Essential Research Based Overview of Policies & Pedagogies for Bilingual /Immersion Education:
A Personal View of the Aotearoa/New Zealand Experience.
John McCaffery, University of Auckland.



Bilingual Education has as its prime goal, excellence in both languages and literacies. This is often overlooked by monolingual critics. To achieve goals of bilingualism, biliteracy and biculturalism, the following are essential components drawn from international, local New Zealand (NZ) & Pacific research and professional content knowledge and expertise (PCK) (Schulman, 1986, 1987).

1.0 Teachers

1.1 Teachers need to be native or fluent speakers, readers and writers of both languages. If this is not possible the class is best to be shared by two teachers, each of whom is a fluent speaker of their own language (Baker, 2006). However being a speaker of a language is not enough, being literate is also essential. Where teachers are not fluent in both languages, as in some of the Pacific Islands a language teaching technique (Ellis, 2005) and some immersion will be of great assistance in learning the other language. Some curriculum areas may need to be delivered in only one language and students shown how strategies and CALP (cognitive academic language proficiency) (Cummins, 2008) can be transferred to the other. This does not however solve the issue of the need generally, to deliver the curriculum in both languages at some stage in the primary school and secondary school (see ECE below however).

1.2 Teachers need to have professional content knowledge and qualifications in bilingualism, Bilingual /Immersion Education theory, research and pedagogy, and other professional content knowledge (PCK). Bilingual/ Immersion Education is a major professional field with its own professional knowledge and expertise, similar to other curriculum areas (Baker, 2000; 2006; Cummins, 1981;Cloud, Genesee & Hamayan, 2000). While schools would not consider employing teachers who know little about Maths, many currently happily employ teachers to run programmes who know little about bilingualism and Bilingual /Immersion Education.

1.3. Teachers need if possible to be members of their own cultures and communities, able to walk the talk and create learning and teaching environments where being a member of the culture/s is valued and modelled in all aspects of learning and life (G. Smith, 1997; L.T. Smith, 1999).

1.4 Teachers need to be bicultural and value (and if possible) model the way two languages can contribute to bilingualism and biculturalism- that is, role models for the goal and ability to move in two worlds successfully even when teaching in a single medium setting (Cummins, 2008c).

1.5 Teachers conditions of appointment need to be specifically to the bilingual/ immersion programme and not to the school as a whole. That is, teachers cannot expect to move as of right, from the bilingual programme to the English medium programme or visa –versa.

2.0 ECE School and Whanau/ Syndicate Organisation and Operation

2.1 Programmes need to be based on Cummins (1986/ 2001) principles of empowerment (as Te Kohanga Reo & Kura Kaupapa Maori are. See G. Smith, 1997; L.T. Smith, 1999). Disempowerment has caused educational under achievement and the (re) empowerment of teacher’s children, families and community is needed to address this. While organised and effective pedagogies are important, they are on their own, no substitute for empowerment based strategies and actions. This means the genuine devolution and sharing of power in real partnerships (Cummins, 1986,1989, 2000; Bishop & Glynn, 1999; Durie, 2001; Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005). While building teacher capacity and PCK takes time, it is the only worthwhile investment in the long run. One dominant group in society cannot educate other peoples’ children for them. Active, central participation and ownership of the programme in partnership with the school is essential.

2.2.1 Many of the following sections do not apply to Kura Kaupapa Māori programmes, NZ. They do however suggest that the linguistics research base of Te Aho Mātua guiding principles may now need to be updated.
Where the programme is in an English medium primary or secondary school, the bilingual /immersion programme needs to be organised into its own whanau/fanau/ syndicate running from entry to final year under a dedicated Whanau leader/ senior teacher who is represented on the senior management team of the school and who is not also responsible for supervising other English medium classes (McCaffery & Tuafuti 2002). While making professional PCK links with teachers at the same level are important, placing bilingual programmes in English medium syndicates prevents the programme achieving its academic, linguistic and cultural goals.

2.1 The programme is based on principles of language and cultural maintenance and revival and its purpose is to use this base as the foundation for all other academic participation and success at school. It cannot simply be a translated English medium curriculum (Baker, 2006, Garcia, 2009).

