and utilizing a physical object in conjunction with verbal information -
especially if that object is something the students are familiar with - can help provide a stronger
mental connection as it is encoded into schema (Calderon & Minaya-Rowe, 2003).
Ms. Jackson frequently found ways to combine the use of audio and images in the
classroom. First thing in the morning, the students would go over the schedule of subjects and
times, which Ms. Jackson had posted on a hanging display next to the projection screen. Each
subject listed was accompanied with an image representing the subject – “lectura” was
accompanied by a picture of a person reading a book, “matematicas” had a picture of a person
doing math on a chalkboard, “almuerzo” had a picture of a lunchbox, and so on – and each day
she would verbally review the schedule while referencing the images. If only the words for each
subject had been listed, some students would likely have utilized more time and mental energy
recalling what some of the words meant, and possibly wouldn’t have remembered the meaning at
all; including an image, though, provided additional information about the word that was
recognizable and quick to process. It may not have been critical for each student to understand
exactly what topic is coming at a particular time (as the transition from one topic to another is
initiated by the teacher), this step was a part of the daily lesson and part of how the students
learned school-specific vocabulary.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 95
Figure 4. Daily schedule in Ms. Jackson’s class
Ms. Jackson also took advantage of dual modalities by utilizing images in conjunction
with verbal instruction during the writing segment of her class, which she used to help teach the
meanings of new and unfamiliar words. Along one section of the whiteboard were posted a series
of words and images that she referred to throughout the lesson: some were more straightforward,
such as pictures of a penguin and a snake as she discussed the words “aleta” (fin) and “escala”
(scale), but others were meant to be more conceptual, such as a picture of a child acting on stage
with visible enthusiasm to accompany the word “comprometido,” which translates to
“committed,” or a picture of a woman with long twirled hair to help illustrate the word
“enredado,” which means “tangled.” As Ms. Jackson said each of these words, she explained
what they meant while also referencing the posted images. The students were then given a
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 96
writing project using the words on the cards on the whiteboard, and during this assignment I
observed most of the class frequently looking up to refer to the board during their writing. The
use of images in this example helped to ensure that meaning was being conveyed to the students
during the lesson, reducing the chances of students shutting down mentally due to cognitive
overload, especially for those students for whom familiarity with the language is still developing.
Ms. Jackson also combined visuals with her math lesson, doing so in a way that also
leveraged her access to technology. As she worked on subtraction principles with the class, each
student was given a set of manipulatives that represented numbers in the ones, tens and
hundreds, which they had been taught to use to visually represent the problem. As she was
teaching the lesson, Ms. Jackson had one student bring up their manipulatives and demonstrated
how she would use them to solve the problem, which she projected onto her screen using her
document camera. What otherwise would have been too small of a presentation for the whole
class to see became more accessible through the use of her camera. As in the other instances,
presenting the information graphically was an aspect of the lesson that Ms. Jackson felt was
critical to learning in the DLIP environment. As she put it, being successful required “having a
lot of visual support, whether it's real things, drawings, things that you're showing them, either in
person or on the screen. Here we have the benefit of technology, which is wonderful, but I love
to have real things.” Here again we see the integration of a visual representation with verbal
instruction – in this case, by using a physical object rather than an image – which Ms. Jackson
did in a way that helped clarify information from the math problem, which in turn reduced the
likelihood of cognitive overload occurring.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 97
Figure 5. Manipulatives projected on video screen in Ms. Jackson’s class
The technique of combining images with verbal instruction was also used by Ms. Lee
with her fifth-grade Korean/English DLIP class. During the time of observation, Ms. Lee was
teaching a social science segment on Native Americans, and almost every lesson incorporated
images to assist with comprehension. She taught them several aspects of Native American
culture - environment where they lived, clothing, food, cultural items - and for each section she
had a drawn image to represent each concept. In the follow-up interview, I found out that only
some of those words were new Korean vocabulary, but that even with the familiar words such as
“sigpum” (food) and “cheon” (clothing), this was the first time her students were being asked to
take those concepts and use them to analyze a reading passage. The mental challenge that was
potentially involved with this new exercise warranted incorporating visual information to help
with processing.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 98
Combining images with verbal lessons was also an important technique used in Ms.
Harrison’s first grade class. Like Ms. Martell, she too was teaching her class about solids, liquids
and gases, but was just introducing the general concepts. She had pictures of objects in each state
which she referred to as she explained what each of these new words meant. In navigating
situations where students are learning new concepts and new vocabulary at the same time - and
especially when it is in a language they are still mastering - utilizing images to take advantage of
multiple channels for communicating information can be especially effective. This was an
intentional choice by Ms. Harrison, as she stated:
Sometimes, if while I'm teaching I discover that there's a word that they didn't
know that maybe I didn't address, then I just do it informally. I'll show them a
picture on my phone or draw them a picture, or if I can do a gesture for it…Then,
when I do do it explicitly, I usually have the word with the picture and then
explain to them what it is.
Ms. Harrison also utilized realia in the classroom as a tool of instruction. Realia refers to
any physical object (as opposed to an image of an object), and is usually either something that
students are already familiar with or something culturally significant that ties to a lesson. During
a lesson on fractions, Ms. Harrison made use of realia to help with the concepts of one-half and
one-fourth; distributing graham crackers to each of her students at the beginning of the lesson.
As the reader may be aware, graham crackers traditionally have perforations that allow them to
be broken into fourths, and as she taught her students the meaning of different fractions, she had
them each break their graham crackers apart. The end result was for each student to have their
own physical example of the fractions in front of them for reference. In this way, Ms. Harrison
found a creative way to utilize realia that her students were already familiar with during her math
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 99
lesson in a way that allowed them to learn about fractions both by hearing her explanation and
seeing it physically represented.
Combining the use of visual representations with verbal instruction is one of the more
common ways to make use of dual modalities during instruction. Leveraging the use of images
and realia supplies students with additional clarifying information on a subject simultaneous to
verbal instruction, making use of multiple channels for processing information. Relying on the
alternative of providing verbal clarification after verbal instruction misses the opportunity to help
students achieve comprehension during the initial moment of teaching, and can result in a less
efficient use of mental resources.
Audio with written text. An additional way that information can be presented using dual
modalities is when there is written text to be read and there is an audio track accompanying it.
Though cognitive load theory initially advised against this practice due to redundancy of
information, researchers later discovered instances where this practice can be beneficial –
notably when the verbal information is either too complex or just too voluminous for the student
to remember. In a language-learning environment, there are many instances where unfamiliarity
with vocabulary can add complexity to an otherwise understandable lesson, and thus the
technique of pairing written information with an audio track can be beneficial. Scenarios where
this would apply include instances where correct pronunciation can be modeled and issues of
mispronunciation can be addressed, as a resource for students who read slowly, allowing them to
follow along more quickly and easily than they would if they were deciphering each written
word on their own, and during the times when a word could be recognizable when heard but not
necessarily understood when only read (this would be true in instances where the student was
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 100
familiar with a word from spoken usage but was unfamiliar with seeing it in print and did not
make the connection between what was written on the page and the word they knew).
Ms. Harrison made use of this combination on a daily basis with her first-graders in one
of the class’s regular learning centers. This center was comprised of Spanish books and cassette
players, on which students could listen along to the story that they were reading. Each group
spent 15-20 minutes at the center, listening individually to the audio track on headphones while
following along in the book. According to Ms. Harrison, “They’ll listen to the same story for a
whole week. That just helps with vocabulary, correct use of Spanish.” Students had the
autonomy to pause and rewind the audio track at their own discretion, allowing for the pacing of
the auditory information to meet each student’s individual needs. This is an example of how the
same information being communicated through multiple channels can circumvent potential
confusion and cognitive overload in a student-paced environment.
Figure 6. Listening station in Ms. Harrison’s class
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 101
Opposite from Ms. Harrison, Ms. Jackson used written text in an effort to help her third-
graders understand what words were being spoken during instruction, which she sometimes
would do through the use of a song. In one example, during physical education, she taught her
class the traditional Mexican children’s song Doña Blanca, which includes a circle game similar
to the American game Duck Duck Goose. At first she taught the class the song verbally, allowing
them to listen to the words and repeat after her without concentrating on what each word meant
(or even which groups of sounds they were hearing formed words). According to Ms. Jackson,
she wanted to give her students a chance to “enjoy the language and play with it.” In her
estimation, it is “a good way to help the affective filter stay low and let them just enjoy the fact
that they're hearing and they're making it up.” Later on, she gave the students a printed copy of
the lyrics to the song so they could see what the words that they were singing looked like. It was
at this time that she began teaching the students the meanings of the different words, allowing
word recognition to occur through reading and instruction of definition to occur through the
auditory channel.
As I observed the fifth-grade teachers, they both used a combination of written text and
verbal cues for a third purpose, which was to aid with overall comprehension of meaning of a
text, rather than to model correct pronunciation or assist with word recognition as Ms. Harrison
and Ms. Jackson had used it. During her math section, Ms. Martell would display problems on
her overhead projector with a set of instructions, but would also play an audio file that verbalized
the instructions. By playing the audio file along with the written text, it helped ensure that the
students were following along with the instructions and were comprehending what they were
being asked to do, but the written text also gave the students something they could refer back to
in case they forgot part of the instructions. This is consistent with research on cognitive load
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 102
theory that recommends playing audio in conjunction with written text in situations where it can
help students avoid having to hold large chunks of audio information in their mind, which can
facilitate learning (Leahy & Sweller, 2016; Moreno & Mayer, 1999).
