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
/
Implementing Chinese-English dual language programs in international schools: a study for an international school in southeast Asia
(USC Thesis Other)
Implementing Chinese-English dual language programs in international schools: a study for an international school in southeast Asia
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Implementing Chinese-English Dual Language Programs in International Schools:
A Study for an International School in Southeast Asia
by
Ying Chu
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2022
© Copyright by Ying Chu 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Ying Chu certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Darline Robles
Yuehua Zhang
Lawrence Picus, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the process of implementing high-quality
Chinese-English dual language immersion programs in an international school context.
Additionally, the study sought to identify what dual language immersion program leaders
consider to be promising practices in implementing programs that fulfill the core goals of dual
language education, namely bilingualism, biliteracy, academic achievement, and sociocultural
competence. This qualitative study analyzed data from ten semi-structured interviews with
program leaders from seven peer international schools where dual language immersion programs
have been successfully implemented. Two overarching themes surfaced from the interview and
document analysis data. The first theme indicated that dual language immersion program
implementation was a systematic process requiring extensive planning, structuring, and step-by-
step procedures. Four temporal phases with detailed critical steps and strategies were identified
to guide program implementation. The second theme demonstrated that linguistically and
culturally responsive leadership is key to program success in realizing the core goals of dual
language education. Four leadership competencies were generated to describe dual language
immersion program leaders' knowledge, skills, actions, and dispositions. The findings of this
study addressed many of the critical areas of the knowledge gap in the implementation of dual
language programs, international education, and Chinese-English dual language immersion
programs in the international school context.
Keywords: Bilingual education; Language immersion; Dual language leadership
competency; Program implementation; Linguistically and culturally responsive leadership
v
Dedication
To my husband, Zhang Zhongxia, and my children, Zhang Wanying Zoe and Zhang Wanqing
Rebekah, I could not have achieved this without your unconditional love and acceptance.
To my parents, Yang Jinmei and Chu Fenglin, I could not have achieved this without your
unwavering love and support.
vi
Acknowledgments
When I finished my master’s thesis 15 years ago, I was convinced that I was officially
done with my formal education. When my younger daughter started preschool, a part of me
awakened and yearned for learning and growth, personally and professionally. Thankfully, this
USC doctorate program fulfilled that growing thirst to focus on myself and my learning. This has
been a treat for me, and I am forever grateful for those kind and loving people who have lifted
me up and supported me along the way.
I am thankful for Dr. Lawrence Picus, who generously encouraged me and boosted my
confidence in this academic endeavor. I am also grateful for my second chair, Dr. Darline
Robles, who reminded me how valuable my study was and kindly guided with helpful comments
and suggestions. My third chair, Dr. Yuehua Zhang, who has been my mentor and role model for
decades, connected with me at such a deep level, both academically and philosophically. I know
your beautiful and brilliant souls have supported many scholars like me, but you always made
me feel special and successful.
On a personal level, I could not have achieved this milestone without the love and
support from my family. Zhongxia, you encouraged me to bravely embark on this journey when
I was deliberating. You shouldered my fears and anchored my heart. You got me a brilliant
Herman Miller office chair and the newest iMac to write my dissertation. You have done all you
could to let me be who I want to be and always give me the freedom to dream. To my parents
and forever champions, your unconditional love made me feel I own the world. I will never be
able to repay what you have given me, but I will be the best parent for my children. Zoe and
Bekah, I am so proud of you, and thank you for choosing me to be your mama!
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 5
Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 10
Limitation and Delimitations ............................................................................................ 12
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 14
Chapter Two: Review of Literature .............................................................................................. 16
Foundations of Dual Language Education ........................................................................ 16
Leadership in Dual Language Immersion Programs ........................................................ 38
Culturally Responsive School Leadership ........................................................................ 47
Process of Implementation ................................................................................................ 49
Quality Implementation in Dual Language Programs ...................................................... 52
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 58
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 60
viii
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 61
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 66
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 68
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 70
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 70
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 73
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 74
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 75
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 75
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................... 78
Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 79
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 79
Discussion for Research Question 1 ............................................................................... 106
Results for Research Question 2 ..................................................................................... 108
Discussion for Research Question 2 ............................................................................... 119
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 120
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 121
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 124
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 134
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 153
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 154
References………………………………………………………………………………………156
Appendix A: Document Analysis Matrix ................................................................................... 176
ix
Appendix B: Participant Study Invitation ................................................................................... 177
Appendix C: Study Information Sheet ........................................................................................ 178
Appendix D: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 180
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Sample Schools 63
Table 2: List of Participants 77
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Preliminary Conceptual Framework 7
Figure 2: Renewed Conceptual Framework 123
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Dual language immersion (DLI) is a form of bilingual education (BE) in which students
are taught literacy and content in two languages (Center for Applied linguistics, 2021). Dual
language immersion programs (DLIPs) have proliferated rapidly in North America and
worldwide due to demographic shifts and the fast pace of globalization. In North America,
research on DLI has accumulated a wealth of evidence regarding its effectiveness in fostering
bilingualism and biliteracy while not compromising instructional quality or abbreviating the
curriculum (Fortune, 2012; Genesee, 1994; Met, 2012). Extensive research has shown that
DLIPs provide academic and cognitive benefits for all students, regardless of their native
language or socioeconomic status (Gleason, 2014; Jong, 2016; Lee & Jeong, 2013; Li et al.,
2016). Well-designed and implemented DLIPs, which provide academic instruction in English
and a partner language, promote linguistic, cultural, and racial equity for students, schools, and
communities (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2016). With China’s rising status in global economics
and politics, Chinese-English DLIPs have developed rapidly in the recent decade. Meanwhile,
the demand for education at international school campuses quickly increases, so does parents'
mounting interest in their children’s bilingualism, biliteracy, and multiculturalism. International
schools will have to respond by meeting the global community’s needs through multilingual and
multicultural instruction that prepares learners to be successful global citizens for the 21st-
century.
There is an emergent body of literature on DLIPs to guide program leaders to plan,
implement and refine DLIPs. However, most research on DLI focuses on French and Spanish,
alphabet-based languages, and minimal on pictographic languages such as Chinese. A group of
researchers, e.g., Kanagy and Hai (2001), Met (2000), and Wang (2010) have contended that
2
decision-makers must consider the inherent linguistic differences, especially in the writing
systems of languages such as Chinese and English. In addition, while research on DLI is more
established in North America in K–12 public education, literature is scarce on DLIPs in
international schools. Since the existing research base and professional experience have often
guided decision making about programs in French and Spanish in North America (Lindholm-
Leary, 2005; Met, 2012), the lack of which in Chinese-English DLIPs in international schools
might impose a threat to the development of emerging programs, and the sustainability of such
programs. As a result, new programs can only rely on trial and error, facing tremendous risk and
challenges to attain the benefits of DLI seen in French and Spanish programs in K–12 public
education in North America. Thus, the necessity for researching, investigating, developing, and
improving Chinese-English DLIPs in international schools has surfaced. This study will examine
implementing Chinese-English DLIPs in seven peer international schools and uncover the
promising practices in implementing such programs in an international school context.
Background of the Problem
The American International School of Southeast Asia (AISSA) is a non-profit,
independent international educational institution located within Southeast Asia. AISSA is a
pseudonym to refer to an international school that serves as an example of one implementing a
Chinese-English dual language immersion program. The school was founded in 1965 to serve the
children of American executives, diplomats, and missionaries. Currently, AISSA provides P–
12th-grade American curricula based on the common core states standards (CCSS) for over
3,000 students with diverse backgrounds and learning needs. AISSA is a reputable and well-
resourced school; 99% of its students attend a 4-year college after graduation. It offers more
Advanced Placement (AP) courses and exams than any other school outside of the United States,
3
with 1,784 AP exams in 2017 and 93% of students scoring a three or higher. AISSA students
score at the 94th percentile or higher in all Measurement of Academic Progress testing subjects
worldwide.
The AISSA vision is to become “a leader in international school education, cultivating
exceptional 21st-century learners prepared for a transformed future.” In 2013, AISSA began a
research and development (R&D) initiative to address the lack of 21st-century skills such as
collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and cultural competence in its curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. It is widely recognized that 21st-century learners need access to
multilingual education and the opportunity to understand diverse perspectives and cultures.
Consequently, searching for innovative second language programs has been a critical area of
growth for AISSA and the focus of the R&D learning journey. The R&D committee
recommended multiple innovative programs and initiatives, and a Chinese-English DLIP was
one of them.
In 2016, AISSA decided to develop and implement a Chinese-English DLIP that started
with two kindergarten classes in 2017. This cohort of students will continue to advance through
elementary school until the program has expanded to fifth-grade classrooms. Subsequently, the
school plans to expand the program to the secondary level to ensure continuity. In addition, the
school will extend the program to preschool in 2022. Hence, students and families can obtain the
full benefits of a DLIP from P–12th-grade, with students in kindergarten and first grade
benefiting from learning the grade-level content in Chinese for the majority of their school day.
As they move up to the upper grades, the program becomes a 50/50 model. AISSA believes that
all learners will benefit from having both native English speakers and heritage Chinese speakers
in the classrooms.
4
AISSA’s mission is to provide exemplary American education with a global perspective.
The school established the AISSA 2027 Strategic Plan to support its vision of being a leader in
international school education, cultivating exceptional 21st-century learners prepared for a
transformed future. The AISSA 2027 Strategic Plan is comprised of three strategic focus areas:
academic excellence, whole-child extraordinary care, and innovation and possibilities (AISSA,
2021). AISSA also defined the learning outcomes for its students, with communication, critical
thinking, and cultural competence as integral parts of an array of 21st-century learning
aspirations. Moreover, diversity, equity, and inclusion have been identified as one crucial area of
growth and one of the strategic focuses embedded in every aspect of teaching and learning
(AISSA, 2021).
With the backdrop of a renewed strategic plan, a Chinese-English DLIP is uniquely
positioned to realize the mission and vision of the school. According to the Center for Applied
Linguistics (CAL; 2021), the three core goals of DLE are bilingualism and biliteracy,
sociocultural competence, and a high level of academic achievement. In addition to promoting
cross-cultural cooperation and achievement in both languages, DLI is equity-centered, inclusive,
and additive (CAL, 2021). Well-designed and implemented dual language programs promote
linguistic, cultural, and racial/ethnic equity for students, schools, and communities (DeMatthews
& Izquierdo, 2016). They are specifically designed to elevate the status of the minority language
and integrate students of different language groups to bridge differences and promote group
unity and identity (Howard et al., 2007). Thereafter, a well-articulated and implemented Chinese-
English DLIP will exemplify the strategic focus of providing academic excellence, whole-child
extraordinary care, and innovation and possibilities for all the students.
5
Statement of the Problem
Mehta (2013) defined a problem as “a particular way of understanding a complex reality”
(p. 291). DLIPs have increased significantly in the United States and worldwide. An
overwhelming amount of research has been centered on DLIP’s effectiveness in helping English
learners, and native English speakers obtain high academic achievement. However, most studies
focus on either Spanish or French DLIPs in North America. Studies emphasizing DLIPs with
non-alphabetic partner languages such as Chinese are minimal, and there is a scarcity of
literature examining DLE in international schools to guide program leaders in establishing high-
quality programs in their unique demographic, geographic, and political contexts. Furthermore,
research has shown that the quality of implementation is a better indicator of the effectiveness of
DLIPs rather than program models or standardized test results (Howard et al., 2007). Lastly,
studies specifically focused on implementation steps, and strategies are extremely hard to find in
DLI studies. That being the case, information centered on implementing Chinese-English DLIPs
in international schools is in high demand to support the development, implementation, and
refinement of Chinese-English DLIPs.
Purpose of the Study
This qualitative study aims to examine the implementation of Chinese-English DLIPs in
an international school setting. The goal is to understand the Chinese-English DLIP
implementation process and the promising practices utilized by program leaders from seven peer
international schools in implementing Chinese-English DLIPs. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
stated that there was no single truth, but there were multiple truths. Through an explorative
approach, researchers can understand how people make sense of their world and their
experiences. This study uses a constructivist approach for exploring and understanding how
6
program leaders make meaning of the implementation process and what they believe are the
promising practices in implementing Chinese-English DLIPs in international schools.
Document analysis and interviews will be the research methods used to collect qualitative
data. These multiple data collection methods will serve as data triangulation to develop a
comprehensive understanding of the phenomena (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). This
study’s findings will support AISSA in strengthening its existing program and serve as a
roadmap to better implement the DLIP in the new grades and extend it to secondary school. As a
result, AISSA can reap the full benefits of P–12th-grade Chinese-English dual language
education. The following research questions are to be addressed by this study:
1. How do program leaders describe the processes of implementing Chinese-English
DLIPs in an international school context?
2. What do program leaders consider to be the promising leadership practices in
implementing Chinese-English DLIPs in an international school context?
Conceptual Framework
According to Maxwell (2013), conceptual frameworks are beliefs about the phenomena
studied and a tentative theory of the phenomena investigated. The preliminary conceptual
framework (Figure 1) developed for this study is mainly based on two seminal works in the field
of DLE and implementation science: the Guiding Principles of Dual Language Education
(Howard et al., 2007) and the Quality Implementation Framework (Meyers et al., 2012).
7
Figure 1
Preliminary Conceptual Framework
Note. The concept of four implementation phases is identified in the Quality Implementation
Framework (Meyers et al., 2012). The three core goals of dual language education are identified
in the Guiding Principles of Dual Language Education (Howard et al., 2018).
The CAL published the third edition of the Guiding Principles of Dual Language
Education (Howard et al., 2018) as an effective tool for planning, self-reflection, and continual
improvement. Based on this significant resource, the core goals of DLE and characteristics of
high-quality DLIPs were identified. Howard et al. (2018) indicated that the three core goals for a
8
high-quality DLIP were bilingualism and biliteracy, grade-level academic achievement, and
socio-cultural competence. Figure 1 indicates the core goals at the center of the conceptual
framework. In addition, based on the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education (Howard
et al., 2018) and much more significant dual language literature on effective leadership (Alanis &
Rodriquez, 2008, Collier & Thomas, 2014; Marzano & Walters, 2005), four key leadership roles
in implementing DLIPs are generated: visionary, advocate and liaison, steward, and facilitator.
Those four distinct components feed into the goals of any high-quality DLIP. Three descriptors
are listed under each pivotal role to further explain and describe leader responsibilities and
actions. The other inseparable parts of the framework surrounding the four corners are the four
phases of the implementation process. The square-shaped frame represents the international
school context where Chinese-English DLIPs are implemented. In essence, this framework
aspires to illustrate the four key roles and subsequent responsibilities of DLIP leaders and the
implementation process to operationalize those roles and responsibilities to effectively plan and
implement DLIPs within the international school context.
Next, the relationships among those components will be elaborated. At the center of the
figure are the three core goals of DLE. Those goals demonstrate the purpose of implementing
DLIPs. The four components surrounding the core goals are the roles and responsibilities
program leaders need to assume to plan and implement high-quality programs to achieve the
purpose of the programs, which is to cultivate learners who are bilingual and biliterate,
academically high-achieving, and culturally competent. The core goals dictate the leadership
roles and responsibilities. Additionally, knowing how to implement is as important as knowing
what needs to be done. The two-directional arrows linking the four key roles are intended to
demonstrate that those four components are intricately connected, and they strengthen each
9
other. Meyers et al. (2012) believed that having a high-quality implementation tool was of prime
importance regardless of the program model and context. Meyers et al. (2012) developed an
implementation tool named the quality implementation framework (QIF), which is a product of
their meta-analysis study of 25 implementation frameworks. The preliminary conceptual
framework incorporates the four phases of the QIF to operationalize the roles and responsibilities
to serve program goals. It is an implementation model with four phases, but it is a dynamic and
cyclic process.
It is paramount to seriously consider the host setting, create implementation teams and
plans, monitor ongoing implementation, learn from experiences, and constantly improve future
applications. In Figure 1, while the four key roles and the responsibilities under each role
demonstrate what leaders need to do, the implementation process shows how to complete those
tasks effectively and efficiently. For example, one of the DLIP leader’s responsibilities as a
facilitator is to provide professional development. To do so, program leaders need to follow the
four-phase implementation process while being cognizant of the context. It is worth noting that
the steps in each phase should continue to be addressed throughout the implementation process.
Also worth mentioning is the oriental design of the frame, intended to symbolize the
importance of considering the host setting of Confucius Asia when implementing Chinese-
English DLIPs and the cultural and linguistic features of Chinese language and literacy. This
traditional Chinese window frame design balances yin and yang and incorporates the belief that
we can achieve balance and beauty by inviting the outside scenery to be an integral part of the
room. The meaning behind this conceptual framework is that learning about, in, and through the
Chinese language and culture is a way to open windows to different cultures, perspectives,
values, and beliefs. It is inviting, balanced, and harmonious. All in all, this preliminary
10
framework aims to explain the why, what, and how of implementing high-quality Chinese-
English DLIPs in international schools, emphasizing adapting to the host setting and the cultural
and linguistic features of the Chinese language and culture.
Significance of the Study
There is limited research on the implementation of Chinese-English DLIPs. Moreover,
there is a scarcity of such studies conducted in the international school context. As more and
more international schools move toward implementing Chinese-English DLIPs, program leaders
can utilize those findings to avoid potential implementation failures. In addition, program leaders
can leverage those promising leadership practices uncovered to improve and reinvigorate their
existing Chinese-English DLIPs.
AISSA has devoted much time and resources to developing and implementing the
Chinese-English DLIP for the last 4 years. It is committed to extending the program to the
preschool and possibly the secondary school to provide a sustained DLI pathway. AISSA has
never implemented a P–12th-grade DLIP. Without the research support and the DLIP
implementation experience, the AISSA strategic priorities for 2027 may be negatively impacted.
Research on implementation has demonstrated the significance of high-quality
implementation compared to program models or other factors (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Howard
et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2003). High-quality DLIPs will be challenging to
achieve without effective implementation steps and strategies. Moreover, although AISSA
believes its Chinese immersion program is highly innovative and successful (AISSA, 2021),
there has never been a formal evaluative process to understand its implementation. Lastly,
program leaders at AISSA are not knowledgeable or experienced in dual language education.
Still, programmatic decisions have been made with limited understanding, experience, and
11
research findings in the field. Although AISSA engaged outside consultants previously, their
involvement in implementation decision-making was minimal, and they were not well-versed in
Chinese-English DLIP implementation in an international school context. Thus, it is vital to
understand the implementation process of successful DLIPs and the promising practices in an
international school context. AISSA can use the findings from this study to refine its current
practices and policies to ensure continuous improvement and long-term success. It can also use
the findings as a roadmap as AISSA extends its DLIP to the new grades in elementary school
and possibly in secondary school.
On a global scale, the growth of international schools is staggering, and the demand for
international school education continues to expand. According to the latest market data compiled
by ISC Research, there are currently 12,100 international schools enrolling 5.8 million students
globally (ISC Research, 2021). International schools are in a unique position to meet the needs of
students and the expectations of their parents to receive a world-class education that includes
becoming fully bilingual and biliterate in a second world language. Even though the concept of
Chinese-English dual language programs is relatively new to international schools, with China’s
economic and political strength and the growth of a globally mobile community, Chinese-
English DLIPs will be in high demand in the near future. Thus, the findings of this study may
offer guidance to other international schools as they look to develop, implement, and refine
Chinese-English DLIPs of their own. Additionally, this study will provide a global perspective to
the research on DLI and support international schools as they modify and adapt DLI program
models to their school’s unique demographic, geographic, and political contexts.
12
Limitation and Delimitations
This research focuses on the perspectives of DLIP leaders in international schools.
Concerning methodological choices, there are a few anticipated limitations. First, a limited
number of international schools offer Chinese-English DLIPs as most of them only provide a
world language program. Thus, the sample size is relatively small. Secondly, because there is no
specific measure to define well-resourced and reputable international schools, other measures are
used to describe well-resourced and reputable schools, such as a high college acceptance rate, a
long waiting list, a low student-teacher ratio, and a high percentage of faculty with an advanced
degree.
This study does not include other key stakeholders’ perceptions, such as the Chinese
teachers and students’ families. Lastly, researcher bias and the effect of the researcher on the
studies, or reactivity, are two critical threats to the conclusion of qualitative research (Maxwell,
2013). However, since the researcher is part of the world the researcher studies, such influence is
inescapable; therefore, the researcher’s integrity in qualitative studies matters the most
(Maxwell, 2013). In Chapter Three, I will critically reflect on my power and positionality and
explain my strategies to address those validity threats. As pertains to delimitations, this study
only aims to improve the program implementation in AISSA, where I am serving as a Chinese-
English DLI teacher, program chair, and coach. The findings and recommendations only apply to
the AISSA context.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are provided to ensure understanding and uniformity of these
terms throughout the study. The researcher has conceived of all definitions not accompanied by a
citation.
13
Bilingual education is an umbrella term for dual language and transitional bilingual
programs (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2021). In the United States, the goal of a traditional
bilingual education program is to develop some skills in the target language, emphasizing a full
transition to a mainstream English classroom. Internationally, it serves native speakers of the
majority language to develop a second language, an international or prestigious language (e.g.,
English and French).
Dual language education is a form of bilingual education in which students are taught
literacy and content in two languages (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2021). Dual language
programs are additive programs in that a second language is acquired while maintaining the
students’ first language.
Dual language immersion is used synonymously with dual language (Center for Applied
Linguistics, 2021). It is a program in which the language goals are full bilingualism and
biliteracy in English and a partner language. Throughout the program, students study language
arts and other academic content (math, science, social studies, arts) in both languages. The
partner language is used for at least 50% of instruction in all grades, and the program lasts at
least 5 years (preferably K–12). CAL (2021) and other institutions use this concept to include
two-way immersion, foreign language immersion, heritage language immersion, and bilingual
developmental programs.
Immersion (referring to a program type) is a program in which at least 50% of instruction
is in the partner language. Teaching focuses on both language and subject content in both
English and the partner language.
14
Immersion (referring to a technique or a method) is utilized when teachers exclusively
speak in the partner language during instructional time. It may be used in immersion programs or
traditional foreign language classes at any grade level.
Foreign language immersion is a dual language program where students are primarily
native English speakers learning a foreign language.
One-way immersion is frequently used in the Southwestern United States to refer to
bilingual developmental education; it often refers to foreign language immersion (to contrast it
with two-way immersion that enrolls students from two language groups).
Program leaders are individuals or teams who fulfill the program’s leadership needs
(Howard et al., 2007).
A strand school is one that offers a dual language strand in addition to the regular English
program.
Two-way immersion is a dual language program in which native English speakers and
native speakers of the partner language are enrolled. Neither group makes up more than two-
thirds of the student population.
World language is an increasingly common term for foreign languages.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the background of the
problem and outlines the purpose of the research and its importance. It also states the research
questions and the preliminary conceptual framework that makes the meaning of implementing
DLIPs in an international school context. The second chapter summarizes the literature on DLI,
its purpose, and its components. It also highlights the role of leadership in implementing DLIPs.
Subsequently, it introduces the implementation science and the framework of quality
15
implementation. The research methods employed in this qualitative study are presented in
Chapter Three. It describes the research design, population and sampling, and instrumentation
used during the study. The chapter also covers the data collection and analysis procedures and
addresses issues of maximizing credibility, trustworthiness, and ethics during the study. Chapter
Four presents the findings drawn from an extensive analysis of coded interview transcripts and
documentation analysis. It answers two key questions:
• What is the DLIP implementation process in international schools?
• What are the promising leadership practices in implementing a DLIP in an
international school context?
Lastly, Chapter Five discusses the study’s results, including a summary of the findings,
specific recommendations for AISSA based on the results, and the general implications for other
international schools.
16
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
This literature review will focus on dual language immersion’s (DLI) critical issues,
leadership roles related to dual language education (DLE), and the dual language immersion
program (DLIP) implementation process. The aim is to provide readers with the foundational
knowledge necessary to understand DLIPs’ sociopolitical context. This chapter summarizes the
history and politics behind DLIPs’ development and the ideologies and beliefs shaping those
programs in the United States. Then, it will examine international schools' identity and context
through a theoretical, political, and pedagogical lens in the global education discourse. A
subsequent review of the research findings in DLI and specifically in Chinese-English DLIPs is
provided to help build a rich knowledge of the field. Following the introduction, it will
synthesize the literature around the key roles program leaders play in program implementation.
Next, it will review implementation studies and tools supported by research, followed by the
critical considerations of DLIPs’ implementation, demonstrating the steps and strategies used by
program leaders in implementing an innovation like DLIPs. This chapter will conclude with a
preliminary conceptual framework based on the reviewed literature. This conceptual framework
will guide the rest of the study.
Foundations of Dual Language Education
This section begins by examining existing literature centered on ideologies and beliefs
that shaped DLI and the vision and goals of DLIPs. It provides an extensive review of the
literature and research on DLIPs’ benefits and critical considerations. Afterward, it summarizes
the research specific to Chinese-English DLI. It concludes with specific recommendations for
future research in Chinese-English DLI.
17
Ideologies and Beliefs Shaping Dual Language Education
This section discusses how DLE has been established and viewed through a political lens.
Next, the vision and goals of DLE are explored within the context of the United States. Finally,
the unique context of international schools is compared and examined.
History and Politics of Dual Language Education in the United States
According to Ovando (2003), “Language ideology in the United States, rather than
maintaining a stable course, has shifted according to changing historical events” (p. 2). The
history of American bilingual education dates to the colonial period when, as early as the 1700s,
European immigrants promoted their native languages and cultures (Ovando, 2003).
Subsequently, there was a great emphasis on becoming Americans through linguistic and cultural
assimilation from the 1880s to the 1960s. Ovando (2003) argued that it was a wake-up call for
Americans concerning their inadequate foreign language instruction when the United States
entered the Cold War. A significant advancement in modern bilingual education development
occurred in south Florida when programs linked to higher cognitive development were
developed for Cuban refugees during the 1960s (Goldenberg & Wagner, 2015). In 1968, the shift
was made from viewing students with limited English skills as deficient to acknowledging their
potential to become fully bilingual. Another important event was the classic 1974 U.S. Supreme
Court case Lau v. Nichols. This landmark lawsuit represented 2,856 Chinese-speaking students
in the San Francisco school system who were discriminated against and prevented from attaining
academic achievements because of insufficient English proficiency (Moran, 2005). Although this
case raised awareness of bilingual education, the court did not establish a bilingual policy for
schools to follow (Ovando, 2003). In 1994, with anti-immigrant sentiment politics on the rise,
18
bilingual programs were eliminated in California. Therefore, bilingual education has been both a
pedagogical issue and a political matter associated with the dominant ideologies and the socio-
economic and political influences (Sung & Tsai, 2019).
Throughout the history of the United States, bilingual education, as a political tool, has
been a controversial issue in the nation. It was not until the 21st-century that educational
programs promoting bilingualism and biliteracy, under the influence of globalization, have
gained status. Among the different bilingual programs, DLI or DLE (used interchangeably),
which provide literacy and academic content area instruction in English and a partner language,
have become increasingly popular. According to Lindholm-Leary (2001), DLE has the potential
to eradicate bilingualism’s negative status in the United States. Now more than ever, 21st-
century learners need to be equipped with effective communication skills in a language other
than English, and cross-cultural competence is a significant component of global citizenship.
Because of the importance and the urgency of DLIPs, there has been a surge in the number of
such programs. In 2000, there were only about 260 DLIPs in the United States; the number
reached 2,267 in 2021(Kornegay, 2021). The increase and growing popularity of DLIPs in the
United States has been due to the acceptability of bilingual programs inclusive of native English
speakers, who are typically white and from middle-class families (Morales & Maravilla, 2019).
Morales and Maravilla (2019) observed that this phenomenon could be explained through
interest convergence, which means that social policies that benefit the minority population only
change when they also benefit the dominant population. The following section will discuss DLI
in an international context to offer readers essential knowledge of the study.
19
International Schools and Globalized Education
According to the International School Consultancy Research (ISC Research; 2021), a
leading provider of English-medium K–12 international school data, the term “international
schools” refers to two groups of schools: those that deliver a curriculum entirely or partly in
English outside an English-speaking country and those located in an English-speaking country
but are international in their orientation and offer an English-medium curriculum other than the
country’s national curriculum. The newest data from ISC Research indicated that there are
currently 12,200 international schools enrolling 5.6 million students globally (ISC Research,
2021). The economic, political, and cultural effects of globalization have permeated every part of
the world. Inevitably, there is growing popularity (a 518% increase in the last 2 decades) of the
International Baccalaureate (IB) or other forms of international education, particularly in the
Asia-Pacific region, which houses 6,679 or 57.1% of the international schools in the world (ISC
Research, 2021).
A critique of international schools is that they might have served as the gatekeepers of
Western universities and multinational corporations, and they might have been designed to
improve elitists’ life trajectories. Gardner-McTaggart (2016) contended that it was unclear
whether those schools would be a vessel for equitable global citizenship education, simply an
extension of elitist social reproduction, or even a globalized class. According to Pashby (2011),
true global citizens are self-critical about their positionality, possess an open, complex, and
evolving sense of identities, and can interact and understand others responsibly with empathy.
Similarly, Gardner-McTaggart (2014) asserted that international schools should create
classrooms that are “truly representative of ‘the globe’ in all its wealth and diversity” (p. 8).
However, most international schools are Eurocentric or American-centric in terms of their
20
curriculum, leadership, faculty, and, more importantly, their firmly held ideological and
epistemological beliefs about the dominance of western institutions. The globalized or
international form of education strives to provide a promising chance to educate a global citizen,
emphasizing international-mindedness, idealism, humanism, global equity, fairness, issues of
postcolonialism, and liberty (Andreotti, 2011; Marshall, 2011; Pashby, 2011). However, as a
highly developed product with high marketplace value, it is extensively valued for its elite status
and the advantages it may offer.
International schools have become extremely popular in a rapidly expanding wealthy
local population in Asia. According to ISC Research (2021), in 1994, 80% of students were from
expatriate families, but in 2019, the largest group came from local or neighboring countries.
International schools cater to the wealthiest 5% of the non-English speaking world. Although
they function in various contexts, international schools share similar staffing protocols and
outlooks; the perceptions and perspectives of both teachers and students create what can be seen
as a fraternal grouping of institutional bodies (Thompson & Hayden, 1998).
Dual Language Education in the Context of International Schools
Internationally, bilingual education is a commonly used term. However, as demonstrated
in the previous section of the history and politics in the United States, it is complex. Since
bilingual education has been developed in different educational contexts globally, wide
variations exist. Internationally, bilingual education is intended to serve native speakers of the
majority language to develop proficiency in a second language, an international or prestigious
language (e.g., English and French). In Canada, from the start of the Saint-Lambert immersion
project in 1965 (Genesee, 1987), the consistent findings emerging from the French language
immersion program have indicated that students gain fluency and literacy in French at no
21
apparent cost to their English academic skills (Campbell et al., 1985; Curtain & Dahlberg, 2004;
Genesee, 1987). Some private or international schools associated with elite education offer
bilingual programs, thus the stigma of bilingual education attached to immigrant children does
not exist in international schools in Asia. The demand for international school education has
expanded exponentially, with an estimated nine million students across Asia by 2028. According
to De Mejía (2002), international schools are established initially to offer private, selective, and
independent education, mainly for affluent students and families. However, the population is
increasingly bilingual and bicultural, making it inevitable that all international schools need to
prioritize bilingualism or multilingualism rather than monolingual American or British curricula.
Curricula offered in international schools have changed as well. According to ISC Research
(2021), 45% of today’s international schools deliver IB programs. Other popular options include
the International Primary Curriculum and Cambridge International Programs or hybrid models
(ISC Research, 2021).