2.2 Programmes need to begin in the Heritage Language (HL) whether this is an L1 or an L2 and have enough immersion for students to gain a reasonable working knowledge of the language as quickly as possible (May, Hill & Tiakiwai, 2004).ECE immersion is an excellent entry programme.For student for whom the language is Not an L1 but only a HL on school entry this may mean delaying some curriculum content work in this language during the first year, other than oral development and literacy, until students have enough language to understand and participate in curriculum activities in the HL. Literacy provides the best, fastest access to rapid vocabulary and meaningful chunks for learning and acquisition (Gort, 2004; Lindholm-Leary, 2001). The oral language programme should focus on establishing understanding first (passive bilingualism), followed by planned exposure meaningful, functional, usable chunks and formulaic expressions which can also be learned for communicative purposes (see functions of language approaches).Where student enter as native speakers of the L1 literacy in that language can begin immediately.

2.3 In English medium secondary schools, programmes are best organised initially around the teaching of the language as a subject (Ellis, 2005), slowing expanding this with the same group of students into teaching one, then two or more other curriculum areas in the medium of that language (Johnstone, 2002, 2007). To encourage out of class use, some schools are intending only to permit students to be in the culture group/ kapa haka/ Polyfest programmes if they are also in the heritage language (HL) programme/s. Such schools also seek to support out of class use in sports and other school activities and in family and community events.

2.4 Immersion programmes at ECE in the HL are important in developing maximum language ability in children prior to starting school and in orientating children to who they are in the world (their identity). Immersion in this context means teachers speak only the heritage language and children are encouraged but NOT required to do so. HOWEVER, ECE is not the place for dual medium two language instructional programmes (L1 & L2) for children from families and communities seeking to maintain and revive their languages in minority threatened language settings (Podmore, with Samu, & the A’oga FaaSamoa, 2006). The suggestion from Burgess (2003, 2004) to use two languages in Pasifika ECE is a misapplied interpretation of the biliteracy research on bilingual learners of threatened minority languages. Burgess (2003, p. 1.) says:
“literacy experiences are needed in both languages for bilingual children to be able to read and write in two (or more) languages. Bialystok (2002) found that it takes thousands of hours to become a proficient reader in any language, and so young children must be immersed in the full range of emergent literacy experiences in both languages. In an a'oga amata, for example, immersion should include rich experiences with stories, print and sound across Samoan and English mediums”.

Research by Dworin, (2003) and Cummins, (2007, 2008) shows learners are able to transfer skills and strategies learned in one language to the other language and that biliteracy can either be developed sequentially or simultaneously. The thousands of hours raised here applies to literacy experiences in any languages that range across programmes in primary schools
to age 13. Bilingual programmes in primary schools can provide extensive biliteracy programmes adequate for children to become readers and writers to grade age norms of society (see Aukuso, 2005, McCaffery & Tuafuti et al, 2003 and Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005).

Decades of research by Cummins (1981- 2008) and others reported in Baker, (2000, 2001, 2006; Baker & Prys-Jones, 1998) has argued convincingly that when low status minority languages are under threat of loss by dominant majority languages, it is important to begin education and especially ECE, in the first language of the child. In these settings the first language development is fragile, still forming and likely to be easily undermined and replaced by English. This language loss by language minority children is extensively documented in literally hundreds of research studies (Corson, 2001; Fishman, 1991, 2002; May, Hill & Tiakiwai, 2004). Research in NZ by Benton (1996) has shown that the introduction of English to ECE in Māori speaking areas contributed directly to the loss of the Māori language from the current generation. No one in ECE has argued that Te Kohanga Reo ECE centres should introduce English, even though most of the children are L1 speakers of English on arrival. Without Māori immersion in ECE at Te Kohanga Reo, there would not be a current generation of Māori speakers.

Tagoilelagi-Leota, McNaughton, MacDonald, & Farry, S. (2005) in NZ showed that by age 6, the first language and literacy skills of Pasifika children who had attended Pasifika ECE were largely replaced by English. In the Cook Islands the introduction of English into ECE and year 1-3 of primary schools has led to widespread language loss (McCaffery & McFall- McCaffery, 2010) and led directly to a generation of young parents who are no longer speakers of the language and unable to raise their children in any dialect of Cook Island Māori in the Cook Islands, or in NZ. Fewer than 5% of Cook Island children in NZ can now speak their language/s and its loss from NZ and probably the Cooks themselves is imminent (see McCaffery & McFall- McCaffery, 2010).