Ms. Lee also used dual modalities to aid with comprehension, especially for her students
who were at risk of not understanding the written text they were reading. As she said, “For some
of the students, I sent them via email the recording of the story that we’re going to be reading. So
I record it myself and I just send it to them so they can review it at home.” While it has been
mentioned that this technique can be useful in any language-learning environment to assist with
comprehension, it is even more critical in situations where the two languages of instruction
utilize different alphabets, such as with Korean and English. A speaker that was proficient in
only one of the languages would likely end up using a portion of their cognitive load deciphering
what words they were reading, which would reduce that amount of mental capacity available for
comprehension. By sending the audio clip of the story being read, this allowed the students who
needed extra assistance to review the text at home in conjunction with listening to it being read,
helping increase their familiarity with the text. In that way, they could use more of their mental
capacity during the lesson toward comprehending the overall meaning of the text and what was
being taught.
Ms. Lee would also utilize the technique of verbalizing a written text with her class to aid
with comprehension, especially during testing, where comprehension of what is being asked is
most crucial and carries the highest stakes. As she explained, “When I’m giving tests I make sure
that I read the question out loud verbally to the student, so the student understands the question
that's being asked.” She did not want students’ results on content-specific tests to be reflective of
a lack of proficiency with reading Korean, and so she incorporated the process of reading test
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 103
questions aloud, so that students could hear the questions spoken while following along with
their copy of the printed exam. I was able to observe this happening once during my time in the
classroom, and I should note in that instance, Ms. Lee was very deliberate about only reading the
question verbatim as it was written and did not add any additional information during her reading
of the questions, and thus was only helping her students understand what was written without
affecting the assessment of their content knowledge.
Observations of the instructors in this study revealed multiple ways in which verbal and
written text were used in conjunction with one another, including the incorporation of songs and
listening to pre-recorded audio tracks in conjunction with reading. The ways in which verbal and
written instruction were combined should assist with managing cognitive load and likely would
not result in a redundancy effect, due to the fact that these students are not yet experts in the
language of instruction or the content being learned, and therefor the duplicate information
becomes more likely to help with comprehension.
Audio with physical movements. A third way that visual information was observed
being communicated to students in DLIP classrooms was through physical movements. While
the cognitive load theory literature focuses on visual information being communicated through
the use of written text or images, the use of physical movements is another option for utilizing
the visual channel that is commonly used in language-learning models such as GLAD, and
gestures and other movements can be used in a couple of ways to manage cognitive load. For
students who are not yet proficient with the language of instruction, the use of “redundant
gestures” (gestures that mirror the information being communicated verbally) can serve to aid
with comprehension (McNeil, Alibali & Evans, 2000) and in turn help manage cognitive load.
For students who are more proficient in the language of instruction, using “supplementary
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 104
gestures” (gestures that add information to that being communicated verbally) is a way to
leverage dual modalities for the reason more commonly found in the cognitive load theory
literature – as a method for increasing the amount of information being communicated while still
avoiding cognitive overload (Goldin-Meadow, 2003).
As mentioned in the previous section, Ms. Harrison’s use of gestures is one of her
preferred techniques when teaching new vocabulary. This was something I saw her utilize within
the first few minutes of observing her class. The first exercise I observed involved students
individually working on a writing assignment based on a short reading passage, and Ms.
Harrison was circulating through the class helping students as needed. As she came upon
students who didn’t understand some of the words in the passage, she used hand gestures as she
slowly pronounced the more difficult words, following up with a verbal definition. By
combining visual cues with her verbalization of the word, Ms. Harrison clarified the meaning of
the word in a way that made use of the student’s visual and auditory channels (McNeil, Alibali &
Evans, 2000).
Ms. Harrison also combined physical movements with verbal information when she was
teaching a concept in both Spanish and English as a way to bridge the two languages. As she was
teaching her first-graders techniques for reading comprehension, she used specific hand motions
in conjunction with explaining the concepts of “story,” the “main idea” of the story, and story
“details.” For instance, as she made a large, arching motion with her hands to represent “main
idea,” she also said “idea principal” and had the class repeat after her while mimicking the hand
motion. Later in the day, as she was teaching reading comprehension in English, she again used
the same hand motion as she said “main idea.” Whether a student was more comfortable using
Spanish or English, the incorporation of the “main idea” hand motion provided information that
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 105
was the same regardless of which language was being used for instruction. In an instance where
a student might use some of their mental capacity trying to decipher the meaning of what Ms.
Harrison was saying, instead they were given additional information via the visual channel that
could assist with meaning-making and thus reduce cognitive load.
Another way that Ms. Harrison integrated physical movement into her first-grade
instructional environment was through the use of the game Simon Says. During portions of each
day, she would have the students sit in a large circle at the front of the classroom, where she
would conduct some of her different lessons. During this time, it was common for her to use the
game Simon Says as a part of her instruction. For instance, during a lesson when the students
were reviewing parts of the body, Ms. Harrison instructed them to touch the different parts of the
body associated with each word they were reviewing; after the students responded, she would
then say the word herself while touching the part of the body. I also observed her using this
technique while reviewing a group of action verbs, where she would say, “Simon Says show me
how you clap, swim, smile” etc. Students again were allowed to respond before she
demonstrated the movement while repeating the action verb. In both of these examples, Ms.
Harrison’s use of gesture provided two types of benefits for managing cognitive load. First, for
those students still learning the language of instruction as well as the specific vocabulary being
taught, there is a high chance of cognitive overload if they do not immediately recognize the
word that is being said, as they will also need to figure out what the word means as well as
associate it with a part of the body. By following up in the manner she did, Ms. Harrison created
a situation where that student could listen to establish word recognition and watch to determine
meaning, which can help manage cognitive load while facilitating learning (McNeil, Alibali &
Evans, 2000). The secondary benefit for reducing cognitive load comes from the students
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 106
performing the movements themselves. Research has shown that gesturing in conjunction with
speaking can lighten one’s cognitive load with regard to explaining the meaning of a subject,
which frees up resources to access information from one’s memory (Goldin-Meadow, Musbaum,
Kelly & Wagner, 2001).
During observations of Ms. Jackson, she incorporated physical movements during
instruction of new vocabulary. During the literacy lesson mentioned earlier, where she had some
conceptual words and images posted on one of her whiteboards and provided verbal definitions
of the words along with the images, she also layered in the use of physical movements to help
communicate meaning. As she discussed the meaning of the word “enreder” (tangle), she not
only said the word and referred to the image on the board, but also mimed being in pain as she
tried to comb her hair. During another reading lesson, the word “escondite” (hiding place) came
up in a passage, and Ms. Jackson explained the meaning verbally while illustrating it by hiding
behind a portable whiteboard and then popping her head over it to look at the class. These are
two more examples of how to the use of redundant gestures can help facilitate comprehension by
leveraging both the audio and visual channels of one’s students.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 107
Figure 7. Concepts with images on whiteboard in Ms. Jackson’s class
Ms. Jackson also used physical movements in ways that are similar to Ms. Harrison,
especially with regard to vocabulary and reading comprehension. As she was reviewing a
reading passage with her third-grade class, Ms. Jackson demonstrated a large arching hand
motion similar to the one Ms. Harrison used for “main idea” while describing the “conclusion”
that the students could draw from the reading. She had taught her students to copy the hand
motion after her while repeating the word “conclusion,” reinforcing the connection between the
word and the motion. She also used a similar technique during math instruction, where she
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 108
incorporated the use of a hand motion in association with the word “difference,” which again the
students mimicked after her. She explained that she was “doing a lot of mimicry and hand
gestures, which are all part of language study,” which was an aspect of her GLAD training that
she was able to incorporate while she was still getting familiar with the teaching materials in her
new position.
I only observed Ms. Martell integrate a physical movement with a verbal lesson once, but
I think it is noteworthy. She was working with the class on planning a group project based
around reading an autobiography and then writing about the person in the book. One specific
step in the project involved “clarifying” what was written in the autobiography, and she taught
them that clarifying can be done through asking questions like “How is that important?” or
“Does that make sense?” Each time she said the word “clarify,” she also made her hands into two
circles and place them over her eyes, like she was looking through glasses, and she had the class
copy that movement as well. She explained later that the “looking through glasses” movement
was a way to help them understand and remember what the word “clarify” meant within their
classroom. Employing multiple modalities through the use of supplementary gestures can be an
effective way to help with comprehension of complex or abstract concepts (Goldin-Meadow &
Butcher, 2003; Moreno & Mayer, 2002).
Finally, like Ms. Harrison and Ms. Jackson, Ms. Lee used hand motions during reading
comprehension lessons with her fifth-graders as well. In her lesson, the students had read a story
individually at home and then were reviewing different details of the story in class, along with
interpreting the meaning of the story. Throughout the exercise, Ms. Lee used hand motions in
conjunction with her explanations to help convey the meaning of what she was saying to the
class. Most instances that were observed in this lesson appeared to be in conjunction with more
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 109
conceptual words rather than vocabulary that could be easily represented with a picture; in one
example, as she was describing whether a person in the story was nearby or far away, she made a
motion with one hand close to her body and the other moving away from it while she repeated
the word “meolli” (far). In a DLIP environment where separation of languages is part of the
structure, there is a delicate balance: teachers must try to generate as much germane load as
possible in the language of instruction while still providing enough information to ensure
comprehension and avoid cognitive overload. The use of body movements along with verbal
lessons is an effective way to make use of dual modalities to achieve this balance.