Many international schools boast of their students’ cultural and linguistic diversity. Since
students come from different language backgrounds, there are usually varying levels of English
language proficiencies. Most international schools offer English language learning support at
different levels and intensities and under different frameworks and ideologies. There has been
growing recognition that the English as additional language (EAL) programs are considered
additive bilingual education as they view bilingualism as an asset and promote heterogeneous
grouping. Proponents of EAL programs believe that students will acquire social and academic
language skills to succeed in mainstream classrooms. Those programs focus on English learners’
linguistic, academic, and cultural development and encourage teachers to co-teach and provide
sheltered instruction to teach content and language simultaneously. More families and educators
22
have begun to understand the role the first language plays in second language education and the
benefits of becoming fully bilingual and biliterate. Many educators and parents concur that it is
not just about learning English; it is also about being fully literate in their first language while
sustaining their cultural and linguistic identities, as many third-culture kids growing up in transit
have experienced massive language loss and a crisis of identity (Miller et al., 2020; Tanu, 2017)
Another promising practice of additive bilingualism is DLI used synonymously with
DLE. DLIPs refers to programs that provide literacy and content-area teaching through a
prestigious language, such as English, and a less prestigious target language known as “partner
language.” Students are learning about the language and learning in and through the language.
Therefore, second language acquisition and literacy development are embedded in daily core
content learning. According to the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL; 2021), the three core
goals of DLE are bilingualism and biliteracy, sociocultural competence, and a high level of
academic achievement. Those goals fit perfectly with most international schools’ vision of
building competent bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural global citizens. Today, many international
schools blend local heritage within an international or global bilingual learning approach to help
students develop learning skills and achieve qualifications recognized by universities and
multinational companies globally but retain and sustain their heritage language and culture (ISC
Research, 2021). Therefore, even though the concept of DLE is relatively new to international
schools, it has a vast potential in meeting the needs of students and their parents.
Core Goals of Dual Language Education
In the United States, many schools have been seeking to utilize DLE to promote student
success guided by the three pillars of DLE: bilingualism and biliteracy, academic achievement,
and cross-cultural understanding for all students (CAL, 2007). Those three pillars were first
23
introduced in the second edition of CAL’s the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education
(Howard et al., 2007), published in 2007, a trusted resource for educators over the past 10 years.
Well-established programs have utilized the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education
(Howard et al., 2007) to guide their programs’ planning and implementation. CAL then put
together an expert team of authors and a panel of advisors to incorporate learning from new
research and weave in practices used by successful programs to offer new and updated guiding
principles in 2018. According to the third edition of the Guiding Principles for Dual Language
Education (Howard et al., 2018), studies of effective schools consistently and conclusively
indicated that high-quality programs had a clear and cohesive vision and goals focused on
bilingualism, biliteracy, academic achievement, and sociocultural competence.
In the United States, most states have embraced DLI, and it has been a rapidly growing
program model, with more than 2,000 programs nationwide (Kornegay, 2021). Such growth
includes a mounting body of research on bilingualism’s academic and cognitive benefits and the
competitive advantages of multilingualism and sociocultural competence in a global economy.
While traditional bilingual programs are deficit-based, dual language programs are asset-based
and meant to serve two distinct needs, one for native English speakers to acquire a second
language and literacy and for English learners to acquire English proficiency. However, the
surge of these programs and their embrace by White, middle-class, English-speaking parents has
led to criticisms of such programs as elitist, biased toward the interests of the dominant group,
and failing to serve culturally and linguistically diverse students and families (Kornegay, 2021).
Thus, researchers have cautioned program leaders to balance the access and needs of students of
color, particularly English learners, when whiteness is entering the DLE space and have called
for programs to interrogate the power dynamics that might influence program design and
24
outcomes (Cervantes-Soon et al., 2017; Delavan et al., 2017; Morales & Maravilla, 2019). This
call aligns with one of the core goals of DLE: sociocultural competence, which has not been
relegated to a high priority (Kornegay, 2021).
DLIPs aspire to foster bilingualism, biliteracy, academic rigor, and global citizenship in
the realm of international schools. Various schools have different missions, but with an overall
goal of promoting international-mindedness and creating responsible global citizens. For
example, according to the International School of Beijing (2021), their Chinese-English dual
language program supports second-language development and cross-cultural understanding and
promotes high academic achievements. Similarly, a well-respected school in Singapore, the
Canadian International School, also envisioned the transformed educational future they create
through dual language education (Canadian International School, 2021).
Research in Dual Language Education
This section will provide the context and connections for the crucial parts of DLIPs,
starting with a brief introduction of the theoretical and research foundations of the benefits of
DLI. Subsequently, it will venture into the core programmatic characteristics of high-quality
DLIPs. Lastly, it will focus on the current literature on Chinese-English DLI.
Benefits of Dual Language Education
This section presents a summary of the benefits of DLI. In addition, it explains the
theoretical and research foundations for the research-tested benefits of DLI for all groups of
students. It concludes with specific recommendations to ensure equitable benefits for all
students.
Research on DLI has accumulated a wealth of evidence that indicates DLI leads to
similar or higher academic achievement measured in English for all students in DLIPs than those
25
in the English mainstream programs (Augus et al., 2014; Genesee et al., 2006; Howard et al.,
2004; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010; Steele et al., 2017; Thomas & Collier, 2012). Since
DLI is, by design, a culturally responsive approach to curriculum and instruction, it builds on the
students’ assets and accelerates their achievements (Thomas & Collier, 2012). DLI is the most
effective way to acquire a second language and foster biliteracy at no perceptible cost to students'
English academic skills (Fortune, 2012; Genesee, 1994; Met, 2012). More importantly, learning
partner literacy encourages students to read for pleasure in the partner language at a young age.
According to Howard et al. (2018), if children do not start reading for fun in the partner language
by third grade, they may never choose to read for pleasure in their second language. DLI has
benefits for all students beyond the acquisition of a second language. It offers the multiple long-
lasting cognitive benefits of being bilingually proficient, such as greater cognitive flexibility
(Soderman, 2010), more vital problem-solving ability (Bamford & Mizokawa, 1991), and a high
level of divergent thinking and pattern recognition (Fortune, 2012).
Well-designed and implemented DLIPs promote linguistic, cultural, and racial/ethnic
equity for students, schools, and communities (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2016). They are
intentionally designed to elevate the status of the minority language and integrate students of
different language groups to bridge the differences and promote group unity and identity
(Howard et al., 2007). DLIPs allow students to build relationships with those from diverse
backgrounds, encouraging them to value different perspectives and appreciate their own and
others’ cultures and heritage. Although DLIPs are overwhelmingly positive in enriching all
children’s educational experience, it is vital to consider linguistically and culturally diverse
students’ needs. Otherwise, a program designed to serve those needs might become one that
perpetuates existing inequalities.
26
Core Programmatic Features of High-Quality Dual Language Programs
Considering the multiple benefits of bilingualism, biliteracy, and bicultural competence,
Collier and Thomas (2018) contended that DLIPs could enrich all students’ educational
experiences. To make this vision a reality, programs need to possess a set of core features that
will serve as programmatic guidelines for developing and refining such programs. Researchers
and educators from CAL have identified several characteristics associated with high-quality
schools and programs, including vision and goals, equity, and positive school environment,
challenging and relevant curriculum, empowering pedagogy, advocacy-oriented leadership; and
effective processes for program design, refinement, planning, and implementation (Howard et
al., 2007). The next section will examine effective program structure and pedagogy to foster
bilingualism, biliteracy, academic achievement, and sociocultural competence.
Dual Language Program Model. This part of the literature review will investigate the
existing research on program models. It will summarize and analyze the current studies on well-
designed curricula and instructional models, emphasizing cross-cultural competence and equity.
DLIPs vary by student population and the percentage of partner language instruction. The most
studied aspects of DLIPs are their benefits, the effectiveness of different program models, and
the challenges program leaders face in designing and implementing programs. In general, this
body of research shows that a well-designed program that responds to the community's needs
produces positive student outcomes for all students (Calderón & Minaya-Rowe, 2000; Cloud et
al., 2000; Slavin et al., 2000)
Different Models by Student Population. There are two program models based on
students’ linguistic backgrounds: one-way and two-way. The one-way model employs
homogeneous groupings that include English learners speaking the same first language or native
27
English speakers learning a partner language. The former is considered a remedial or transitional
program. The latter is regarded as an additive program. However, it prioritizes the dominant
groups to achieve bilingualism and biliteracy, which has previously been advantageous for
linguistic minorities. In contrast, according to the Guiding Principles for Dual Language
Education (Howard et al., 2018), because of the two-way model’s inclusive nature and how it
recognizes linguistic and cultural diversity as assets, it is an additive model rather than a
remedial one.
Multiple studies (Cloud et al., 2000; Howard et al., 2007; Lindholm-Leary, 2001) have
demonstrated that, in two-way immersion programs, both native English speakers and English
learners do as well or better in English, the partner language, and the standardized tests than their
peers in other educational programs. Furthermore, several studies on two-way immersion
programs indicated that there were educational, cognitive, sociocultural, and economic benefits
of bilingualism (Calderón & Minaya-Rowe, 2000; Cloud et al., 2000; Slavin et al., 2000).
Different Models by Partner Language Allocation. DLIPs also vary in how they allocate
time for instruction in each language. The most common ones are 50/50 (50% of instruction in
the partner language) or 90/10 (90% instruction in the partner language). In terms of student
outcomes, dual language scholars have highlighted that both models achieved the goals of
bilingualism and biliteracy effectively (Cloud et al., 2012; Lindholm-Leary, 2005). However, the
90/10 model has created higher bilingualism levels and has proven to be most successful for
heritage learners (Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008; Thomas & Collier, 2002). As mentioned in
the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education (Howard et al., 2018), the basic rule is that
no less than 50% of partner language instruction is necessary to promote high partner language
proficiency among native English speakers and academic achievement among English learners.
28
Content instruction in English should increase to about 50% by the late elementary grades to
foster strong academic language proficiency in English for English learners (Howard et al.,
2018). Howard et al. (2012) observed that while, at that time, no research supported or denied
these points, they were commonly seen in the effective DLIPs.
Dual Language Immersion Curriculum and Pedagogy. According to the Guiding
Principles for Dual Language Education (Howard et al., 2018), an effective curriculum should
be aligned with the vision and goals of bilingualism, biliteracy, and multiculturalism.
Furthermore, it needs to reflect and value students’ cultures and include multiple opportunities
for students to develop positive attitudes about themselves and others and to develop cultural
knowledge and a sense of their identities in a non-biased way (Durlak et al., 2011; Feinauer &
Howard, 2014; Sleeter, 2016). A substantial body of literature has demonstrated that DLI
curricula should integrate language instruction with the curriculum content and foster literacy in
both languages (Collier & Thomas, 2014; Hamayan et al., 2013; Lyster, 2007; Valdés et al.,
2015). The literature cited below will elaborate on guiding principles developed by a national
panel of dual language researchers and practitioners grounded in evidence from research and
promising practices.
Develop Bilingualism and Biliteracy. In DLIPs, each student develops their native
language while acquiring an additional language alongside peers through content instruction.
Students are simultaneously language learners and language models. The notion of students as
emergent bilinguals is a significant paradigm shift in additive dual language programs.
An effective dual language program provides sustained instruction in the partner
language for at least 6 years, with at least 50% instruction (Howard et al., 2018). A crucial aspect
of successful programs is to make content comprehensible. Echevarria et al. (2016) built on
29
research on sheltered instruction to develop the sheltered instruction observation protocol, which
comprises eight components for making content comprehensible for language learners. Since this
model was developed to serve EAL students better, Howard et al. (2006) provided an adaptation
of the sheltered instruction model for use with two-way DLI contexts. Language-specific
features and vocabulary instruction should be intentionally addressed, apart from comprehensible
input. Lyser (1998) asserted that language objectives should be incorporated into curriculum
planning to develop bilingualism and biliteracy. Lindholm-Leary (2016) further noted that
language and literacy should be developed across the curriculum. In addition, CAL researchers
(Howard et al., 2018) also highlighted the importance of using language and literacy resources in
the minority partner language that are authentic, culturally appropriate, and of similar quality to
the resources provided in English, considering the overwhelmingly high status of English.
It is worth mentioning that research on Chinese literacy is lagging, and current research is
almost entirely concerned with Spanish as the second language (Sung & Tsai, 2019). There is a
need to research lesser-studied languages like Chinese, a non-alphabetical language system that
requires different teaching and learning approaches (Grenfell & Harris, 2015; Lee-Thompson,
2008). For instance, a study of Chinese reading strategies (Lee-Thompson, 2008) identified some
unique strategies used by students learning Chinese. One strategy is to frequently mark the text
by drawing lines or boxes to segment words and phrases, which worked to accommodate the lack
of word boundaries in Chinese script. Another example is using Chinese-specific memory
strategies such as thinking of the pictures to connect the shape to the meaning or writing the
characters repeatedly to memorize (Grenfell & Harris, 2015). Thus, Sung and Tsai (2019)
asserted that it was essential for researchers to investigate the alphabetical language and other
30
structurally different languages, such as Chinese, as it required different teaching and learning
strategies than alphabetical languages.
Promote Cross-Cultural Competence and Equity. It is a common practice that DLIPs
allocate time to learn about surface culture, for instance, the food and holidays of the partner
language. Deep culture, such as personal space, time, and traditional values, is more authentic
and intriguing, but seldom included. According to the Guiding Principles for Dual Language
Education (Howard et al., 2018), effective dual language programs should actively develop a
multi-layered and deep understanding of culture and positive cross-cultural attitudes in students,
assisted by integrating students from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Cultural
proficiency is of prime importance in dual language programs; that is a paradigm shift from
viewing cultural differences as barriers to learning how to interact effectively with other cultures.
Montecel et al. (2002) addressed the idea that the curriculum needed to reflect and value the
students’ cultures. Programs should use multiethnic materials and curricula, integrate students’
cultural values into the classroom, and celebrate and encourage non-English languages. Multiple
researchers (Cloud et al., 2000; Howard & Sugarman, 2007; Lindholm-Leary, 2001) believed it
was vital to integrate multicultural themes into instruction to ensure diverse ethnolinguistic
students’ backgrounds are positioned and recognized as equals.
Secondary Dual Language Education
Research has indicated that the DLIPs’ duration is a significant factor in better student
outcomes; at least 5 to 7 years is required to build English academic proficiency for English
learners (Bailey & Carroll, 2015; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010; Thompson, 2015).
According to Language Difficulty Ranking by the Foreign Service Institute (Effective Language
Learning, 2021), Chinese is the most difficult language to learn in Category V compared to
31
languages in Category I, such as Spanish and French. That means learning Chinese, a Category
V language, requires 2,200 hours to reach a general professional proficiency compared to 575–
600 hours for Category I languages such as Spanish and French (Effective Language Learning,
2021). Thus, it is essential to sustain the positive gains for K–5 DLI by providing a secondary
school pathway. It is also important to note that multiple studies have demonstrated that EALs
who participated in different programs in school had the lowest academic outcome (Lindholm-
Leary & Borsato, 2006; Menken et al., 2012). Hence, it is crucial to provide a consistent,
sustained DLIP. With the overwhelmingly positive results of DLI at the elementary school
levels, many schools are choosing to expand their programs, ensuring a complete DLI
experience. According to the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education (Howard et al.,
2018), effective DLIPs need “a clear, well-articulated P–12th-grade pathway that provides
sustained instructional opportunities in English and the partner language” (p. 30). A P–12th-
grade pathway is imperative to achieve a high level of academic proficiency and promote college
and career enhancement through earning the seal of biliteracy on a high school diploma, college
credits through Advanced Placement (AP) exams, and an International Baccalaureate (IB)
bilingual diploma. This section will discuss the challenges and opportunities in secondary school
DLIPs, including the factors that influence students’ and parents’ decisions and commitment to
DLI.
Challenges of Secondary Schools. DLIP implementation at the secondary level presents
different challenges than at the elementary level, mainly resulting from the complex scheduling
practices and the scarcity of subject-proficient bilingual educators who are academically
proficient in the partner language (Collier & Thomas, 2014). In addition, instructional resources
and materials are limited in the partner language. Another challenge for the DLIP is that students
32
at the secondary level have abundant elective course choices. It is hard for them to choose a
challenging class in a complicated language over their interests and friends. Secondary students
are entering adolescence and beginning to look to peers, pulling away from adults as they start to
build autonomy and independence. Therefore, the secondary schools and students are vastly
different, and no matter how successful an elementary program is, it shouldn’t impose its model
on a secondary school.
Effective Dual Language Programs in Secondary Schools. According to Collier and
Thomas (2014), a secondary DLIP is currently defined as including a minimum of two core
courses in the partner language each year. Secondary programs should consist of language arts
courses in English and the partner language (Sizemore, 2014). In addition, schools need to
consider offering electives in the partner language. According to leaders’ practical experiences
from an established program (Sizemore, 2014), when they complete eighth grade, students must
have demonstrated a high level of achievement in both languages; otherwise, a high school
cannot offer core content classes in the partner language.
Successful programs motivate students to remain in the program by offering appealing
elective courses, fostering ownership and student leadership, and providing community service
in a context in which their bilingualism is required (Sizemore, 2014). Sizemore (2014) further
explained that because adolescents value independence and making personal decisions based on
individual goals and interests, involving them in course planning and offering attractive electives
in the partner language are significant to keeping them in the program. One strategy to foster
student leadership and provide authentic experience is to provide community service in a context
where bilingualism and biliteracy skills are required, such as a medical interpreter in the
emergency room. Hence, students understand the crucial role they can play with their linguistic
33
skills (Sizemore, 2014). In addition, schools can initiate teacher and student exchange programs
with the partner language countries to provide real-life, meaningful opportunities for students to
use their language and cultural skills (Vargas, 2014). Another innovative approach is to offer the
option to major in dual language as a focused study path in high school (Ortega, 2014). Ortega
(2014) believed this would give students a focused path of study and intentionally prepare them
for the process of selecting a major later at a college. As the academic content’s cognitive
demands and the complexity of language are increasing with the secondary level courses, it is
necessary to provide sufficient student assistance, such as learning support and tutoring sessions
(Ortega, 2014).
Bilingualism/Biliteracy Seal. A bilingualism/biliteracy seal placed on a student’s
diploma recognizes and honors those students who have reached academic proficiency in English
and another language. According to the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages (n.d.), 41 states have joined the effort to define the credentials and qualifications for a
bilingualism/biliteracy seal on a high school diploma. It has become a critical advantage in
admission to continuing studies in post-secondary education and applying for professional jobs
that require bilingualism. Bilingualism/biliteracy is not only an honor but a necessity for integral
citizens in the global society. Collier and Thomas (2014) contended that it was a time to call for
learning at least two of the top three most spoken world languages, which are Chinese, Spanish,
and English. They believed that American attitudes were changing positively towards
bilingualism, and DLIPs should increasingly become the default mainstream curriculum.
Research in Chinese-English Dual Language Education
With parents’ keen interest in their children becoming bilingual, biliterate, and
multicultural and China’s rise in global economics and politics, schools worldwide offer several
34
models of teaching Chinese as a foreign language or Chinese-English DLIPs. Although there are
multiple pathways to attaining proficiency in Chinese, DLI students often demonstrate a better
grasp of the language through better pronunciation, more communicative confidence, enhanced
literacy, and cross-cultural skills seldom developed in a world language classroom (Fortune,
2012). Chinese-English DLI has increased in the last 2 decades in the United States. According
to the Chinese Early Language and Immersion Network (n.d.), there are currently 626 Chinese-
English DLIPs offered in the United States, and it is ever-growing. This section presents the
current theoretical and research foundations specific to Chinese-English DLE.
Key Features of Effective Chinese-English DLIPs
Apart from the key features identified in the Guiding Principles for Dual Language
Education published by the CAL (2018), Wang and Peyton (2018) proposed a few additional
characteristics of high-quality Chinese-English DLIPs. Under the effective curriculum features, it
stated the following:
A clear learning path for Chinese-specific topics are in place (e.g., teaching of reading
and writing in Chinese; use of traditional and simplified Chinese characters; when and
how to introduce and use Pinyin; articulation of issues of handwriting and computer
keyboarding; teaching of reading and writing; and teaching of content areas). (p. 4)
In addition to the Chinese literacy-specific features, programs should develop authentic
materials and resources. Wang and Peyton (2018) highlighted some features of developing such
materials and resources, noting that a process (e.g., How is this done? Who does it? Who
updates?) is in place for translating materials into Chinese or adapting them for instruction in this
program. Therefore, in addition to aligning with the Guiding Principles of Dual Language
35
Education (Howard et al., 2018), Chinese literacy development’s uniqueness needs to be
addressed throughout the planning and implementation process.
The Unique Features of Chinese Literacy Development
The biggest challenge of learning Chinese at any level is the task of Chinese literacy
development. As a character-based language, the teaching of reading and writing in the Chinese
orthographic system requires a vastly different set of skills. For native Chinese speakers, it is
estimated that 2,500 characters are needed to perform essential reading functions (Dong, 2014).
Chinese characters are composed of a highly evolved system of strokes, radicals, and semantic-
phonetic compounds. Strokes are considered the primary building blocks of Chinese characters.
Research on Chinese language learners has shown that learning strokes and stroke order makes
memorizing characters easier (Guan et al., 2011; Knell & West, 2015). Therefore, it is time well
spent to practice stroke formation and stroke order in Chinese literacy development. Strokes
form radicals, which are the semantic components of a character that provide information about
its meaning. Research has shown that teaching radicals help students better understand the
writing system’s principles (Lü et al., 2015).
Moreover, semantic-phonetic compounds provide a clue to the character's pronunciation.
Those compounds can help learners learn or guess the pronunciation of characters based on those
phonetic elements (Anderson et al., 2013; Shen, 2010). That being the case, learners need to be
explicitly taught how to notice those various parts and find the numerous patterns that make up
Chinese characters (Everson et al., 2016). In addition, Chinese has a significant number of
homophones, which means it is common to find characters with different meanings sharing the
same sound (Sung, 2012). According to Liu et al. (1990), out of 1,290 common characters,
approximately 70% have homophones, with an average of 4.4 homophones per character. Thus,
36
learning Chinese script is exceptionally cognitively demanding due to the structural complexity
and the implicit visual and phonological connections (Wang et al., 2014). Hence, it is imperative
to employ effective teaching methods and a unique learning system very different from learning
Spanish or French.
Pedagogy in Chinese Literacy Development
Since Chinese is remarkably different from a phonetic language, developing a deep
understanding of the Chinese language and its pedagogy is prime importance (Kanagy & Hai,
2001; Met, 2012; Wang & Peyton, 2018). Those who design and implement DLIPs should
intentionally consider Chinese language-specific instruction and the Chinese instructional
learning environment conducive to Chinese literacy acquisition. This section will review
research and theories on pedagogical implications due to Chinese literacy development’s unique
features.
According to Xiao (2009), literacy pedagogy is inherently different because of the
fundamental difference between logographic and alphabet languages. As students need to master
about 2,500 Chinese characters to be considered literate, Xiao (2009) recommended three
Chinese character teaching strategies that have been field-tested: three steps presentation of new
characters, methods to prevent orthographic errors, and corrective measures to treat orthographic
errors (p. 116).
In a similar vein, Sung and Tsai (2019) argued that teachers should help identify the
cognitive and memory strategies that are especially useful for learning different aspects of
Chinese characters (e.g., using grouping to remember radicals, repeating to recognize a
character’s sound) and explicitly teach students how to use the strategies. Grenfell and Harris
(2015) suggested using strategies such as using music or total physical response, which teaches
37
vocabulary by using physical movement to react to verbal input. In addition, Everson and Chang
(2016) suggested that a classroom environment that provides rich text surrounding students with
a standards-based curriculum was an integral part of Chinese literacy development.
It is worth examining the current literature on how Chinese children become literate since
it is also challenging for native Chinese speakers to learn the complicated orthographic system.
McBride and Wang (2015) noted that key factors were orthographic knowledge, phonemic
awareness, and rapid automatized naming. Lo et al. (2016) also pinpointed morphological
awareness as an essential factor accounting for Chinese literacy’s unique variance. Thus, it is
vital to teach children morphological awareness explicitly.
Program Modification
Many Chinese-English DLIPs were designed based on the assumption that the Spanish or
French immersion model and pedagogy were replicable to Chinese language immersion
programs (Zhao & Poole, 2017). However, there are no direct pedagogical references in literacy
from Spanish or French to Chinese, except at the conceptual level, for example, using pictures to
guess the meaning of the words. Due to the complexity of the Chinese language system, it is
essential to recognize that it requires a much longer time to develop Chinese literacy compared
to developing French and Spanish (Met, 2012). This is true even for native Chinese speakers
(Met, 2012). There is a relative lack of engaging, high-quality materials, assessments, and
language acquisition research specific to Chinese literacy development (Met, 2012). In
conclusion, there are many linguistic differences between Chinese and other alphabetic
languages. It is fundamental to recognize that the Chinese language is vastly different from
English (Kanagy & Hai, 2001; Met, 2012), so it is impossible and risky to simply transfer the
research findings and instructional theories developed for Spanish or French DLE programs.
38
Leadership in Dual Language Immersion Programs
The first part of the literature review briefly introduces DLE and international schools’
context. The second part will venture into program leaders’ roles in implementing DLIPs. Based
on the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education (Howard et al., 2018), it is worth noting
that while a principal might be the main person who oversees the DLIP implementation, they
may pass their responsibility to a deputy principal, a program coordinator, a teacher leader, or a
distributed leadership team. Therefore, in this study, the term “program leaders” refers to the
person or the team who fulfills the program’s main leadership needs.
Leadership Roles in Implementing Dual Language Immersion Programs
Research on leadership in DLE has accumulated a great deal of evidence regarding the
value of effective and knowledgeable leadership in successfully establishing and ensuring
DLIPs’ sustainability (Herman et al., 2016; Howard et al., 2018; Hunt, 2011). In addition to
being traditional supervisors, DLIP leaders play critical and multiple roles. Researchers
categorize leadership roles and responsibilities differently. For instance, Hitt and Tucker (2016)
conducted a large-scale literature review of 56 empirical studies regarding effective educational
leadership practices and revealed 28 different practices organized into five key domains: (a)
establishing and conveying the vision, (b) facilitating a high-quality learning experience for
students, (c) building professional capacity, (d) creating a supportive organization for learning,
and (e) connecting with external partners (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
Similarly, Collier and Thomas’ (2004) 18-year longitudinal study examined national data
from 23 school districts and identified effective leadership practices such as hiring high-quality
teachers, providing ongoing staff development, creating community partnerships, and overseeing
program implementation evaluation. In the context of DLIPs, Hunt (2011) identified four
39
essential leadership skills and dispositions of principals who sustain high-quality DLIPs:
collective mission, collaborative and shared leadership, trust, and flexibility. More specifically,
in a study by Alanis and Rodriguez (2008), the researchers found that the effective DLIP
principals understood bilingualism and biliteracy’s purpose and power. Alanis and Rodriguez
(2008) contended that effective DLIP principals relied on DLE research and theories to guide
their decision-making process. They would hire qualified dual language teachers who
demonstrate advocacy for students, families, and DLIPs’ goals (Alanis & Rodriguez, 2008).
Slavin et al. (2000) summarized DLIP leaders’ roles by asserting that principals were required to
be change agents, supervisors, and advocates to lead the DLIPs. This next section will review the
four critical roles of the program leaders or teams to fulfill the leadership needs of DLIPs:
visionary and change agent, advocate and liaison, steward, and facilitator.
Visionary and Change Agent
Multiple researchers and practitioners have indicated the importance of program leaders
in developing and communicating a vision and goals for their programs (Herman et al., 2016;
Hunt, 2011; Sanchez, 2014), transforming educators’ underlying beliefs, and ultimately
redesigning schooling for a transformed future (Sanchez, 2014). Leadership is deeply embedded
at every level to establish the groundwork and ensure the sustainability of DLIPs. DLE
leadership is also about developing, maintaining, and realizing the vision and goals for the
program. Since CAL published the second edition of the Guiding Principles for Dual Language
Education in 2007, it has been widely recognized that the vision and core goals of DLIPs should
focus on bilingualism, biliteracy, academic achievement, and cross-cultural competence. Those
visions and core goals have been demonstrated in studies and advocated by countless dual
language practitioners (Genesee et al., 2006; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm-Leary &
40
Genesee, 2010; Montecel et al., 2002). After setting the vision and goals, program leaders also
need to protect and maintain that vision as reflected in the DLIP (Izquierdo & Spies, 2014;
Tabet-Cubero, 2014). Finally, DLIP leaders must fully explain and share the vision with the
entire school community (Aguirre-Baeza, 2001; Marzano & Walters, 2005).
Another practice of a visionary leader involves transforming educators’ underlying
beliefs. DLE is a major cultural shift in thinking. English learners are “emergent bilinguals” who
learn two languages and academic content (Escamilla et al., 2014; Valdés, 2016); this asset-
based description is a significant paradigm shift for many educators. It is crucial to address
educators’ underlying beliefs about the communities they serve, the program’s vision, mission,
goals, and, most importantly, the students they teach (Blankstein, 2012; Tabet-Cubero, 2014).
According to the National Dual Language Forum White Paper (CAL, 2017), school leaders
should set a clear vision for bi/multilingualism and establish an official school language policy to
ensure that the DLIP is implemented evenly across the school.
The ultimate vision of DLE is to redesign schooling for a transformed future. Starting a
DLIP is a systemic action (Mason, 2014, as cited in Collier & Thomas, 2014). Mason (2014)
believed it required intentionally and purposefully redesigning the system, which would bring
changes to every part of that system. DLE is a new way of conceptualizing the possibility of
schooling. It changes the sociocultural contexts of education, and it requires sharing equitably in
the allocation of power and resources (Sanchez, 2014). Program leaders are called to be change
agents (Slavin et al., 2000) who embrace multicultural education and translate this vision into
reality. Effective program leaders embody transformational leaders’ qualities, who call for using
differences of opinion, hostility, and tension in the institution as a force for motivating others,
promoting growth, and constructing change (Slaughter, 2012). This kind of leadership is more
41
about action rather than charisma. Sanchez (2014) believed that DLE is unifying and is for
everyone. Program leaders are responsible for redesigning this unifying and equitable schooling
of the 21st-century for a profoundly interconnected and transformed world.
Recent research has also drawn attention to the reality that while DLIPs hold great
promise to foster cross-cultural understandings and promote educational equity, because middle-
class white students are entering the dual language space, many programs fall short of achieving
these aims. For instance, Palmer (2010) researched a predominately African American and
Latinx school with a DLIP that attracted middle-class white families, found that very few non-
white or non-native English-speaking children were enrolled in that program. The same is true
with Hernandez’s (2017) 2 years of ethnographic research of Mexican immigrant families in
California, focusing on families’ experiences in a DLIP. This is further supported by Valdez et
al.’s (2016) mixed-methods study of Utah’s widely expanded DLIPs, demonstrating the three
privilege types: white racial privilege, wealth, and English privilege. Programs that only benefit
students and families who are already privileged while excluding those who are marginalized are
contradictory to the social justice aims of DLE (Menken, 2017). Such an enriching foreign-
language immersion program for the privileged groups is a lost opportunity for transformation
(Palmer, 2010).
Advocate and Liaison
Program leaders might have different titles, but they all share the critical role as the
program’s main advocate and spokesperson. Sanchez (2014), president of the California
Association for Bilingual Education, asserted that advocacy-oriented leadership was
indispensable for DLIPs’ success. Program leaders must advocate at all stakeholder levels for
DLE. More explicitly, that means program leaders need to view all decisions through the lens of
42
DLE beliefs (Izquierdo, 2014), advocate for marginalized students and families (Bivins, 2014;
Slavin et al., 2000), and celebrate and communicate the success of the program to the community
(Izquierdo, 2014). Moreover, DLIP leaders need to implement strong family and community
partnership programs that build leadership capacity and draw upon community funds of
knowledge. Effective DLIP leaders use a variety of strategies to engage and collaborate with
families and communities. Strategies recommended in the Guiding Principles of Dual Language
Education (Howard et al., 2007) include the following: implementing culturally and
linguistically responsive services, providing parent education programs, and hiring bilingual
staff. Furthermore, according to a study by the Education Commission of States (as cited by the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017), effective programs use
multiple strategies to engage and collaborate with families and communities, such as establishing
parent advisory committees and creating school support teams.