The European notion of pluralism and multilingualism (Garcia, 2009) is designed for contexts in Europe where students from two or more majority culture communities enter school or ECE each with a strong, vibrant first language intact as native speakers. In New Zealand this could include first generation migrants with prestigious Asian languages including, Mandarin, Korean and Hindi. This is not however the case in New Zealand Māori and for ‘low status’ Pasifika languages which recent research is showing are rapidly being lost from the Pasifika communities (Macpherson, 2004; Hunkin-Tuiletufuga, 2001; McCaffery & McFall-McCaffery, 2010).

If two languages are to be used in ECE Bilingual /Immersion Education with strong L1 fluent speaking children, they must be strictly managed and separated by time, place, curriculum area, person or purpose (Baker, 2006) with the L1 /HL experienced by the children for a minimum of 15 hrs per week or 50% of the programme. The Toru Whetu, NZ Kindergarten Association model ( Wgton Assoc -Porirua East- Maraeroa) of three language groups within one ECE is better than the current Kindergarten model. However it will not provide enough language exposure for most threatened small language groups as most of the shared experiential learning, inside and outdoor play areas, will run in English even though in theory, staff could interact with their own groups children in their own languages (See McCaffery & McFall-McCaffery, 2010).

Another current ECE issue is the very concerning suggestion that children who are not speakers of Pasifika languages who come to designated specific Pasifika language centres also have individual language rights. And that these rights require staff to foster each child’s language in the programme, at the expense of the Pasifika heritage language of that centre (personal communication, 20 July, 2010 Nola Harvey on Feuau’i Burgess’ 2009, Rotorua, NZARE, ECE Symposia presentation). Immersion centres where there are numbers of English speaking children learning their heritage language, can make special provisions by having designated English speaking areas for children and teachers and parents to communicate in the child’s L1 English (see A’oga Fa'aSamoa, Richmond Road)

In a centre where the medium of instruction is declared to be other than English, the arrival of one English language speaker also often causes Pasifika teachers to start speaking to that child in that language. This is an incorrect interpretation of the Human Rights (Human Rights Commission, 2008, 2009) and the subsequent conventions (language rights legislation and international declarations). These provisions are actually designed to protect national minority languages like Pasifika languages from loss (Human Rights Commission, 2008, 2009). Adoption of such a perspective will destroy the integrity of the Pasifika HL programmes in ECE and deprive Pasifika children of the right to learn and maintain their own languages at their own dedicated ECE Centres. Parents of non- Pasifika speaking children who choose to send them to Pasifika language centres (often because it is the cheapest ECE option) need to know that the programme runs in the Pasifika language. That fluency in the Pasifika language is a major goal of the programme and that other languages will not be used as mediums of instruction.


2.5 For primary programmes the heritage language should never drop below 50% of the time in the programme across the year. Effective biliteracy programmes in schools range from 50% HL to 80% HL normally beginning with a large amount of HL 80-100% and slowing reducing until by year3, 4 or 5 the HL level may be back to 50%/ 60% or 70% as English literacy work increases. It is also possible to begin successfully with 50%-50% or 60-40 or 70- 30 from the beginning of yr 1. Organisation can be 4 days, 1 day; 3 days two days; week about or mornings and afternoons. The key is the rotation of language and literacy use within the programme. Immersion can be -Early immersion, yr1-3, and Middle dual language immersion yr 4-6, or late dual language immersion, yr 7-10. All are established international approaches (Baker, 2006). Early immersion does however produce better native speaker like language outcomes for students who are not home speakers of their own HL (Cloud, Genesee & Hamayan, 2000; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; May, Hill & Tiakiwai).

2.6 All approaches derived from monolingual native speaker of English sources and practices, need to be critically examined and suitably modified and adapted for bilingual programmes. This usually means additional scaffolding, greater time allocated, and more opportunity to experience and practice the strategies than are given to native speaking programmes. The direct unmodified transfer of approaches strategies and assessments from English medium programmes is often a direct cause of student difficulty. The bilingual learner is not a copy of the monolingual learner nor are they simply two monolinguals put together (Baker, 2000, 2006; Grosjean, 1998) as the NZ Curriculum documents assume. Bilinguals follow very different, usually diverse developmental pathways requiring often very different skills and strategies from monolingual learners (Bialystock, 2007, Kenner, 2000; 2004).

2.7 Māori and Pasifika pedagogies for learning and teaching do exist and have play a significant part in traditional and contemporary life of these communities (Helu-Thaman, 1995; Hohepa, 2008). Programmes are most successful where approaches for learning are designed and or selected to best match the aims of the curriculum area, the children’s backgrounds and taught by a team of teachers familiar with a wide range of traditional and contemporary approaches to learning and teaching. Seldom does one size fit all circumstances.