All four DLIP teachers were observed combining verbal instruction with gestures or other
physical movements as a way of facilitating comprehension. Though this technique is not one
that is explicitly described in the cognitive load literature, it is another way to provide
information to students through both the auditory and visual channels and in turn manage
cognitive load. These types of teaching techniques stem from EL instructional standards and as a
result are likely used by many teachers in DLIP and other language-learning environments.
Automaticity
The concept of automaticity is the third and final method for managing cognitive load
that is identified in the literature. Automaticity refers to automating the process of recalling and
utilizing information to the point where it bypasses a person’s working memory and is processed
unconsciously. When parts of a person’s knowledge can be accessed without requiring any
mental effort, that frees up mental resources to process additional information (Sweller, 1994).
Within the cognitive load theory literature, repetition is the only instructional method identified
for building automaticity, so my observations focused on different ways that DLIP teacher
executed the process of repetition. Many of the observed instances of repetition also overlap with
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 110
the use of dual modalities, including listening to and singing songs, watching music videos, and
playing games that involve physical movement in conjunction with taking in auditory
information. It can be advantageous for instructors to use multiple methods to manage cognitive
load simultaneously, as long as the different techniques are not serving to cancel out the effects
of one another, and if the reader recalls from Chapter 2 there were multiple studies testing the
combination of different scenarios on cognitive load (Kalyuga et al., 2003; Leahy & Sweller,
2011; Moreno & Mayer, 1999). The specific overlap between building automaticity and use of
dual modalities is particulary appropriate considering that there is evidence that the use of music
can help with long-term memorization (Brown, Roediger and McDaniel, 2014).
Ms. Jackson used repetition in conjunction with a reading comprehension segment of her
class, in which she drilled both pronunciation of new vocabulary and understanding of reading
comprehension concepts. As she was going through the reading passage with the class, Ms.
Jackson would stop whenever she came across a word that she thought might be unfamiliar to the
students. She would then carefully pronounce the word and the class would repeat after her, and
each word was repeated three or four times before continuing with the passage. There were even
a couple of instances where Ms. Jackson came across a word that she had already covered, but
she still had the class pronounce the word again, getting the students additional repetitions. As
she moved on to discuss the general concepts of the reading, she utilized a large arching hand
motion in conjunction with explaining the idea of a reading summary. As she said “conclusión”
and traced the shape of a large arch with her hands, she again had the students repeat after her
several times and mimic her hand motions. In both cases the use of multiple repititions helps
build toward the ability of the students to recall this information as more of an automated
response rather than through use of mental resources.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 111
Ms. Harrison had a few different instances where she used repetition with her first-grade
students. One example took place within the self-guided reading and listening center, where
students were able to listen to a recorded version of a story while following along in the book at
the same time. Students were observed using this station during all five days of observations, and
Ms. Harrison confirmed during my interview with her that the station was used just about every
day. While there were many books available for use on the listening station technology, Ms.
Harrison only made one story available at a time and made sure that the students had several
days of exposure to the same book before cycling to a new one. As she said, “They’ll listen to
the same story for a whole week. That just helps with vocabulary, correct use of Spanish.” By
deliberately limiting the variety of books available, Ms. Harrison created a situation where her
students would get multiple repetitions with the same content and vocabulary each week.
Ms. Harrison also taught Spanish songs and dances to her students through the repetitive
playing of a music video. During my observations, I twice witnessed Ms. Harrison play a music
video for the class, projecting it from her phone onto the screen in the front of the room using her
overhead projector/document camera. During the playing of the video, it was clear that most if
not all of the class had the song and dance moves from the video memorized, as they were able
to sing and dance along with the video and did so loudly and enthusiastically. Not being familiar
with the song, I asked Ms. Harrison if this was a video the children already knew from home,
and she said, “No, I introduced them. None of them knew about the videos. I did introduce them
early on in the year.” By the point in the school year when I conducted observations, she said
they had seen each of the videos she played “several times.” Repeating the videos over and over
resulted in the song and dance moves becoming automated knowledge for the students, which
was evident by how seamlessly they were able to imitate he video. If the students had been
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 112
unfamiliar with the video, I would have expected there to be a brief delay as the students
watched the moves, processed them in their working memory, and then imitated them, but I
observed no such delay.
A third activity that Ms. Harrison used with the class in a repetitive fashion was the game
Simon Says. Ms. Harrison used Simon Says as a way to practice vocabulary that was associated
with lessons that she was teaching. For instance, in one observation, when she was teaching a
segment on the human body, that day’s version of Simon Says involved the students touching
different parts of the body. In another example, on the day that she was teaching the Spanish
action verb ir, Simon Says involved the students mimicking different actions, like swimming or
hopping. The response time here was slightly slower than in the example above, but was
understandable as the students didn’t know which specific move was going to be requested next,
and they also had to process whether or not Ms. Harrison said “Simon Says.” Given that
explanation for a brief delay, the students otherwise appeared to be able to respond automatically
without spending time deciphering what the definition of each word was. I asked Ms. Harrison
during our interview if she had noticed the students’ response time during Simon Says shortening
over the course of the school year and she confirmed that she had noticed the students getting
quicker.
Finally, Ms. Lee also had an instance that involved content implementing both dual
modalities and repeated practice until it became automatized. As mentioned in the section on
dual modalities, she had created a Korean song to help her students with rounding numbers
during their math instruction. In addition to using a combination of printed and audio materials to
help the class learn the song, she also made sure to give her class enough repetitions with it for it
to become fully memorized and automatic. As she explained,
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 113
The songs are, I think it’s very powerful because when they’re doing rounding,
when they’re working on rounding, they memorize the song so they know, oh
okay, so you go from the previous number and then you look at the other numbers
to round…I think it really helps them learn the content.
For Ms. Lee, having her students memorize this song was an important step in their learning the
process of rounding numbers, so they could then utilize that information while solving problems.
With that step memorized it could be automatically processed, and the students could spend
more of their mental energy on other parts of the math problems that they were assigned. While
all methods of building automaticity stem from the process of repetition, the teachers observed
found various ways to execute repetition beyond simple drilling. Building instructional materials
into songs provided more engaging content for students to practice repeatedly, as did the
combination of information with physical movements. While each of these techniques provided
learning benefits on their own, they also helped achieve automaticity more quickly and
efficiently, which creates an environment where more information can bypass working memory
and in turn higher levels of subject matter can be taught and comprehended.
Teacher Perceptions of Observed Techniques
The process for determining the teachers’ perceptions of the observed techniques
involved a series of interview questions, beginning with general questions about what successful
DLIP instructors do or say in the classroom and then moving on to questions about specific
practices that I observed each of them implementing in the classroom. The purpose for this order
of questioning was to try and find out what practices were the most important to them without
leading them to answers that I was looking for. The results from these questions did not provide
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 114
as much insight into the instructional choices made by the observed teachers as I had anticipated
for a variety reasons, which I will expand upon below.
In discussing what practices they felt a successful DLIP would implement, the one item
that intersects with cognitive load theory that was frequently mentioned was the importance of
integrating some sort of visuals with their verbal instruction. Ms. Lee responded with “I would
say using a lot of graphs, charts and pictures,” and her teaching partner Ms. Martell further
explained, “I think in all grades we do need to use visual aids as a secondary mechanism to help
them understand what I’m saying, even it it’s in English, I want to be able to provide a visual
aid.” Finally, Ms. Jackson emphasized the importance of “having a lot of visual support, whether
it’s real things, drawings, things that you’re showing them, either in person or on the screen.”
There was also a single mention of the importance of building schema by Ms. Jackson, who
continued her quote from the Schema Development section earlier in the chapter by saying, “To
know what the students are interested in, so that it can specifically be related to that, to their
world. So the relationship is the first part, it’s the most critical.”
Other than those two items, though, everything else that was mentioned in those portions
of the interviews focused on practices and instructional guidelines that were outside CLT, such
as the importance of being culturally responsive, deliberately teaching academic language, and
using peers to model correct language usage. While some of these remaining responses were
consistent with recommendations from the DLIP literature, a stronger pattern that I found was
that they were all items that could be found within various EL teaching protocols like SDAIE,
TESOL or GLAD. The implications of this will be discussed in Chapter 5.
The portion of the interviews where I asked follow-up questions about specific
techniques that I observed in the classroom was also less fruitful than I had hoped it would be,
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 115
for two reasons. First off, I derived my initial set of codes for teaching strategies from the CLT
literature and from the initial analysis of my field notes for each site. After all observations were
completed and an initial summary of the findings was written, it became apparent that another
round of analysis would be required, at which point the importance of some previously
unrecognized teaching techniques emerged. Because the importance of these techniques was
realized a few months after the interviews were conducted, it was not feasible for me to gather
teacher perceptions at that time. Second, for those teaching techniques that I was able to ask
about in the interviews, many of the questions elicited responses that were either too brief or too
vague to provide meaningful insight, and even with further prodding, still did not warrant
inclusion in the study. Given these setbacks, there were still a couple of pertinent responses to
the follow-up questions that I will mention.