Next, support and resources are pivotal to any school in any community. As the advocate
and liaison of the program, DLIP leaders are crucial in many ways. DLI leadership research is
replete with support and resources provided by effective program leaders (Howard et al., 2007).
First, effective DLI leaders support and advocate for the vision and goals of the program (Alanis
& Rodriquez, 2008; Genesee et al., 2006). Thus, they devote attention and resources to
promoting the program and act as liaisons between the administration, school staff, parents, and
community members. Furthermore, effective program leaders support dual language staff and
advocate for adequate training and time for teachers to plan and develop materials and
assessments (Kennedy, 2013; Sugarman, 2012). Moreover, effective program leaders ensure the
necessary financial and instructional resources are allocated to the program, particularly high-
43
quality materials in the partner language for students to support the program’s bilingualism and
biliteracy vision and goals (Herman et al., 2016; Marzano & Walters, 2005).
Steward
Program leaders carry out the planning, implementation, refinement, and evaluation of
the DLIPs. The stewardship demands a clear and profound understanding of the research-based
theories and practices of the program model and instructional practices (Alanis & Rodriquez,
2008; Howard et al., 2007; Hunt, 2011; Sanchez, 2014). Further, program leaders need to possess
knowledge and skills to fully implement the program with quality (DeMatthews & Izquierdo,
2016; Howard et al., 2018; Hunt, 2011).
Designing, implementing, and sustaining a DLIP requires program leaders to have a solid
knowledge base of bilingualism, biliteracy, and the emergent bilingual student population
(Brooks et al., 2010; Howard et al., 2007; Menken & Solorza, 2015). Thus, school leaders need
to remain current on research, learn alongside teachers, attend training, visit other DLIPs and
draw on local universities’ expertise (Aguirre-Baeza, 2001; Alanis & Rodriquez, 2008).
Additionally, experienced practitioners have recommended having a clear understanding of their
school’s emergent bilingual students. The linguistically and culturally diverse families are vital
to building an inclusive and culturally responsive program. Moreover, DLIP leaders need to
possess the knowledge and skills to effectively support and oversee the program implementation.
Literature on effective leadership practice in implementing DLIPs is sparse, but two leadership
studies in DLI conducted by DeMatthews and Izquierdo (2016) and Hunt (2011) are relevant
here. The researchers studied school leadership in DLE leadership practices and structures. One
essential aspect of successful DLE leadership is a collective or collaborative approach. This
shared leadership approach means principals, coordinators, or teacher leaders see themselves as
44
part of leadership practice. While principals bear the ultimate responsibility in decision-making,
they support shared decision-making. Research on effective practices in managing and
maintaining DLIPs is much needed.
Facilitator
Program leaders are facilitators who develop a high degree of faculty cohesion,
collaboration, and collegiality. Program leaders need to be capable of recruiting high-quality DLI
teaching staff, individuals who share a unique set of skills and beliefs that set them apart from
monolingual teachers, traditional language teachers, or EAL teachers. Multiple researchers (e.g.,
Aquino-Sterling & Rodríguez-Valls, 2016; Hyland, 2009) believed that DLI teachers must have
high written and oral proficiency levels in the partner language to use specific language features,
discourse practices, and communicative skills in the partner language necessary for content area
teaching. Teachers also need to demonstrate understanding of theories and philosophies
underlying the different DLI models, bilingual and biliteracy development theories and be
skillful in using appropriate language strategies to scaffold content area teaching, such as
sheltered instruction.
Furthermore, teachers need to possess the mindset and firm beliefs of asset-based
bilingualism and strong advocacy for linguistically and culturally marginalized groups. Izquierdo
(2014) explained some of those mindsets and beliefs: an understanding of the equal importance
for both first and second languages, an appreciation of the varying levels of language
proficiency, and the cultural value of DLE. Commins and Nguyen (2015) stated that high-quality
DLI teachers are linguistically and culturally competent and can promote diversity, equity and a
climate of belonging. As Alfaro and Hernandez (2016) noted, DLI educators need to use equity
as a lens to create safe democratic spaces and balance language status and group membership.
45
There is a consensus that the DLI teacher shortage is a significant challenge to successful
program implementation (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Howard et al., 2007); more significantly, this
shortfall is in all places, hence is not an issue caused by poor geographic distribution (Darling-
Hammond, 2000). What are the strategies practitioners use to recruit and retain competent DLI
staff? Collier and Thomas (2014) conducted interviews with 25 program leaders from successful
schools, and they found that many program leaders had to be strategic and creative in recruiting
DLI teachers (e.g., forming relationships with the local universities, attending teacher
recruitment fairs, growing-your-own programs, international recruits, offering DLI stipends).
Besides recruiting quality DLI teachers, program leaders must also facilitate ongoing
professional learning. A plethora of studies have demonstrated the importance of training to
develop more successful teachers and staff (Herman et al., 2016; Master et al., 2016; Valdés et
al., 2015). In addition, effective professional learning programs must align the needs of faculty
and staff to the goals and characteristics of high-quality DLIPs (Corallo & McDonald, 2002), and
they need to be embedded in the daily routines and practices of teachers (Coleman &
Goldenberg, 2011; Dana, 2010). According to Genesee and Hamayan (2016), Hamayan et al.
(2013), and Howard et al. (2018), DLIP leaders should ensure that all teachers and staff are
knowledgeable about and supportive of the dual language pedagogy (e.g., comprehensible input,
sheltered instruction, explicit second language instruction), curriculum (e.g., common core state
standards, IB framework, world-class instructional design and assessment, next generation
science standards), and assessment (e.g., curriculum-based measures, language proficiency
assessment). Experienced DLIP leaders interviewed by Collier and Thomas (2014) suggested
multiple promising practices they utilized to facilitate such learning: facilitating professional
learning by organizing DLE book study groups, sending their teachers to conferences organized
46
by the National Association for Bilingual Education and California Association for Bilingual
Education, and hiring DLE experts and consultants. Further recommended by Howard et al.
(2018), more advanced teachers can be assigned as teacher trainers, coaches, and mentors to
provide in-house experts.
Apart from developing teacher capacity and providing ample spaces for professional
learning, equally important is facilitating collaboration, and collegiality and structuring those
opportunities in meaningful ways for DLI teachers (Hunt, 2011; Jaar, 2017; Torres-Guzmán &
Swinney, 2009). Collaboration should happen horizontally within grade levels and vertically
across grade levels. Horizontally, the partnership between grade level partner language teachers
and English teachers is essential to planning, teaching, and assessment (Alanis & Rodriquez,
2008; Cloud et al., 2000). Vertically, inter-grade collaboration among partner language teachers
and English teachers is necessary to ensure program alignment and fidelity. A professional
learning community is a great way to organize those collaborations. Apart from collaboration
within the school site, the inter-school partnership is significant in successful programs. It is easy
to feel isolated as a DLIP in the monolingual sea; hence, it is essential to connect with other
DLIPs and share a body of knowledge, resources, and experiences.
Similarly, there is a shortage of prepared school leaders for DLIPs. According to
Mullaney and Burke (2017), many school leaders across the United States do not have deep
knowledge and understanding to address the needs of emergent bilinguals, and most states across
the United States do not require candidates to serve in an official leadership position in a school
to have formal preparation in the education of emergent bilinguals. Brook et al. (2010) found that
teachers or teacher leaders with specialized knowledge and skills were marginalized within the
schools’ leadership structures. Therefore, DLE leadership training programs and an equitable and
47
supporting system and design for the program leaders are needed to equip dual language leaders
to facilitate those required tasks.
Culturally Responsive School Leadership
Culturally responsive school leadership (CRSL) has become significant to research on
culturally responsive education and social justice education. Grissom et al.’s (2021) synthesis of
2 decades of research found that equity-focused leadership promotes more equitable school
outcomes. It was the first time that researchers found school leaders had as significant an impact
on student learning as teachers. A few core leadership dimensions with explicit leader behaviors
and actions have been identified with different frameworks (Khalifa, 2020; The Leadership
Academy, 2020; Menken, 2017). Overall, there is a growing recognition that culturally
responsive teaching can only be realized and sustained with the change of the entire school
environment and supported by solid and effective culturally responsive school leaders.
Dimensions of Culturally Responsive School Leadership
Based on Khalifa’s (2020) literature synthesis in which the author pulled from the
literature on leadership, social justice, culturally relevant schooling, and students of color, a few
strands of research have been identified that specifically expressed CRSL: critical self-
awareness, teacher preparation, school environment, and community advocacy. Each has
descriptors of leadership knowledge, skills, actions, and dispositions. In Culturally Responsive
School Leadership, Khalifa (2020) examined data from a 2-year ethnographic study and
theorized about the central role of CRSL in school reform: being critically self-reflective,
developing and sustaining culturally responsive teachers and curricula, promoting an inclusive,
anti-oppressive school environment, and engaging students and the local neighborhood
community. Similarly, The Leadership Academy (2020) designed a comprehensive, culturally
48
responsive leadership action framework to support principals, system leaders, aspiring principals,
and teacher leaders to develop and transform their vision for equity into everyday work of
leadership by taking critical steps with their teams, students, and families to make their school a
culturally responsive learning environment for every student. The Leadership Academy’s (n.d.)
Culturally Responsive Leadership is composed of eight competencies that describe the
leadership actions: lead for equity and access, align mission, vision, and values, focus on
instruction, facilitate adult learning and development, manage operations and resources, engage
in personal learning and development, strategize change and continuous improvement, and
cultivate community care and engagement.
Dual Language Education Leadership and Culturally Responsive School Leadership
Sociocultural competence is the cornerstone of a DLIP; thus, many of the characteristics
of influential dual language education leaders (Menken, 2017) share the dimensions of CRSL,
which centers on inclusion, equity, advocacy, and social justice in schools. Menken (2017)
dedicated a section in her white paper on social justice leadership in which she highlighted
advocacy and the original social justice aims of dual language and bilingual education. Second,
school leaders are highly influential in shaping a school’s language policy and the quality of
schooling for emergent bilinguals (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2017; Hunt, 2011; Menken &
Solorza, 2014); thus, school leaders are fundamental to the success of a DLIP as they can either
“support, undermine or dismantle bilingual efforts” (Menken, 2017, p. 2). DLE leaders also need
to be knowledgeable about the research and theoretical foundation for bilingualism and
biliteracy, multicultural understanding, language policy in an English instructional environment,
and be committed to the core goals of DLIPs (Menken, 2017). Menken (2017) called for dual
language bilingual education leaders to “explicitly and aggressively” address issues of race,
49
class, and language status in classrooms and schools (p. 12). Dual language and bilingual
education need social-justice-oriented leaders to confront deficit perspectives and tap into
students’ and families’ rich cultural and linguistic assets (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2017). This
intertwined and explicit link between DLE and CRSL was termed “critical bilingual leadership”
in Wiemelt and Welton’s article (2015).
Process of Implementation
The third part of the literature review will systematically explore the implementation
process based on implementation science literature to guide DLIP leaders’ critical steps and
implementation strategies. Implementation science is a new discipline intended to provide a
theoretical base that helps bridge the gap between science and practice and promote systemic
uptake of research findings and evidence-based practices into routine practice to improve the
effectiveness of innovation implemented (Meyers et al., 2012; Kaufman et al., 2015). It is widely
recognized that the quality of implementation heavily influences the desired outcomes’
effectiveness (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Smith et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2003). Additionally, it
requires a systematic approach to ensure quality implementation due to its complex and dynamic
nature. Subsequently, collecting evidence of implementation effectiveness and reflecting on
program results are integral parts of full implementation to ensure the desired outcomes. No
matter how promising the innovation is, the extent to which it can be translated into a real-life
program is vital.
In the DLI context, to assist program leaders in decision making, theoretical knowledge
and practical experience of the effective implementation process and procedures are essential.
However, most school administrators are not well versed in leading DLIPs, since the Chinese-
English DLIP is a new and complex phenomenon. Most research is on student achievements or
50
language and literacy development through DLI. In essence, the implementation process of
DLIPs is an untapped area. This section of the literature review will explore the concept of an
implementation framework, introduce a research-based implementation tool, and explain how to
incorporate an implementation framework and its critical steps within DLIPs to foster high-
quality implementation.
It will also include descriptions of high-quality implementation characteristics and
examine the different implementation frameworks. Next, it will introduce one research-based
implementation tool which is comprehensive and systematic, and relevant to educational
program implementation. It will conclude with a detailed explanation of its implication in the
DLIP context.
Implementation Framework
Implementation frameworks illustrate the attributes, systems, and processes involved in
moving from research development and testing to widespread innovation. They have a practical
element and focus on translating innovation into diverse settings. Meyers et al. (2012) also
believed that implementation frameworks assisted researchers and practitioners use the ideas and
experiences of others who had implemented similar projects. According to Meyers et al. (2012),
implementation frameworks are like “windows into the key attributes, facilitators, and challenges
related to promoting implementation” (p. 465).
There are two types of implementation frameworks: determinant-based and procedure-
based (Nelson, 2015). Nelson (2015) explained that the determinant framework aims to
understand what influences implementation outcomes. It provides limited "how-to" support for
implementation endeavors as the determinants are usually too generic. In contrast, procedure-
based implementation frameworks recognize a temporal sequence and explicitly map out the
51
steps and procedures of successful implementation. They are action-oriented, and they serve as
practice guides concerning specific tasks to perform in the planning and execution of
implementation.
High-Quality Implementation
Meyers et al. (2012) described high-quality implementation as “putting innovation into
practice in such a way that it meets the necessary standard to achieve the innovation’s desired
outcomes” (p. 469). The most important word here is quality. Defined by the International
Organization for Standardization, it is a set of features that can achieve desired results. It is
crucial to understand that implementation as the execution of innovation exists in degrees: low
quality, medium quality, or high-quality, as illustrated by Saunders et al. (2006). Many
researchers have identified multiple aspects of the quality of implementation, such as fidelity,
dosage, program differentiation, and a significant number of personal, organizational, and
community factors that affect implementation effectiveness (Durlak & Dupre, 2008). This
portion of the literature review will focus on high-quality implementation.
The Quality Implementation Framework
Meyers et al. (2012) created a new meta-framework titled the quality implementation
framework (QIF) by synthesizing 25 implementation frameworks based on implementing
evidence-based programs mainly targeted at children and adolescents. With the QIF, Meyers et
al. (2012) provided a conceptual overview of the critical steps and a helpful blueprint that guides
the process of high-quality implementation. All those steps were supported by summarizing
implementation research in the world of practice. The QIF conceptualization suggests when,
where, and how to focus one’s attention and efforts to foster quality implementation. It is
52
believed to be able to guide the implementation process to achieve high-quality implementation
and desired outcomes.
Quality Implementation in Dual Language Programs
This last section of the literature review will examine the DLIP implementation literature
based on the four phases of the QIF. It will start with a brief introduction of the specific steps in
each phase relevant to DLIP implementation. Next, it will synthesize the literature on DLIP
implementation and categorize those research-based practices into the four phases of the QIF
whenever appropriate. It will conclude with recommendations of critical considerations in
implementing DLIPs regarding the implementation process.
Implementation Phase 1
The first phase of the QIF comprises initial considerations regarding the host setting to
determine the “ecological fit” between the innovation and the host setting (Meyer et al., 2012).
More specifically, implementers need to understand the conditions when adaptations are
necessary to build capacity that fosters implementation readiness. According to Meyer et al.
(2012), the support system (i.e., the program leaders in DLIP) can facilitate the assessment of
critical aspects, e.g., needs and resources, innovation-organizational fit, and the organization’s
capacity and readiness. The support system is necessary to identify appropriate adaptations to the
innovation (i.e., the program model in the DLIP context), ensure adequate buy-in from key
leaders and staff members, and offer the necessary training. The concept that innovation needs to
be tailored to fit within the host setting is supported in the DLIP literature. As stated in the
Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education (Howard et al., 2007), a needs assessment
must provide a solid basis and rationale for the chosen program model in the planning phase. It
further illustrated that the needs assessment process should include systematic literature reviews
53
on effective DLIP models (Howard et al., 2007). Howard et al. (2007) contended that data from
the needs assessment should be analyzed and interpreted before any other decision-making about
program development. Meyers et al. (2012) cautioned that implementers should have a clear
understanding of what can be modified (e.g., surface structure modification to increase
engagement and retention) and what should never be modified (e.g., core components).
In 2002, CAL published a critical tool to guide designing and implementing dual
language programs, the Dual Language Program Planner (Howard, 2002). Howard (2002)
asserted that a representative group of all stakeholders should develop the program to ensure all
perspectives are included. The Dual Language Program Planner (Howard et al., 2003)
recommended a few critical strategies to self-assess, make adaptation decisions, and build
capacity. Howard et al. (2003) urged program leaders or leadership teams to clarify their mission
and create a mission statement for the DLIP. Next, it is imperative to gather information:
population (e.g., students’ language backgrounds, academic achievement patterns,
socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, special learning needs, home language and literacy
practices, mobility among the student population), parent/community support (e.g., level of
support, kinds of support are offered, perceptions of parent and community toward DLIP, level
of resistance, reasons of opposition), other key stakeholders (administrative, teachers, and
support staff), and materials and resources needed (Howard et al., 2003). After analyzing the data
collected, the initial self-assessment recommended by Howard et al. (2003) can guide program
leaders to choose a program model that best meets their student population’s needs. There is no
one best model within DLE, and the quality of implementation is a more critical factor in the
program’s overall success than the model choice (Howard et al., 2003). In other words, having a
54
consensus among stakeholders and the necessary support and resources to carry out the chosen
model is vital.
Thus, following the steps of the QIF is quintessential to ensuring quality implementation.
Once the program model or the modified program model that best fits the host setting’s needs is
chosen, it is equally essential to building capacity in the host setting. In implementing DLIPs,
Howard et al. (2018) introduced a few capacity-building strategies, such as having an articulated
program model and components, aligning the model with the mission and goals of the program,
shaping an inclusive school culture that facilitates and sustains the DLIP, promoting equity
among all stakeholders, and ensuring a deep understanding of DLIP for administrators, teachers,
and staff.
Implementation Phase 2
The second phase is to create a structure that supports implementation (Meyers et al.,
2012). According to Meyers et al. (2012), two key structural features are an implementation team
and an implementation plan. An implementation team of qualified individuals is accountable for
implementation, while an implementation plan guides the implementation and responds to
challenges encountered. Together, they answer important questions before the actual
implementation: What will happen? When should it occur? Who will be responsible for
delivering and overseeing its implementation? (Meyers et al., 2012).
In DLIP implementation, many researchers have recognized the importance of
developing a team and creating a plan. Menken (2017) recommended that the implementation
team comprise the school principal, other vital administrators, bilingual and EAL teachers,
general education teachers, special education teachers, and parents/families for shared decision
making. Howard et al. (2004) proposed creating an action plan to prioritize the tasks and
55
generate a timeline to accomplish them. Some of the functions suggested in the plan are
revisiting the mission and goals; developing a support base from administrators; making
curriculum, instruction, and assessment decisions; recruiting students/families and teaching staff
and purchasing teaching materials. Taking planning for the curriculum as an example, Howard et
al. (2018) argued that there should be a plan for curriculum development established with all
stakeholders’ buy-in and is followed with fidelity in all classrooms. Howard et al. (2003) advised
the program leaders to apply for a planning grant to support the planning process; the author also
stressed the importance of connection to existing programs, visiting other schools, and
supporting each other.
Implementation Phase 3
The third phase of implementation is when the actual program implementation begins.
The ongoing implementation requires support strategies such as technical assistance and
supervision, process evaluation, and supportive feedback mechanisms (Meyers et al., 2012). The
technical assistance and supervision aim to maintain self-efficacy and skill proficiency
developed through professional development (Durlak & Dupre, 2008, as cited in Meyers et al.,
2012). Durlak and Dupre (2008) argued that the support should be ongoing to front-line
providers, and there should be a monitoring and evaluating process in place. Process monitoring
and evaluation ensure tasks in the implementation plan are accomplished on time with quality.
More specific guidelines on monitoring the implementation process have been developed over
the last decade, such as the CASEL Guide to Schoolwide Social and Emotional Learning
(Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2021), which categorized the
implementation process into four focus areas. The delineation of the four focus areas and
corresponding rubrics provide expert guidance and field-tested tools to help schools implement
56
social-emotional learning strategically, systemically, and effectively. In creating ongoing
structures to ensure continuous improvement, Collaborative for Academic, Social, and
Emotional Learning (2021) provided several practical tools, such as an implementation
walkthrough protocol, implementation data reflection protocol, and strategies to test innovative
solutions.
In DLIP implementation, the literature is not comprehensive and inclusive of the specific
ongoing structures to put into place. Still, the importance of an effective process has been
highlighted pervasively. The Guiding Principle for Dual Language Education (Howard et al.,
2007) listed ongoing self-reflection and evaluation as critical points of a structural principle. It
defined the exemplary practice of continuous reflection and assessment as regular self-evaluation
and internal review soliciting input from stakeholders as well as addressing needed changes.
Howard et al. (2003) advised program leaders to be reflective and use a data cycle process to
identify issues, help make future decisions, and continue with a collaborative implementing
process to ensure its long-term success. Some technical assistance and supervision suggested are
integrating the DLIP into the school system and ensuring equitable allocation of resources, such
as staff training, purchasing, and developing materials in each language (Genesee et al., 2006;
Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Montecel & Cortez, 2002). In addition, program leaders can use the self-
reflection template provided by the Guiding Principles of Dual Language Education (Howard et
al., 2007) as a tool to document evidence of their program’s level of implementation for each
guiding principle and key points by convening a group of stakeholders inclusive of parents,
community members, teachers, administrators, and students from the upper grades.
An area missing in this phase is research and practical experiences on the necessary
technical assistance, coaching, and supervision to help the practitioners solve the inevitable
57
practical problems. There is also a need for further training and practice in resolving
administrative or scheduling conflicts that arise and making some required changes in the
application of DLIP. Another critical step in this phase that requires more research and practical
guidance is an effective process through which crucial findings of process evaluation and
feedback mechanisms are communicated, discussed, and acted upon. More research is also
needed to guide using feedback to provide further personal learning, skill development, and
organizational growth opportunities that lead to quality improvement in implementation.
Implementation Phase 4
The fourth phase improves future applications by reflecting on and learning from
experiences (Meyers et al., 2012). This retrospective analysis enables implementers to identify
the strengths and weaknesses of the implementation. It is imperative to develop genuine
collaborative relationships between the leaders and the practitioners, as program leaders can use
the practitioners’ constructive feedback to improve the quality of implementation (Meyers et al.,
2012). The lessons learned can also be shared with others who have similar interests. In this
phase, the focus is on lessons learned about implementation and improving future
implementation efforts. It is a collaborative and collective learning phase that requires program
leaders to create a genuine relationship with all stakeholders to open avenues for constructive
feedback from practitioners and community members. Meyers et al. (2012) asserted that this is a
critical step to addressing potentially significant matters, such as better utilizing, modifying, and
applying the innovation and identifying factors that may facilitate or inhibit the quality of its
implementation. Overall, using a systematic approach to implement an innovation such as a
DLIP is an evidence-based endeavor. The QIF delineated the process and critical steps before,
during, and after implementation. The first two phases are about extensive planning steps
58
enabling program leaders to thoroughly assess their unique host setting, engage all key
stakeholders, and prepare to implement and sustain such transformational programs successfully.
A DLIP’s success relies on having access to the most optimal research-based techniques and
information on the practical steps and experiences to guide quality implementation (Collier &
Thomas, 2014; Mason, 2014). While this information is limited, Mason (2014) believed the
implementation process would accelerate and improve by participating in support networks.
Programs must break out of isolation and serve as each other's effective support system. Mason
(2014) suggested networking as an integral part of the implementation process as it provides
opportunities to tour each other's classrooms, discuss research and promising practices, and
address common obstacles. It builds a shared body of knowledge to understand the process of
planning, implementing, and strengthening DLIPs (Mason, 2014).
Conclusion
The literature review provided a foundational understanding of DLIPs, focusing on
DLIPs’ critical issues, program leaders’ roles and responsibilities, and the systematic
implementation process. The beginning of this chapter examined the history and politics behind
DLIPs’ development and the ideologies and beliefs shaping DLE in the United States.
Subsequently, it discussed international schools’ identity and socio-cultural context through
theoretical, political, and pedagogical lenses in the global education discourse. A review of the
research findings in DLE and specifically in Chinese-English DLIPs were provided to help build
a rich knowledge basis. After an established introduction, it transitioned to the second part of the
literature review: four integral DLE leadership roles, culturally responsive school leadership, and
DLIPs’ implementation process. Overall, while there is a growing body of literature on DLE,
59
much more is needed to understand Chinese-English DLIPs, DLE in international schools, and
the program implementation process.
60
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter provides an overview of the methods utilized in this qualitative study to
examine the implementation process and the promising practices in implementing Chinese-
English dual language immersion programs (DLIPs) in an international school setting from the
leadership perspective. This chapter begins with a rationale for the chosen methods, followed by
the demographics and characteristics of the participants. It will then transition into a description
of the instruments and protocols used. Afterward, it will explain the data collection process.
Lastly, it will conclude with a detailed description of how the data were coded and analyzed for
emerging themes and findings.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that there was no single truth, but there were multiple
truths. Researchers can understand how people make sense of their world and experiences
through a qualitative approach. This study uses a constructivist approach for exploring and
understanding how program leaders make meaning of the implementation process and what they
believe are the promising practices in implementing Chinese-English DLIPs in international
schools. Key features of the qualitative approach include the following criteria:
● Researchers as the primary instrument.
● Data to be collected in a natural setting where participants experience the issue.
● Theories and hypotheses are approached through an inductive lens.
● Detailed descriptions, images, texts, and documents aid in learning about the
phenomenon.
● Attention is given to the researcher’s background, which might create bias and
influence the direction of the study.
● Create a more prominent theme or picture from the study (Creswell, 2014, p. 186).
61
This study used a qualitative approach to explore the implementation process and
promising practices in implementing Chinese-English DLIPs in an international school context.
Its findings will support AISSA in strengthening its existing program and serving as a roadmap
to successfully implement the DLIP in the new grades. With a well-articulated program, students
and families can reap the full benefits of P–12th-grade Chinese-English dual language education
(DLE) at AISSA.
Sample and Population
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), purposeful sampling allows researchers to
explore, examine, and gain an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. Researchers need to
purposefully select participants based on predetermined criteria to attain this insight. Thus, based
on the purpose of the study, it is crucial to determine the key attributes of the sample needed for
the study, then recruit participants that meet the criteria (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This study intends to understand the phenomena of implementing Chinese-English DLIPs
in international schools from the perspective of DLIP leaders. The literature review chapter
defined international schools as schools that deliver a curriculum entirely or mainly in English
outside an English-speaking country or schools located in an English-speaking country but are
international in their orientation and offer curricula other than the country’s national curriculum.
It is a study for AISSA, but the research sites were at the selected international schools. As most
international schools offer Chinese as a world language, Chinese-English DLIPs are new and
rare in the international school system. Many international schools are under the International
Baccalaureate (IB) framework, striving to provide holistic education focusing on academic
excellence and international mindedness. There are no unified standardized tests in all
international schools. Thus, sample schools’ selection will not be based on the standardized test
62
scores which have been prevalently used in U.S. public schools to compare student learning
outcomes. Instead, I will establish criteria for purposeful sampling that directly reflect the
study’s purpose and provide guidance in identifying information-rich cases. A sample school
needs to fulfill the following criteria:
• It is considered an international school.
● It is a well-resourced and reputable school (i.e., low student: faculty ratio, high
diploma pass rate, high acceptance rate to higher education institutions, and a high
percentage of faculty with advanced degrees).
● It has established or is building a Chinese-English DLIP from preschool to the
secondary level.
● The program’s goals align with the core goals of a high-quality DLIP, namely,
bilingualism and biliteracy, academic achievement, and sociocultural competence.
Those criteria allowed me to identify schools with critical attributes in common, extinct
from public schools in the United States that appeared in most DLE literature. The sample size is
relatively small as content-based language education is new in international schools. Different
schools have different demographics, geographic locations, and political contexts. Still, they all
share a philosophy of holistic education to cultivate future leaders who are internationally
minded and globally competent. They all have demonstrated enhanced and equitable access for
diverse learners and families to achieve the core goals of DLE from the information available on
their school websites. Appendix A provides a document analysis matrix used to support selecting
sample schools. Those schools resemble the vision, mission, and rich diversity of AISSA with
some variety in terms of language model, curricular, pedagogical, and assessment practices.
International schools that fit the criteria are listed in Table 1.
63
Table 1
Sample Schools (Pseudonyms)
School name Location Program
model
Curriculum
framework
Program length
Capital
International
School
Beijing
China
50:50 Common core state
standards
P–4th-grade
Victoria Harbour
International
School
Hong Kong
China
50:50 Internal curriculum P–12th-grade
Metropolitan
International
School
Hong Kong
China
50:50 Common core state
standards
P–12th-grade
Mainspring
Academy of
Beijing
Beijing
China
70:30
IB framework P–12th-grade
European
International
School of
Singapore
Singapore 50:50
IB framework P–12th-grade
Golden Gate
International
School
San
Francisco
USA
50:50
Internal curriculum P–8th-grade
Bayfront
International
School
San
Francisco
USA
80:20
IB framework P–12th-grade
Manhattan
International
School
New York
USA
50:50 Internal curriculum P–12th-grade
After selecting those schools, I identified their main program leaders. They are leaders
responsible for fulfilling most of the leadership needs of the DLIPs. I believe those DLIP leaders
have the answers to my questions, and this study aimed to learn from their journey and
64
experiences. I was very purposeful in selecting my sample because I was intentional about
identifying participants with whom I could establish the most productive partnerships that would
enable me to answer my research questions (Maxwell, 2013). Upon approval by the institutional
review board, I sent them official invitation emails to participate in the study. Appendix B
provides a sample invitation email. In the invitation email, I provided an information sheet
concerning the details of the study and the institutional review board’s research approval.
Appendix C is the study information sheet. Because the participants reside in many different
parts of the world, I conducted all the interviews on Zoom.
The selection of the participants is very purposeful and intentional. The participants were
selected because they meet three criteria. First, their schools must meet my selection criteria, as
explained previously in this chapter. Second, they are program leaders who fulfill most of the
program’s leadership needs. Last, the participants for this study are the founding members of
their programs who were there during the initial implementation or who have been with the
school for 3 years to have an overall understanding of the program. Nine program leaders from
seven identified schools responded to my invitation and graciously participated in my study
despite their busy schedules and mounting leadership responsibilities. In Chapter Four, I will
introduce those participants. This section will describe my instrumentation and the relationship
of the research questions to my instrumentation. The primary research method was conducting
semi-structured interviews with program leaders from each international school participating in
the study. The open-ended questions with probing questions are designed for candid and genuine
responses to get an in-depth understanding of the perceptions of the program leaders involved in
implementing the DLIPs. I also performed document analysis on documentation collected
concerning DLIP core goals and the implementation process. Triangulation was achieved using
65
multiple data sources, including semi-structured interviews as a primary vehicle for data
collection and complemented by document analysis.
Interview Protocol
My goal was to study the DLIP leaders’ experiences with the DLIP implementation
process and their perceived promising practices in their natural environment (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017). I respected my participants’ time and effort; therefore, I was intentional about
keeping the interview’s primary purpose while balancing the benefits of open-ended
conversations to elicit in-depth understanding. Thus, I believe the semi-structured interview
protocol provided me with more flexibility yet served as a general guide. Appendix D includes
the semi-structured interview protocol created for this study.