2.8 The bilingual/immersion programme needs to be able to follow its own language and cultural programme according to a special section of the school’s curriculum policy and also use some aspects of the whole schools programme. The key is to ensure a) significant family and community cultural events functions and practices are able to be used, studied and participated in and b) the linguistic and cultural programme necessary to achieve the aims and purposes of the programme can be achieved.

2.9 The school and whanau organisation must provide for and guide the balance between the two languages, which need to be established on a research and (PCK) basis (Cummins, 2000, 2007, 2008b,c; Jacobson, 1990;Verhoven, 1991,1994). This cannot be changed every time new staff are appointed with different ideas, and changes need to be carefully thought through, planned out.

2.10 School and ECE programmes need to be carefully designed for particular groups of students and contexts by professionals with adequate PCK. There is no one size fits all approach available (Baker, 2006). May, Hill & Tiakiwai, 2004: McCaffery & Lowman, 2009). Some features of programmes are however essential to success (McCaffery & Fuatavai, 2003; McCaffery, 2008).

2.11 Literacy in primary programmes must be taught in both languages, (biliteracy) at some stage and the programme must continue for at least 8 years (Thomas & Collier, 1997; Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000). Internationally literacy in both languages is a central goal of programmes and is usually in place by year 3-4-5. Cummins (2000, 2007, 2008) argues research is demonstrating there is little academic or language learning benefit in delaying the introduction of the L2, as was earlier thought. An earlier introduction appears to actually accelerate L1 literacy, language and overall conceptual development. This is due to the metacognitive, metalinguistic (Malakoff & Hakuta, 1991) need to compare and contrast how each language functions differently and how transfer (Dworin, 2003;Odlin 1998) between languages and literacies accelerates both L1 and L2 development (see for example, Lowman et al, 2007. Also Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006; Riches & Genesee, 2006).

2.12 The goals of programmes are achieved far more easily where the programme actively plans and seeks to enrol learners into a community of speakers a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Many students can speak a language, but for a range of reasons not addressed by the programme, choose not to do so. The motivation for learning the language then becomes much stronger as the learner wishes to be an active member of the groups who speak the target language (HL). Peer groups are enrolling members into English only groups and relationships all the time and often applying sanctions for not doing so: for example calling Pasifika peers FOBs (fresh off the boat). A counter discourse (Gee, 1991) in Māori and Pacific peer groups needs to be established and actively supported, that is, of speaking the HL and being bilingual.


2.13 The organisation of the school class programme into groups for much of the instructional programme is an essential feature of successful bilingual /immersion programmes as language development and conceptual growth is far quicker and more effective in predictable routine organised group programmes especially in Reading, Writing, Maths and Inquiry topic work (Ellis, 2002, 2005; Gibbons, 2002). Usually the model for formal instruction is –

a) Meet as a whole class, review previous work. Introduce new work with prior knowledge & experience schema activities. Draw attention (Ellis, 2000 [noticing]) to key features, negotiate and agree on learning intentions / objectives; overview strategies and skills and associated language.
b) Send groups and individuals away and teach the strategies and skills outlined in the introduction to rotating groups and individuals, conference and give feedback. Encourage tuakana –teina work, cooperative approaches, initiative and independence.
c) Bring the class back together to review and report on work done tasks achieved, issues needing attention, give feedback and agree on where to next.
On other occasions and for other purposes whole class work or independent work will be more appropriate.
The very informal workstations and individual conferencing approaches without formal instruction, are not appropriate in settings where minority languages are under threat and being maintained and revived. This is because students do not have enough language ability without direct teacher (more skilled) scaffolding, to complete tasks independently. There must be significant times of planned instruction.




3.0 Pedagogy- some key theory informed teaching and learning principles.

3.1 Languages must be used as mediums of instruction and taught as well. That is, learning a language involves both acquisition; the unconscious working out of rules and meanings from being immersed in the language and learning; the conscious individual motivation in noticing, seeking, recording, and practising combined with a planned, structured, organised teaching programme (Baker, 2006, Cummins, 2000, 2007).