When asked about the use of visuals in conjunction with verbal instruction, Ms. Harrison
considered that to be a critical component of teaching in the DLIP environment, “especially for
the EOLs (English Only Learners). If they don’t understand a word, you give them a picture, and
then that helps.” Ms. Martell expanded on her earlier comments about utilizing visuals, talking
about how they can also increase interest in a topic: “I’m going through to see what is engaging
for kids…I’m using a lot of Google Images to try to find things to engage kids.” Ms. Harrison
also commented on the importance of utilizing body movements and gestures with verbal
instruction, though she wasn’t necessarily deliberate about incorporating them into her lessons:
“I think it’s really important. When I’m creating my lesson plan, I don’t think about it. It just
comes naturally as I’m there.”
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 116
Summary
This study aimed to answer the two research questions posed in Chapter 3, which were
“What instructional methods are observed in the DLIP classrooms that employ the cognitive load
theory methods of schema building, training for automaticity and/or use of dual modalities?” and
“What are the teachers’ perceptions of the observed instructional methods?” A brief overview of
how the findings answer those questions will follow here, with the implications of those findings
discussed in further detail in Chapter 5.
Research Question 1
In an attempt to find ways that DLIP teachers may be helping to manage the cognitive
load of their students through their teaching techniques, I looked for instances where techniques
were used that could be seen as helping to build schema, assisting with developing automatic
processing of information and utilizing dual modalities to communicate and clarify information.
The observed methods for developing schema fell into three general categories: activating prior
knowledge, which is a technique used to help students recognize which parts of their prior
knowledge connect to what they are learning; using partially completed problems, which builds
schema by scaffolding information through asking for solutions to parts of a problem while still
providing the entire solution for the students to learn from; and previewing materials, which also
serves as a form of scaffolding and builds schema by providing students with preliminary
exposure to new information before they are given a detailed lesson on the topic.
The observed methods for developing automatic processing of information were all
techniques that involved repetition in some capacity, though the teachers each used some
techniques that were more engaging than straight memorization. The most common method
involved learning different songs, which were learned either by being listened to or by being
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 117
sung by the students, with the students being exposed to a song regularly over the course of the
school year. In some instances the subject matter of the song was based around a specific
academic subject, but often the songs were more culturally relevant, with the academic benefits
coming from automating specific vocabulary as well as general practice with language. Teachers
also used games like Simon Says, in which the students needed to perform a specific movement
or provide some other physical reaction based on instructions given. It was apparent that the
specific songs or games chosen by each teacher were still being repeated beyond the initial point
of memorization based on the students’ ability to sing along without the use of printed lyrics or
to react to the instructions given in the game with little noticeable delay.
Finally, the observed usage of dual modalities combined verbal instruction with various
forms of visual information, including written text, images or other physical items, and observed
movements. The information communicated through the visual channel was often partially or
completely redundant with that being communicated verbally, with the purpose being to ease
comprehension, though there were a small number of instances where the information being
communicated visually worked in tandem with the verbal lesson, which is the utilization of dual
modalities that is primarily studied in the cognitive load theory literature. Occassionally multiple
methods for managing cognitive load were used at the same time (for instance, a specific
combination of information delivered using dual modalities might also be practiced repeatedly
until automaticity was achieved).
Research Question 2
As for the teachers perceptions of the observed teaching methods that could assist with
managing cognitive load, the results were minimal. Questions about techniques centered around
the combination of verbal instruction with images, realia or body movements elicited the most
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 118
cohesive responses, while I was able to infer other techniques as being important to the teachers
through the level of passion they used when discussing them with me, as well as due to the fact
that they involved detailed teaching tools that had been custom designed and created by the
teachers themselves, but they didn’t provide explicit quotes stating so. The remainder of the
other techniques, though, garnered little to no comment during the interview process; discussions
of those techniques left me with the impression that they were seen as effective methods of
teaching, but not ones that were seen as essential by the teachers within the DLIP environment.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 119
Chapter Five
Implications, Limitations and Future Research
This study examined the instructional practices of dual language immersion program
teachers through the lens of cognitive load theory in an effort to discover ways that these
teachers might be helping their students avoid cognitive overload. Operating under the
assumption that DLIP instruction should theoretically be more challenging cognitively than
single-language instruction, the question arose of how DLIP students are able to overcome these
additional challenges to achieve higher than average testing results on math and English
language arts. This study attempted to provide a preliminary answer to this question by exploring
the theory that DLIP teachers may be using a variety of teaching methods that help to manage
the cognitive load of their students – either deliberately or by accident – which would allow for
more efficient transfer of information between teacher and student, and as a result, a greater level
of learning.
A qualitative multi-case case study was implemented to examine the following research
questions: 1) What instructional methods are observed in the DLIP classrooms that employ the
cognitive load theory methods of schema building, training for automaticity and/or use of
dual modalities? 2) What are the teachers’ perceptions of the observed instructional methods?
To answer these questions, data was collected by observing four DLIP instructors working at
three different schools in Southern California and through post-observation interviews with the
participants. Pseudonyms for the instructors and their schools were used to ensure
confidentiality. Because the attempt to uncover how DLIP teachers were achieving success
involved drawing broad generalizations from the observations as well as trying to find specific
meaning within each classroom, a combination of inductive and deductive approaches were used
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 120
in analyzing the findings. A cross-case analysis was also conducted to find similarities across
teachers and school sites.
This chapter will summarize the findings of the study by examining the general themes
that emerged along with overarching implications for dual language immersion practitioners.
This chapter will also identify some of the limitations of this study, and will conclude by offering
recommendations for future research to advance this topic.
Summary of Findings
This first section will summarize the overarching themes in the data with regard to the
observed instructional methods that employed schema building, training for automaticity and/or
the use of dual modalities, along with the teachers’ perceptions of those methods. Observations
were made with a focus on identifying and understanding actual practices that were taking place
in the classroom that might explain the ways that cognitive load was being managed, with the
goal of providing some explanation for how DLIP students on average demonstrate a higher
degree of learning than students in English-only learning environments, as well as cataloging
practices that could be adopted by other DLIP teachers and which could be incorporated into
DLIP training curricula. Interviews then explored the teachers’ impressions of what it takes to be
a successful DLIP teacher as well as how they perceived the techniques they were using, in an
effort to understand the reasoning behind the instructional choices made by DLIP teachers.
The first conclusion I drew was that the teachers observed did not appear to deliberately
consider managing cognitive load when it came to choosing the techniques that they used in the
classroom. During the interviews that I conducted with the teachers, I inquired about what things
they believe a successful DLIP teacher needs to be able to do, as well as discussed some of the
different techniques they each were observed utilizing in the classroom and gathered their
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 121
impressions of those techniques. In those four interviews, there was no explicit mention of
managing mental load by any of the teachers. When asked pointed follow-up questions
specifically about how cognitive load is managed in their classrooms, the only in-depth response
addressed the choice to give students breaks throughout the day in an effort to combat mental
fatigue and did not touch on how the complexity of the learning environment could result in
mental challenges that certain students might find difficult to overcome. Also, even though three
of the teachers did give interview responses indicating that they occasionally break from the
DLIP tenet of a strict separation of languages when they felt that they needed to use a student’s
primary language to aid with comprehension to avoid a student mentally “shutting down” (a
technique which cognitive load theorists would consider a deliberate attempt to manage
cognitive load), none of the teachers made the explicit connection between the two during the
interviews. Based on these responses, I concluded that the observed techniques that might assist
with managing cognitive load were being used because of other perceived benefits.
Despite the apparent lack of intentionality with regard to managing cognitive load, there
was some evidence that the instructors were deliberate about the development of schema and the
use of dual modalities, while there was no indication of intentionality with regard to developing
automaticity. One instructor spoke specifically about the importance of developing schema in her
students and how that process is critical to creating knowledge, while the other teachers spoke
about the overall concept in more general terms. Each of them made mention of the importance
of finding a connection for new information as a part of the learning process for students. All
four teachers also considered instructional techniques that utilized dual modalities to be essential
tools for language instruction. Combining visual representations – whether in the form of
images, videos or realia – with verbal instruction was one of the fundamental ways that these
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 122
teachers assisted with comprehension of new and unfamiliar materials, as was both observed in
action and expressed during the interview process. The importance of using visuals to the
instructors was most apparent during the moments when it would have been easier and more
convenient to teach without them because of technical limitations, but where the teachers still
found ways to make use of them. One example that illustrates this would be the teacher who
wanted to show her class an image of what she was teaching but did not have one readily
available, and her class was not equipped with technology that would allow her to pull one up on
the internet. Rather than move on with the lesson without referencing an image, she searched for
one using her phone and then put her phone under the document camera so she could project it
for the class to see. By deliberately attempting to develop schema and making regular use of
instructional techniques that leveraged dual modalities, these DLIP teacher may be helping
manage the cognitive load of their students inadvertently.