In a semi-structured interview, different questions are asked to yield different data types,
such as experience and behaviors, opinions, values, feelings, background, and demographic
information (Patton, 2002). I used a matrix of question options (Patton, 2002) to include various
questions and order the questions in sequence to lead to rich descriptive data. I am also aware of
the characteristics of good interview questions, such as being open-ended, clear, concise, asking
for detail, not leading, and not double-barreled. Most importantly, interview questions align with
the research questions and the preliminary conceptual framework. Since a group of peer
researchers supported me, I engaged in peer-reviewing using a peer review protocol.
The interview questions were developed based on my preliminary conceptual framework
and designed to extract useful information to answer the research questions. The first section is
demographic and background information. The second part aims to understand the roles of the
program leaders in implementing their DLIPs. The third part is the central part of the interview,
asking about the implementation and specific steps and strategies. The actions and strategies of
66
program implementation are the key concepts illustrated in the conceptual framework. Those
questions directly answered Research Question 1. The fourth part transitioned to questions about
school culture and host country context. It concluded with recommendations and suggestions for
other programs to summarize their promising practices in implementing DLIPs. This part
directly answered the second research question.
Document Review
This study strived to examine the implementation process and uncover the promising
leadership practices. Documents that would help me answer my research questions are the
program implementation plans, documented implementation readiness assessments, program
evaluation reports, implementation meeting agendas, professional development calendars, and
documents provided by external consultants. Documents that would help provide context for my
research questions are the program’s mission statement, general program model introduction,
documented language policy, and program outcomes (e.g., benchmark, assessment data).
Data Collection
This section will discuss how I collected qualitative data to operationalize the study. I
used document analysis and interviews as my research methods in collecting qualitative data.
These multiple data collection methods served as data triangulation to develop a comprehensive
understanding of the phenomena (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). Next, I will describe
the procedures of each data collection method.
Documents
Documents allow researchers to examine the data conveniently and provide unobtrusive
access to the information (Creswell, 2014). Before reaching out to the participants, I studied the
schools’ websites to gain background information. I also examined their official social media
67
platforms, such as LinkedIn, Instagram, and Twitter, to collect the most up-to-date events and
news. I attended two virtual open houses and admission events to collect data such as
information sheets, program flyers, etc. Secondly, during the interview, I asked my participants if
they could provide documentation to help me better understand their program and approaches. I
prepared a list of documentation that would be helpful for their reference (See Appendix A for
the items in the document analysis matrix). After the interviews, I asked if the participants could
provide documentation to serve as data to support what they described as the implementation
process and promising practices. The program leader participants already generously offered
their time for lengthy interviews. I learned that asking for additional documentation did not yield
success, and some of the information might be highly confidential, even for research purposes.
Hence, I mainly utilized the publicly available data and any documentation they provided in
response to my request without pressing on the desired documentation.
Interviews
Interviews are one of the primary qualitative research methods. Interviews are essential to
obtain information that cannot be observed, such as feelings, thoughts, intentions, and past
events (Creswell, 2014; Patton, 2002). Qualitative interviews with the program leaders are the
most appropriate method to capture how program leaders lead the implementation of their
respective DLIPs and their promising leadership practices. Not only do program leaders have a
systemic understanding of the implementation process, but they also carry the duties of the day-
to-day operation of the program. More importantly, implementing a DLIP is a complex and
dynamic process, and research is limited to the translation system (user-friendly manuals, guides,
tools to aid in implementation). The translation system requires the support system (program
leaders in this context) to distill theory and evidence, translate this knowledge into the program,
68
and build innovation-specific capacity and general capacity to develop evidence-based strategies
to implement a given innovation in diverse contexts (Meyer et al., 2012). With such complexity
and the limited research in DLIP implementation, the program leaders’ perspectives are precious
and meaningful to understand the implementation process and promising practices. Therefore,
qualitative interviews with the program leaders are the most appropriate choices to answer the
research questions.
I developed a semi-structured interviewing guide based on the preliminary conceptual
framework and research questions to translate my research questions to interview questions.
When operationalizing my research questions, I asked real questions that I was genuinely
interested in the answer, rather than questions designed to elicit certain kinds of data (Maxwell,
2013). I conducted a rigorous peer-review process and two pilot interviews to seek feedback.
When I eventually headed to the field, I gained some experience, and as a result, I maintained
better control of the line of questions. I used two devices, a password-protected iPad, and a
computer, to record interviews to prevent technology failure.
Data Analysis
The descriptive data gathered from documents and interviews are dense and filled with a
wealth of information. Not all information is helpful concerning the two research questions;
consequently, I filtered out the data. The data collected from documents and interviews required
different data analytic strategies. This section will delineate the data analysis process for each
data collection method.
Documents Data
I analyzed the documentation collected before, during, and after the qualitative
interviews. Apart from the basic information (type of the document, date retrieved, location
69
retrieved, author of the document), my document analysis protocol includes the document’s
purpose, the intended audience, relevance to the study, and a brief description. I underwent a
rigorous document analyzing process guided by reflective questions for each document
collected:
• What evidence is there for the authenticity of the document/artifact?
• What were the sources of information used to produce the document/artifact?
• What was/is the author’s bias(es)?
Interview Data
The first step of interview data analysis is to transcribe voice recordings. Since I used an
online transcribing platform, otter.ai, to transcribe, it was available right after the interview. It is
a great benefit as I can read over the data collected immediately. After reading the interview
transcripts and observational notes (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), I
listened to each audio file multiple times to take necessary notes. Subsequently, I read through
my handwritten notes taken during each interview. After having a good overall understanding
and general impressions of the transcriptions and notes, I started the analysis and coding.
I used a qualitative data analysis tool named ATLAS.ti. The software is easy to use and relatively
intuitive. It is a coding tool that has grouping and searching functions. Not only did I save time,
but I improved the quality of my work by employing this coding tool. I uploaded all the
transcripts to its online platform. With ATLAS.ti, I was able to do line-by-line coding generating
more than 80 open codes. Next, I grouped them into 25 axial codes and regrouped them into
smaller thematic categories of about ten selective codes to consolidate meaning. I was able to
find the trends and patterns and generated smaller categories and emerging themes by using this
qualitative data analysis tool. In Chapter Four, I will discuss the research findings in detail,
70
summarize the study, and present the conclusions and implications of the research and
recommendations for future studies.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are a few anticipated limitations concerning methodological choices. First, this
research mainly focuses on program leaders’ perspectives. Consequently, one major limitation of
the study is that it does not include other key stakeholders’ perceptions, such as Chinese teachers
and students’ families. Secondly, not many international schools offer Chinese-English DLIPs as
most only provide a world language program. Thus, the sample size is relatively small. In
addition, the study might only reflect program leaders’ perceptions during a particular period.
Interviewees evolve their thinking over time so that the responses may change over time. Finally,
researcher bias and the effect of the researcher on the studies, or reactivity, are two critical
threats to the conclusion of a qualitative study (Maxwell, 2013).
Each school is unique, and there are many program models and demographic variations.
Thus, findings are within the specific institutional contexts and might not apply to other
institutions. As pertains to delimitations, this study only aims to improve the DLIP
implementation of AISSA, where I am serving as a Chinese-English dual language teacher,
department chair, and coach. The findings and recommendations only apply to the AISSA
context.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness are about the quality of the study. In qualitative studies,
the researcher is the instrument. Thus, the interaction between the interviewer and respondents is
crucial to extracting the relevant data for the study (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Researchers’ backgrounds, experiences, values, gender, skills, and personality
71
influence how data is collected and interpreted (Creswell, 2014). Therefore, I have been
transparent and reflective of my possible bias towards the research topic as a Chinese-English
DLIP teacher, department chair, coach, doctoral student and researcher, and a parent of two
emergent bilingual children. I also reflected on the possibility that I might have brought certain
assumptions and biases to the research process, given my involvement with DLE professionally,
personally, and academically. Using reflexivity is a critical strategy to maximize credibility and
trustworthiness, and in this case, it demonstrates the power of critical reflection.
Being mindful of the potential biases about the topic, setting, and participants and how
those biases might shape how I interpret the findings, I also utilized other strategies to maximize
my ability to have authentic results. Next, I will describe how I have disciplined my subjectivity.
First, I have engaged in extensive peer review through an informal consulting process with DLI
program leaders, teachers, and DLE consultants. The two program leaders at AISSA served in
my pilot interviews and served as sounding boards to help me improve the interview protocol
and interviewing skills. In addition, the admission director and the human resources director at
AISSA have also worked with me to provide unique perspectives and critical parts of
implementation: recruiting students and recruiting dual language teachers. Finally, I have
consulted the chief academic officer and the deputy superintendent at AISSA to gain a macro
perspective on program implementation.
In addition to reflexivity and peer review, I was also committed to engaging in member
checks. Member checks can help check my bias and discipline my subjectivity. I solicited
feedback on my preliminary and emerging findings from some interviewed participants.
According to Maxwell (2013), it is the “single most important way of ruling out the possibility of
misinterpreting the meaning of what participants say and do and the perspective they have on
72
what is doing on, as well as being an important way of identifying your own biases and
misunderstanding of what you observed” (pp. 126–127). I have had ongoing conversations with
many participants to keep them updated with my research progress and maintain a professional
connection throughout the process. Overall, I have built and maintained long-lasting professional
relationships with most participants. It was natural for me to engage in member checks when the
preliminary findings were available.
Lastly, triangulation has been used as a powerful strategy throughout the research process
to maximize the credibility and trustworthiness of the study. According to Merriam and Tisdell
(2016), you can triangulate by using multiple sources of data collection methods, multiple
sources of data, various investigators, or multiple theories. In this qualitative study, the main
research methods are document analysis and qualitative interviews. Although qualitative
interviews are the primary data collection method, document analysis was used throughout the
research process. Document analysis has been instrumental in this study to identify sample
schools and participants. In addition, document data analysis supported and complemented the
data collected from interviews.
Maxwell (2013) warned researchers that a few possible scenarios might present a validity
threat. For example, the interviewees might not be presenting their actual views for various
reasons. I might have ignored data that do not fit their interpretation, or there might be a different
way of conceptualizing the data (Maxwell, 2013). Therefore, it is inevitable that some of the
responses I obtained during interviews might not be completely valid or reliable. Additionally,
there might be a different theoretical method of analyzing data other than open coding that I
practiced throughout the data analysis process.
73
Ethical Considerations
I strive to ensure that the research does not harm the participants’ safety, dignity, or
privacy. Furthermore, I identified the purpose of the study and stated the benefits to participants
multiple times. In addition, I kept them continually informed about the research process and
objectives (Dei, 2005). As Glesne (2011) suggested, it is paramount to ensure the study’s
purpose is to give back, not just receive. Although the study participants had more power and
privilege, I was aware of the power and domination as a researcher. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
asserted that “the best a researcher can do is to be conscious of the ethical issues that pervade the
research process and to examine his or her philosophical orientation” (p. 266). Therefore, I
critically reflected on my positionality and epistemological orientations when conducting
interviews or interacting with research participants and data (Glesne, 2010).
In collecting data, I first informed and reminded the participants that their involvement
was voluntary and that they could withdraw from participating in the study at any time. I did not
pressure participants to participate in the study or provide additional documentation. I used
pseudonyms for schools and code names to replace participants’ names to warrant privacy and
anonymity. Additionally, I saved collected data in passcode-protected devices. As promised in
the information sheet, I provided an iTunes store gift card and a thank-you email to the
participants to appreciate their time and contribution.
Lastly, it is vital to maintain a collegial relationship with the participating institutions, so
I carefully negotiated an appropriate research relationship with these reputable schools. I was
very mindful of being respectful, non-judgmental, and non-threatening (Creswell, 2014; Dexter,
2006; Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
74
Summary
A qualitative study explores participants’ views, perspectives, and insights (Creswell,
2014). This study aimed to examine the process of implementing a Chinese-English DLIP in an
international context and uncover the promising practices from the perspectives of the program
leaders. The study utilized interviews as the primary qualitative data collection method to answer
those research questions. I am critical to the data collection and analysis process as the data
collection instrument. I believe I was well prepared, well-versed before conducting interviews,
and strived to be focused and disciplined. I was highly conscious of my positionality and
possible biases and assumptions during the process. I was critically reflective of my influences
when collecting and analyzing data, and I ensured that participants were informed that their
participation was voluntary and confidential. In Chapter Four, I will share the significant
findings. Chapter Five will summarize the study and offer conclusions, implications, and
recommendations for future studies.
75
Chapter Four: Results
This qualitative study aimed to examine the process and promising leadership practices of
implementing a Chinese-English dual language immersion program (DLIP) in an international
school setting. The primary data collection method was semi-structured interviews
complemented with document analysis to identify sample schools and participants and support
interview data. Over 6 months, I conducted ten interviews with nine school administrators and
one dual language education (DLE) researcher and consultant. All interviews were transcribed
using otter.ai and coded using ATLAS.ti. To triangulate information, I also analyzed archival
documentation regarding accounts of the school history, demographic enrollment, student
academic achievement data, school mission, and vision statements, and strategic plans. Adequate
information was collected to analyze the contextual background of the programs, and much
information was provided and referred to during interviews. This chapter will present the
research questions, analysis, and results via thematic and sub thematic content analysis.
Participants
I reviewed the websites of many international schools that offer dual language or
bilingual programs. Eight institutions were identified as appropriate to participate in the study as
they fit my selection criteria. I had taken steps within my control to use a diverse sample of
international schools in Asia and the United States. The document analysis process ensured that
the schools selected have provided enhanced and equitable access for diverse learners and
families to achieve the core goals of DLE. Twelve key program leaders were identified as
candidates for online interviews following the initial document analysis. Nine individuals from
seven international schools agreed to participate in the study. As three of the participants
76
referenced one DLE consultant, I reached out and subsequently conducted online interviews with
the consultant.
I will first briefly introduce the participating schools (pseudonyms) and participants
(numbered in the order of interviews) listed in Table 2. Program Leaders 1 and 9 are from the
European International School of Singapore (EISS), which has successfully implemented both
Chinese-English and French-English dual language programs from preschool to high school. It is
one of the well-established international schools in the region, with students from over 70
nations. Program Leader 1 serves EISS as their dual language principal, and Program Leader 9 is
the Chinese bilingual curriculum director in the elementary school. Program Leader 2 is the
deputy head of school at Victoria Harbour International School (VHIS), one of the oldest dual
language schools in Hong Kong. VHIS has a long history of excellence in preparing students to
serve the local and global communities and embrace diverse perspectives and cultures. Program
Leader 3 is the Chinese director of the Golden Gate International School (GGIS), one of the
oldest dual language schools in the United States. As a pioneer in the field, it sets the standards
and leads innovation in DLE that exemplifies diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging.
Interestingly, GGIS’ head of school also serves on the board of trustees for the Mainstream
Academy of Beijing (MAB), a relatively young dual language school in Beijing with a similar
vision, mission, and core values. Program 8 is one of the elementary school deputy principals
from MAB. Program Leader 4 is the Chinese principal of the Metropolitan International School
(MIS) in Hong Kong. It is a progressive school built on the three core goals of DLE. It has a
unique and integrated approach to Chinese culture and explicitly teaches Chinese values,
classics, and traditional arts. Both Program leaders 5 and 6 are from the Capital International
School, a well-known international school that highly values language, culture, and diversity.
77
Program Leader 5 serves CIS as its elementary school principal, and Program Leader 6 is the
dual language program curriculum coordinator. Both MIS and CIS have hired the same DLE
consultant who participated in my study. Program Leader 7 was the Chinese curriculum director
from the Bayfront International School (BIS), which offers Chinese-English and French-English
DLIPs. Table 2 provides a list of participants in my study.
Table 2
Participants in Online Interviews
Participant School location School name Position
Program Leader 1
Singapore EISS Chinese principal
Program Leader 2 Hong Kong, China VHIS Deputy head
Program Leader 3 USA GGIS Chinese director
Program Leader 4 Hong Kong, China MIS Chinese principal
Program Leader 5
Program Leader 6
Beijing, China
Beijing, China
CIS
CIS
Principal
Program director
Program Leader 7 USA BIS Curriculum director
Program Leader 8 Beijing, China MAB Deputy principal
Program Leader 9 Singapore EISS Curriculum director
DLE consultant USA Consultant Consultant
Note. All the school names listed are abbreviations of pseudonyms. Participants are numbered in
the order of the interview dates.
78
Document Analysis
Document analysis was an essential element of the study, allowing the identification of
schools for prospective interviews with program leaders. I identified eight international schools
that fit all the sample school selection criteria set for this study. The sample size is relatively
small as content-based language education is new in international schools. A document analysis
based on information provided on their official websites shows that those schools have different
demographics, geographic locations, and political contexts. Still, they all value academic
excellence, bilingualism, and multiculturalism and aim to cultivate future leaders who are
internationally minded and globally competent.
Apart from program contextual information such as the program’s mission and vision
statements, general program model introduction, the school’s strategic priorities, and
demographic information, I also collected CIS’ language policies, VHIS’ Chinese literacy
curriculum mapping documents, and GGSS’ Chinese literacy benchmarks. Documents that
would have directly answered my research questions included program implementation plans,
documented implementation readiness assessments, program evaluation reports, implementation
meeting agendas, and professional development calendars, but the participants did not share
those internal documents. Nevertheless, I interviewed the DLE consultant for two of my sample
schools, gained valuable information, and deepened my understanding of those schools’ program
implementation. Thus, document analysis and interviews with the consultant served as
triangulation strategies throughout the research process to maximize the credibility and
trustworthiness of the study. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), triangulation can be
achieved using multiple sources of data collection methods, multiple sources of data,
investigators, or theories. In this qualitative study, the primary research method was qualitative
79
interviews, supported and complemented by document data analysis. I will present the findings
from the interviews in the next section. Additional document data will be included when
necessary and of value.
Interviews
After analyzing the data from the ten interviews, an overarching theme emerged for
Research Question 1 concerning the implementation process: DLIP implementation is a
systematic process that requires extensive planning, strategic structuring, and organized step-by-
step procedures. The sub-themes could be logically divided into four temporal phases. Another
overarching theme for Research Question 2 regarding promising leadership practices is that
linguistically and culturally responsive dual language leaders are vital to ensuring the effective
implementation of DLIPs’ core goals. The sub-themes for this overarching theme will be
presented as four leadership competencies for dual language program leaders. The findings were
developed from the thoughtful responses from program leaders and the educational consultant.
Document analysis was used to contextualize their answers and triangulate data. In the following
section, detailed findings will be presented under each research question.
Results for Research Question 1
There is an extensive body of literature on the benefits and critical features of high-
quality DLIPs in U.S. public schools based on Spanish-English DLIPs. Chinese-English DLIPs
are new and rare in international schools. Regardless of a program’s model and context, the
program implementation process is an area that calls for more research and better understanding.
Answering the first research question of this study required an examination of the
implementation process of high-quality Chinese-English DLIPs in international schools. The
80
answers to this question expand the understanding of the essential components and critical steps
and strategies international schools have used to implement high-quality Chinese-English DLIPs.
Program implementation is a systemic process that requires extensive planning and
organized step-by-step procedures (Meyers et al., 2012). A higher level of planning is associated
with more successful programs (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
2017). All participants shared how they created and implemented systems, structures, policies,
and procedures that ensure a high-quality DLIP in their schools. I will present how program
leaders described the implementation process and the critical steps and strategies in program
implementation. Chapter Two examined the program implementation literature and identified the
qualitative implementation framework (QIF; Meyers et al., 2012) as a promising implementation
framework. I discovered that program leaders’ descriptions resembled the research-based four
phases of the QIF. Hence, I will organize the findings using the four implementation phases. The
first two phases are extensive planning and foundation building. The third phase is the actual
implementation and continuous planning and improvement. The last phase is learning from
experience and collaborating with peers to improve future implementation.
Implementation Phase 1: Initial Considerations
There are many considerations in the initial implementation phase. As illustrated in the
QIF, most steps should be addressed before implementation (Meyers et al., 2012). It is a critical
phase to assess and create the ecological fit of the dual language strand within the school as its
host setting to be integrated into the school-wide system. It is also crucial for whole-school dual
language programs to set up a strong foundation and plan for systemic implementation. I will
represent the findings in three focus areas: self-assessment strategies, decisions about adaptation,
and capacity-building strategies.
81
Self-Assessment Strategies
Self-assessments are inseparable from quality program implementation, providing a clear
picture of where the school is preparing fertile ground for new programs. In John Kotter’s
(Kotter & Wyman, 2007) change management model, this can be considered a critical step to
create a sense of urgency or awareness as in the ADKAR change management model (Hiatt,
2006). When conducting self-assessments, three critical steps and actions emerged: needs and
resources assessment, fit assessment, and capacity/readiness assessment.
Conducting a Needs and Resources Assessment. A needs and resource assessment
aims to answer critical questions: Why do you want to start a DLIP? What do you hope to
accomplish? What problems or conditions will a DLIP address? What parts of the school and
who will benefit from a DLIP? What resources do you need? What resources do you have? For
example, Program Leader 5 remarked that in the early 2010s, CIS observed the trend that
students whose parents worked for multinational companies were withdrawing. Many Chinese
national Chinese heritage families were returning to Beijing. Overall, the school noticed a
decline in its enrollment, as did other international schools in China. This shrinking enrollment
and the student demographic change prompted a discussion about responding to the school’s
needs and supporting the remaining families, many of whom had a strong desire for Chinese
proficiency and literacy for their children. CIS conducted a program initiative inventory to take
stock of existing and past priorities, programs, and initiatives. They realized that with a strong
world language Chinese program already in place and the advantage of being situated in Beijing
with abundant resources, they were in a great place to implement an innovative DLIP.
Conducting a needs and resources assessment is crucial for established dual language
schools that want to reinvigorate their existing program or implement an additional program.
82
Program Leader 2 from VHIS shared that when they implemented a residential program in
mainland China, they went through an extensive, 5-year research and planning process to
understand and design a program responsive to the needs of their students and families: having
authentic language and culture learning opportunities in mainland China. They were confident in
the endeavor because of the solid foundation they had built and the sound financial standing of
the school. Similarly, according to Program Leader 7, conducting a needs and resources
assessment supported BIS’ implementation of an additional DLIP. Program Leader 7 mentioned
that her school already had a strong French-English DLIP and was considering implementing
another DLIP with a different partner language. After a series of surveys and interviews,
Chinese was identified as the best choice for an additional DLIP. Most international schools are
blessed with abundant resources and strong financial standing. Still, a well-rounded resource
assessment will provide an inventory of what the school already has, what efforts have been
made and what is needed to implement a DLIP.
Conducting a Fit Assessment. A fit assessment determines how well a DLIP aligns with
the school’s mission, vision, values, and strategic priorities. From the document analysis of all
seven schools’ mission, vision, and philosophy statements, it was undeniable that a DLIP aligns
with the schools’ goals and values on bilingualism, biliteracy, multiculturalism, and local and
global responsibility. Program Leader 5 commented that their DLIP coincides with the school’s
mission and vision because of “the commitment that it takes in terms of financial resources and
human resources.” Program Leader 2 shared that her school had undertaken many bold moves in
refining and reinvigorating their DLIP to better align with the school’s mission and vision and
adding a third pillar of bridging the Eastern and Western culture in every aspect of their school
and program was seen because of their renewed commitment to better align with the school
83
mission, vision, and strategic plans. Program Leader 9 emphasized that a DLIP is one of the
school’s cornerstones. Its mission is to cultivate bilingualism and biliteracy and promote Chinese
culture and identity in the global context. All program leaders agreed that a DLIP fit an
international school’s mission and vision and the strategic priority in promoting international-
mindedness and global citizenship education.
Conducting a Readiness Assessment. A readiness assessment is conducted to ascertain
whether the school is ready for a DLIP or a chosen program model. It is one of the key activities
when establishing a new program or initiating a significant change. In the case of EISS, Program
Leader 1 highlighted that 2 years after initial implementation, she noticed the problem of not
having language separation and the inequity of engagement of both language teachers. However,
the administration was not ready to change the program model as they advertised a mixed
language model of two teachers in one classroom. Instead of pushing for an immediate change in
the program model, she gathered extensive literature and research to demonstrate the
inappropriateness of such a model. In addition, she invited five different language experts and
consultants to visit the school and share their opinions about improving the programs. Those
experts invited are Helena Curtain, Greg Duncan, Roy Lister, Dr. Wang Xiaopin, and Dr. Cobbler
Gu Baile. With such robust research evidence and unified suggestions from the bilingual
education experts, the administration and the community were finally ready to change to the
alternate day 50:50 program model.
Decisions about Adaptation
There are a variety of DLIP models, and the best model is the one that fits the school
context and serves the needs of the community while promoting equitable access and outcomes
for all students. All seven schools participating in the study are Chinese-English DLIPs providing
84
access for students from all linguistic and cultural backgrounds, yet language allocation differs.
The partner language allocation ranges from 80:20 to 50:50. Two program leaders shared that it
was critical to be clear with all involved parties about the core components and essential
elements of a DLIP and identify features that could be adapted. Program Leader 5 further
explained their school’s research process and program model identification. They had attended
the leadership institute by the Center of Applied Linguistics (CAL), visited many schools in Asia,
organized a book study on Colin Baker’s (2012) Bilingual Education, and conducted individual
research over the summer before sharing what they had learned about program designs. The
leaders used the schooling by design model to generate five program designs anchored in CAL’s
guiding principles and presented the five models to the school board. Choosing a program model
is not a simple task accomplished by a single individual but is a collective learning and
researching process with a wide range of school stakeholders.
Next, schools must seek support and guidance when adapting the program to new
contexts and populations. All schools have engaged with external support and consultation in
planning their programs. CIS and MIS partnered with the DLE consultant that I later
interviewed. BIS consulted professors at Stanford University when implementing their Chinese-
English DLIP. GGIS also talked to many experts in the field, such as Shuhan Wang, Tara
Fortune, and Miriam Met, when they were revising their current program and implementing a
full immersion program in their preschool. GGIS leaders visited other schools and spoke to the
administrators. They were clear about their goal of increasing students’ language proficiency in
the early years so they could be more competent in learning the content areas. Until recently,
MAB also worked with a panel of educational consultants before the inception of their school.
This expert team made significant contributions and provided strong program planning and
85
curriculum design guidance. The DLE consultant expressed this need for partnership in a similar
fashion by saying:
The Guiding Principles are going to be your best friend. You also need to partner with
someone that has done the work before. I think that sometimes schools decide we’re
going to do dual, and then they jump into it without any kind of partnership. And then
what ends up happening is that when the results aren’t there, then they bring someone as
a partner. And then we need to fix things and change things.
Capacity-Building Strategies
Once the program model or modified model that best fits the host setting is chosen,
building capacity in the school and the community is crucial. In implementing DLIPs, program
leaders described some critical steps to obtain explicit buy-in from critical stakeholders to foster
a supportive school climate and build organizational capacity. I will present the findings in two
key activities: obtain explicit buy-in and build organizational capacity.
Obtain Explicit Buy-in. Obtaining buy-in is front and center. If explicit buy-in for a
proposed program model can be obtained from critical stakeholders (e.g., leaders with decision-
making power, teaching staff who will deliver the program, families, and the community),
implementation will proceed more smoothly and be more widely accepted. Program Leader 5
stated that because of the commitment it takes in terms of financial resources and human
resources, it has to be something the head of school and the board are committed to. Program
Leader 2 shared that when her school implemented a proficiency-based curriculum for their dual
language program, they held multiple information sessions with parents. They even recorded the
sessions in both Chinese and English to be available for any parents who could not attend. They
clearly explained the proficiency-based curriculum’s design, purpose, and implementing
86
procedures in those information sessions. She generously shared the curriculum map with me at
the end of the interview.
It is also critical to effectively deal with important concerns, questions, or resistance to
the proposed program model so barriers to implementation can be lessened or removed. When
GGIS was going to implement a full immersion preschool program in response to parents’ voices
and the newest research, there were still concerns, questions, and resistance among faculty
because it meant that some of them might lose their positions. Program Leader 3 remarked it was
a tough decision, but they announced the change very early so faculty could plan accordingly.
Another capacity-building strategy is to identify and recruit DLIP champions who have deep
knowledge and commitment to the program and who can inspire and lead others to implement
the program. Program Leader 5 stated that she needed individuals with knowledge or expertise in
DLE to bring critical ideas and think forward. She further explained that it was vital to have a
group of educators with various knowledge and expertise to consider multiple perspectives and
needs of different stakeholder groups when making any programmatic decisions.
Build Organizational Capacity. A successful DLIP requires supportive infrastructure,
skills, attitude, and motivation of the school and community. Schools need to provide adequate
professional learning to strengthen staff expertise and promote collaboration and community-
building. Program Leader 5 stated that once a school started a DLIP, it became a DLIP school.
Program Leader 6 commented that DLIP was a whole school endeavor and not simply a stand-
alone program relegated to the DLIP Chinese teachers. Program Leader 7 shared that when MIS
implemented the Chinese immersion program, they understood it was crucial to align all
students’ academic experiences and outcomes in both bilingual programs as a “one school”
vision. They have sent a unified message, improved communication, and enhanced both
87
internally and externally partnerships. Program Leader 6 and the DLE consultant mentioned that
it was crucial to build a cohesive community and model the behaviors and attitudes that DLIPs
created to cultivate among students, non-Chinese-speaking teachers also need to make the same
effort to be open learn and understand aspects of the Chinese language and culture. The DLE
consultant shared that he provided training for the entire school at CIS about the core goals of a
DLIP and a biliteracy instructional framework. After working with him extensively, MIS’ deputy
head of school also became a collaborating consultant providing biliteracy training for other
schools and institutions.
Implementation Phase 2: Creating an Organized Structure
Once the decision about the program design and adaptation is made, and key
stakeholders’ buy-in is obtained, the next implementation phase is to create an organized
structure to oversee the process. Meyers et al.’s (2012) meta-analysis of implementation
frameworks indicated that this structure, at a minimum, should consist of an implementation plan
and a team of qualified individuals who would take responsibility for the implementation
process. Many program leaders described how their school created a clear plan for what would
happen and when it should occur and identified a team of individuals who would accomplish the
tasks related to delivering the DLIP and overseeing its implementation. I will present their
specific steps and actions in this section.
Create an Implementation Team
Implementing any innovation is a complex and dynamic process. DLIPs have an
additional layer of complexity. Program Leader 5 explained that it was incredibly complicated
because it would be delivered in two languages. She provided an example of implementing a
STEAM program as a comparison.
88
The assumption, perhaps, is that it’s going to be offered in one language. Or
implementing an intensive needs program or a play-centered education class, right, the
assumption is that the main language of instruction is going to be in one language.
[However], with dual language education, you’re not necessarily getting two education
programs for one price; you’re not getting a self-contained English language education
and a Chinese language education. We have one curriculum in elementary school. And
so, if you like, the difference is that that curriculum will be delivered in two languages in
the dual language program.
With the complexity of implementing a DLIP, different people with different expertise
and perspectives will be needed to support its implementation. Some critical steps emerged,
including identifying a person who has the organizational responsibility for implementation;
developing a support team of qualified staff to work with instructional staff; and specifying these
team members’ roles, processes, and responsibilities. This work was initiated earlier at CIS when
Program Leader 5 took charge of research and planned a dual language program. When probed
about the details of her implementation team, Program Leader 5 shared that while she was the
one who had organizational responsibility for the program, she could not do it alone. She needed
to “collect the ideas and feedback of the range of stakeholders who could be responsible for
implementing the dual language program.” As a result, CIS took a team approach and had an
implementation team of 12 members, including representatives of homeroom teachers,
specialists, learning support teachers, and the Chinese program director. They ensured
representation from lower elementary school, upper elementary school, and Chinese speakers. At
VHIS, because it is a dual language school, the program leader commented that the entire
leadership team, from the head of school to the heads of programs, was an integral part of the
89
implementation team. She also emphasized that whether it was a new program or a new aspect of
the program you were implementing, it needed to be “part of the whole school direction, not a
separate track.” For EISS, this implementation team consisted of the Chinese principal and the
primary school principal. As the program grew, they added a bilingual curriculum coordinator in
the primary school and one in the middle school to oversee the program implementation.