3.2 Learners cannot just be immersed in a language and left to pick it up without guidance. They will in fact acquire and use the new language items and vocabulary in the mental frames, grammar and functions of their existing strongest language as in Hōne me Hemi (Hōne and Hemi) rather than the correct pronoun use of Hōne rāua ko Hemi. Learners also reach a fossilised stage where they can get by with the minimum necessary. They need to be encouraged to go beyond this to more complex ways of expressing the essential functions and purposes we use language for. A good example of this is the use of the word thing for all nouns (or mea in Māori). Therefore common difficulties, errors and features of language not shared by both languages must be identified picked up and taught. For example the pronoun system of Māori and Pacific languages (see Dale, McCaffery & McMurchy –Pilkington 1998; Houia, 2002). Ellis (2000, 2002, 2005) describes this as the need to focus on both language forms and on language functions, and communicative use in task based activities. This principle applies also to ECE where special strategies are needed for children who do not come from homes speaking the HL of instruction. These strategies involve both immersion use and specialised teaching through modelling and other scaffolded interactions (Podmore, with Samu, & the A’oga FaaSamoa, 2006).

Teaching languages as subjects without immersion is even more unsuccessful as up to 15 hours a week immersion is needed to ever become a fluent speaker reader and writer of a language, when not able to be regularly immersed in family or wider community settings (Johnstone, 2002, 2007). May Hill and Tiakiwai (2004) estimate fewer than 1:20-1:25 learners is ever able to do so from language teaching classes alone and then usually need regular periods of immersion in the target language country or context with native/ fluent speakers.

3.3 The separation and use of the two languages and literacies from entry to graduation must be carefully planned and implemented (Baker, 2006) through a whanau/ policy, which is research and PCK informed.

3.4 Goals of bilingualism, biliteracy and biculturalism cannot be achieved unless both languages are used as mediums of instruction in the programme (Cummins, 2007, 2008 a, b, c). Cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP, Cummins, 2000, 2008) can only be developed through literacy in both languages (Ricciardelli, 1992). The ability to speak a playground version of a language such as English (BICS or basic interpersonal communication skills) does not lead to literacy in that language. That is, BICS –speaking can be caught, but CALP- literacy and complex academic talk must be taught. CALP transfers but BICS does not (Cummins, 2008a).

3.5 Biliteracy can be developed through:
a) a sequential literacy model where literacy in one language is established first (Cummins 1981) followed in later years by the introduction of literacy in the other language usually by year 4-5 at the latest. Where sequential single medium literacy programmes are used as in Māori Medium, and most Pacific Island countries it is essential that transition programmes (Berryman, 2003) be used to assist students at key points and years how to transfer what they have learned in one literacy to the other.

Biliteracy can also be developed through:
b) Simultaneous biliteracy (McCaffery, Villers & Lowman, 2008) where often after an initial full L1/HL immersion year, literacy in both languages is taught simultaneously around the same literacy and strategy developmental time - that is, within the memory of the student to be able to transfer and apply CALP strategies from one literacy to another. Teaching for transfer (Cummins, 2007, 2008) is a major pedagogical strategy in this approach (see Lowman, Fitzgerald, Rapira, & Clark, 2007 for NZ research with Māori Medium education).

These simultaneous learning and use of two languages / literacies challenge existing beliefs of many writers and programmes (Baker, 2006; Jacobson, 1990) that languages should always be kept very separate by years, months, time or place or curriculum area. These newer approaches to bilingualism and biliteracy instead emphasise separation by purpose. Different languages or literacies for different purposes such as; introducing, clarifying, expanding, summarising (see Cummins, 2007, 2008, Baker 2006; Garcia, 2009; Jacobson, 1990). These approaches are especially important in most Pacific Islands and Pasifika NZ settings where the community will not accept total immersion over several years as an approach, due to fear of loss of English (Niue, Cook Islands, some Samoan settings) (McCaffery & McFall- McCaffery, 2010). Here the demand is for both languages and literacies as outcomes from earlier on in a programme. Simultaneous biliteracy is also important where the traditional first language first strategy cannot be implemented because so many students and teachers are becoming heritage language (HL) second language speakers with English as their first (L1) or other L1 language. In these settings the strategic use of the students English L1 above the initial immersion year/s has been shown to be helpful for accessing selected curriculum content and the transfer of literacy and higher order thinking and operations strategies to the new HL / L2 language (Lowman, Fitzgerald, Rapira, & Clark, 2007). This can be seen as a temporary strategy for a limited time in history for some Māori settings. As fluency increases about the estimated current 7%- 12% of the Māori population the need for it in some settings will decline.