Another general conclusion that emerged from both the interview process, and which was
corroborated by the literature review, is that there appeared to be no cohesive instructional
methodology for dual language immersion programs. None of the practitioners I interviewed
received any specialized DLIP training as they studied for their degrees or teaching credentials,
which was consistent with information I had gleaned from reading industry articles and
interviews. Instead, these teachers relied on their general instructional education along with
training in language-specific instructional methodologies, the most common of which were ELD
certifications, BCLAD credentials, and GLAD training, all of which are aimed at ELs but have
applications in general language-learning environments as well. The lack of DLIP-specific
training, though, means that each teacher has the freedom to choose whichever instructional
techniques they prefer from their individual EL training, which in turn makes it difficult to come
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 123
up with a clear-cut explanation for what DLIP teachers are doing to achieve above average
testing results, and teasing out possible theories from the observations has to be balanced with a
recognition of what one might witness in any classroom. Many of the techniques that were
observed draw on established EL instructional models and thus are things that you would expect
to see used by skilled language instructors, though this is not necessarily a surprise; skilled DLIP
teachers must be acquiring their skills somewhere, and with EL certifications and training
serving as a proxy for DLIP-specific teaching models, that training becomes the primary source
that guides their instructional choices, even if that training is targeted at a more general audience
than just those teachers that will focus on DLIP.
Based on the combination of these three findings, a fourth, overarching conclusion
emerged. Though not done for the explicit reason of managing cognitive load, the findings show
that DLIP teachers do in fact utilize teaching strategies that serve that purpose, and that this
largely occurs due to the reliance on EL teaching models to guide their methods of instruction.
Determining whether EL models were intentionally developed to manage cognitive load or if
they simply arose from what I’ve heard many professionals refer to as “good teaching” is well
beyond the purpose of this study, but the connection between EL best practices and cognitive
load theory is readily apparent, considering that many of the specific EL instructional strategies
align with recommendations for managing cognitive load. The communicative approach from
TESOL, as well as the principle of connecting new learning to previous learning and utilizing
multiple access points from SDAIE all contribute to schema development. The use of graphic
organizers from the GLAD model also contributes to schema development while at the same
time making use of dual modalities; Total Physical Response from TESOL, the use of word
walls from GLAD and the use of visuals and realia from SDAIE leverage dual modalities as
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 124
well. There is even a technique for the development of automaticity in the lexical method from
TESOL, which focuses on teaching common word combinations and phrases and, with
repetition, would lead to automated knowledge of conversational language. So even with little to
no DLIP-specific preparation during the training of teachers, by learning EL methodology, these
teachers find themselves armed with some of the best methods for managing cognitive load in a
language-learning environment – and perhaps in any learning environment.
Of course, there are other possibilities as to why DLIP students are able to achieve such a
high performance on single-language testing. First, it’s possible that the inherent challenge of the
DLIP environment factors into the quality of teacher that ends up there. It seems likely that most
teachers thinking about becoming DLIP instructors would recognize that the DLIP environment
has additional challenges compared to a single-language teaching environment, so perhaps there
is a degree of self-selection that occurs where only those teachers who feel that they are up to
that challenge sign up for it. It also may be that principals and other administrators who hire
DLIP teachers understand the additional challenges of that environment and perhaps hold those
candidates to a higher standard, only hiring those that they feel can handle these additional
challenges. A third possibility is that the nature of the DLIP environment may weed out those
lacking above-average skills more quickly due to the additional challenges.
It is also possible that teachers who are qualified to teach in a DLIP environment have
additional skills that contribute to their success. For example, all of the teachers that I observed
were fluent in both of the languages of instruction, even those who were only tasked with
teaching in one of the languages. It seems a reasonable consideration that being fluent in the two
languages of instruction may give these teachers better insight into how those two languages
relate to one another, understanding the specific challenges to cross-learning those two languages
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 125
and the ways in which those challenges can best be met. Or perhaps, as has been suggested
elsewhere (Costa & Sebastian-Galles, 2014; Sebastian-Galles, Albareda-Castellot, Weikum &
Werker, 2012), the process of learning in multiple languages rewires connections in the brain in
such a way as to result in students who produce better testing results. If this is true, though, it still
does not explain how these students are making it through the learning curve of their early years
in the DLIP program, at which time they are still gaining proficiency in one of the languages and
the potential for cognitive overload is high.
Limitations of the Study
Before diving into the many limitations of this study, it is worth once again reminding the
reader that this study was intended to provide an exploratory look at what teaching techniques
DLIP teachers were using that were consistent with the way that cognitive load theory would
suggest that one could manage cognitive load. This study has not made the claim that DLIP
teachers are, as a group, intentionally managing cognitive load; in fact, observations suggest that,
despite being extremely adept at language instruction and teaching in general, DLIP teachers
probably don’t think much about cognitive load when they are teaching. It appears that many of
them simply use techniques that they have experienced as being effective without considering
the way that the brain works in general. Nor does this study make the definitive claim that any
particular observed technique had a positive effect on cognitive load during observations.
Accurately measuring a student’s cognitive load during learning is a significant challenge within
the field in general and was well beyond the scope of this study.
Being a doctoral dissertation, this study is fraught with limitations, many of which pertain
to sample size. First and foremost, because of the time available for research, the sample of
teachers that were observed was much smaller than would have been ideal for a more robust
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 126
study. With a greater number of teachers observed, there likely would have been a greater
number of different teaching techniques observed, as well as increasing the likelihood of
observing more similarities between teachers and possibly uncovering broader teaching patterns.
Along the same lines, each teacher could have been observed for a longer period of time, which
also would have been likely to reveal more teaching techniques used by each teacher. Increasing
the breadth and depth of observations would be one of my first recommendations for future
research.
Additional ways that the sample could have been broadened are by observing teachers in
a greater number of languages and by observing teachers from different regions of the United
States. It was beneficial that I was able to observe instruction in two languages which were from
different language families, but it would have broadened the study even more to have observed
additional languages. There are also specific language-learning methodologies that have a
regional emphasis, such as GLAD in California, so having the opportunity to conduct
observations in different parts of the country could have revealed additional techniques as well as
allowed for drawing conclusions that might apply more generally across all DLIP environments.
Another change that could have been made would have been to observe each teacher at multiple
points throughout the school year, to see how things changed over the course of the year and
what the students learned. This could have been especially beneficial in the case of tracking the
development of automaticity.
Finally, there were times during the interviews where I was unable to jog the teachers’
memories about observations I had made in the class. Part of this was due to my limited fluency
in the target languages that I observed, which at times resulted in an inability to provide enough
context to the quotes I had written down; other times the interactions I observed were noteworthy
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 127
to me but were routine for the teachers, so that even with full context I was unable to get them to
recall what they were thinking during those interactions. If I had been conducting observations in
classrooms where I had a strong relationship with the teachers, one possible solution would have
been to request IRB approval to videotape the classroom and then request that the parents of the
students give consent to having their children recorded. Having a video recording of everything
each teacher did would have provided a resource that would have made it easier to remind them
of specific interactions and hopefully would have resulted in richer data with regard to what they
were thinking at the time and their intent with different teaching tactics. Unfortunately that was
not a realistic request for me to make in this situation.
Suggestions for Future Research
Since examining the intersection of dual language immersion programs and cognitive
load theory is a relatively unexplored topic, this dissertation serves as an introduction to the
subject, leaving a wide variety of future research topics available for discussion. Many potential
studies could emerge from the limitations identified in the earlier section. For one, examining
how different teaching techniques from various language-learning methodologies actually affect
the cognitive load of students would be extremely useful for the development of a DLIP-specific
set of suggested practices. Cognitive load theorists could create measurement tools that are
tailored to the DLIP environment, which could help evaluate which factors contribute the most to
cognitive load on average, perhaps based on grade or based on skill level as determined by
testing. This type of research could help instructors better know when their students are ready for
additional levels of complexity and how to layer in new information without causing cognitive
overload.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 128
Once a DLIP-specific tool for measuring cognitive load has been developed, the natural
progression of research from there would involve testing specific teaching techniques designed
to build schema, develop automaticity, and utilize dual modalities of instruction to see how they
affect the cognitive load of students in the DLIP environment. In the same way that the cognitive
load literature has served to identify numerous ways that a learner’s cognitive load may be
positively or negatively affected in general, those same effects could be tested in the DLIP
environment to see what changes occur due to the interaction of content learning and language
learning, with the possibility of identifying new effects that are specific to that unique
environment. Many of the aforementioned effects may still apply in exactly the same ways, but
there would be the possibility of uncovering new effects on cognitive load through this more
targeted and intentional process that could add to the literature and inform future teaching
methodologies.
The DLIP principle of a strict separation of languages also bears some examination in
light of the emergence of translanguaging as a newer approach to understanding language use.
While past research has shown the value of forcing students to use the target language as much
as possible in the DLIP classroom (as there is ample opportunity for students to use English
outside of school), there is possibly a middle ground where limited integration of English with
the target language could improve learning without sacrificing those benefits. Language learning
experts and cognitive load theorists could work together to design different scenarios to be
tested, accounting for the limitations of working memory while still finding ways to achieve the
DLIP goals of bilingualism, academic achievement and biculturalism.
I would also suggest a longitudinal study comparing the experience of DLIP students
with those of other traditional English-only students from their same school could help identify
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 129
some of the differences between the two environments while hopefully controlling for many of
the variables that could confound the results. Though assignment to DLIP classes is done
through parent selection and not randomly, a study of this structure could still help account for
some differences in pre-DLIP educational background, the environment that the students
experience outside the classroom, access to technology in the classroom, and socio-economic
factors (to name a few). Other variables like students’ previous test results and quality of
instruction could conceivably be measured as well and considered as possible explaining
variables. Additionally, a longer study is likely to reveal when in the school year different
cognitive load-managing techniques are introduced, and whether or not these types of techniques
are used more or less frequently in one environment or the other.
