I chose 3 pictures. First is a man sitting on a royal like chair. Second is a long hair went through a gold ring. The third one is a kitty looking at a couple who are in the night sky but strangely they are standing in a cage.

I chose the first one because it seems the man on the chair is kind of depressed. I think if he learn more languages or even a new culture different from his. It would be beneficial for him to meet new people and make some friends. Hopefully, this could help him psychologically and emotionally.

I chose the second one because the gold ring seems to me is some kind of goals of bilingualism, like learning new cultures, enhancing our own knowledge of thinking like how different of logical thinking different from different cultures and languages. These goals are very valuable as real gold. I hope i could be like this long hair to achieve the ultimate aim of the meaning of its. For me, is to become bilingual.

Lastly, I chose the third picture because I think not knowing different languages and cultures is like not knowing the outside world, just like the couple who are living in a cage. For my point of view is just like the cat looking at the couple and to tell them to leave the cage to embrace the life outside. I would courage people to try to know more languages and cultures, not like learning languages to be fully fluent like a native speaker but to learn some phrases or words or some greeting phrases would be beneficial of personal experience to be more open to the world around us.

In addition, I also listened to other classmates how they view the pictures related to bilingual. It’s very interesting and at the same time I have broader my view of bilingualism.

I really like this activity!

He is a role model for me. I admire him and I hope i can pursue my bilingual dream, which is to speak Hungarian and English and Finnish.

It was a great experience to regain our knowledge and briefly learn what is CLIL and bilingualism. This knowledge is very valuable for my future studies.

I hope we can have more activities like this in the future.

1. (5*)The benefits of a bilingual brain - Mia Nacamulli

It is because it taught me about how bilingualism strengthens the brain's attention system, leading to improved focus and other knowledge like bilingualism may contribute to better brain health and delay dementia. I found that billingual can not just good for learning cultures but also good for our physical health.

2.(5*) The cognitive benefits of learning a language

Because i learned how early bilinguals have stronger brain connectivity and how bilingualism builds a "cognitive reserve" , this really taught me a lot.

3.(5*) Principles of CLIL

because it taught me how CLIL aims are and it is to enable all learners to access deeper learning and CLIL involves understanding culture etc. i can use this Principles for my future career.

the three i liked the least:

1.(3*) Mission Possible - Immersion and CLIL

Not because it is not good , but since i learned some of it like, Immersion Programs. So it is not on my top choices.

2.(5*) Noam Chomsky's Language Acquisition Theory

as i mentioned, i learned some of it in last semester, so it wouldn't be the top 3.

3.(5*) What is CLIL?

because i learned it in my previous lessons, so it wouldn't be on my top 3.

Many research studies cite the cognitive-linguistic benefits of being a fluent bilingual speaker. Experts have found that children who are fluent bilinguals actually outperform monolingual speakers on tests of metalinguistic skill.

In addition, as our world shrinks and business becomes increasingly international, children who are fluent bilingual speakers are potentially a tremendously valuable resource for the U.S. economy. Most Americans are currently monolingual speakers of English, and are finding more and more that it would be highly advantageous to their professional lives if they spoke a second language.

This idea of "the more English the better" is fallacious and can actually slow down children's learning considerably. Thomas and Collier (1998) state that the average native English speaker gains about ten months of academic growth in one ten-month academic year. ELL students must outgain the native speaker by making 1.5 year's progress in English for six successive school years. Thus, in order to have skills that are commensurate with those of native English speakers, ELLs must make nine years progress in six years. It is no wonder that many ELLs flounder not because they have language-learning disabilities, but because they are put into such difficult learning situations in our schools.

Under ideal conditions, ELLs would be taught in their first language 90 percent of the time and in English 10 percent of the time in kindergarten and first grade. Gradually, as they learned more English, they would be taught in the primary language 50 percent of the time and in English 50 percent of the time by sixth grade. Studies have shown that children who are taught in this manner outperform ELLs who are taught mostly in English from very early in their schooling. Children in this ideal bilingual learning situation do so well because they understand what they are hearing and are thus able to build their underlying conceptual-linguistic foundation.

Many ELL students are thus in a catch-22 situation. They may develop conversational English that appears fluent and adequate for everyday communication. However, they still struggle with CALP and have difficulty in areas such as reading, writing, spelling, science, social studies, and other subject areas where there is little context to support the language being heard or read. This "BICS-CALP gap" leads professionals to falsely assume that the children have language-learning disabilities.