Create an Implementation Plan
Many schools created a clear implementation plan that included specific tasks and
timelines to enhance accountability during implementation. A critical question is what challenges
the implementation team can foresee to proactively address them rather than taking a trial-and-
error approach. For example, when VHIS implemented its experiential learning program in
mainland China, it was just a 1-year program. The fundamental research, designing, and planning
process took 5 years. Program Leader 2 offered the details of their research process and the
implementation plan and timeline they created to enhance credibility and accountability during
implementation. Some of the actions and tasks mentioned by many program leaders included but
were not limited to the following:
● Identify competent instructional staff.
● Generate a plan for student recruitment and selection.
● Make curriculum decisions such as which content area will be taught in each
language, who will teach each subject, and what materials will be used.
● Purchase teaching materials.
● Locate, modify, and develop curriculum and assessments.
● Decide on the desired instructional strategies.
90
Recruiting teachers and students for the new DLIP is critical for the implementation plan.
While detailed practices for recruiting are described in the discussion of Research Question 2,
this section provides an overview of recruitment strategies. Overall, all program leaders argued
that ongoing professional learning and on-the-job coaching effectively cultivated effective dual
language teachers. All program leaders emphasized the importance of a positive work climate
and adequate support and advocacy as a strategy to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers.
Implementation Phase 3: Ongoing Structure
The work involved in the first two phases is planning extensively and collaboratively to
build foundational support for the DLIP implementation. Implementation begins in Phase 3,
which requires a strategic, systematic, and effective ongoing structure. Research in this area is
lacking; thus, the practical experiences of program leaders are precious. I will present the
findings with the following themes: provide needed ongoing support, monitor ongoing
implementation, and create supportive feedback mechanisms for continuous improvement.
Adequate Leadership Support
The DLIP implementation team needs to develop a sound plan to provide needed
technical assistance, coaching, and supervision to instructional staff. This support looks different
for different schools, but all participants believed they were essential to program success. At an
established dual language school such as GGIS, there are very clearly defined roles and
responsibilities for the implementation team members and structured communication,
collaboration, and decision-making processes. Program Leader 3 revealed that divisional leaders
dealt with divisional and administrative issues, while the curriculum directors, both Chinese and
English sides, supported the curriculum’s development, alignment, and implementation. The
student support department head was responsible for fulfilling the students’ social, emotional,
91
and academic needs, and they met every week to calibrate. All school leaders were also called on
ad hoc to deal with more challenging program parts or resolve administrative issues. This system
evolved and improved over the years and worked seamlessly for GISS.
At CIS, an established international school with a new DLIP, Program Leader 6, as the
curriculum coordinator, was responsible for providing curriculum support. She explained that
“the very existence of my role shows how we are providing technical support for the teachers
because it didn’t exist before.” She also put it this way, “the principal (Program Leader 5), as
another typical American school structure, when they are looking into a program, they have other
layers of consideration, but the trust that we have in between is great support.” She went on and
stated that “[s]o I don't need to worry about that by going into the meeting, and arguing so
having more time for my team, or having created more jobs for the DLIP.” She was confident
that the level of professional trust was evident, and it was strong support for her.
At MIS, Program Leader 4 shared that teachers are delivering the program on the ground,
and they rely on the level of support of the leadership team to be effective practitioners. She also
emphasized that the designated roles of responsibility were vital for a team to work. She
expressed that DLE experts and consultants were helpful, but they were there only once or twice
or for a short period. It was up to the leadership team to provide ongoing leadership support for
teachers and the program. She explained that because her school was relatively small, the
primary school principal and herself, as the Chinese principal, provided the majority of the
support and supervision.
As the deputy head of school of VHIS, Program Leader 2 was responsible for creating the
structure and system to support the program, while the heads of the programs were the go-to
persons and managed the day-to-day implementation. The heads of the programs are part of the
92
leadership team intended to provide timely support for the instructional staff. Program Leader 2
also explained that as teachers themselves, their heads of programs were more likely to have a
deeper understanding of the program’s delivery and needs. This year, all the heads of programs
have participated in cognitive coaching training to implement a coaching program for their
instructional staff.
Program Leader 1 from EISS noticed that the needs of the bilingual program were not
always being met when she started 7 years ago. Hence, she urged the school to proactively create
a bilingual lead position for each grade level to help support teachers in the program whose
needs differed from those of teachers in the monolingual program. Program Leader 1 felt this
was a great way to solve the inevitable practical problems that often develop when a program or
any new school-wide initiative begins. Successively, they have added supporting roles such as
Chinese literacy coaches and bilingual curriculum coordinators.
Supportive structures are even more critical for international schools, which have a 17%
faculty turnover rate for schools in Asia (Mancuso et al., 2010). With a frequent change of
instructional staff and the inevitable task of onboarding new faculty, developing a well-
documented and systematic approach to providing technical support and supervision is an
impetus for the sustainability of any DLIP. When asked about the ongoing supporting structure
for teachers, the DLE consultant commented that CIS could maintain continuity and employ a
smooth transition because it had a well-established biliteracy instruction system. He believed that
CIS should deepen its work and focus on transforming teachers’ and parents’ mindsets. He noted
that every new hire would be trained on DLE principles and the biliteracy instruction framework.
The DLE consultant further explained that he supported the administrators as biliteracy
instructional coaches after training the entire faculty. He put it in these terms:
93
One part of my job has been to make sure that [Program Leader 5], and the assistant
principals all know how to coach, so we use the same system. When [Program Leader 6]
was there, [Program Leader 6] was the leading coach. She would do job-embedded
coaching. [Program Leader 5] does job-embedded coaching, so with the two assistant
principals. The reason that they're able to do so is that part of my job as a consultant is to
give them systems so that the work is scalable.
In summary, the leadership team needs to provide the necessary technical assistance to
help the instructional staff deal with the inevitable practical problems that will develop once the
program begins. These problems might require further training and practice in administering
more challenging parts of DLIPs, resolving administrative or scheduling conflicts that arise,
acquiring more support or resources, or making some required changes in the application of
DLIPs.
Process Evaluation
A process evaluation system that monitors ongoing implementation needs to be
developed to assess the strengths and limitations during the DLIP implementation. Overall, there
are five key areas involved in monitoring implementation’s relative strengths and limitations as it
unfolds over time: monitor curriculum, assessments, instruction, student enrollment, and
instructional staff performance.
Monitor Curriculum. Curriculum implementation is an ongoing process that requires
timely adjustments and modifications. Program Leader 2 explained three of their curriculum
adjustments and changes made throughout implementation due to their periodic curriculum
review and continuous improvement plan. The most recent one was after adopting the reading
and writing workshops 6 years ago. Their data indicated that simply adopting the units was not
94
very effective in teaching Chinese literacy as they noticed a trend that the Chinese literacy
foundational skills were missing. This resulted in great difficulty for teachers, concerns from
parents, and unnecessary hardship for students attempting to “unlearn” incorrect writing habits.
After the periodic review that occurred every 3 years, in 2016, they stopped reading and writing
workshops and developed their Chinese literacy curriculum. She explained that they had five
thematic units for each year level: personal growth for the lower years, school life, family life,
and nature for the older years. They took a systematic approach in designing those units,
searching several textbooks for better material. They believed that textbooks were sophisticated
and appropriate from a language perspective and had minimal grammatical errors as they were
designed and edited by language experts. They also moved away from translated and teacher-
created materials for that very reason. She explained that their units had a language proficiency-
based curriculum design framework to respond to students from different language proficiency
backgrounds but with the same curriculum standards and learning objectives. Overall, they
closely monitored the chosen curriculum and resources and used a structured reflection process
to gather and reflect on data and make timely adjustments to the correct course. This approach
helped them to address curricular implementation problems effectively.
Monitor Assessments. Monitoring internal and external assessment results in both
program languages helps evaluate the program’s relative strengths and limitations. Many
program leaders shared how their school created and maintained a system that supports the
assessment and accountability process. For instance, Program Leader 5 shared a list of internal
and external assessments utilized to track student data over time. They also used assessment data
to make curriculum and instructional changes. Program Leader 5 provided an example of
analyzing and interpreting the third grade’s data via the assessment, Measure of Academic
95
Progress, to make curriculum changes. She explained that it was essential to use multiple
measures in both languages and build a comprehensive data management system. She cautioned
other schools not to use a snapshot of one external assessment data to evaluate the program's
effectiveness. She gave an example as the Standards-based Measurement of Proficiency
assessment, developed for world language programs in a macro environment where English is a
primary language, which might not be the best assessment to evaluate students’ learning
outcomes in DLIPs. Program Leader 5 lamented that although her school has actively sought
peer schools to compare the assessment results and benchmarks with other international schools
to evaluate their implementation effectiveness, other schools did not openly share with them.
Monitor Enrollment. Monitoring student enrollment in the DLIPs is another powerful
way to monitor implementation progress. Program Leader 1 provided some compelling data to
verify the quality of their DLIP implementation which is the significant increase in their
enrollment and the fast expansion of the program. She shared that the program was increased
almost fivefold in 8 years from 14 to 50 bilingual classes. Program Leaders 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8
also shared that their programs had long waiting lists, and attrition was never a problem, even in
highly mobile international schools.
Monitor Individual Performance. Another critical aspect of the process evaluation is
the alignment of organizational systems to support elements of program implementation, such as
the performance management system, rewards, recognition, compensation, and promotions.
When asked about monitoring the performance of individuals engaged in implementing DLIPs,
all program leaders spoke about their school’s teacher evaluation process and their roles in it.
Two reporting structures emerged. The first was that, with support from a Chinese literacy
specialist or a Chinese curriculum director, the principals are the direct supervisors whose task
96
was to provide help for language and literacy instruction. The second is that the principal is
bilingual and biliterate in Chinese. Depending on the program’s scale, they can supervise DLIP
instructional staff with or without additional program leadership support.
At CIS, the principal (Program Leader 5) is the evaluator, but she works closely with the
DLIP program coordinator (Program Leader 6) to provide Chinese curriculum support and
instructional support. When explaining the rationale for installing another person to take on this
role, Program Leader 1 explained that she knew that they would need one at some point was
because it was evident that a Chinese language arts program for the DLIP did not exist and
needed to be developed, which was an area that neither she nor the assistant principal was
capable at that time. Although they had a director of Chinese, she explained that the director of
Chinese could not take on curriculum development because they needed horizontal and vertical
alignment within the elementary school. With that in mind, they hired a program coordinator
(Program Leader 6) when the program implementation moved beyond the kindergarten level.
Likewise, at BIS, the divisional principals are the evaluator supported by a Chinese
curriculum dean (Program Leader 7). Program Leader 7 defined the role of a supervisor by
commenting:
It would be ideal for the principal to be bilingual and biliterate in Chinese. It was not
common, but there are some. When the principal is not bilingual and biliterate, an
academic role is needed to provide the instructional support and supervision that was
needed but lacking.
She further stated that she was the curriculum dean at her school but was not part of the
teacher evaluation process. She provided detailed observation notes and comments, but she did
not participate in the appraisal. Program Leader 7 also shared that after becoming the curriculum
97
dean, she felt empowered to be more impactful, and Chinese teachers at her school felt valued
and motivated. Connecting to Kotter’s (Kotter & Wyman, 2007) change management model,
such empowering actions support quality implementation as they remove barriers for those who
can assist in pushing the change effort.
All the participants shared that their schools have engaged in many critical steps to
promote, inspire, and build confidence in their bilingual and multicultural leadership teams. For
some schools, especially dual language bilingual schools, one of the principals or heads of school
is bilingual in Chinese, such as MIS, VHIS, and EEIS. For a small dual language school like
MIS, they have one English-speaking head of school and one who is Chinese speaking. The
Chinese head of school and the divisional principal share the role of teacher evaluation. One
exciting practice Program Leader 4 shared is that she would bring a peer observer to provide
more coaching and learning opportunities for everyone. A bigger school such as the MAB has
English-speaking and Chinese-speaking principals for their elementary school, both are the direct
supervisors and evaluators of their instructional staff. At VHIS, since the deputy head of school
is bilingual and biliterate, and they have two bilingual heads of program, they could provide
supervision and evaluation alone without a curriculum coordinator. Program Leader 3 shared that
monitoring instruction in the classroom allowed him to watch how students respond to the
curriculum and how it needs to be adjusted and modified. Program Leader 6 mentioned that, in
addition to formal observations or coaching conversations, she also utilized informal and more
frequent check-ins and coffee break conversations with teachers to understand and monitor how
instruction was going in classrooms and how to best support teachers who are delivering the
curriculum. At EISS, to provide ongoing support and monitor the implementation process, they
optimized the structure and added new roles to support Chinese teachers. After 2 years of
98
implementation, they added three Chinese literacy coach roles to help the Bilingual Chinese
principal support and monitor the implementation. Soon after, they added a Chinese bilingual
curriculum coordinator for each division. This year, to further streamline and optimize the
structure, they hired two Chinese deputy principals to supervise and monitor program
implementation.
One common practice around monitoring desired instructional practices is that many
schools have or are developing a coaching program to ensure high-impact instructional practices
for DLIP are used in the classrooms. EISS has full-time Chinese bilingual curriculum
coordinators who provide coaching practices. CIS’s dual language program coordinator
(Program Leader 6) has a 20% coaching role, and CIS just hired a full-time elementary school
Chinese coach for the next school year. VISS trained all their heads of programs in cognitive
coaching this year, and they will have release time in coaching their team members. Many
schools monitor their curriculum and respond quickly with modifications and improvements in
curriculum and instructional practices.
To sum up, a carefully planned and fully documented process evaluation system is
necessary to monitor and assess the impact of program implementation. When being asked about
how they collect process evaluation data, the standard methods used by program leaders include
creating a comprehensive data management system; sending online surveys to all relevant
colleagues; getting feedback from team members; hosting workshops or seminars; and inviting
comments from the room or inviting written feedback to a dedicated email address or internal
postal address.
99
Effective Feedback System
Feedback systems are essential for the growth of every organization. With a supportive
feedback system, key findings from process evaluation related to DLIP implementation will be
communicated, discussed, and acted upon with and by all involved parties. It helps to understand
how the implementation progresses, and any necessary changes can be made quickly. Meyers et
al. (2012) contended that the design of the feedback system needs to be rapid, accurate, and
specific enough so that successes in implementation can be recognized and changes to improve
implementation can be made in a timely fashion. Continuous improvement is the main objective
for the design of this supportive feedback system, but accountability remains core in this phase.
An effective feedback system allows key findings from process evaluation data to be
communicated, discussed, and acted upon (Meyers et al., 2012). That means the process
evaluation data collected will be regularly shared with all those involved in the DLIP
implementation: the DLIP instructional staff, other instructional staff in the school, school
leadership, parents, and community members. When being asked about their program’s feedback
system, Program Leader 2 provided an example of how they first collected data from classroom
visits, student assessments, teachers’ observations, and parents’ input as to the ineffectiveness of
implementing a writer’s workshop in Year 1 in Chinese literacy. That led to the discussion and
actions to develop a school-based Chinese language arts curriculum. She added the following
explanation:
I think both English and Chinese literacy programs need to have their integrity, meaning
they need to have a strong, cohesive program. When they have, both languages have a
strong, continuous system, students can have a strong foundation for the two languages.
And that’s an important prerequisite or priority.
100
She also provided another example of actions taken after the findings of their middle
school curriculum and assessment data. The improvement plan for their middle school Chinese
literacy curriculum called for merging middle school language A and language B criteria and
developing a cascaded proficiency-based curriculum to meet the needs of students in different
proficiency levels. Similarly, effective feedback systems at CIS enabled its instructional staff to
provide suggestions to improve the implementation process and operations. Program Leader 6,
the elementary school principal at CIS, shared that they carefully monitored the implementation
process through classroom visits and meetings with the teachers after adopting the writing
workshops. They realized that simply adopting the contents of units of study written for teaching
English language arts, was inappropriate for teaching Chinese literacy. Program Leader 6 worked
with her instructional team and created Chinese language-specific mini-lessons, which they
quickly implemented in the second year.
An effective feedback system needs to be rapid and accurate. That means program
leaders need to accurately assess the situation and develop an improvement plan for
programmatic changes. Program Leaders 5 and 6 shared how they correct course after process
evaluation. In kindergarten, they had a three-day English and three-day Chinese rotation to
provide more time for students to work on their writing skills, but the results were not promising.
Teachers also mentioned their curriculum and instruction challenges, such as intensive planning,
lack of collaborating time, and a stressful schedule. They consulted their DLE consultant and, as
a team, decided to switch to the morning and afternoon flip model in terms of language
allocation. Program Leader 5 further explained that they knew language allocation and language
fluency was important and was trying to “find a way to ensure that the teachers were feeling
101
effective such that they felt the students were learning at the level of quality and standards that
we wanted them to be achieving.” She further explained how they modified their approach:
We got together early on with the teachers and our consultant to look at what adjustments
we could make operationally. So, what we ended up doing was for the implementation of
grade one, each teacher would teach their respective language arts, and then they would
only teach one content area.
Many program leaders also mentioned that the implementation team should design the
feedback system to provide opportunities for further personal learning and skill development and
the organizational growth that leads to quality improvement in DLIP implementation. Three
kinds of individual learning and skill development emerged from the interview data: consultation
and training, coaching and peer observation, and collective team learning. Program leaders 1 and
9 shared how they have engaged in continuous learning over the years to improve their
knowledge and skills through a systematic understanding of the IB framework and implementing
procedures such as documented and updated language policy, organized and regular curriculum
review, and the requisite of the curriculum coordinator position that has helped to strengthen the
ongoing structure. Program Leader 8 described her school’s generous professional development
fund and unwavering support for learning and growth for all employees. In terms of
organizational growth, the DLE consultant and all program leaders emphasized how the
organizational growth accelerated the program’s progress and provided a healthy and fertile
ecological system for a DLIP. Some of the examples are (a) having the DLE consultant provide
dual language and biliteracy training for the entire staff at CIS, (b) enrolling the whole staff in a
supporting bilingual multilingual student’s course at EISS, (c) endorsing a DEI initiative to
102
ensure equitable access and outcomes for all students at GGIS, and (d) embracing the
compensation equality of overseas hired faculty and local hired faculty at CIS and MAB.
Implementation Phase 4: Improving Future Applications
As discussed in Chapter two, research in DLIP implementation is scarce, and
implementation in many fields of inquiry lacks systematic theory and research, therefore,
learning by doing has been the primary method for developing knowledge about Chinese-English
DLIP implementation. Hence, lessons learned from key individuals involved in the
implementation process about ineffective and effective strategies are beneficial for enhancing the
program implementation. Such learning from the critical reflection of experiences will also
support others interested in its use. In the second research question about promising leadership
practices, I will present the detailed findings systematically. I will briefly describe the general
themes that emerged from the implementation experience and sharing knowledge with others in
this learning phase.
Learning From Experiences
When asked about what lessons they have learned in implementing their DLIPs, the three
leaders from the “strand within a school” programs and the DLE consultant named effective dual
language leadership an inseparable feature of a successful program and its implementation. This
aligns with Meyers et al.’s (2012) claim that a lack of effective administrative support was
present in every case of failed implementation. Program Leader 1 remarked, “I think leadership
plays a vital role. Of course, teachers, the quality of teachers is important, but the leader of the
program is like the shepherd. We say the shepherd is leading the herd.” She also believed that the
senior leadership’s trust was critical to the program’s success. She believed it was vital to have
the resources and authority to make implementation decisions. The DLE consultant contended
103
that dual language programming would never be successful without effective dual language
leadership. He further explained that if the administrative team does not take ownership of the
program but instead passes it on to a teacher leader, it might have “pockets of greatness, but it
will never trickle down to every classroom because teachers do what administrators see as
worthy.” It aligns with Menken’s (2017) recommendation that principals serve as language
leaders to ensure a welcoming linguistic environment for community members and the equal
status and value of Chinese and English in the classroom and the curriculum.
Another theme that emerged when program leaders reflected on their experiences is
staying true to the program’s mission and vision and aligning all implementation aspects with its
mission, vision, and goals. Program Leaders 1, 4, 5, 6, and the DLE consultant mentioned how
they have stayed true to the core goals of a DLIP as illustrated in the Guiding Principles and
used the seven strands to move their work. Similarly, Program Leaders 2, 3, 7, and 8 reflected on
how their dual language bilingual schools have stayed true to their school vision, mission, and
values on bilingualism, biliteracy, international-mindedness, and cross-cultural competence.
It is also important to note that all program leaders reflected on the effectiveness of
distributed leadership or collaborative and shared leadership within their programs or schools.
While the principals bear the ultimate responsibility for decisions, the teachers’ collaborative
work maintains and sustains the program. Four program leaders had left or were planning to
leave their positions at the time of the interview. They were all confident that the institutional
knowledge would remain because of a strong collaborative structure and culture within their
programs and schools. That also coincides with Menken’s (2017) recommendation that schools
form emergent bilingual leadership teams comprised of the school principal, other key
104
administrators, dual language teachers, general education teachers, specialists, parents, and
families.
In retrospect, a few program leaders mentioned that what they have learned from their
experiences was to appreciate the perspectives and insights of those in the host setting and create
open avenues for constructive feedback from the instructional staff on such potentially important
matters as the use, modification, or application of the program model, curriculum, assessments,
and instructional practices. The same is valid with moving beyond mere parental involvement in
the program but fostering close school-community partnerships to enhance the implementation
of their DLIPs. That school-community love and care were depicted with such emotion and pride
when Program Leader 8 shared with me that when one of their students encountered some
financial difficulties after graduating from their school, the community members voluntarily
raised funds to cover the graduate’s college tuition.
Professional Relationship Building
One interesting observation from the interviews is that most program leaders know each
other and have connected and consulted with each other, especially those in the same region. All
of them have mentioned that it was crucial to communicate with others and support each other in
implementing Chinese-English DLIPs. Apart from reaching out to each other, learning, and
sharing with peer schools, a few common actions and strategies surfaced: connecting with key
organizations, attending, and presenting in dual language conferences and supporting research
and studies like this one, and being very interested in reading the research findings from this
study. Program leaders 1 and 9 shared how their school used a platform called Crestar to engage
in Chinese-specific professional learning and share their experiences and knowledge with others.
Program Leaders 1, 2, and 9 commented that regular IB conferences are essential, allowing them
105
to engage in review cycles and connect and share with others. Program Leader 3 from GGIS, an
established dual language school, has generously offered site visits, workshops, and conferences
to others, collaborating with the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Asia
Society, and many language-specific conferences. Program Leaders 4, 5, and 6 highlighted the
importance of connecting with research institutions such as CAL to keep up with the most up-to-
date research findings and training available.
DLIP Pathway in International Schools
The findings above are about overall program implementation. Those discussed below
center on creating a program pathway and implementing that program beyond the elementary
school. Program Leader 2 remarked that a “high-quality dual language immersion program needs
a clear pathway for students to pass through.” She further explained, “so that's the learning
pathways and the curriculum’s design. So, when designing a curriculum, we need to have the
goal in our head, which is the Year 12 and Year 13.” Fortunately, scheduling is relatively more
straightforward in secondary school than in elementary school. The staffing challenge is still
relevant or even more problematic. It is not easy to find qualified Chinese-speaking teachers in
different subject areas such as math, social studies, or theory of knowledge in the IBDP system.
However, the DLE consultant believed that it should be less challenging for international schools
in Asia, arguing that those schools have the advantage of having access to a community with
more Chinese speakers and educators. He believed that international schools in Asia should not
have an excuse for not offering a dual language program in middle or high school because more
teachers were available to facilitate core content instruction in Chinese.
Regarding Chinese core subject teacher recruiting, Program Leader 1 shared that they
had not yet hired externally as they could identify Chinese-speaking teachers with subject area
106
expertise and provide them with systematic IB training. Her school is the only organization that
offers math in Chinese in secondary school. All other schools provided a variety of Chinese
language and literature courses with supplementary elective courses and creative clubs.
The IB bilingual diploma is an attractive reward and recognition for secondary students.
Program Leader 2 stated that about 30% of their students would obtain IB bilingual diploma in
high school. Program Leader 1 also said it is a big incentive for both students and parents.
Program Leader 8 told me that their IB bilingual diploma rate is nearly 100%, partly because
they have a large percentage of Chines speakers in her school. However, it is still significant
because international English medium schools have historically failed to maintain full literacy
for students whose first language is not English. Other programs are developing dual language
programs in secondary school, such as CIS and MIS.
Discussion for Research Question 1
In general, the DLIP implementation process in those successful peer international
schools aligns with the QIF in most of the steps, with a few areas of improvement across the
board for all programs, such as documentation of the implementation process and a clear process
evaluation plan. According to Meyers et al. (2012), the four phases and the critical steps for
when and where to focus one’s attention to achieve quality implementation serve in a temporal
order. Meyers et al. (2012) recognized that, if necessary, implementers readdress some steps they
may have initially neglected. This critical strategy was mentioned multiple times as program
leaders discussed the implementation of their programs. Phase 1 and Phase 2 are foundational
phases prior to implementation, and they require extensive and comprehensive planning. The
third phase is the actual program implementation and monitoring, while the last phase involves
107
learning from experiences to improve future applications. The research findings supported the
appropriateness of the QIF in guiding DLIP implementation.
The findings also demonstrated that programs share some common areas of limitations
and improvements. Meyers et al. (2012) contended that proactive monitoring systems could be
developed to identify challenges during implementation and provide feedback to stakeholders to
take corrective actions. There were no robust monitoring systems in most of the schools. As
Program Leader 5 put it, she should have documented her system and structure and developed a
succession plan as she moves to her new role before completing the program’s implementation.
Further, it is critical to produce documentary evidence of the impacts on processes and behaviors
against key performance indicators. Two schools used CAL’s Guiding Principles as the success
indicators, but there are no external evaluations to assess the program’s effectiveness or
benchmarking among peer international schools. However, CIS has been working on this. One
main role of the program coordinator, as described by Program Leader 5, was to document the
correct, up-to-date implementation process and procedures, such as the curriculum mapping,
scope and sequence, unit plans, and assessment records.
Overall, the implementation of DLIP is a dynamic process, and it does not always occur
in the exact sequence of steps. It is necessary to revisit some of the steps. Secondly, the dynamic
and vibrant nature of implementation also reveals that it is inevitable that some of the steps
overlap or span multiple phases. Interview data also indicated that schools revisit those critical
steps periodically to ensure the process is on a successful track. The four-phase implementation
framework includes all the elements of the DLIP planning guide provided by the California
Association of Bilingual Education (2022), which outlines the critical components of quality
implementation. However, having guidance in the form of an ordered sequence of activities
108
instead of components and elements of a high-quality program provides a crosswalk in relation
to the implementation process.
Results for Research Question 2
The second research question centered on what program leaders consider to be promising
leadership practices in implementing Chinese-English DLIPs in an international school context.
Document analysis of their official school websites was used to select key program leaders in
those schools. One job description was collected to support some of the leadership roles and
responsibilities described by the program leaders. Overall, for this research question, I had to
rely on the interview data to understand the leadership practices for DLIP implementation. Those
practices can be categorized into four leadership competencies: visioning, advocacy, facilitation,
and stewardship. As indicated in the first three chapters, program leaders are inclusive but not
limited to principals. As Howard et al. (2007) highlighted, it is more advantageous to have shared
leadership through a leadership team with a designated leader to coordinate the program than
relying on the principal, especially for a strand within a school program. When those four
competencies with key actions are identified, it becomes apparent that what they describe are
actions aligned with culturally responsive leadership practices, emphasizing linguistical
responsiveness in the unique context of international schools. Thus, I conceptualize those
practices as the linguistically and culturally responsive leadership competencies for DLIP. All
participants agreed that linguistically and culturally responsive leadership was vital to realizing
the DLIP vision and mission. Throughout the interviews, they described the actions and
behaviors of such leaders. I will present the four core dimensions of linguistically and culturally
responsive leadership practices to fulfill the leadership needs of implementing the Chinese-
English DLIP at their school sites. Although many of those actions are necessary for monolingual
109
programs, those practices and actions are heightened and amplified to promote the core goals of
a DLIP.
Visioning
Being a visionary leader and designer is expected of DLIP leaders. Based on the literature
review in Chapter Two, that means program leaders need to set and communicate a vision and
lay the necessary ideological foundations to redesign schooling for a transformed future. All the
program leaders spoke of the quintessential foundational beliefs of their schools. Those school-
specific fundamental beliefs are articulated differently at each school site, but all indicated a
strong philosophy based on bilingualism, biliteracy, and multicultural understanding and
appreciation. While this was described in the schools’ mission statements, the interviews
provided a more in-depth knowledge of how program leaders internalized those statements and
philosophies with explanations of the history of those beliefs and concrete examples of how
those beliefs and values are embedded in their practices of DLIP implementation.
Program Leader 1 presented her strong belief in bilingualism and biculturalism and how a
DLIP should honor both languages, especially the minority language by saying a DLI should
“look, sound, and feel like Chinese.” Program Leader 1 visioned the implementation of the DLIP
from K–12. As the Chinese principal of the program, she had a strong sense of ownership and
responsibility, which guided the service delivery decisions as her personal goal and philosophy
aligned with the program goal and philosophy. Program Leaders 2 and 3 explained their
predecessors’ visionary decisions to undertake Chinese-English bilingual education decades ago
and how the current leadership team was constantly refining that vision. Program Leader 2
pinpointed the importance of further establishing “equal status” between two program languages,
fostering intercultural understanding, and “bridging between the East and the West.” Program
110
Leader 3 shared their school’s work on establishing and reviewing their program philosophy
statement with a strong focus on DEI. Both Program Leader 5 and Program Leader 6 from CIS
noted that program vision and mission alignment were the foundation of their program, and there
was a shared understanding and commitment to this purpose. Program Leader 5, as the principal,
had always kept the program goals as part of her vision; her commitment to this vision was
evident throughout the interview. She explained how to keep it alive very clear by commenting
that “I needed to keep the vision for the growth of the dual language program, and the needs of
the program as it continued to expand.” She further explained that her vision is that the dual
language program would continue beyond elementary school, so she had been pushing that
conversation, even when they were not in a perfect place to do that amid COVID.
The DLE consultant noted the importance of sociocultural competence as a vision and
mission for the program and exhorted the necessity for the program leaders to envision an
equitable future and communicate that vision, saying:
So, the validation of any dual language program is sociocultural competence, critical
consciousness, and an anti-bias antiracism lens that has to be the foundation of everything
that we do in a dual language program. Once we establish that, and everyone understands
what’s going to be driving our work is our mission and vision. It provides everyday
guidance and decision-making, so we can focus on bilingualism, biliteracy, and grade-
level academic achievement in both program languages.
DLIPs call for visionary leaders rooted in a vision of equitable programs for all students
and who can articulate that vision and show the path others must take to reach it. They also need
to mobilize teams to work toward that shared vision. All program leaders participating in this
study are optimistic, communicative, and persistent about their visions. Five program leaders
111
(Program Leaders 1, 4, 5, 6, and the DLE) mentioned how they started with the Guiding
Principles for Dual Language Education as a tool to help people begin to get a sense of what it
was going to look like in the future; the rubrics included was extremely helpful throughout the
implementation process to ensure the program implementation aligns with the core goals of their
DLIPs.
Advocacy
In the third edition of the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education, Howard et
al. (2007) asserted that program leaders serve the critical roles of program advocacy and
communication with all stakeholders. In a study by DeMatthews and Izquierdo (2016) that
focused on six dual language programs, some effective leadership practices identified were
valuing all cultural groups; promoting linguistic equity; communicating the needs of the program
to all stakeholders and implementing a collective approach to fulfill the leadership needs of the
program. In essence, Sanchez (2014), president of the California Association for Bilingual
Education, exhorted that advocacy-oriented leadership was indispensable for DLIPs' success.