Finally, this study raises some potential questions about the utilization of EL teaching
protocols, even though they were not the primary focus of the study. With indications that many
EL techniques are consistent with CLT suggestions for how cognitive load can be managed and
optimized, it would be worth testing the efficacy of these techniques in other learning
environments. Though they originally sprung from the need to support English language learners
in an English-speaking instructional environment, this study provides evidence that those
techniques have also been effectively used in DLIP classrooms, and it is possible that they will
be effective in other environments as well. Even if there are aspects of some of the techniques
that work best in a language-learning environment, there is a degree of language learning in
virtually all classrooms, whether it is the natural growth of a person’s vocabulary over time or a
student’s need to learn content-specific academic language as they encounter new subjects.
Confirming the value of effective teaching techniques that, up to now, have been primarily used
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 130
in a small percentage of classrooms could provide the broadest impact of any of the suggested
lines of research.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 131
References
Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T. & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and
meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. 80(2), 207-245.
American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2016). Toward bilingualism, biculturalism, and
achievement: Growth in language learning via two-way immersion. Retrieved from
https://www.amacad.org/content/research/dataForumEssay.aspx?i=22227
American TESOL Institute (n.d.). Approaches to TESOL. Retrieved from
http://www.americantesol.com/approaches-to-tesol.html.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Anderson, R. C. & Pichert, J. W. (1977). Recall of previously unrecallable information following
a shift in perspective. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
Angelova, M., Gunawardena, D. & Volk, D. (2006). Peer teaching and learning: Co-constructing
language in a dual language first grade. Language and Education, 20(3), 173-190.
Ayers, P. L. (1993). Why goal-free problems can facilitate learning. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 18, 376-381.
Baddeley, A. D. & Hitch, G. (1974) Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent Advances
in Learning and Motivation (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.
Ballinger, S. & Lyster, R. (2011). Student and teacher oral language use in a two-way
Spanish/English immersion school. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 289-306.
Blessing, S. & Anderson, J. R. (1996). How people learn to skip steps. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 576-598.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 132
Bloom, B. S. (1986). Automaticity: The hands and feet of genius. Educational Leadership, 43(5),
70-77.
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Boyle, A., August, D., Tabaku, L., Cole, L. & Simpson-Baird, A. (2015). Dual language
education programs: Current state policies and practices. Washington, DC: US
Department of Education.
Brown, S. W. & Bennett, E. D. (2002). The role of practice and automaticity in temporal and
non-temporal dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 66(1), 80-89.
Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L. III, & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of
successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Calderon, M. E. & Minaya-Rowe, L. (2003). Designing and implementing two-way bilingual
programs. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
California Department of Education (2016). Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The
experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269.
Carranza, I. (1995). Multilevel analysis of two-way immersion classroom discourse. In B.
Gallenberger & M. Ronkin (Eds.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages
and Linguistics (pp. 169-187). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Carrera-Carrillo, L. & Smith, A. R. (2006). 7 steps to success in dual language immersion.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition
and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 133
Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of
instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233-246.
Chase, W.G., Simon, H.A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1): 55–81.
Chau, L. (2014, January 29). Why you should learn another language. Retreived from
https://www.usnews.com
Chavez, L. (1995). Introduction. The failure of bilingual education (pp. 7-12). Falls Church, VA:
Center for Equal Opportunity.
Christian, D. (1996). Two-way immersion education: Students learning through two languages.
The Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 66-76.
Citrin, J., Reingold, B., Waters, E. & Green, D. P. (1990). The “official English” movement and
the symbolic politics of language in the United States. The Western Political Quarterly,
43(3): 535-559.
Cline, Z., & Nicochea, J. (2003). Specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE):
More than just good instruction. Multicultural Perspectives, 5(1), 18-24.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education
for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1-20.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2005). The beauty of dual language education. TABE Journal,
8(1), 1-6.
Cooper, G. A. & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on
mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 347-
362.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 134
Costa, A. & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2014). How does the bilingual experience sculpt the brain?
Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 15(5), 336-45.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental
storage capacity. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 87-114.
Cowan, N. (2015). George Miller’s magical number of immediate memory in retrospect:
Observations on the faltering progression of science. Psychological Review, 122(3), 536-
541.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the
optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-
129.
Cummins, J. (1992). Bilingualism and second language learning. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 13, 50-70.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms.
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221-240.
Cunningham, T. H. & Graham, C. R. (2000). Increasing native English vocabulary recognition
through Spanish immersion: Cognate transfer from foreign to first language. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(1), 37–49.
Curtain, Η., & Dahlberg, C. A. (2010). Languages and children-Making the match: New
languages for young learners, grades K-8 (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 135
De Groot, A. D. (1966). Perception and memory versus thought: Some old ideas and recent
findings. In B. Kleimnuntz (Ed.), Problem solving: Research, method and theory, (pp.
19-50). New York: Wiley.
De Jong, E. & Howard, E. (2009). Integration in two-way immersion education: equalising
linguistic benefits for all students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 12(1), 81-99.
De Jong, E. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Food
for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105-134.
Dolean, D. D. (2016). The effects of teaching songs during foreign language classes on students’
foreign language anxiety. Language Teaching Research, 20(5), 638-653.
Dual Language Education of New Mexico (2017). Retrieved from
https://www.dlenm.org/project-glad.aspx.
Dual Language Schools.org (2017). Retrieved from https://www.duallanguageschools.org
Education Commission of the States (2007). Standard high school graduation requirements (50-
state). Retrieved from https://ecs.force.com
Fortune, T. W. (2012). What the research says about immersion. In Chinese language learning in
the early grades: A handbook of resources and best practices for Mandarin immersion.
Hong Kong: Asia Society.
Fortune, T. W., Tedick, D. J., & Walker, C. L. (2008). Integrated language and content teaching:
Insights from the immersion classroom. In T.W. Fortune & D.J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways
to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 71–96).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 136
Freeman, D. & Freeman, Y. (1988). Sheltered English instruction. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED301070)
Garcia, P. A. & Gopal, M. (2003). The relationship to achievement on the California High
School Exit Exam for language minority students. NABE Journal of Research and
Practice, 1(1), 123-137.
Genesee, F. (2008). Dual language learning in the global village. In D. Tedick (ed.) Pathways to
multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 253-266). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does and does not
say. American Educator, Summer 2008, 9-23, 42-44.
Goldin-Meadow, S. Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press; 2003.
Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math:
Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12(6), 516–522.
Gomez, L., Freeman, D. & Freeman, Y. (2005). Dual language education: A promising 50-50
model. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 145-164.
Gross, N. (2016, December 8). Linguistic experts point to benefits of teaching children multiple
languages [blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.ewa.org/blog-latino-ed-beat/linguistic-
experts-point-benefits-teaching-children-multiple-languages
Grosse, C. U. (1991). The TESOL methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 29-49.
Hanigan, I. (2018). Q&A: OCDE’s Project GLAD trains educators to build literacy and language
skills. OCDE Newsroom. Retrieved from https://newsroom.ocde.us/qa-ocdes-project-
glad-trains-educators-to-build-literacy-and-language-skills/
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 137
Hayes, K., Rueda, R. & Chilton, S. (2009). Scaffolding language, literacy, and academic content
in English and Spanish: The linguistic highway from Mesoamerica to Southern
California. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(2), 137-166.
Howard, E. R. & Loeb, M. I. (1998). In their own words: Two-way immersion teachers talk
about their professional experiences. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J. & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in Two-Way Immersion Education:
A Review of the Research. Baltimore: CRESPAR.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. & Rogers, D. (2007). Guiding
principles for dual language education (2nd. Ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect.
Educational Psychologist, 38, 23-31.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J. & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem-solving is superior
to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 579-588.
Kalyuga, S. & Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors
during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 558-568.
Kirschner, P. A., Ayres, P. & Chandler, P. (2011). Contemporary cognitive load theory research:
The good, the bad and the ugly. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 99-105.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F. & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of
Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia. San Mateo, CA: Education.com.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F. & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative
learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 31-42.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 138
Kong, S. (2009). Content-based instruction: What can we learn from content-trained teachers’
and language-trained teachers’ pedagogies? The Canadian Modern Language Review,
66(2), 233-267.
Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from
Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17(2), 248-294.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamom.
Krashen, S. D. & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. Hertfordshire, England: Prentice Hall Europe.
Leahy, W. & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient
information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 943-951.
Leahy, W. & Sweller, J. (2016). Cognitive load theory and the effects of transient information on
the modality effect. Instructional Science, 44, 107-123.
Lightbown, P. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lindholm, K. (1990). Bilingual Immersion Education: Criteria for Program Development.
In A. Padilla, Fairchild, H., Valadez, C. (Ed.), Bilingual Education: Issues and Strategies
(pp. p.91-105). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual language education. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2005). The rich promise of two-way immersion. Educational Leadership,
62(4), 56-59.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 139
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2011). Student outcomes in Chinese two-way immersion programs:
Language proficiency, academic achievement, and student attitudes. In D. J. Tedick, D.
Christian & T. W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities
(pp. 81-103). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2012). Success and challenges in dual language education. Theory Into
Practice, 51(4), 256-262.