School language proficiency tests are often used to assess children's level of proficiency in English. After children have been tested, they are given a label such as "Limited English Speaker" or "Fully Proficient English Speaker." The problem of which many SLPs are unaware is that these tests only assess English BICS; CALP is not assessed. The child may be labeled as fully English proficient on the basis of his or her ability to answer a question such as "what are your favorite foods?" or respond to a request to "tell me about your family."

SLPs and others who work with these children in the schools see the label of "fully English proficient" and assume that it is acceptable to give English standardized tests to these children after all, they are fully proficient in English! In reality, however, the children are still striving to develop CALP and thus the use of standardized tests in English is biased against them. When these standardized tests are administered, the ELLs often score very low and are labeled as having language-learning disabilities. They are then inappropriately placed into special education.

SLPs will make fewer errors in labeling ELLs if we are aware of the normal phenomena and processes that accompany learning a second language. Ideally, we will support children's first languages and cultures, and encourage them to become fully proficient bilingual speakers. Not only will they perform better in school, but they will have a much greater chance of growing up to become successful citizens who are invaluable assets to our society and our economy.

Celeste Roseberry-McKibbin is an associate professor in the department of speech pathology and audiology at California State University, Sacramento. She also works as an itinerant SLP in the public schools. Alejandro Brice is an assistant professor in the department of communication disorders at the University of Central Florida. Brice is the editor of Communication Disorders Quarterly.

Later, the civil rights movement set the stage for the recognition of minority group rights and antidiscrimination legislation. The landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that declared separate educational facilities inherently unequal began an era of integration and desegregation. The case played a major role in making equal educational opportunity a central focus of educational policies. Further, World War II had increased awareness of the need for knowing foreign languages and, under the influence of the cold war and competition with Russia, major initiatives were undertaken by the federal government to ensure a competitive act. One of these was the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which promoted extensive foreign language programs for language majority speakers.

In the 1960s, a pluralistic experiment in bilingual education was initiated in Miami, Florida. In a unique move, Coral Way Elementary School made the bilingual option available to native English speakers as well as Cuban refugees (Chapter 5). For both groups, bilingualism was considered an asset and enrichment. The school's demonstrated success with both groups in both languages encouraged several other schools in Miami and other states (Arizona, California, Illinois, Texas, Washington, DC) to take a similar approach (Andersson, 1971; Mackey & Beebe, 1977).

However, this pluralist educational approach was the exception. Most language policies initiated during this period were based on an assimilationist approach, though these policies promoted assimilation in a more gentle way than those advocated during the Americanization movement in the 1920s. Bilingual approaches were endorsed and implemented but mostly with an assimilationist intent (Spener, 1988). The assimilationist bilingual discourse, or reluctant bilingual discourse (Zhou, 1997), sees the student's native language as a temporary bridge to learning the societal language, English. Though room for more pluralist interpretation existed (at the local implementation level), this "reluctant bilingual discourse" dominated federal legislation as well as court decisions and their enforcement.

The BEA was the first comprehensive federal intervention in the schooling of language minority students. Its uncontroversial passage in 1968 reflected agreement over the underachievement of a steadily increasing number of language minority students in schools. The BEA was introduced by Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas, who noted that Spanish-speaking students in his state completed, on average, 4 years of schooling less than their Anglo peers. The lack of resources and trained personnel and the absence of special programs to meet the needs of these students contributed to this educational failure. Yarborough proposed bilingual education as a solution to what he perceived was a problem of English proficiency.

The problem is that many of our school-age children come from homes where the mother tongue is not English. As a result, these children enter school not speaking English and not able to understand the instructions that is [sic] all conducted in English. [There is] an urgent need for this legislation to provide equal educational opportunity for those children who do not come to school with English-speaking ability. We received almost unanimous enthusiasm and support for this legislation as being an effective remedial program. (US Congress 1967:37037; cited in Bangura & Muo, 2001, p. 58; italics added)

Note that Yarborough presents bilingual education as a remedial program, not an enrichment program like the bilingual education program at Coral Way. Only with the 1974 re-authorization of the BEA was bilingual education formally defined as a program where "there is instruction given in, and the study of English, and, to the extent necessary to allow a child to progress effectively through the educational system, the native language of the children of limited English-speaking ability" (Lyons, 1990, p. 68).

The BEA was not a mandate for bilingual education. Since education is the responsibility of the states, the federal government can only create financial incentives through grant programs. The federal government's influence is in setting the criteria for the allocation of funds: if states or districts want the money, they have to meet the federal requirements. Under the BEA, districts had to implement bilingual education programs for the specified target groups in order to receive federal funding. It thus provided an incentive for districts to consider bilingual instruction options.