The findings from the interviews aligned with the existing dual language leadership literature,
and they enriched the understanding of that leadership with specific examples of the DLIP
implementation process. I will present the results for leadership advocacy in two areas: promote
community partnership and advocate for the needs of the programs.
Promote Community Partnership
All program leaders highlighted the importance of promoting community engagement
and active parent collaboration. They emphasized that close relationships with families are
essential to DLIP implementation. Most of the program leaders mentioned that their DLIP was
implemented in response to the students’ demographic changes. Their families hope to provide
112
better education for their children. They all indicated that the changing demographic of students
is one of the driving forces for any program adjustment and curriculum modification. Program
Leader 1 shared that only 15% of students were Chinese heritage speakers initially, and now the
number has doubled. Program Leaders 5 and 6 explained that they had engaged parents in the
research and development phase and provided ongoing opportunities to inform, collaborate,
discuss, and learn with families, actively seeking parents’ and students’ feedback in shaping and
improving their program by hosting round table discussions, parent workshops, celebrations, etc.
It is worth noting that all programs have observed an increase in Chinese heritage students
because of their advocacy and promotion of language and culture equity. For example, Program
Leader 1 and her school promoted multilingualism and multiculturalism by encouraging
multilingual learners to speak their home languages with others and use their home languages to
learn. In addition, the entire school faculty have completed a course on serving bilingual and
multilingual students. Her school also valued and recruited linguistically and culturally diverse
teachers; 20% of the faculty are native Chinese speakers. The community also demonstrated
excellent tolerance of their non-native English proficiency and embraced their accents and
speaking or written English communication errors.
Advocate for the Needs of the DLIPs
Apart from valuing all cultural groups and promoting community partnership, another
promising leadership practice is communicating and supporting the needs of the DLIPs. Program
Leader 5 recognized and advocated creating a dual language program coordinator, who has
served as the curriculum coordinator and parent liaison since the second year of program
implementation. As the principal, she also realized the program’s needs and advocated a
bilingual teaching assistant for each class. In addition, she has advocated and initiated the hiring
113
shift to recruit Chinese-English bilingual specialist teachers, librarians, and learning support
teachers to support the program whenever there is a vacancy. This year, the school has hired a
full-time Chinese coach to provide a more robust professional learning program for both world
language and dual language teachers. At EISS, Program Leader 1 advocated for the unique
leadership needs of the program and created roles such as bilingual curriculum coordinators,
bilingual coaches, and, this year, bilingual assistant principals for both the elementary school and
the middle school were appointed. They have also hired bilingual learning support teachers,
school psychologists, and counselors. Many program leaders advocated resources for the
program and time to create those resources for teachers as bilingual resources are not readily
available. Program Leader 5 provided teachers with release time to recognize their workload,
especially in parent communication and conferences. Program Leader 1 was very adamant in
asserting how important it is for her to encourage teachers to practice advocacy for the program
and students. She mentioned she had advocated a curriculum support role to release teachers
from constantly developing and creating resources. She was very proud of her school for
investing in Chinese-speaking teachers and meeting the program’s needs, even though it was a
for-profit school.
Facilitation
As summarized in the literature review, program leaders need to recruit students with
equity in mind, recruit and retain competent DLIP teachers, and develop faculty cohesion,
collaboration, and collegiality. According to Mullaney and Burke (2017), many school leaders
across the United States do not have deep knowledge and understanding to address the needs of
emergent bilinguals. Brook et al. (2010) found that teachers or teacher leaders with specialized
knowledge and skills were marginalized within the schools' leadership structures. However,
114
many international schools are fortunate to have program leaders who are bilingual, biliterate,
and have deep knowledge and understanding of second language acquisition and biliteracy
development. All participants in the study are bilingual and biliterate and have a rich background
in language acquisition in international school settings. They are equipped with knowledge and
skills to develop leadership competencies in leading Chinese-English DLIPs.
Equity-Based Student Recruitment
All seven schools accept students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Some
schools are very intentional in maintaining a 50:50 mix of English-speaking and Chinese
speaking students, such as CIS. Some schools, including GGIS, HIS, and MIS, observed a
natural representation of the host country/city demographics. Program Leader 3 mentioned his
school was actively recruiting students of color, students from diverse socioeconomic
backgrounds, and students from diverse sexual orientations families. He stated, “I think it will
only make this program stronger because when you design the learning for your students’ school
experience, you need to consider different perspectives.”
High-Quality Dual Language Teacher Recruitment
There is a consensus that the dual language teacher shortage is a significant challenge to
successful program implementation (Collier & Thomas, 2014; Howard et al., 2007). All program
leaders resonated with that sentiment. However, they were able to find high-quality teachers by
evaluating the whole person and focusing on their potential and shared values and beliefs. Then
provide opportunities for on-the-job professional development centering on effective Chinese
literacy teaching, balancing content, language learning, etc. Program leaders were looking for
“experienced and knowledgeable educator[s]” (Program Leader 1), who is “responsive and
reflective practitioners” (Program Leader 3), and “inclusive and open to challenges and
115
opportunities” (Program Leader 8). In addition, many of them have started hiring bilingual
teachers for any vacancy to build capacity; most, if not all program leaders have utilized this
hiring shift. The DLE consultant urged international schools he worked with to hire local
teachers and raised an important question about offering equal salaries and packages for those
teachers. The compensation gap between overseas and locally hired teachers has been a
significant inequity in many international schools. Interestingly, all seven international schools
participating in this study have no or minimal compensation gap between their overseas hired
and local teachers. Program Leader 8 stated that, for her school, it was critical to treat English-
speaking and Chinese-speaking teachers the same as that aligns with their school values. She
also shared that one of the reasons many overseas hired English-speaking teachers chose to teach
at her school was because they felt their local counterparts were respected and valued, which
brought joy and belongingness to them. As to encouraging professional development, Program
Leader 3 shared that their school strived to provide professional development opportunities that
would benefit both Chinese- and English-speaking faculty, with special attention on
opportunities for their Chinese faculty even though it was a dual language school.
Faculty Cohesion and Collaboration
Another theme that emerged was the responsibility of facilitators to foster faculty
cohesion, collaboration, and collegiality anchored in diversity, equity, and inclusion. All
participants stated that collaboration should happen horizontally and vertically across grade
levels. Five out of the seven schools have a 50:50 model, and all seven program leaders
recognized that collaboration between the Chinese teacher and the English teacher was essential.
Program Leaders 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 highlighted that both Chinese and English teachers were
equal in their collaboration. Program Leader 5 explicitly stated that since English was the
116
language of power, they should intentionally elevate the status of the Chinese language. Program
Leader 6 indicated that English teachers should learn more about second language development
for English learners to better serve all students in the program. Program Leader 1 shared that
they have observed harmful practices when two teachers were co-teaching, and they quickly
adjusted the structure to ensure linguistic equity in the classrooms.
Stewardship
As program stewards, program leaders need to possess a profound understanding of
research-based theories and practices and supervise program development, planning, and
coordination since high levels of planning and coordination across grades are always a feature of
successful programs (Herman et al., 2016). Furthermore, DLIP leaders are uniquely positioned to
challenge the oppressive system through quality DLIP implementation. I will elaborate on those
core practices for this DLIP leadership competency.
Knowledge and Experience
As stewards of the program, all program leaders have extensive DLE experience and
have formed their philosophy around dual language bilingual education. Seven program leaders
and the DLE consultant have had at least 20 years of experience in the field, having served in
various roles such as a bilingual teacher, English language teacher, and curriculum coordinator.
All hold at least a master’s degree in education, and two hold doctoral degrees in education.
They are all bilingual and biliterate and have worked at least 20 years in international schools,
except for the DLE consultant. Also worth mentioning is that they all have formed a clear
philosophy and strong belief in DLE, the features of high-quality programs, and the criteria for
effective dual language teachers. The details will be discussed in the following themes. Overall,
117
they all demonstrated how they have reflected through their cultural lens and can communicate
in linguistically and culturally responsive ways.
Continuous Professional Learning
As stewards of the program, DLIP leaders all engaged in their ongoing professional
learning to cultivate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to lead DLIPs. Many
participants modeled the role of a lead learner by creating a system and structure for continuous
learning and sharing research and practices among faculty. Program Leader 1 shared that she
participated in all professional learning opportunities with staff members and invited three
educational experts in the field to introduce the newest research and theories in DLE. Program
Leader 4 engaged her implementation team with a book study when planning for the program.
She and her assistant principal also attended the leadership institute together and established a
collaborative relationship with researchers from CAL to support the program planning. Five
program leaders highlighted using CAL’s Guiding Principles as a “touchstone text” or “anchor
text” for developing and implementing their DLIPs. Further, the DLE consultant contended that
some foundational learning should be provided for all school staff and new staff as part of the
onboarding process. He believed that all school community members should be provided
foundational learning and understand their roles in supporting students to develop bilingualism,
biliteracy, and sociocultural competence.
Implementation Supervision
Implementation is a dynamic and complex process that requires the program leaders to
develop and support systems, structures, and routines that ensure the alignment of all aspects of
the program to the core goals. Multiple program leaders readily admitted mistakes and used them
as learning opportunities to modify and improve implementation. Program leaders 1, 2, and 5
118
mentioned errors and setbacks they had encountered and how they responded and addressed
those mistakes in an open and timely manner. Next, leaders courageously engaged in complex
conversations with various stakeholders to support equitable access and outcomes for all
students. For example, Program Leader 1 described how she convinced the senior school
management and school board to change the ineffective and inequitable program structure, such
as no language separation and the dominant role of English-speaking teachers in the classroom.
Program leaders also need to manage program operations and resources to ensure equitable
access and outcomes for students.
System Disruption
The literature review section discussed the emergence of international schools as elitist
education systems that create some inherent inequities, particularly in the space of questions
about the purpose and value of global citizenship education. This topic was discussed multiple
times with the program leaders when they shared their promising leadership practices in
implementing the program and serving the students and families in the international school
system. Overall, there is recognition that international schools operate in a linguistically and
culturally oppressive system by centering on the English language, Western culture, and
ideologies. A few dual language program leaders argued that their roles are in part to disrupt the
system through quality program implementation. Program leaders 5 and 6 were vocal in naming
the system’s power, privilege, and oppression. Program Leader 5 mentioned that she understood
that English is the “language of power.” She also contended that the school became a dual
language school when it implemented a dual language program. She commented that the dual
language program would touch and test every aspect of the existing school system and structure.
It is evident that, as the principal, Program Leader 5 had actively questioned and disrupted the
119
status quo and engaged her entire faculty in this learning process. As an English speaker, she
provided strong leadership, modeling a personal belief system that is student-centered and
grounded in equity. By engaging the entire school community in learning about DLE, she
purposefully built the capacity of others to identify and disrupt inequities in school and created a
system and structure to promote equity for all minoritized populations. Also, at CIS, Program
Leader 6, as their dual language program coordinator, talked about how she had initiated the
conversation about social justice as a way to fulfill the program promise of cultivating
sociocultural competence in students. Another way to disrupt the linguistically and culturally
oppressive system of international schools is to identify and cultivate Chinese-speaking leaders.
Program Leader 1 built leadership capacity in Chinese-speaking faculty and promoted two
Chinese deputy principals during her tenure. Since Program Leaders 1, 5, and 6’s schools are
strand within school programs, they are in the position to act as disruptors challenging a
linguistically and culturally oppressive system. That has proven to be a critical practice to ensure
high-quality DLIPs in their schools.
Discussion for Research Question 2
Linguistically and culturally responsive program leaders are critical to high-quality
program implementation in international schools. The findings demonstrated the roles program
leaders play and the key actions, along with their teams, students, and families, to create a
linguistically and culturally responsive learning environment for all students. As equity-focused
visionaries, they collaborate with families, students, staff, and school community members to
craft a vision and communicate that vision in ways that inspire the entire school community to
fulfill it. As advocates and liaisons, they cultivate a shared understanding and ownership of all
community members’ mission, vision, and values. They collaborate with the community to
120
advocate and act according to the shared beliefs to ensure equitable access and outcomes for all
students. As facilitators, they recruit students from diverse linguistic and cultural groups, hire
competent dual language educators, and develop the capacity and skills of the teaching staff
through evidence-based and focused professional learning, coaching, and goals-based evaluation.
As stewards, they actively engage in their ongoing professional learning to cultivate the skills
and dispositions necessary to lead Chinese-English DLIPs; use multiple data sources to identify
successes and challenges in implementation, and problem-solve to ensure continuous
improvement. Lastly, as disruptors of a linguistically and culturally oppressive system, they
actively seek to learn how privilege, power, and oppression operate, both historically and
currently, in international schools, critically reflect on their identities and positionality, confront
colonialism and institutional biases toward linguistically and culturally diverse students,
teachers, and families in the process of program implementation.
Summary
In summary, eight themes emerged through document analysis and interviews: (a) initial
considerations, (b) creating a structure, (c) ongoing structure, (d) improving future
implementation as the four phases of DLIP implementation, (e) visioning, (f) advocacy, (g)
facilitation, and (h) stewardship as DLIP leadership competencies. These themes have been
synthesized in Chapter Four and will be further explored and analyzed in Chapter Five.
121
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to examine the process of
implementing Chinese-English dual language immersion programs (DLIPs) in an international
school setting and to uncover promising leadership practices. Understanding the phenomena of
implementing DLIPs in international schools would support the American International School
of Southeast Asia (AISSA) in its ongoing program implementation and expansion. International
schools have a unique potential to implement transformative and innovative programs as they are
fortunate to possess sufficient funding and resources and are not tied to the restrictions of public
or national schools in particular jurisdictions. AISSA is committed to exploring, designing, and
implementing innovative programs to meet the needs of its diverse students and communities.
Unfortunately, research is limited in international education, specifically in Chinese-English
DLIPs. While a rich fund of literature has emerged regarding the characteristics of high-quality
DLIPs, little is known about the quality implementation process. AISSA would benefit from
understanding the research-based critical steps and strategies of quality DLIP implementation
and peer international schools' practical experiences and promising practices.
This study focused on the perspectives of DLIP leaders from seven international schools
that have successfully implemented a Chinese-English DLIP in their elementary schools and
have either implemented or are doing so in their secondary schools. A semi-structured interview
was the primary data collection method, complemented by document analysis. These multiple
data collection methods provided data triangulation to develop a comprehensive understanding
of the phenomena (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). Nine interviews were conducted
with program leaders from seven peer international schools. An additional interview was
conducted with a dual language education (DLE) consultant who supported implementation in
122
two sample schools. The interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes and were conducted
primarily in English, with some Chinese expressions when necessary. Using a semi-structured
interview protocol, participants were asked questions relevant to their positions. These included
queries about their role in implementing Chinese-English DLIPs, their school’s program
structure, the overall school culture, and their recommendations for other schools seeking to
implement a dual language program. Before the interviews, document analysis was utilized to
select qualifying schools, provide contextual information, and corroborate interviewees’
responses. After conducting each interview via Zoom, the audio recording was transcribed,
reviewed, and coded for data analysis. The data were coded using both a deductive and inductive
process. Open coding was used in the first coding round, followed by axial coding to categorize
the 80 open codes. More than 20 axial codes emerged and were subsequently organized into
eight selective codes. Those critical steps assisted in achieving the study’s goals by generating
eight conceptualization and theory formation themes, as described in Chapter Four.
I created the interview protocols based on my preliminary conceptual framework at the
end of Chapter Two. The data collected confirmed that most of the concepts related to effective
DLIP implementation were incorporated in the preliminary conceptual framework and literature
review. Other emerging themes appeared as topics that were not initially discussed in the
literature review or document analysis but later developed during Zoom interviews. Based on the
findings from my study, I revised my conceptual framework that illustrates the DLIP
implementation process and encompasses the promising leadership actions for what I call
linguistically and culturally responsive dual language leadership competencies that the
participants described as achieving the core goals of a DLIP. Building on my research results, I
123
present my renewed conceptual framework for implementing Chinese-English dual language
immersion programs in international schools (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Renewed Conceptual Framework
Note. The concept of four implementation phases is introduced in the Quality Implementation
Framework (Meyers et al., 2012). The three core goals of dual language education are identified
in the Guiding Principles of Dual Language Education (Howard et al., 2018).
124
The revised conceptual framework reveals the core goals of DLIPs, dual language
leadership competencies, and the implementation process of high-quality Chinese-English DLIPs
in international schools. The core goals of DLIPs remained at the center of the framework.
Surrounding the core goals are the promising leadership practices shaped as a donut chart with
four essential competencies as linguistically and culturally responsive leaders. There are four
leadership actions under each dual language leadership competency. To build a high-quality
DLIP at an individual school site or within a school system, it is imperative to have linguistically
and culturally responsive dual language program leaders or leadership teams. The outer circle
illustrates the temporal and cyclical program implementation process. DLIP implementation is a
systematic process demanding linguistically and culturally responsive program leaders to plan
extensively and implement organized step-by-step procedures.
In this chapter, the summary of findings will be discussed according to the themes
identified through the data collection process. I will connect the findings to the extant literature
and present implications for AISSA in its program implementation, expansion, and enhancement
journey. I will also provide more general recommendations for other international schools that
are either planning to implement Chinese-English DLIPs and future research.
Summary of Findings
Two main themes emerged from examining the implementation process and leadership
practices in implementing high-quality Chinese-English DLIPs at seven peer international
schools. While, in some instances, the process and practices seem to overlap in terms of the
specific actions, the study’s findings distinguish the process as systematic critical steps and
strategies and the leadership practices under leaders’ core competencies in implementing DLIPs.
Those competencies are demonstrated in leaders’ knowledge, skills, mindsets, and dispositions.
125
The findings from the interviews and document analysis data for this study were organized into
two overarching themes with eight sub-themes (findings) that answered my two research
questions. The first overarching theme with four findings is related to the implementation
process (Findings 1 through 4), and the second overarching theme pertains to promising
leadership practices (Findings 5 through 8). The summary of findings will present each of these
in sequence.
The first overarching theme answers Research Question 1: How do program leaders
describe the processes of implementing Chinese-English DLIPs in an international school
context? The study reveals that program implementation is a systematic process that requires
extensive planning and structuring and organized step-by-step procedures to realize the core
goals of DLE. This main theme can be logically distributed into the following findings:
1. High-quality DLIP planning starts with critical initial considerations regarding the
school context to create the ecological fit and build a strong foundation.
2. Structural features for high-quality DLIP planning should minimally include an
implementation team and plan.
3. High-quality DLIP implementation relies on adequate ongoing support, process
monitoring, and supportive feedback mechanisms.
4. Learning from experience and connecting with others can improve future
applications.
The second overarching theme answers Research Question 2: What do program leaders
consider to be the promising leadership practices in implementing Chinese-English DLIPs in an
international school context? The study unearthed that linguistically and culturally responsive
leadership was key to program success in realizing the core goals of DLE. The findings
126
conceptualized as the competencies of linguistically and culturally responsive DLIP leaders are
listed below:
5. DLIP leaders are visionary change agents who are effectively bilingual and biliterate
communicators, who understand and connect with the languages, literacy, and
community, and establish, communicate, and mobilize others to fulfill the vision of a
high-quality DLIP for their communities.
6. DLIP leaders are advocates who value and advocate for all linguistic and cultural
groups and promote linguistic and cultural equity and community partnership.
7. DLIP leaders are effective facilitators who recruit high-quality dual language
educators and facilitate continuous and embedded professional learning, staff
cohesion, and collegiality.
8. DLIP leaders are stewards of the program who have a profound understanding of the
research-based theories and practices, knowledge, and skills and courageously
address the linguistical and cultural inequities of international schools through high-
quality DLIP implementation for all students.
The following section summarizes the findings listed above, discussing the implications
and recommendations for AISSA and other schools seeking to implement and improve DLIPs.
The chapter ends with suggestions for future research.
Overarching Theme 1: Systematic Implementation Process
The first finding regarding initial considerations demonstrates a shared understanding
and belief among participants of the importance of the initial planning phase. More specifically,
it is crucial to conduct a needs and resources assessment, a fit assessment, and a
capacity/readiness assessment in this initial planning phase. These should be carefully analyzed
127
to understand the context and ensure adequate buy-in from key stakeholders. Program leaders
also need to facilitate the discussion regarding the DLIP model and provide a solid basis and
rationale for the chosen program model or any adaptations to the model. Subsequently, capacity-
building strategies are essential to ensure the DLIP model or the modified program model best
fits the host setting’s needs. Critical steps to build capacity are identified, including obtaining
explicit buy-in from stakeholders, fostering a supportive school climate and culture, building
general organizational capacity, recruiting high-quality dual-language staff, and providing
adequate training in DLE. This finding aligns with the quality implementation framework (QIF).
The first phase of program implementation is to understand the conditions, make adaptations and
build capacity to ensure implementation readiness (Meyers et al., 2012). It also aligns with the
Guiding Principles’ recommendation of using assessment data and a literature review to make
programmatic decisions in the planning phase, as well as the Dual Language Program Planner’s
recommendations of engaging in a stakeholder group to develop a program model to ensure all
perspectives are included (Howard et al., 2003). The highlight of the study is that not only were
all the factors recommended in the literature review mentioned by the interviewees, but it also
identified practical experiences and offered examples of how those critical factors were
considered and implemented.
The second finding of creating a structure means that structural features for high-quality
DLIP planning should minimally include an implementation team and plan. Once the program
design and adaptation decisions are made, and key stakeholder buy-in is obtained, the next phase
of implementation is to create an organized structure that includes an implementation team and a
plan to oversee the process. Since implementing any innovation is a complex process with the
added layers of complexity of implementing a DLIP, program leaders must create an
128
implementation team that consists of people with knowledge and skills in building
administration, program implementation, curriculum design, bilingualism, and biliteracy
development, as well as student and family support. Next, this team should create a clear
implementation plan that includes specific tasks and timelines to enhance accountability during
implementation. This finding aligns with the QIF regarding the importance of creating a structure
to support implementation (Meyer et al., 2012). The data discussed in Chapter Four explained
the types of qualified individuals needed and specific actions and possible timelines for
implementing DLIP programs in international schools. Therefore, it provides essential
information for critical questions such as who should be included in the team, what will happen,
when it should occur, and who will be responsible for delivering and overseeing the DLIP
implementation. This coincides with Menken’s (2017) recommendation of creating an
implementation team to foster shared decision-making and Howard et al.’s (2003)
recommendation for creating an action plan to prioritize tasks. It also aligns with the Guiding
Principles for Dual Language in planning for curriculum development with all stakeholders’
buy-in (Howard et al., 2018).
The third finding concerning ongoing structure asserts that high-quality DLIP
implementation relies on adequate ongoing support, process monitoring, and supportive feedback
systems. More explicitly, it requires clearly defined and communicated roles and responsibilities
of the implementation team members, additional dual language specific roles such as bilingual
curriculum coordinator and Chinese literacy coach, collaboration with DLE consultants, a
standard process to develop and monitor curriculum adaptation, assessments, and enrollment,
and communicating and responding to the process evaluation data to improve implementation in
a timely fashion. This finding aligns with the literature on implementation regarding the support
129
strategies needed when the implementation begins, including professional development for front-
line providers (Durlak & Dupre, 2008) and guidelines for monitoring and evaluating processes. It
also matches the Guiding Principles’ recommendations of ongoing self-reflection and evaluation
and the necessity to address needed changes. The findings from this study provide a critical
understanding of the necessary technical assistance, coaching, and supervision for DLIPs to
address some common, inevitable practical problems. It offers ideas and examples of effective
process evaluation and feedback mechanisms to improve ongoing DLIP implementation.
The fourth finding on improving future implementation draws attention to learning from
experience and building professional relationships with others. This finding is extraordinary
because research in DLIP implementation is scarce, and lessons learned from practical
experience are valuable in developing knowledge and sharing knowledge with other interested
parties. To improve ongoing implementation and support program expansion, program leaders
need to engage in retrospective analysis and analyze feedback from individuals involved in the
implementation process about effective and ineffective strategies. In addition, all program
leaders emphasized the benefit of connecting and collaborating with key DLE organizations,
peer international schools, and universities. This finding aligns with the QIF concerning
retrospective analysis and the application of future practice in addition to the Guiding Principles
in periodic self-reflection and evaluation to promote continual improvement. This study
contributes to a new understanding of connecting and collaborating with research institutions and
peer schools.
International schools are uniquely positioned to reimagine and reinvent a linguistically
and culturally responsive system through the quality implementation of DLIPs. This theme is
related to the future of DLIP in international schools in terms of its articulated pathway and
130
scope of implementation. There is a need to increase the availability of DLIPs for the increased
prevalence of multilingual and multicultural learners in international schools. With the changing
student demographics, international schools are at a critical point and uniquely positioned to
reimagine international education linguistically and culturally responsive to its students and
families.
Overarching Theme 2: Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Leadership
The linguistically and culturally responsive practices in DLIP implementation emerged as
the necessary drivers of change in this transformed schooling experience for multilingual
learners. In the absence of linguistically and culturally responsive leadership and a systematic
approach to program planning and implementation, a high-quality DLIP would not exist.
Findings 5 through 8 are related to linguistically and culturally responsive leadership practices in
DLIP implementation, which are quintessential to the successful implementation of high-quality
DLIPs that fulfill the core goals of DLE. The participants described the knowledge, skills,
mindsets, and dispositions of linguistically and culturally responsive program leaders
implementing the Chinese-English DLIP at their school sites. I categorized them into four critical
dual language leadership competencies in the findings section. Although many of these traits are
necessary for monolingual programs, the findings indicate that for DLIPs, those competencies
are heightened and amplified to realize the core goals of DLE. Next, I will summarize the four
findings under the overarching theme of linguistically and culturally responsive leadership in
dual language immersion.
The fifth finding regarding dual language leadership competency of visioning emphasizes
that DLIP leaders are visionary change agents who establish, communicate, and mobilize others
to fulfill the vision of a high-quality DLIP that creates linguistically and culturally equitable
131
schooling in a profoundly interconnected and transformed world. First, DLIP leaders or
leadership teams need to be bilingual and biliterate. They have profound knowledge and
understanding of the target language and culture, which is Chinese in the case of a Chinese-
English DLIP. They need to possess strong interpersonal skills to listen, communicate, and
understand others in a linguistically and culturally sensitive and responsive way. They have an
inclusive mindset and are willing to listen to diverse voices. They constantly act as a bridge
between languages, literacies, cultures, ideologies, and people, and they bring them together as
an inclusive and equitable community that serves all students and families. While it is difficult to
require each leader to be bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural, as a team, they should be able to
facilitate conversations and interactions with all families, allowing them to feel more welcome
and invested in the program and school. As a team, they should be able to manage difficult
conversations regarding power, privilege, and oppression in international education and language
programs.
DLIP leaders need to keep the program and school vision and mission alive by
establishing a shared program philosophy based on bilingualism, biliteracy, and sociocultural
competence, honoring both languages and intentionally elevating the status of the target
language, anchoring in sociocultural competence when envisioning and communicating the
program vision, connecting any decision-making with established beliefs, bringing others along
and empowering them to realize this shared vision. Those qualities align with the literature in
that DLIP leadership is about developing, maintaining, and realizing the vision and goals for the
program (Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Izquierdo & Spies, 2014; Menken, 2017). They also echo the
ideas seen in the literature, i.e., leaders are in the position to transform educators’ underlying
beliefs about the communities they teach, the program’s vision, mission, goals, and the students
132
they serve (Blankstein, 2012; Tabet-Cubero, 2014). It also conforms with DLIP research,
indicating DLIP implementation is a systemic action that requires intentionally and purposefully
redesigning the system (Mason, 2014, as cited in Collier & Thomas, 2014).
The sixth finding of dual language leadership competency of advocacy demonstrates that
DLIP leaders are advocates and liaisons who value and advocate for all linguistic and cultural
groups and promote linguistic and cultural equity and community partnership. It aligns with the
literature in terms of the necessity of advocacy-oriented leadership in DLE (Alanis & Rodriquez,
2008; Bivins, 2014; Herman et al., 2016; Marzano et al., 2005; Sanchez, 2014; Slavin et al.,
2000), and the practice of involving families and community members as strategic partners
(Howard et al., 2007). The study highlights that planning and implementation need to respond to
the students’ and families’ demographic changes and their experiences and feedback on the
program. It also draws attention to valuing all linguistic and cultural groups in communication
and decision-making by establishing dedicated roles in parent liaison, bilingual principals,
bilingual specialist teachers, librarians, learning support teachers, etc.
The seventh finding concerning the dual language leadership competency of facilitation
highlights that DLIP leaders are facilitators and champions who recruit all students who might
benefit from the program. DLIP leaders are highly effective dual language educators, and
facilitate continuous and embedded professional learning, staff cohesion, and collegiality. This
finding aligns with the literature that program leaders need to recruit and retain high-quality DLI
teaching staff (Collier & Thomas, 2014; Howard et al., 2007) and to possess the right mindset
and firm beliefs of asset-based and tailored professional development to the needs of dual
language educators (Herman et al., 2016; Master et al., 2016; Valdes et al., 2015), as well as to
facilitate collaboration and collegiality among staff (Hunt, 2011; Jaar, 2017; Torres-Guzman &
133
Swinney, 2009). The study provides practical recommendations for program leaders such as
recruiting students from diverse linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds, evaluating
a whole person, focusing on potential when recruiting dual language educators, hiring local
teachers who can teach the needed subjects, elevating the status of Chinese-speaking teachers
and creating a culture of linguistic and cultural equity in and out of classrooms.
The eighth finding in regard to dual language leadership competency of stewardship
underscores that DLIP leaders are stewards of the program who have a profound understanding
of the research-based theories and practices, knowledge, and skills to ensure high-quality DLIP
implementation. This finding aligns with the literature regarding the stewardship demands of
DLIP leaders. DLIP leaders must have a clear and profound understanding of the research-based
theories and practices of the program model and instructional practices (Alanis & Rodriquez,
2008; Howard et al., 2007; Hunt, 2011; Sanchez, 2014). Furthermore, the finding aligns with the
literature regarding the necessity to possess knowledge and skills to fully implement the program
with quality (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2016; Howard et al., 2007; Hunt, 2011). This is critical
as it illustrates the practical experiences of providing stewardship and problem solving for DLIPs
in international schools. This study revealed that all the participants have had extensive
experience in DLE or second language acquisition. They are all bilingual and biliterate and have
formed a clear philosophy and strong belief in DLE, the features of high-quality programs, and
the criteria for effective dual language teachers and teacher support. In addition, all program
leaders have been engaged in ongoing professional learning to cultivate the skills and
dispositions necessary to lead DLIPs and have established partnerships, collaboration, and
networking with professional organizations and peer schools.
134
In summary, the review of literature for this study confirms the two overarching themes
and subthemes. As a result, the theory developed from this study is that DLIP implementation is
a systematic process that requires linguistically and culturally responsive program leaders or
leadership teams to plan extensively and implement programs through organized, step-by-step
procedures. The findings are valuable for DLIP leaders as they also provide knowledge learned
from practical experiences that will be of excellent service to schools planning or implementing
DLIPs.
Implications for Practice
This study examined the implementation process of high-quality Chinese-English DLIPs
in international schools. It also identified the promising leadership practices utilized by program
leaders. Understanding the implementation process is crucial to ensuring the high-quality
implementation of a DLIP. Defining these leadership practices is relevant to effectively
supporting DLIPs as leadership is second only to the teacher in impacting student learning in the
school environment (Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011). As DLIPs are emerging and
expanding in international schools, linguistically and culturally responsive program leaders who
understand the guiding principles of dual language education and the science of implementation
are crucial to implementing high-quality programs. The findings of this study address many of
the critical gaps in knowledge about the program implementation process, international
education, and Chinese-English DLIPs. Next, I will describe the implications for AISSA in its
journey of program implementation, expansion, enhancement, and reinvigoration. I will also
provide a more general recommendation for other international schools in a similar process.