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Howard, E. (2008). Language and academic achievement in two-way-
immersion programs. In T. Fortune & D. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to bilingualism:
Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 177-200). Avon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Lyster, R. & Tedick, D. (2014). Research perspectives on language pedagogy: Looking back and
looking forward. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2),
210-224.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for
dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,
312-320.
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 14(1), 87-99.
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 140
McCann, C. & Bowen, J. (2014). Financing dual language learning: Here’s how it works.
Washington, DC: New America. Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/education-
policy/edcentral/titleiiipt1/
McCollum, P. (1993, April). Learning to value English: Cultural capital in a two-way bilingual
program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Atlanta, GA.
McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better?
Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in
learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.
McNeil, N. M., Alibali, M. W., & Evans, J. L. (2000). The role of gesture in children's
comprehension of spoken language: Now they need it, now they don't. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 24(2), 131-150.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity
to process information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Montone, C. L. & Loeb, M. I. (2000). Implementing two-way immersion programs in secondary
schools. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education,
Diversity & Excellence.
Moreno, R. & Mayer. R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of
modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358-368.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading
helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156-163.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 141
Mozingo, T. H. (2018). Tips for teachers: Promoting the achievement of English learners.
Retrieved from
https://www.acps.k12.va.us/cms/lib/VA01918616/Centricity/Domain/801/Teaching%20T
ips%20for%20Teachers%20Vol.%204.pdf.
Nichols, S. L. & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts
America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load
measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist,
38(1), 63-71.
Paas, F., van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of
geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86(1), 122-133.
Panfil, K. G. (1995). Learning from one another: A collaborative study of a two-way bilingual
program by insiders with multiple perspectives (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest. (9606004)
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Poupore, G. (2016). Measuring group work dynamics and its relation with L2 learners’ task
motivation and language production. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 719-740.
Project Glad Study (2015). Efficacy study of Project GLAD: Year 1 findings [Video file].
Retrieved from http://projectgladstudy.educationnorthwest.org/#1.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 142
Pufahl, I. & Rhodes, N. C. (2011). Foreign language instruction in U.S. schools: Results of a
national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2),
258-288.
RAND Corporation (2015). Study of Dual-Language Immersion in the Portland Public Schools:
Year 4 Briefing. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Maier, U. H. (2000). From studying examples to solving
problems: Fading worked-out solution steps helps learning. In L. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi
(Eds.), Proceeding of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.
393–398). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H. & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem
solving: Smooth transitions help learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4),
293-315.
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE: The Journal for the National
Association of Bilingual Education, 8(2), 15-34.
Sadek, C. S. (n.d.). SDAIE teaching strategies. Retrieved from
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/l/limb/314/pdf/sdaie.pdf
Sanchez, C. (2011, October 25). In Miami, school aims for 'biliterate' education. Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141584947/in-miami-school-aims-for-bi-literate-
education
Sanchez, I. (2015). Project GLAD: So much more to learn. Washington, DC: New America.
Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/project-glad/
Santrock, J. W. (2014). Lifespan Development, 14
th
Ed. New York: McGraw Hill
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 143
Saunders, W., & O’Brien, G. (2006). Oral language. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W.
Saunders, & D. Christian, D. (Eds.), Educating English language learners: A synthesis of
research evidence (pp. 14–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Savoji, A. P., Hassanabadi, H. & Fasihipour, Z. (2011). The modality effect in learner-paced
multimedia learning. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1488-1493.
Scanlan, M. (2007). An asset-based approach to linguistic diversity. Focus on Teacher
Education, 7(3), 3-7. Retrieved from
http://www.marquette.edu/education/faculty_staff/documents/Scanlan_2007_FTE.pdf
Schneider, W. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information
processing: Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
Schnotz, W. & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational
Psychology Review, 19(3), 469-508.
Schon, D., Boyer, M., Moreno, S., Besson, M., Peretz, I. & Kolinsky, R. (2007). Songs as an aid
for language acquisition. Cognition, 106, 975-983.
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Albareda-Castellot, B., Weikum, W. M., & Werker, J. F. (2012). A
Bilingual Advantage in Visual Language Discrimination in Infancy. Psychological
Science, 23(9), 994–999.
Short, D. J. (1993). Assessing integrated content and language instruction. TESOL Quarterly,
27(4), 627-656.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp.471-484). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 144
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive
Science, 12, 257-285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning
and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load.
Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138.
Sweller, J. & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem
solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-89.
Sweller, J. & Levine, M. (1982). Effects of goal specificity on means-ends analysis and learning.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8(5), 463-474.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G. & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Takahashi-Breines, H. (2002). The role of teacher talk in a dual language immersion third grade
classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 461-483.
Tarone, E. & Swain, M. (1995). A sociolinguistic perspective on second language use in
immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 166-178.
Taylor, C. (2013). Cognitive load theory: Sometimes less is more. I-manager’s Journal on
School Educational Technology, 9(1), 61-68.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1997). Two languages are better than one. Educational
Leadership, 55(4), 23-26.
Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority
students' long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on
Education, Diversity and Excellence, University of California-Santa Cruz.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 145
Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (2003). The multiple benefits of dual language. Educational
Leadership, 61(2), 61-64.
Torres-Guzmán M. E. (2002). Dual language programs: Key features and results. Directions in
Education and Language. Washington, DC: NCBE.
Torres-Guzman, M. E., Kleyn, T., Morales-Rodriguez, S. & Han, A. (2005). Self-designated dual
language programs: Is there a gap between labeling and implementation? Bilingual
Research Journal, 29(2), 453-474.
Turnbull, M., Hart, D. & Lapkin, S. (2003). Grade 6 French immersion students’ performance on
large-scale reading, writing, and mathematics tests: Building explanations. Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 49(1), 6–23.
United States Census Bureau (2015). Language spoken at home [2015 American Community
Survey 1-Year Estimates]. Retreived from https://www.census.gov/
Valencia, R. R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice.
Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Valentino, R. A. & Reardon, S. F. (2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed
to serve English language learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 612-637.
Van Gog, T., Kester, L. & Paas, F. (2011). Effects of worked examples, example-problem, and
problem-example pairs on novices’ learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36,
212-218.
Van Gog, T., Paas, F. & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2006). Effects of process-oriented worked
examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 154-
164.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 146
Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training Complex Cognitive Skills: A Four-Component
Instructional Design Model for Technical Training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications
Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. & De Croock, M. B. M. (1992). Strategies for computer-based
programming instruction: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 8(3), 365-394.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: Free Press.
Wetzels, S. A. J., Kester, L. & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2011). Adapting prior knowledge
activation: Mobilisation, perspective taking, and learners’ prior knowledge. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27, 16-21.
Williams, C. P. (2015). Interview: Improving training for teachers of dual language learners.
New America.
Woodward, J. (2006). Developing automaticity in multiplication facts: Integrated strategy
instruction with timed practice drills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(4), 269-289.
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 147
Appendix
Interview Protocol
Thank you for participating in this study. As a reminder, the purpose of this study is to
understand the different instructional techniques used in dual language immersion programs.
You were selected to participate because of your school’s success with their DLIP and your
principal’s recommendation that your class be observed. All data collected will kept completely
confidential, with all teacher and location names changed to protect anonymity. Also, though you
were recommended by your principal, your participation is voluntary, so if during this interview
there are any questions that you do not feel comfortable answering, you may choose not to
answer them. Finally, I would like to audio record this interview to make sure I capture your
responses as accurately as possible – is that okay with you?
The first part of this interview will cover your basic background and teaching experience.
1. Please tell me about your teaching background.
a. How long have you been teaching?
b. Over that time, what different grades have you taught?
c. How many of those years have been in bilingual education?
d. How many of those years have been in dual language immersion?
i. [If English-speaking coteacher only] Have you taught DLIPs in any other
languages?
ii. [If target language speaker] How did you gain proficiency in the target
language? Did you grow up speaking the language, study it in school,
travel or live abroad, etc.?
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 148
2. Tell me about your educational background prior to becoming a teacher (preservice).
a. What parts of your education taught you specifically about teaching?
b. What did you learn about language learning?
i. What theories of language learning were you exposed to?
ii. Was there any specific training for DLIP instruction?
1. Did you serve as a DLIP teaching assistant or have any other sort
of “apprenticeship” like that?
c. What did you learn about how best to teach students who are learning a new
language?
3. How did you learn to be a DLIP teacher, specifically?
a. What professional development opportunities have you had since you became a
teacher (inservice) for language learning, specifically?
i. Have any of them been particularly helpful for DLIP teaching? If so, tell
me more about what you learned from them.
ii. What have you learned about how best to teach students who are learning
a new language?
b. Since you’ve been teaching, tell me about opportunities to observe other DLIP
teachers, if any?
i. What kinds of things have you learned from them?
ii. What have you noticed them doing? What kinds of practices have you
observed?
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 149
iii. What do you think about the practices you have observed? How effective
do you think they are in supporting students’ language learning? Can you
provide an example?
c. Tell me about any experiences where you got to meet with other DLIP teachers to
discuss practices that you believe are effective or share experiences with one
another, if any.
i. What types of things have you learned from those discussions? Can you
provide a specific example?
4. Is there any other background information that I should know about how you’ve
developed your DLIP teaching skills?
Let’s talk about being a DLIP teacher
5. If you could describe a successful DLIP teacher, what would you say?
a. What do successful DLIP teachers do in the classroom?
b. What do successful DLIP teachers say in the classroom?
c. Can you provide a few specific examples of what a successful DLIP teacher
would do?
6. Now thinking about your own practice, how do you balance the needs of your different
students?
a. How do you make sure the language learners are keeping up with the content?
i. How do you check for understanding? Can you provide specific
examples?
ii. What do you do when you notice that some students are not understanding
the content?
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 150
iii. How do you make sure the lesson is challenging for the native language
speakers?
iv. How do you challenge students who are not being challenged?
7. How do you integrate language and content?
a. In what ways do you mix language instruction with content instruction? Can you
provide a specific example?
b. Describe how you use the content to make the language understandable, if at all?
Can you provide a specific example?
Now I’d like to talk about the DLIP principles.
8. Tell me about the key principles behind DLIPs.
a. Separation of languages
b. Peer modeling languages
c. Content driving instruction
d. High academic standards
e. Use of visual aids
f. Comprehension checks
9. In your opinion, what are the most important DLIP principles to follow? Why do you say
that?
10. Which principles or guidelines are okay to ignore sometimes? When?
a. When might you break language, if at all?
b. When might you not include peer modeling of language, if at all?
c. When might you teach language explicitly, if at all?
d. When might you “water down” the curriculum, if at all?
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 151
e. When might you avoid using visual aids, if at all?
f. When might you not check for understanding, if at all?
Let’s talk about some of the teaching materials that I saw you use in the classroom.
11. Books – How do your books get selected?
a. What role did the school or district play in selecting them?
b. What role did you play in selecting them?
i. What was it about these books that made you want to use them in class?
ii. Are there other books that you would like to be using but can’t?
1. What is it about these books that are attractive to you as a teacher?
2. What types of things would those books help your students learn?
c. How do you think the books support your students’ learning?
i. How are worked examples presented in the books you use, if at all?
ii. How do the books activate your students’ prior knowledge, if at all?
iii. How do the books provide opportunities for students to practice the
language, if at all?
iv. How do the books provide opportunities for the students to practice the
content, if at all?
12. Visuals – Tell me about the different items that I saw hanging on the walls of the
classroom. [ask about specific things]
a. How was the ______made/created. (you, your students, or both)? (repeat as
needed)
b. How do you use those visuals in your day-to-day instruction?
i. Do you combine them with verbal instruction?
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 152
ii. Do you combine them with text?
iii. Can you provide a specific example of how the visuals were used in your
instruction?
iv. What types of things would those visuals help your students learn?
c. How do you think the visuals you use help your students learn?
d. Tell me about other ideas for other visuals that you hope to make and use in the
future, if at all.
e. What are your thoughts about the role of visuals when teaching both language and
content?
13. Audio – How do your audio materials get selected?
a. What role did the school or district play in selecting them?
b. What role did you play in selecting them?
i. What was it about these audio materials that made you want to use them in
class?
ii. Are there other audio materials that you would like to be using but can’t?
1. What is it about these audio materials that are attractive to you as a
teacher?
2. What types of things would those audio materials help your
students learn?
c. How do you think the audio materials support your students’ learning?
i. How do the audio materials activate your students’ prior knowledge, if at
all?
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 153
ii. How do the audio materials provide opportunities for students to practice
the language, if at all?
iii. How do the audio materials provide opportunities for the students to
practice the content, if at all?
14. Video – How do your video materials get selected?
a. What role did the school or district play in selecting them?
b. What role did you play in selecting them?
i. What was it about these video materials that made you want to use them in
class?
ii. Are there other video materials that you would like to be using but can’t?
1. What is it about these video materials that are attractive to you as a
teacher?
2. What types of things would those video materials help your
students learn?
c. How do you think the video materials support your students’ learning?
i. How do the video materials activate your students’ prior knowledge, if at
all?
ii. How do the video materials provide opportunities for students to practice
the language, if at all?
iii. How do the video materials provide opportunities for the students to
practice the content, if at all?
15. Miscellaneous – How do your _____ materials get selected?
a. What role did the school or district play in selecting them?
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 154
b. What role did you play in selecting them?
i. What was it about these _____ materials that made you want to use them
in class?
ii. Are there other _____ materials that you would like to be using but can’t?
1. What is it about these _____ materials that are attractive to you as
a teacher?
2. What types of things would those _____ materials help your
students learn?
c. How do you think the _____ materials support your students’ learning?
i. How do the _____ materials activate your students’ prior knowledge, if at
all?
ii. How do the _____ materials provide opportunities for students to practice
the language, if at all?
iii. How do the _____ materials provide opportunities for the students to
practice the content, if at all?
Let’s talk about some of the instructional techniques I saw you use in class
16. Can you talk a bit about Instructional Technique #1 [repeat for each observed CLT
technique]
a. How did you learn this instructional technique?
i. Where did you learn it?
ii. Did you develop it yourself? Observe another teacher using it? Learn it
during your training? Other?
b. How have you adapted this technique in your own practice, if at all?
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 155
i. How did you make the choice to make changes to this practice?
1. What role did meeting your specific students’ needs have in the
way you adapted this technique?
2. What role did your specific DLIP context play in adapting this
technique?
c. In your experience, how does Instructional Technique #1 help students learn?
i. How does it allow students to relate back to something they already know?
ii. How does it allow students to practice?
iii. How does it use different means to allow students to grasp what you hope
to teach?
d. How effective would you consider this technique to be?
i. In what ways is it effective?
ii. Can you provide a specific that demonstrates why you think this technique
is effective in the ways you describe?
iii. How does it compare to other techniques you have used to communicate
similar content?
e. How is its effectiveness dependent on the students? Highly effective with most
students? Effective with some and ineffective with others?
i. With which group of students is this technique most effective?
1. New language learners? Native speakers? Both?
f. How is its effectiveness dependent on the context?
i. How effective would this technique be in regular classrooms?
ii. How effective is this technique in DLIP classrooms?
DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND COGNITIVE LOAD 156
17. Describe other highly-effective DLIP instructional techniques that you use that I didn’t
observe?
a. Can you provide an example of a time when you used each of these techniques?
b. How do you know that it is effective? Can you provide a specific example that
demonstrates its effectiveness?
c. How do these techniques compare to other techniques you have used?
18. Some people would say it’s impossible to teach both language and content at the same
time without overwhelming your students. What would you say to them?
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your practice with me. If I have any other
questions, is it OK to contact you for a follow up?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In the United States, dual language immersion programs (DLIPs) are classroom environments where the language used during instructional time is split between English and a second language. Students begin the program with proficiency in only one language, developing the second language as they learn grade-level content. Despite experiencing only part of their education in their native language, students in this environment on average outperform students from single-language environments on standardized tests of math and English language arts. To achieve these results, this study theorized that DLIP teachers must be utilizing teaching techniques that effectively managed the cognitive load of their students. Four elementary school DLIP teachers were observed, examining how they managed cognitive load through their use of teaching techniques that intentionally developed schema, made use of dual modalities and developed automated knowledge in their students. Post-observation interviews were also conducted to determine the level of intentionality that was involved in managing their students’ cognitive load. The study found that DLIP teachers were utilizing schema-developing techniques as well as techniques that made use of dual modalities, but that they were not deliberately considering potential cognitive overload and ways to avoid it. The conclusions include suggestions for the training of DLIP instructors as well as applications for educational environments in general.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A case study on the planning and implementation of a dual language immersion program in a K-12 school district
PDF
A case study of the roles of principals in dual language immersion programs
PDF
Preparing students for the global society: sustaining a dual language immersion program
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms
PDF
A case study on African American parents' perceptions of Mandarin Dual Language Immersion Programs and the role social capital plays in student enrollment
PDF
Critical ambitious language pedagogy for cognitive academic language proficiency development in two-way immersion schools: teachers' ideologies and practices
PDF
Instruction informed by social cognitive theory: implementation with differently abled students
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom
PDF
Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners
PDF
PowerPoint design based on cognitive load theory and cognitive theory of multimedia learning for introduction to statistics
PDF
Media literacy education: a qualitative inquiry into the perspectives teachers hold about teaching media literacy
PDF
Factors contributing to outperformance in nontraditional urban schools: a case study of a public elementary school with a dual immersion program
PDF
A case study of one poʻokumu kaiapuni
PDF
Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty
PDF
Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners
PDF
Designing school systems to encourage data use and instructional improvement: a comparison of educational organizations
PDF
Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers
PDF
Behavior management course for pre-service credential programs
PDF
Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge
PDF
Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development
Asset Metadata
Creator
Butterick, Martin Farrell
(author)
Core Title
Examining dual language immersion program instructional practices with regard to cognitive load theory
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
11/27/2019
Defense Date
07/17/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
automated knowledge,automaticity,cognitive load theory,dual language immersion,dual modalities,managing cognitive load,OAI-PMH Harvest,schema development
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Samkian, Artineh (
committee chair
), Moore, Ekatarina (
committee member
), Seli, Helena (
committee member
)
Creator Email
butteric@usc.edu,mrtikiman@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-239228
Unique identifier
UC11673343
Identifier
etd-ButterickM-7958.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-239228 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ButterickM-7958.pdf
Dmrecord
239228
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Butterick, Martin Farrell
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
automated knowledge
automaticity
cognitive load theory
dual language immersion
dual modalities
managing cognitive load
schema development