135
Implications for AISSA
The findings from this study offered a clear understanding of the overall implementation
process and promising leadership practices with various program structural, curricular, human
resource, professional learning, and community involvement implications. Leadership practices
are complex and challenging yet are vital to program success, as a lack of administrative support
was present in every case of failed implementation (Mayers et al., 2012). This finding connects
to the literature and confirms the challenges of DLIP leadership needs and the lack of qualified
and experienced DLE leaders. As AISSA moves beyond the initial establishment and growth of
its DLIP, it is at a critical stage that calls for linguistically and culturally responsive dual
language program leaders who can address the unique features of the Chinese language, literacy,
cultural issues pertaining to program implementation, refinement, sustainability, and
improvement. Each year, AISSA will add two classes to the next grade level, and program
implementation will be ongoing. Unavoidable problems and issues will need to be addressed
every year. The results and implications of this study have led to a variety of recommendations
that could play an essential role in improving the existing DLIP and implementing it in the new
grades. AISSA has invested significant time and resources in its Chinese-English DLIP over the
past 5 years; that work aligns with the school’s strategic goals of implementing innovative
programs, strengthening school culture and shared core values, and promoting diversity equity,
inclusion, and belonging throughout the community. Therefore, AISSA should take note of the
implications drawn from this study’s research and findings, i.e., identify, cultivate, and empower
Chinese-speaking program leaders; define the program vision and mission; establish an
implementation team; document and develop an implementation plan; create ongoing structure;
and address challenges in a timely and efficient manner. Each implication is explained below.
136
Program Director
Any program implementation is complex and dynamic. With the added complexity of a
DLIP in an international school setting, it can be overwhelming for principals and often
misunderstood by administrators, non-DLIP teachers, and the greater community. It takes an
extraordinary amount of organized planning, coordination, and energy to provide ongoing
support for the program. Meeting those needs requires focused attention, dedicated time, distinct
roles, and actions. In addition, principals and the office of learning directors all have their
primary roles and responsibilities. As they do not necessarily possess dual language leadership
competencies, it is necessary to appoint personnel such as a program director dedicated to this
task as their primary responsibility. Ideally, the program director has the knowledge, skills,
mindsets, and disposition of a linguistically competent and culturally responsive leader to
equitably support staff, students, and families. The dual language program director will lead the
program in the following areas: program planning, implementation, and evaluation; curriculum
development and coordination; assessment and accountability; learning support program
development and implementation; coaching and capacity building for teachers and
administrators; community partnership; recruiting and retaining high-quality teaching staff;
networking with academic, research and professional organizations and peer international
schools. Once a Chinese-speaking program leader is identified, AISSA needs to provide them
with adequate support that will empower them to undertake a variety of tasks. Some necessary
support can include developing and implementing a personalized plan for job-embedded
professional learning needed, assigning a mentor or sponsor, and providing a place at the table as
a key opinion leader and decision-maker.
137
Implementation Team
An implementation team is a minimal requirement for creating the structure for quality
program implementation (Howard et al., 2007; Meyers et al., 2012). AISSA should develop an
implementation team with clear roles and responsibilities for each team member, avoiding
duplication, including critical perspectives, and promoting shared leadership to gauge expertise
within the community. A DLIP thrives with strong, effective, and knowledgeable leadership that
assesses the capacity, negotiates, collaborates, creates buy-in, promotes ownership, assigns tasks,
and oversees the program implementation. With the DLIP director as the point person whose
primary role is leading the DLIP, other key opinion leaders and decision-makers can employ
their areas of expertise regarding clearly defined program processes and procedures such as staff
recruitment and training, program planning, and budget management, etc. With an
implementation team, research-based and data-driven decision-making would be possible in
consultation with key stakeholders and the larger community. This implementation team should
include a wide range of perspectives, such as the principal, the office of learning academic
personnel, Chinese and English teaching staff representatives, support program personnel,
admission personnel, parent representatives, and any community advocates for the program.
Implementation Plan
Quality implementation depends on organized, extensive, and continuous planning. The
implementation plan is created to identify critical components, features, and critical steps and
actions for high-quality implementation. It describes what will happen and who will accomplish
the tasks related to delivering the DLIP and overseeing its implementation. Thus, it needs to
include essential elements such as establishing a clearly defined program mission, vision and
beliefs, family and community care and engagement, staff quality and professional development,
138
curriculum design and development, collaboration, networking, etc. I will provide a few
examples of critical components that should be included in the implementation plan. This list is
not exhaustive, and readers are encouraged to refer to Chapter Four for more information.
Define the Program’s Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals. Without shared values and
beliefs, teachers can only operate on their individual beliefs. AISSA is advised to restart with
Implementation Phase 1 and sort out what is fundamental to the program. AISSA needs to
collaborate with a group of stakeholders representing the school community to develop a shared
vision. Articulated and shared beliefs should be communicated to all stakeholders and inform
planning and implementation. All instructional staff should be able to articulate and explain what
each belief statement means. Any information on the dual language program website should be
available in both program languages. The implementation team should engage in consistent two-
way communications with all stakeholders, and the team needs to review their communication
effectiveness regularly.
Create a Language Policy. AISSA needs to develop a school-wide language policy and
a specific one for its DLIP. A language policy varies for each school, but it should articulate the
values and beliefs regarding language and culture equity as a school. It needs to provide a
framework that ensures linguistic support for students from various linguistic and cultural
backgrounds. In addition, it needs to describe its DLIP’s core goals in detail and explain its
practices, policies, and procedures. That information needs to be organized and published on the
school’s website, official social media account, school presentations, and email communications.
In addition, the language policy needs to be regularly reviewed. A detailed review process needs
to be in place, and the dual language program director or the program leadership team must be
responsible for its implementation and monitoring process.
139
Develop a Biliteracy Curriculum Framework. AISSA needs a plan for curriculum
development that was developed with all stakeholder involvement, an articulated and
documented scope, and sequence. A biliteracy curriculum development framework and
implementation plan should be made available to the teaching staff, and a method for periodical
reviewing and revising set in place. That will enable each grade level to design and implement
their units consistently. Another critical component of the implementation plan is to develop a
school-wide plan for promoting sociocultural competence, which is completely omitted in the
current program. The same is true with a structured process of curriculum coordination within
and across all grade levels, which will influence the curriculum development and implementation
plan. The program director can be responsible for this task. Another essential element of the plan
is a clear P–12th-grade pathway to provide sustained target language instruction and lead to the
seal of biliteracy, Advanced Placement credit, or other similar measures.
Develop a Systematic Staff Professional Development Program. AISSA should design
a systematic staff development program for its DLIP implementation team and teaching staff. It
is imperative when onboarding new teaching staff and establishing new grade levels. Equally
important, some fundamental learning about teaching multilingual students and promoting
sociocultural competence should be made available to all teachers and leaders in the school;
otherwise, a DLIP is easily excluded, isolated and forgotten, or seen as an elitist program a
school within a school. Others should be exposed to and have basic knowledge and
understanding of the DLIP related to its philosophy, instructional practices, and challenges. It is
critical to include the considerations of the program in school-wide decision-making. The
specific needs of the DLIP program should be considered prior to any decisions have been made.
140
Engage the Family and Community. A significant feature of a successful and effective
program is a robust family and community engagement infrastructure (National Academies,
2017). AISSA should consider having a family and community care and engagement plan so
families can stay informed and involved in any program changes. In addition to some ad hoc
parent coffees, AISSA can consider the following effective practices: designating a staff member
as a family liaison; hiring bilingual staff members; facilitating meaningful family learning
activities; addressing DLIP research and practices; developing a parent site, support group,
educational workshops; and ensuring that an open and accessible way of communication is in
place to increase involvement and partnership building.
Collaborate With Experts and Peer Schools. Forming professional relationships with
peer international schools would support the development of classroom materials, teacher
training, professional learning, and student achievement benchmarking. Through the interviews
with the program leaders, I have connected with many schools and programs. Most of them are
excited about connecting and collaborating with AISSA. For example, Capital International
School’s administrator would love to meet with representatives from AISSA to share
assessments used and successful instructional practices. It is an excellent opportunity for AISSA
to learn from other leading and innovative schools in DLIP with comparable student and parent
demographics.
Ongoing Support Structures
Organized and streamlined structuring of the ongoing support system will enable the
program director and implementation team to lead the program effectively. As facilitators and
stewards of the program, the program director and the implementation team need to provide
instructional leadership focusing on developing and supporting systems, structures, and routines
141
that prioritize and focus on culturally responsive curriculum, high-quality teaching, and
assessment to achieve the program goals. It includes but is not limited to curriculum
development support, instructional support, adult learning and development, teacher evaluation,
and operations and resource management.
Curriculum Development and Implementation Support. After the dual language
program director leads the implementation team in developing the biliteracy curriculum
framework and curriculum development plan and procedures, one teacher on a special
assignment (TOSA) will lead the advancement of the new curriculum collaboratively with grade-
level teachers or the curriculum committee. Input and feedback will be solicited from the
teaching staff, students, and families. Teachers should be freed from constant curriculum
development and resource development tasks to shift their focus to instruction and relationship-
building with their students and families. The TOSA can support teachers in unit planning and
resource preparation with a shared curriculum development framework, procedures, clearly
identified standards, and unit planning tools. The program director can be the person to liaise
with the TOSA and teachers in coordinating and monitoring the development process to ensure
fidelity and effectiveness. In terms of curriculum implementation, the program director will lead
the implementation team to provide training and coaching on research-based instructional
methods for DLE, such as appropriate separation of languages for instruction, sheltered strategies
to support language and concept development, language arts instruction based on language-
specific standards, integration of language, content, and culture in all content area lessons, a
variety of instructional techniques including cooperative learning and flexible grouping, etc.
Equally important is providing training and coaching in culturally responsive teaching practices
in Chinese and English classrooms.
142
Adult Learning and Development. Linguistical and cultural responsiveness is at the
center of dual language pedagogies. The program director and the implementation team should
be tasked with an adult learning and development program for all instructional staff. That means
the implementation team members should constantly engage in personal learning in linguistically
and culturally responsive practices to better understand the DLIP model, structure, goals,
instructional strategies, etc. By engaging in collective and public learning experiences in
linguistically and culturally responsive ways, all AISSA educators will demonstrate an
understanding of the relationship between standards, curriculum, and assessment in DLIPs,
which is a highly effective way to establish and nurture systems of shared leadership in
achieving the core goals of DLE. With the ongoing capacity building in the community, AISSA
will be able to gradually build and strengthen the ecological fit of the DLIP in its existing
structure and system and create a welcoming and inclusive environment and culture that is
beneficial to all students and families.
Operations and Resources. The dual language program director and the implementation
team must manage the program operations and resources to ensure a smooth daily operation and
effective problem-solving. The principal can provide more support in creating implementation
systems, structures, policies, and procedures that ensure safe, supportive, and equitable
operations. Some tasks include managing and allocating resources, troubleshooting, resolving
conflicts arising from competing priorities, and supporting high-quality dual language
instructional staff recruitment and retention. There should be a long-term budget for dual
language resources, including professional learning, materials, and staffing, such as a bilingual
librarian, a learning support teacher, and bilingual specialist teachers.
143
Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluating System
Effective process evaluation is inseparable from successful program implementation.
Assessing the implementation process and outcomes will enable AISSA to conduct critical
analysis and reflection. AISSA should create process monitoring and data management systems
to facilitate analysis and responsive action planning to ensure continuous improvement, set
measurable goals, identify data sources, and review data regularly to monitor the implementation
process and make course corrections.
Create and Maintain a System for Process Monitoring. AISSA needs to create a
system to monitor and evaluate the strengths and limitations of its DLIP implementation as it
unfolds over time. Data are needed on how well different program elements are being
implemented and the performance of individuals implementing the program. Documentation of
such a process is critical to keep the program's consistency and integrity, especially when
international schools' teacher and leadership turnover is relatively high. The process monitoring
system should include data collection tools such as a walkthrough protocol, a survey to gather
perceptions from staff, families, and community members, a program implementation rubric, and
data reflection protocols to learn from data and the means to identify causes of problems and to
strategize for improvement.
Create and Maintain a Comprehensive Data Management System. AISSA should
collect and analyze data on multiple indicators of student learning to uncover patterns, trends,
and other characteristics. AISSA should also systematically collect students’ demographic data
to conduct disaggregated data analysis to monitor how well the program serves different student
subgroups. It is essential to compare this data, such as the data of the mainstream English
program and English language learning programs. Thus, AISSA can better monitor and serve all
144
student groups as a school. In addition, with a comprehensive data management system for the
DLIP, AISSA will be ready to have adequate formative and summative data as core components
of the upcoming program review. Suppose AISSA fails to plan and implement a data system and
never engages in any modification or expansion of data collection efforts, AISSA will not be
able to conduct an informative and comprehensive program evaluation. Next, AISSA needs to
regularly communicate with appropriate stakeholders about the program outcomes transparently
and proactively. AISSA should create tools, processes, and systems to ensure that data are
accessible to and understood by all staff, students, families, and other school community
members.
Redesign Teacher Evaluation. Teacher evaluation should be used as cultivation,
empowerment, and an opportunity to learn and grow. Administrators who are linguistically
competent and culturally responsive are in a better position to conduct teacher evaluations.
Overall, the dual language program director can be the point of contact, providing instructional
leadership, and leading shared decision-making with the implementation team. As AISSA
implements its coaching model and builds a culture of instructional focused feedback, the
program director, together with the implementation team, can establish clear performance
expectations for the dual language teaching staff, provide coaching and learning opportunities
supported by the formal evaluation process, and hold staff accountable to meeting performance
expectations. The program leadership team should establish clear performance expectations and
use multiple data points to assess teaching effectiveness. They should also provide transparent
and honest feedback and assume the responsibility of designing and facilitating professional
learning and coaching experiences. For instance, the learning support specialist might be in the
best position to provide training and coaching for the DLIP instructional staff to support students
145
with additional needs. The English language teachers might shed light on English language
acquisition with the English teaching staff. Since a DLIP is integrated into the multiple systems
of the school, a shared teacher evaluation and improvement system is recommended to ensure
numerous data points are collected and facilitate collaboration and continuous improvement.
Create Effective Feedback Mechanisms. AISSA needs to design a process to
communicate, discuss, and act on process monitoring and evaluation findings. AISSA should
appreciate the perspectives and insights of the practitioners and families for their constructive
feedback and act on that feedback. Timely response to process evaluation is paramount to
program improvement, and prolonged nonaction will exacerbate existing problems and harm the
overall effectiveness of program implementation.
Cycles of Continuous Improvement
AISSA should periodically reflect on lessons learned and identify further professional
and personal learning needs, skill development, and organizational growth opportunities.
Continuous improvement should be an ongoing process of setting goals, measuring progress,
addressing challenges, and adjusting plans to improve implementation and practice. AISSA
cannot afford waiting for a final program evaluation step when its DLIP is completed. AISSA
needs to conduct self-evaluations every year and engage in program evaluations regularly using
standards appropriate for dual language programs to guide program improvement. Those
practices will enable AISSA to identify issues, create solutions, and implement and evaluate the
effectiveness of those solutions. AISSA should establish genuine collaborative relationships with
instructional staff, students, and families and work with DLE researchers, organizations, and peer
schools to improve future implementation.
146
Implications for Other International Schools
This study focused on how Chinese-English DLIPs have been implemented and
promising leadership practices utilized by high-performing peer international schools. DLIP
implementation is a systematic process that requires linguistically and culturally responsive
program leaders and leadership teams to plan extensively and implement the program in
organized, step-by-step procedures. As DLIPs are emerging and expanding in international
schools, strong dual language program leaders who understand the program’s components and
needs should ensure those programs are additive, rigorous, providing equitable access, and
producing equitable outcomes. Therefore, to successfully implement or continue to improve a
Chinese-English DLIP in an international school setting, schools should take note of the
following implications derived from the overarching themes:
• Successful program implementation calls for linguistically and culturally responsive
leaders who have the knowledge, skills, mindsets, and dispositions to implement
high-quality DLIPs.
• DLIP implementation is a systematic process that requires linguistically and
culturally responsive program leaders to lead the extensive planning and organized
step-by-step implementation process.
Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Leaders
Through this study, I drew attention to the necessity of competent dual language program
leaders who will courageously assume the roles and responsibilities, navigate the systemic
challenges, explore the possibilities, and activate the innovative and inclusive practices of DLE.
In the next section, I will provide general recommendations to schools seeking to design,
147
implement, enhance, or reinvigorate a DLIP to achieve bilingualism and biliteracy, academic
achievements, and sociocultural competence for their students.
Identify Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Leaders. Schools are advised to
identify educators or leaders who are bilingual, biliterate, preferably in Chinese and English,
with extensive academic and professional background in second language acquisition, literacy
development, curriculum design, and administrative knowledge and skills. As mentioned in the
findings, the data collected about program leaders’ personal and professional backgrounds
revealed that all the participants were bilingual and biliterate. All of them are Chinese speaking
except the CIS elementary school principal, who has an extensive academic and professional
background in applied linguistics and English language learning. More critically, schools are
encouraged to identify culturally responsive leaders or educators who possess and demonstrate
the mindsets and dispositions of culturally responsive leadership based on the four competencies
of linguistically and culturally responsive leaders in dual language education: visionary,
advocacy, facilitation, and stewardship.
This study provides schools with a concrete way to identify promising leaders because
the recommendations are listed as practices and actions program leaders would take to ensure
quality implementation. They act as steadfast visionaries and change agents who call for a
cultural shift and transform educators’ and parents’ underlying beliefs on international education
for multilingual students. They demonstrate sensitivity to the evolving demographics and the
increasingly interconnected world, and they have the vision to redesign and transform
international education for multilingual learners. They are the disruptors and co-conspirators
pushing for change and improvement rather than maintaining the status quo. Those valuable
148
educators, especially Chinese-speaking leaders, are assets to the program and the school; they
need to be recognized and deliberately cultivated and empowered.
Cultivate Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Leaders. Linguistically and
culturally competent school leaders may not readily exist in high numbers. Still, the
characteristics and practices can be learned and replicated (Hitt & Tucker, 2016), such as those
mentioned in the promising practices as facilitators and stewards. Schools can provide technical
support and necessary training and mentorship for promising Chinese-speaking leaders to
facilitate tasks such as recruiting and retaining high-quality educators, providing professional
learning in the dual language context, and promoting staff cohesion and collegiality. In addition,
practices such as program supervision and teacher evaluation can be acquired, practiced, and
coached if those linguistically and culturally responsive leaders are recognized and entrusted
with new and additional roles. The development of dual language program leaders needs to
consider the diversity of the individual involved. Schools can take a personalized pathway to
cultivate linguistically and culturally responsive dual language leaders. If a school is blessed with
a Chinese-English bilingual administrator with a solid academic background, pedagogical
content knowledge, and professional dispositions and experiences in DLE, it can provide
professional learning in quality program implementation and strategic professional development
in DLIP. In the absence of such an administrator, a Chinese-English bilingual educator who has
adequate knowledge and skills in DLIP could be identified and cultivated with administrative
and supervisory skills and the ability to engage and navigate the relationships among various
stakeholders. Nevertheless, it is valuable to cultivate shared leadership and intentionally build
dual language leadership capacity; as such, shared leadership will provide more opportunities to
collaborate and innovate and create higher stability and sustainability for the program.
149
Empower Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Leaders. Once those potential
leaders are identified and cultivated, they need to be empowered and sustained. Schools should
ask themselves if there are resources equitably devoted to Chinese-English dual language-
focused professional development. Schools should create a leadership development program that
provides mentoring, coaching, and professional networking for Chinese-speaking leaders to
prepare them to assume more challenging leadership positions. Building a cohesive, unified
community in schools with immersion strands is challenging and complicated, so the
administration and the board need to be patient, knowledgeable, and understanding. Non-Chinese
administrators should take a genuine interest in learning as much as possible about the Chinese
language and culture, and they should communicate an expectation that English-speaking faculty
and staff make the same efforts to be open to learning (Bissell & Berg, 2018). That’s how
schools can build a cohesive community with adults modeling the behaviors and attitudes that
DLE is created to cultivate. It is the responsibility of the school administration to understand and
remove socio-cultural barriers and accept and appreciate the rich linguistic and cultural resources
Chinese-speaking leaders possess, coupled with their academic and professional knowledge,
skills, and experience in international education. It is critical to provide them with opportunities
to grow and leverage their funds of knowledge to make a more significant contribution to the
program and community.
Systematic Process and Critical Steps and Strategies
DLIP implementation is a whole school endeavor. It touches and tests the existing school
system and structure if it is a strand within an international school. My program implementation
recommendation is geared towards those schools. Dual language schools can simply skip some
150
of the steps when planning their programs or start from the beginning if they are implementing
an additional program such as a satellite program or experiential learning program.
Assess Host Setting and Create an Ecological Fit. High-quality DLIP planning starts
with critical initial considerations regarding the school context to create an ecological fit and
build a strong foundation. Without a strong foundation, there will be no alignment and no
coherence. Identify, cultivate, and empower linguistically competent and culturally responsive
leaders who will collaboratively develop a shared program and school mission, vision, and core
values and beliefs for linguistically and culturally responsive teaching and learning that benefits
all students. This shared understanding and ownership of the mission, vision, and beliefs among
all school community members are vital to guide any decision-making and continuous
improvement. This work is done by vigorous self-assessment, considerations about program
model adaptation, and building capacity in the community.
Build an Implementation Team and Plan. Structural features for high-quality DLIP
planning should minimally include an implementation team and plan. The team should be
inclusive of various voices and stakeholders and clearly articulate the actions and timelines of
program planning, implementation, and improvement. Schools should consistently evaluate
decisions for effectiveness in advancing the program goals. Schools can partner with a DLE
consultant who shares the same beliefs to assist the program design and planning process.
Create a Continuing Structure. High-quality DLIP implementation relies on adequate
ongoing support, process monitoring, and supportive feedback mechanisms. Schools need to
develop and support the systems, structures, and routines that prioritize and focus on providing
dual language-specific professional learning and coaching for teaching staff and monitoring the
program implementation process to respond with modification and intervention. In the
151
meantime, documenting the process is especially important for international schools as
leadership and faculty are quite mobile, and transitions and changes of leadership might be more
frequent. Clear documentation and articulation of structures and systems can ensure institutional
knowledge and experience stays with the program. The program can help effectively onboard
new teachers and new program leaders.
Learn and Connect. Learning from experience and connecting with others can improve
future applications. Schools need to react constructively to disappointment and difficulties
encountered while implementing their DLIPs. It takes tremendous courage and integrity to admit
errors and learn from mistakes and setbacks. Staying connected with professional organizations
and research institutions in DLE will ensure schools and programs are current with the most
advanced knowledge and information. Networking and collaboration with peer international
schools will support the dissemination of experiential knowledge and collaboration among
educators.
For programs in the implementation process, they should first go back to the foundations
and critically examine and reflect if they have a solid and shared understanding of their mission,
vision, beliefs, and values. It is never too late to establish or re-establish the fundamental beliefs
and philosophy of the program. Schools can consider engaging in self-assessment or with a
knowledgeable and experienced partner to start an examination of where the school stands, such
as reviewing documents, the program structure, curriculum, and professional learning that has
happened, what assessments are being used and what training has been given to the
administrators, staff, and families. CAL’s Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education
offers a comprehensive tool to engage in self-assessment and evaluation. Chinese Early
Language and Immersion Network also provides a tool for Chinese-English DLIP assessment.
152
With the data gathered from those assessments, schools can go back to the planning phase and
reconsider the factors that should have been addressed but were missed or inadequately
considered, such as adaptation and capacity building and an implementation team and plan.
Although the implementation framework is illustrated in temporal order, it is always advisable to
revert to or revisit any phases when needed because implementation is a dynamic process. It does
not always occur in the exact sequence of steps. However, lack of staff buy-in and lack of
administrative support has been present in every case of failed implementation (Meyers et al.,
2012). Therefore, I would recommend examining the community capacity and leadership needs.
Schools that have successfully established programs and are thinking about
reinvigoration should focus on critical self-reflection, examine the most current literature and
research, and implement the findings of a program review. While much of the attention is
focused on academic achievement and partner language proficiency, I call for reflection on the
program’s mission, vision, and values. As programs are maturing, schools should consider
learning from and supporting peer schools. Several common challenges and barriers can impede
the quality of implementation of dual language programs in international schools. Successful
schools and programs should proactively reach out and generously support other schools in their
journey.
International schools are uniquely positioned to reimagine and reinvent linguistically and
culturally responsive international education through the quality implementation of DLIPs. In an
increasingly connected world where many international schools are searching for their renewed
social and educational identities, I would highly recommend they start reimaging and reinventing
international education by critically reflecting on their identities, values, privileges, oppressions
and taking a stand with courageous actions in serving all students and families with honor,
153
dignity, respect, and critical love. One of those actions is implementing a high-quality dual
language program for all students and families.
Future Research
This study focused on implementing Chinese-English DLIP in international schools from
the program leaders’ perspective. AISSA can effectively and successfully continue implementing
and improving its Chinese-English DLIP within the elementary school and expand it to
secondary school. An analysis of the data identified the temporal process of quality
implementation and promising practices used by peer international schools. Researchers should
collect data from key stakeholders such as DLIP teachers, parents, and upper elementary students
to better understand the implementation process and promising leadership practices. Yet, a few
international schools have developed and implemented DLIP in their secondary schools, so it
would be insightful to conduct a study of secondary school program implementation in a few
years once the secondary programs or pathways have been completed. All participants
mentioned the difficulty and lack of research and resources in Chinese literacy development and
biliteracy development in DLIPs. They all have shared their practice, knowledge, and lessons
learned over the years of exploration and experimentation. It is suggested that further research is
needed to understand Chinese literacy curriculum development and biliteracy development with
Chinese as the partner language in international schools. Most international schools offer
Chinese as a world language with a heritage or near-native track for Chinese speakers; it would
be insightful to conduct a study to compare the learning outcomes of different programs for both
native Chinese speakers and non-native Chinese speakers in respect to the three core goals:
bilingualism and biliteracy, academic achievement, and sociocultural competence. With that data
in hand, it will guide international schools in reimagining and reforming their programming and
154
provide data for parents as they grapple with choosing international education for their children
and maintaining and sustaining their heritage, identity, and language in the international and
global education space.
Conclusions
There is a growing recognition of the significance and effectiveness of DLE in promoting
language proficiency and academic achievement of both English as additional language learners
and native English speakers for the future of a deeply connected world. All international schools
highly value international-mindedness and global citizenship education. Aiming to prepare
future-ready bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural students, DLIP leaders, must be equipped with
knowledge, skills, mindsets, and dispositions to implement high-quality programs. Merely
adopting the dual language or bilingual name and some model components will not necessarily
result in bilingualism, biliteracy, academic achievements, and sociocultural competence. A
challenge for all international schools in understanding the process and critical steps and
strategies to implement high-quality Chinese-English DLIPs in a global school setting.
Confirmed by the literature and program leaders’ practical experiences, this study reveals that
DLIP implementation is a systematic process that requires linguistically and culturally
responsive program leaders to plan extensively and implement organized step-by-step
procedures.
AISSA is aspiring to implement a high-quality DLIP program that aligns with the core
goals depicted in CAL’s Guiding Principles. This study aimed to examine the process and
leadership practices of implementing high-quality Chinese-English DLIPs in an international
school setting so that AISSA can strengthen and expand its program successfully. AISSA has
invested significant time and resources into the program, and it is part of the strategic priority for
155
the school. AISSA can learn from other international schools that have successfully implemented
a Chinese-English DLIP by understanding the implementation process and adopting some
promising leadership practices through this study. Further research is needed within international
schools to understand the process and its impact from multiple perspectives. In addition, it calls
for more research on Chinese literacy curriculum development, cultivation of sociocultural
competence, and promotion of high levels of biliteracy development in DLIP settings.
156
References
Aguirre-Baeza, L. (2001). Creating two-way dual language schools through effective
leadership. Educational Horizons, 79(4), 167–170.
Alanis, I., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2008). Sustaining a dual language immersion program: Features
of success. Journal of Latinos and Education, 7(4), 305–319.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348430802143378
Alfaro, C., & Hernández, A. M. (2016). A critical self-examination for dual language educators:
Ideology, pedagogy, access, and equity (IPAE). The Multilingual Educator, 8(11), 479–
488.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (n.d.). Seal of biliteracy updated
implementation guidelines focuses on equity and expansion.
https://www.actfl.org/resources/press-releases/seal-biliteracy-updated-implementation-
guidelines-focus-equity-and-expansion
Anderson, R. C., Ku, Y. M., Li, W., Chen, X., Wu, X., & Shu, H. (2013). Learning to see the
patterns in Chinese characters. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(1), 41–56.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.689789
Andreotti, V. D. O. (2011). (Towards) decoloniality and diversity in global citizenship education.
Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3), 381–397.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2011.605323
Aquino-Sterling, C. R., & Rodríguez-Valls, F. (2016). Developing teaching-specific Spanish
competencies in bilingual teacher education: Toward a culturally, linguistically, and
professionally relevant approach. Multicultural Perspectives, 18(2), 73–81.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2016.1152894
157
Asia Society. (n.d.). Chinese Early Language and Immersion Network.
https://asiasociety.org/china-learning-initiatives/chinese-early-language-and-immersion-
network
Baker, C. and Wright, W. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and
bilingualism (6th ed).
Multilingual Matters.
Bailey, A. L., & Carroll, P. E. (2015). Assessment of English language learners in the era of new
academic content standards. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 253–294.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14556074
Bamford, K. W., & Mizokawa, D. T. (1991). Additive‐bilingual (immersion) education:
Cognitive and language development. Language Learning, 41(3), 413–429.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00612.x
Bissell, J., & Berg, S. (2018). Immersion education: Creating an integrated school culture. In S.
C. Wang & J. K. Peyton (Eds.), CELIN Briefs Series. Asia Society.
Bivins, E. (2014). Parent groups in one school. In Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (Eds.),
Creating dual language schools for a transformed world: Administrators speak (pp. 120–
125). Dual Language Education of New Mexico/Fuente Press.
Blankstein, A. M. (2012). Failure is not an option: 6 principles that advance student
achievement in highly effective schools. Corwin Press.
Brooks, K., Adams, S., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2010). Creating inclusive learning communities
for ELL students: Transforming school principals’ perspectives. Theory Into Practice,
49(2), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841003641501
158
Calderón, M.E. & Minaya-Rowe, L. (2000). Designing and implementing two-way bilingual
programs. In R. E. Slavin, M. Calderón, & M. Calderon (Eds.), Effective programs for
Latino students. Routledge.
California Association of Bilingual Education. (2022). Dual language immersion planning
guide. https://www.gocabe.org/index.php/educators/professional-development/
Campbell, R. N., Gray, T. C., Rhodes, N. C., & Snow, M. A. (1985). Foreign language learning
in the elementary schools: A comparison of three language programs. Modern Language
Journal, 69, 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1985.tb02526.x
Cervantes-Soon, C. G., Dorner, L., Palmer, D., Heiman, D., Schwerdtfeger, R., & Choi, J.
(2017). Combating inequalities in two-way language immersion programs: Toward
critical consciousness in bilingual education spaces. Review of Research in Education,
41(1), 403–427. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X17690120
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for
enriched education. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Coleman, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2011). Promoting literacy development. The Education Digest,
76(6), 14. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ918878
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2021). Guide to schoolwide SEL
(3
rd
ed.). https://schoolguide.casel.org/resources/
Collier, V., & Thomas, W. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for
all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1–20.
Commins, N., & Nguyen, D. (2015). How should pre-service education programs prepare
educators to meet the needs of English language learners/emergent bilinguals relative to
Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards curricula.
159
Common core bilingual and English language learners: A resource for educators, 231–
232.
Corallo, C., & McDonald, D. H. (2002). What works with low-performing schools: A review of
research. AEL.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage Publications, Inc.
Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C. A. (2004). Languages and children: Making the match (3rd ed).
Pearson Education, Inc.
Dana, N. F. (2010). Teacher quality, job-embedded professional development, and school-
university partnerships. Teacher Education and Practice, 23, 321–325.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
https://www.education.uw.edu/ctp/sites/default/files/ctpmail/PDFs/LDH_1999.pdf
De Courcy, M. (1997). Benowa high: A decade of French immersion in Australia. In R. K.
Johnson, & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 44–
62). Cambridge University Press.
De Courcy, M. C. (2002). Learners' experiences of immersion education: Case studies in French
and Chinese. Multilingual Matters.
Dei, G. J. S., & Johal, G. S. G. (Ed.). (2005). Critical issues in anti-racist research methodology.
Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers.
Delavan, M. G., Valdez, V. E., & Freire, J. A. (2017). Language as whose resource?: When
global economics usurp the local equity potentials of dual language education.
160
International Multilingual Research Journal, 11(2), 86–100.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1204890
DeMatthews, D., & Izquierdo, E. (2016). School leadership for dual language education: A
social justice approach. The Educational Forum, 80(3), 278–293.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2016.1173152
DeMatthews, D. & Izquierdo, E. (2017) The importance of principals supporting dual language
education: A social justice leadership framework. Journal of Latinos and Education,
17(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2017.1282365
De Mejía, A. M. (2002). Power, prestige and bilingualism: International perspectives on
elite bilingual education. Multilingual Matters.
Dong, H. (2014). A history of the Chinese language. Routledge.
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the
influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting
implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3), 327–350.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐
based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.
https://gostrengths.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Meta-Analysis-Child-Development-
Full-Article1.pdf
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2016), Making content comprehensible for English
learners: The SIOP model (5th ed.). Pearson.
161
Effective Language Learning. (2021). Language difficulty ranking. Effective Language
Learning. Retrieved May 26, 2021, from Effective Language Learning.
https://effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-guide/language-difficulty/
Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., Sparrow, W., Soltero-González, L., Ruiz-Figueroa,
O., & Escamilla, M. (2014). Biliteracy from the start: Literacy squared in action (pp. 25–
26). Caslon Publishing.
Everson, M. E., Chang, K., & Ross, C. (2016). Developing initial literacy in Chinese. CELIN
Briefs Series. Asia Society. https://asiasociety.org/files/uploads/522files/2016-celin-brief-
developing-initial-literacy-in-chinese.pdf
Feinauer, E., & Howard, E. R. (2014). Attending to the third goal: Cross-cultural competence
and identity development in two-way immersion programs. Journal of Immersion and
Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.2.2.07fei
Fortune, T. W. (2012). What the research says about immersion. In Asia Society (Ed.), Chinese
language learning in the early grades: A handbook of resources and best practices for
Mandarin immersion (pp. 9–13).
García, O., Johnson, S. I., Seltzer, K., & Valdés, G. (2017). The translanguaging classroom:
Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon.
Gardner-McTaggart, A. (2014). International elite, or global citizens? Equity, distinction and
power: The International Baccalaureate and the rise of the South. Globalisation, Societies
and Education, 14(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.959475
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual
education. Newbury House.
162
Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating Language and Content: Lessons from Immersion. UC Berkeley:
Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/61c8k7kh
Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2016). CLIL in context practical guidance for educators.
Cambridge University Press.
Genesee, F., & Jared, D. (2008). Literacy development in early French immersion programs.
Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 140–147.
http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/perpg/fac/genesee/19.pdf
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Christian, D., Saunders, W., & Saunders, B. (2006). Educating
English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Cambridge University
Press.
Gleason, T. M. (2014). Are two-way immersion programs effective for English language
learners? (Publication No. 1557475) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles]. ProQuest LLC.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is right. Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction, 4, 162–183.
Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (2015). Memorisation strategies and the adolescent learner of
Mandarin Chinese as a foreign language. Linguistics and education, 31, 1–13.
Grissom, J., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools:
A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation.
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/principalsynthesis.
163
Goldenberg, C., & Wagner, K. (2015). Bilingual education: Reviving an American tradition.
American Educator, 39(3), 28.
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/ae_fall2015goldenberg_wagner.pdf
Guan, C. Q., Lui, Y., Chan, D. H. L., Ye, F., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Writing strengths
orthography and alphabetic-coding strengths phonology in learning to read Chinese.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 509–522. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023730
Hamayan, E. V., Genesee, F., & Cloud, N. (2013). Dual language instruction from A to Z:
Practical guidance for teachers and administrators. Heinemann.
Herman, R., Gates, S. M., Arifkhanova, A., Barrett, M., Bega, A., Chavez-Herrerias, E. R., Han,
E., Harris, M., Migacheva, K., Ross, R., Leschitz, J. T., & Wrabel, S. L. (2016). School
leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act: Evidence review. Rand
Corporation. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/School-
Leadership-Interventions-ESSA-Evidence-Review.pdf
Hernandez, S. J. (2017). Are they all language learners?: Educational labeling and raciolinguistic
identifying in a California middle school dual language program. CATESOL Journal,
29(1), 133–154. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1144334.pdf
Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: a model for change in business, government, and our community.
Prosci.
Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence
student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–
569. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315614911
Howard, E. R., Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2004). The development of bilingualism and
biliteracy from grade 3 to 5: A summary of findings from the CAL/CREDE study of two-
164
way immersion education. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity
& Excellence.
Howard, E. R., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., Rogers, D., Olague, N., Medina, J., Kennedy, B.,
Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2018). Guiding principles for dual language education
(3rd ed.). Center for Applied Linguistics.
Howard, E. R., Olague, N., & Rogers, D. (2003). The dual language program planner: A guide
for designing and implementing dual language programs. Center for Research on
Education, Diversity & Excellence. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED473083
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Coburn, C. (2006). Adapting the Sheltered Instruction
Observation Protocol (SIOP) for two-way immersion education: An introduction to the
TWIOP. Center for Applied Linguistics. https://cal.org/siop/pdfs/Adapting-SIOP-for-
Two-Way-Immersion-Education.pdf
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Rogers, D. (2007).
Guiding principles for dual language education. Center for Applied Linguistics.
Hunt, V. (2011). Learning from success stories: Leadership structures that support dual language
programs over time in New York City. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 14(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2010.539673
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. A&C Black.
International School of Beijing. (2021). The Dual Language Program at ISB. Retrieved May 25,
2021, from International School of Beijing. https://www.isb.bj.edu.cn/learn/es
International School Consultancy. (2018). Demand for international school education continues
to expand globally. https://www.iscresearch.com/news/isc-news/isc- news-
165
details/~post/demand-for-international-school-education-continues-to-expand- globally-
20170427
ISC Research. (2021). Latest ISC market data: May 2021. Retrieved May 25, 2021, from ISC
Research. https://www.iscresearch.com/
Izquierdo, E. & Spies, T. (2014). Conclusion: dual language leadership skills and dispositions. In
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (Eds.), Creating dual language schools for a
transformed world: Administrators speak. (pp. 90–93). Dual Language Education of New
Mexico/Fuente Press.
Jaar, A. (2017). Professional development of dual-language teachers: Learning communities as
potential sites of teacher identity, agency, and advocacy. (Publication No. 10275096)
[Doctoral Dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University]. ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing.
Jong, E. J. D. (2016). Two-way immersion for the next generation: Models, policies, and
principles. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(1), 6–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1118667
Kanagy, R., & Hai, G. D. (2001). Doing fine in a Japanese immersion classroom. In D. Christian,
& F. Genesee (Eds.), Bilingual education (pp. 139–150). Teachers of English to Speakers
of Other Languages.
Kaufman, M. J., Kaufman, S. R., & Nelson, E. C. (2015). Learning together: the law, politics,
economics, pedagogy, and neuroscience of early childhood education. Rowman &
Littlefield.
Kennedy, B. H. (2013). A qualitative case study of the bilingual teacher shortage in one Texas
school district. Lamar University-Beaumont.
166
Khalifa, M. (2020). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Press.
Knell, E., & West, H. (2015). Writing practice and Chinese character recognition in early
Chinese immersion students. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association,
50(3), 45–61.
Kornegay, S. (2021, January 11). UConn Researchers to Reimagine Dual Language Education.
Uconn Today. https://today.uconn.edu/2021/01/uconn-researchers-reimagine-dual-
language-education/#
Kotter, J. P., & Wyman, O. (2007). Leading change: An action plan from the world's foremost
expert on business leadership. Macmillan Audio.
Leadership Academy. (n.d.). Culturally responsive leadership: A framework for school & school
system leaders. https://www.leadershipacademy.org/resources/culturally-responsive-
leadership-a-framework-for-school-school-system-leaders/
Lee, J. S., & Jeong, E. (2013). Korean–English dual language immersion: perspectives of
students, parents and teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(1), 89–107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2013.765890
Lee‐Thompson, L. C. (2008). An investigation of reading strategies applied by American
learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 41(4), 702–721.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03326.x
Leithwood, K., & Seashore-Louis, K. (2011). Linking leadership to student learning. Jossey-
Bass.
Li, J., Steele, J. L., Slater, R., Bacon, M., & Miller, T. (2016). Implementing two-way dual-
language immersion programs: Classroom insights from an urban district.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9921.html
167
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual language education (Vol. 28). Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2005). The rich promise of two-way immersion. Educational Leadership,
62(4), 56–59.
https://www.dist50.net/cms/lib/IL02213585/Centricity/Domain/201/The%20Rich%20Pro
mise%20of%20TWI.pdf
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2012). Success and challenges in dual language education. Theory Into
Practice, 51(4), 256–262. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23362831
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2016). Bilingualism and academic achievement in children in dual
language programs. In E. Nicoladis & S. Montanari (Eds.), Bilingualism across the
lifespan: Factors moderating language proficiency (pp. 203–223). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14939-012
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Block, N. (2010). Achievement in predominantly low SES/Hispanic dual
language schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(1),
43–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050902777546
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic achievement. In F. Genesee, K.
Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language
learners (pp. 157–179). Cambridge University Press.
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Genesee, F. (2010). Alternative educational programs for English
learners. Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches (pp.
323–382). Center for Applied Linguistics.
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Howard, E. R. (2008). Language development and academic
achievement in two-way immersion programs. In T. Williams, & D. J. Tedick (Eds.),
168
Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education.
Multilingual Matters.
Liu, P. D., Chung, K. K., McBride-Chang, C., & Tong, X. (2010). Holistic versus analytic
processing: Evidence for a different approach to processing of Chinese at the word and
character levels in Chinese children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(4),
466–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.06.006
Lo, L. Y., Yeung, P. S., Ho, C. S. H., Chan, D. W. O., & Chung, K. (2016). The role of stroke
knowledge in reading and spelling in Chinese. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(4),
367–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12058
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Lü, C., Koda, K., Zhang, D., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Effects of semantic radical properties on
character meaning extraction and inference among learners of Chinese as a foreign
language. Writing Systems Research, 7(2), 169–185.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2014.955076
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in
second language acquisition, 20(1), 51–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226319800103X
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced
approach (Vol. 18). John Benjamins Publishing.
Mancuso, S., Roberts, L., & White, G.P. (2010). Teacher retention in international schools: The
key role of school leadership. Journal of Research in International Education, 9, 306–
323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240910388928
169
Marshall, H. (2011). Instrumentalism, ideals and imaginaries: Theorising the contested space of
global citizenship education in schools. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3-4),
411–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2011.605325
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. ASCD.
Master, B., Loeb, S., Whitney, C., & Wyckoff, J. (2016). Different skills? Identifying
differentially effective teachers of English language learners. The Elementary School
Journal, 117(2), 261–284.
https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Different%20Skills.pdf
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3
rd
ed.). SAGE.
McBride, C., & Wang, Y. (2015). Learning to read Chinese: Universal and unique cognitive
cores. Child Development Perspectives, 9(3), 196–200.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12132
Menken, K. (2017). Leadership in dual language bilingual education. Center for Applied
Linguistics. https://www.americanreading.com/documents/leadership-in-dual-language-
bilingual-education.pdf
Menken, K., Kleyn, T., & Chae, N. (2012). Spotlight on “long-term English language learners”:
Characteristics and prior schooling experiences of an invisible population. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 6(2), 121–142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2012.665822
Menken, K., & Solorza, C. (2015). Principals as linchpins in bilingual education: The need for
prepared school leaders. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
18(6), 676–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.937390
170
Menken, K. & Solorza, C. (2014). No child left bilingual: Accountability and the elimination of
bilingual education programs in New York City schools. Educational Policy, 8(1), 96–
125. https://doi.org/1177/0895904812468228
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Met, M. (2012). Basics of program design. In M. Abbott & M. Bacon (Eds.), Chinese language
learning in the early grades: A handbook of resources and best practices for Mandarin
immersion (pp. 16–21). Asia Society.
Meyers, D. C., Katz, J., Chien, V., Wandersman, A., Scaccia, J. P., & Wright, A. (2012).
Practical implementation science: developing and piloting the quality implementation
tool. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3), 481–496.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9521-y
Miller, S. T., Wiggins, G. M., & Feather, K. A. (2020). Growing up globally: Third culture kids'
experience with transition, identity, and well-being. International Journal for the
Advancement of Counselling, 42(4), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-020-09412-
y
Montecel, M. R., Cortez, J. D., & Cortez, A. (2002). What is valuable and contributes to success
in bilingual education programs. Intercultural Development Research Association.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED468598.pdf
Montecel, M. R., & Danini, J. (2002). Successful bilingual education programs: Development
and the dissemination of criteria to identify promising and exemplary practices in
bilingual education at the national level. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2002.10668696
171
Morales, P. Z., & Maravilla, J. V. (2019). The problems and possibilities of interest convergence
in a dual language school. Theory into Practice, 58(2), 145–153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1569377
Moran, R. F. (2005). Undone by law: The uncertain legacy of Lau v. Nichols. Berkeley La Raza
Law Journal, 16(1), 1–10. https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1119806
Mullaney, T. M., & Burke, A. M. (2017). An exploration of Indiana's English language learner
language programming models. Cambio Center at the University of Missouri.
https://cambio.missouri.edu/Library/2017/2017_mullaney.pdf
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational
success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24677.
Ortega, R. (2014). Omaha public schools high school dual language program. In Collier, V. P., &
Thomas, W. P. (Eds.), Creating dual language schools for a transformed world:
Administrators speak. (pp. 155–160). Dual Language Education of New Mexico/Fuente
Press.
Ovando, C. J. (2003). Bilingual education in the United States: Historical development and
current issues. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(1), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2003.10162589
Palmer, D. (2010). Race, power, and equity in a multiethnic urban elementary school with a
dual‐language "strand" program. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(1), 94–114.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2010.01069.x
Pashby, K. (2011). Cultivating global citizens: Planting new seeds or pruning the perennials?
Looking for the citizen-subject in global citizenship education theory. Globalisation,
172
Societies and Education, 9(3-4), 427–442.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2011.605326
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 339–380). SAGE Publications.
Sanchez, F. (2014). Prologue: sustainable student success through quality dual language
programs. In Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (Eds.), Creating dual language schools for
a transformed world: Administrators speak. (pp. xiii-xx). Dual Language Education of
New Mexico/Fuente Press.
Saunders, R. P., Ward, D., Felton, G. M., Dowda, M., & Pate, R. R. (2006). Examining the link
between program implementation and behavior outcomes in the lifestyle education for
activity program (LEAP). Evaluation and program planning, 29(4), 352–364.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.006
Shen, H. H. (2004). Level of cognitive processing: Effects on character learning among non-
native learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Language and Education, 18(2), 167–
182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780408666873
Sizemore, C. (2014). Developing the secondary dual language program. In Collier, V. P., &
Thomas, W. P. (Eds.), Creating dual language schools for a transformed world:
Administrators speak. (pp. 146–149). Dual Language Education of New Mexico/Fuente
Press.
Slaughter, J. (2012). Thoughts on educational leadership. In K.S. Gallagher, R. Goodyear, D.J.
Brewer & R. Rueda (Eds.), Urban education: A model for leadership and policy (pp. 85–
87). Routledge.
173
Slavin, R. E., Calderón, M. E. & Carreon, A. (Eds.). (2000). A two-way bilingual program:
Promise, practice, and precautions. In Effective programs for Latino students. Routledge.
Sleeter, C. E. (2016). Ethnicity and the curriculum. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandya (Eds.),
The SAGE handbook of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment (pp. 231–246). SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of
whole-school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School
Psychology Review, 33, 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086267
Soderman, A. K. (2010). Language immersion program for young children? Yes . . . but proceed
with caution. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(8), 54–61.
https://www.nesacenter.org/uploaded/conferences/WTI/2013/handouts/SodermanPhiDelt
aKappanArticle.pdf
Steele, J. L., Slater, R. O., Zamarro, G., Miller, T., Li, J., Burkhauser, S., & Bacon, M. (2017).
Effects of dual-language immersion programs on student achievement: Evidence from
lottery data. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1_suppl), 282S–306S.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED577026.pdf
Sung, K. Y. (2012). A study on Chinese-character learning strategies and character learning
performance among American learners of Chinese. Chinese as a Second Language
Research, 1(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2012-0012
Sung, K. Y., & Tsai, H. M. (2019). Mandarin Chinese dual language immersion programs.
Multilingual Matters.
174
Tabet-Cubero, E. (2014). Budgeting and financial support. In Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P.
(Eds.), Creating dual language schools for a transformed world: Administrators speak.
(pp. 84–87). Dual Language Education of New Mexico/Fuente Press.
Tanu, D. (2017). Growing up in transit: The politics of belonging at an international school.
Berghahn Books.
Thomas, W., & Coller, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority
students' long-term academic achievement. UC Berkeley: Center for Research on
Education, Diversity and Excellence. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/65j213pt
Thompson, J., & Hayden, M. (Eds.). (1998). International education: Principles and practice.
Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203046005
Thompson, K. D. (2015). English learners' time to reclassification: An analysis. Educational
Policy, 31(3), 330–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815598394
Torres-Guzmán, M., & Swinney, R. (2009). Freedom at work: Language, professional, and
intellectual development in schools. Paradigm.
Valdés, G. (2016). Entry visa denied: The construction of symbolic language borders in
educational settings. In O. Garcia, N. Flores, & M. Spotti (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
language and society (pp. 321–348). Oxford University Press.
Valdés, G., Menken, K., & Castro, M. (2015). Common Core, bilingual and English language
learners. Caslon.
Vargas, M. (2014). Advocacy. In Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (Eds.), Creating dual
language schools for a transformed world: Administrators speak (pp. 134–138). Dual
Language Education of New Mexico/Fuente Press.
175
Wang, S. (2010). Chinese language education in the United States. Teaching and learning
Chinese: Issues and Perspectives, 3–32. IAP.
Wang, S. C. & Peyton, J. K. (2018). Key features of effective Chinese Language Programs: A
CELIN checklist. In S.C. Wang & J.K. Peyton (Eds.), CELIN Briefs Series. Asia Society.
https://asiasociety.org/sites/default/files/inline-
files/CELIN%20Brief_Chinese%20Language%20Programs%20Checklist.pdf
Wang, Y., McBride-Chang, C., & Chan, S. F. (2014). Correlates of Chinese kindergarteners'
word reading and writing: The unique role of copying skills? Reading and Writing, 27(7),
1281–1302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9486-8
Wiemelt, J., & Welton, A. (2015). Challenging the dominant narrative: Critical bilingual
leadership (liderazgo) for emergent bilingual Latin@ students. International Journal of
Multicultural Education, 17(1), 82–101. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v17i1.877
Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The effects of school-based
intervention programs on aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 71, 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.71.1.136
Xiao, Y. (2009). Teaching Chinese orthography and discourse: Knowledge and pedagogy. In M.
E. Everson, & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Teaching Chinese as a foreign language: Theories and
applications (pp. 131–149). Cheng & Tsui Company.
Zhao, H., & Poole, F. (2017). Developing literacy skills in the Chinese dual language immersion
classroom. In K. Dejonge-Kannan, M. L. Spicer-Escalante, E. Abell, & A. Salgado
(Eds.), Perspectives on effective teaching in dual language immersion and foreign
language classrooms (pp. 61–72). Department of Languages, Philosophy, and
Communication Studies of Utah State University.
176
Appendix A: Document Analysis Matrix
Document Concept Research question Data
retrieved
Location
retrieved
Mission statement Core goals Contextual information
Program model Implementation Contextual information
Language policy Core goals Contextual information
Benchmarks Core goals Contextual information
Assessment data Core goals Contextual information
Implementation plan Implementation Research Question 1
Readiness assessment Implementation Research Question 1
Evaluation report Implementation Research Question 1
Job description Implementation Research Question 2
177
Appendix B: Participant Study Invitation
Dear Participant,
You are invited to participate in a study to examine the implementation process and best
practices of implementing Chinese-English dual language immersion programs in international
schools. Ying Chu is conducting the study as part of her doctoral dissertation. Your participation
in the study is entirely voluntary, and participant identities will not be known. The study includes
a voluntary semi-structured interview. It will be conducted on Zoom, and it will last from 60–
90 minutes.
Attached, please find the information sheet for details and the approval form issued by the
University of Southern California Institute Review Board. If you have any questions regarding
this invitation or this study, please contact me at chuying@usc.edu. You may also contact my
committee chair, Dr. Larry Picus at lpicus@rossier.usc.edu.
I would like to invite you to please respond by indicating your willingness and consent to
participating in this study through this form within one week, if possible. Thank you.
With my gratitude,
Ying Chu
178
Appendix C: Study Information Sheet
STUDY TITLE: Implementing Chinese-English Dual Language Programs in
International Schools: A Study for an International School in Southeast Asia
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Ying Chu
FACULTY ADVISOR: Lawrence Picus, PhD
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to examine the implementation of Chinese-English dual language
immersion (DLI) programs in an international school setting. The study seeks to understand the
implementation process and the promising practices of peer international schools when
implementing Chinese-English DLI programs. You are invited as a possible participant because
you are a DLI program leader and your school has an established or is building a Chinese-
English DLI program.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
The study includes voluntary interviews. It aims to understand the implementation process from
your perspective and to uncover the promising practices you have utilized. This study’s findings
will serve as recommendations for Singapore American School to improve its existing Chinese-
English DLI program in the elementary school and to plan and implement it at the secondary
school level. The interview will take 60 to 90 minutes. Audio-recording will be used, and you
can decline to be recorded and you can decline to continue with your participation.
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to participate in an interview via Zoom at A
time convenient for you.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
A $20 Apple gift card will be offered at the end of the interview as a small gesture
of appreciation for you time and support. It will be disbursed through emails. You do
not have to answer all of the questions in order to receive the card.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
179
When the results of the research are published or discussed at conferences, no
identifiable information will be used.
Interviews will be recorded with your content. They will be transcribed. Your identifiable
information will be labelled with codes that the primary investigator (PI) can link to
personal identifying information. The PI will use a password-protected computer to store
recorded interviews. Recorded interviews will be available only to the PI through a password-
protected Zoom account. Interview transcripts will be saved in a password-protected computer
and a password-protected cloud server: USC Google drive.
Findings and results will be documented in the PI’s doctoral dissertation. A short summary of
findings will also be provided to you after the final defense and submission of the dissertation to
USC.
All documents collected will be used solely for the purpose of this dissertation research. If
any of the documents appear useful for SAS planning, the PI will seek permission from you to
share the document with others at SAS.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact:
Principal Investigator:
Ying Chu
HP: +65 96561711
Email: chuying@usc.edu
Faculty Advisors:
Lawrance Picus, Ph.D.
Email: lpicus@rossier.usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact
the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or
email irb@usc.edu.
180
Appendix D: Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set
aside to answer my questions. As I mentioned when we last spoke, the interview should take
about 60– 90 minutes. Is that all right with you?
I am a student at USC and am conducting a study on implementing Chinese-English dual
language programs in an international school context. I am particularly interested in
understanding the leaders’ roles in implementing dual language programs and the process of
implementation at the school sites. Therefore, I am talking to multiple program leaders from
various international schools to learn more about this.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of a researcher. What this means is
that the nature of my questions is not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on how you
are performing as a leader. Instead, my goal is to understand your perspective. Might you have
any questions about the study before we get started?
I have a recorder with me apart from the Zoom recording function to accurately capture
what you share with me and prevent any technical failures. The recording is solely for my
purposes to best capture your perspectives and will not be shared with anyone outside of my
dissertation committee. May I have your permission to record our conversation?
I would like to start by asking you some background questions about you and your
school’s Chinese-English dual language immersion program.
1. Tell me about your professional background in dual language immersion? Probing
questions:
a. How did you become involved in the field of dual language education?
b. How long have you worked in the field of dual language education?
181
c. What other positions have you held?
2. Tell me about your school’s Chinese-English dual language immersion program.
Probing questions:
a. What is the history of your dual language immersion program?
b. What is the vision of your dual language immersion program?
c. How does it align with your values and beliefs? If at all.
d. What are the core goals of your dual language immersion program?
e. Can you briefly explain your program model?
f. Who are the students your dual language immersion program serves?
g. How do you assess students’ learning outcomes?
I would like to start by asking you about program leaders’ roles in implementing
Chinese-English dual language immersion programs.
3. If someone were to ask you what high-quality dual language education is, what would
you say to them?
a. How would you define high-quality dual language immersion programs?
b. In what way, if at all, does your program align with the features of high-
quality dual language immersion programs?
c. Give me an example that demonstrates that your program has features of high-
quality dual language immersion programs.
4. Tell me about specific responsibilities you have in implementing your program? (e.g.,
set the vision and direction, advocate for marginalized learners, supervise
implementation, recruit teaching staff, provide professional development) Follow up
questions:
182
a. Could you walk me through a typical day in your position?
b. What do you enjoy most about your role?
c. What do you enjoy least about your role?
5. What skills do you need to succeed in your role as a dual language immersion
program leader?
6. What are the challenges you have faced in your role? Follow up questions to deepen:
a. In your opinion, what could be the reasons for those challenges you have
faced?
b. What kind of support did you have in your role?
c. What kind of support do you wish you would have?
Now I would like to ask you some questions about how the dual language program was
implemented at your school’s elementary school level.
7. Tell me what steps your school took to plan for the dual language immersion program
at the elementary level. Probing questions:
a. What issues have been considered in the planning phase? (e.g., key
community people, interests of the community, concerns of the community,
research findings, budget, and resources)
b. How much time did your school spend planning before implementing the
program?
c. What is your implementation plan? If any.
d. Who is in your implementation team? If any.
e. How did you decide what kind of program model to adopt?
183
f. How have you modified the program model to fit your setting? Have you
engaged an outside expert who can serve as a neutral voice? If so, has that
person become part of the team?
g. What is the dissemination plan to let everyone in the school know about the
DLI program? If any.
h. What is the teacher recruiting practice for your program?
i. How do you recruit students and families?
8. Tell me about the first few years of the program. Probing questions:
a. What are the strategies you used to support the ongoing implementation? (e.g.,
technical assistance, coaching, or supervision)
b. What structure, if any, has your school developed to monitor the
implementation process?
9. Many practical considerations in schools can shift programs away from their original
program design. Did it happen to your school? If so, how could you make sure that
these changes have not compromised the program model that you selected?
10. Alternatively, you may find that a revision in the program model is called for
because of school or community changes. Did it happen to your school? If so, how
did you facilitate realigning your program to reflect these changes better?
I would like to ask you some questions about your program at the secondary school level.
(Only for programs that have extended to the secondary level.)
11. How have you implemented your dual language program at the secondary school
level? Follow up questions:
184
a. What would you identify as a significant success in sustaining the program at
the secondary level? If any.
b. What are your program's struggles in sustaining the program at the secondary
level? If any.
12. How implementing your dual language immersion program at the secondary level is
different from implementing it at the elementary level?
a. How do you honor secondary school students’ voices and choices?
b. What are the courses you are offering at the secondary level?
13. What kind of incentives do you provide to validate students’ bilingual achievement in
the programs? If any. (e.g., Seal of Bilingualism/Biliteracy, Advanced Placement,
college credit)
Now we will switch gears and talk about the larger school culture and context. When I
say “school culture,” I refer to the often-unstated norms and values that govern how you
implement the program. When I say “context,” I refer to the host country’s geographic,
demographic, and political context that influences the implementation of the programs.
Modifications in implementation might be necessary because of the complexities of the host
setting.
14. Tell me a bit about your school’s unique context. probing questions:
a. Who are the students in your dual language immersion program?
b. How does your school serve multilingual learners?
c. Tell me about your school’s language policy if you have any.
15. What is your overall school culture toward dual language education? Probing
questions:
185
a. Can you give me one example of your school values bilingualism/biliteracy?
If any.
b. Can you describe how, if at all, if your school promotes a culture of
bilingualism/biliteracy?
c. Can you describe how, if at all, if your school promotes cross-cultural
understanding?
d. Many international schools highly value international mindedness; how does
your program address that? If at all.
e. Many international schools highly value global citizenship; how does your
program address that? If at all.
16. As an international school, families are highly mobile, and attrition could be a
potential problem. What strategies, if any, have you used to deal with student
mobility?
17. How does your school manage to maintain class size and linguistic balance?
Implementing a dual language program can be both exhilarating and frustrating.
Therefore, I would like to invite you and look back and look forward to this journey.
18. What do you recommend to other dual language immersion program leaders who will
start a new program?
19. What advice would you give for programs that are implementing and refining an
existing program?
20. What suggestions would you give to program leaders who are thinking about
reinvigorating an established program?
186
21. Some people might say it is easy and sufficient to offer Chinese as a world language
as most international schools do; what are your thoughts about this perspective?
22. What keeps your school connected with other programs and educators to share
knowledge and resources?
23. What is your vision for the future of Chinese-English dual language education in
international schools?
Is there anything else you would like to tell me? Thank you so much for sharing your
thoughts with me today! I appreciate your time and willingness to share. Everything that you
have shared is helpful for my study. If I find myself with a follow-up question, can I contact you,
and if so, email ok? Again, thank you for participating in my study. Thank you, please accept
this small token of my appreciation (iTunes gift card).
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Exploring culturally relevant pedagogy in a Chinese immersion program: a gap analysis
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
Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners
PDF
A comparative study of motivational orientation of elementary school English learners in a dual language immersion program and a transitional bilingual education program
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms
PDF
Managing leadership transitions in an international school context
PDF
Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study
PDF
Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom
PDF
The factors supporting or inhibiting Teachers of Color to accept and stay in an international school in Southeast Asia
PDF
Factors contributing to outperformance in nontraditional urban schools: a case study of a public elementary school with a dual immersion program
PDF
Teacher leadership for personalized learning: An implementation study in an international school
PDF
Preparing students for the global society: sustaining a dual language immersion program
PDF
Factors related to the training, recruitment, and retention of quality bilingual teachers in dual language immersion programs in international schools
PDF
Developing standards-based Chinese curricula in international schools: a gap analysis for Eagle American School
PDF
The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis
PDF
Embracing globalization and 21st century skills in a dual language immersion school
PDF
Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study
PDF
A case study on African American parents' perceptions of Mandarin Dual Language Immersion Programs and the role social capital plays in student enrollment
Asset Metadata
Creator
Chu, Ying
(author)
Core Title
Implementing Chinese-English dual language programs in international schools: a study for an international school in southeast Asia
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership
Degree Conferral Date
2022-05
Publication Date
05/07/2022
Defense Date
04/01/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
bilingual education,dual language leadership competency,language immersion,linguistically and culturally responsive leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,program implementation
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Picus, Lawrence (
committee chair
), Robles, Darline (
committee member
), Zhang, Yuehua (
committee member
)
Creator Email
chuying@usc.edu,yc2274@tc.columbia.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111296822
Unique identifier
UC111296822
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Chu, Ying
Type
texts
Source
20220509-usctheses-batch-940
(batch),
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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
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
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
bilingual education
dual language leadership competency
language immersion
linguistically and culturally responsive leadership
program implementation