3.6 A rapidly growing body of evidence (Cummins, 2007, McCaffery, Villers and Lowman, 2008) is showing that simultaneous biliteracy programmes are more successful for many learners than the earlier sequential approaches. There are many ways to do this, all of which are successful (Dworin, 2003, Garcia, 2009; Genesee et al, 2006; Gort, 2004; Valdes, 2004; Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1996). This could be by rotating languages by morning and afternoon in each inquiry topic (unit of work) or weekly or two weekly or monthly. The weaker both languages and literacies are in the learners; the closer the rotation time needs to be. It is not adequate to always teach the morning programme in one language and the afternoon in another without such rotation. This ensures literacy and maths CALP is taught in both languages and strategies can be transferred between languages. Keeping the strategies, skills, understandings, routines and organisation the same for literacy in both languages has been found to be a significant factor in successful programmes and accelerate transfer (Cloud, Genesse and Hamayan, 2000).

3.7 Adequate graded reading materials in approximate order of difficulty must be available. This is to control the difficulty of the reading task for the bilingual learner and keep them scaffolded in their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Gibbons, 2002). This is far more critical than for native speakers as learning through a language you may not understand or speak well, is many times more difficult (See Gibbons 2002, and Walki 2006, for further discussion). These materials can be a combination of teacher made and commercial, and include electronic texts and web based literacy provisions.

3.8 All learning, especially literacy needs to begin from, and link to, the learner’s world. This world, prior knowledge and experience is held in schema sometimes schemata (Gibbons, 2002). These are models of mental structures in the learners mind which represent the learners understanding of the world, that is their comprehension. As over 80% of what we know is held unconsciously, activating schema is essential so that new information can be more easily incorporated into their worldview. This can be done by brainstorming mind mapping, concept mapping, front loading, word association games and activities in groups, pairs or individually (Si’ilata, 2006, 2007). When this new information is taken on board and expands existing schema it is called accommodation (Amituana’i- Toloa and McNaughton (2008). In reading, the learner brings their schema to a text as does the author. Co-constructing a new combination of the two results in higher order thinking or comprehension. This is the primary job of the teacher.

3.9 Bilinguals are usually excellent at letter knowledge, phonemic awareness and decoding but often struggle with comprehension. See the work of Amituana’i- Toloa and McNaughton (2008) and their extensive writings and related articles for detailed discussion of reading comprehension by Pasifika bilingual students.

3.10 Diagnostic running record material on the language/s used for literacy instruction (Rau, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2008). Taking running records and assessments in English when English is not the prime language of literacy instruction in the programme does not make sense as many deep literacy strategies do not transfer without explicit instruction in the other language. Levels of thinking comprehension checks must be used for planning to control the difficulty of the reading tasks and the next steps in reading instruction. The recording of a book or reading level is not the main purpose of using diagnostic monitoring tools.

3.11 Reading needs to be taught explicitly through the To With and By scaffolded approaches (see Effective Literacy Practice (ELP), Yr 1-4, 2003; ELP Yr 4-8, 2006; Goulton, Lediard, Butts, Karatea, & Te Whaiti, 2008; Hohepa, 2008).

3.12 Regular everyday tuakana-teina, more skilled, less skilled literacy activities in reading and writing are essential (see Scaffolding, ZPD, co-construction). Teachers, teacher aides, other adults and other children can all be the more skilled tutor. The less the language is spoken or read at home, the more important an everyday tuakana – teina programmes becomes.

3.13 A scaffolded approach to reading and writing using instructional scaffolding literacy sequential planning strategies is essential (Gibbons, 2002; www. myread.org; Walki, 2006). Scaffolding is probably the single most important pedagogical idea for the 21st century.

3.14 Explicit, regular context related high frequency vocabulary teaching and learning (Thornbury, 2002) is most important in the acquisition of literacy in a second language and literacy. While basic structures (grammar) can be acquired in 18 months to two years in an immersion setting, without planned explicit teaching, vocabulary never catches up to fluent speaker acquisition as the second language learner has to acquire vocabulary at twice the rate of the native speaker in many stages of their development (Nation, 2001; Thornbury, 2002). While vocabulary can be acquired from book experience through teacher reading and book flood strategies (Elley, 1991), explicit planned vocabulary development around the texts including discussion, is also needed.

3.15 Lexical chunking (Lewis, 1993, 2000) groups essential and high frequency vocabulary (lexical items often commonly called phrases by non linguists) into useful semantic or syntactic chunks or collocations. These are groups of words that frequently occur together rather than just isolated words. Word frequency data (www. tki.org) needs to be expanded into their lexical chunks. Teachers then encourage students to look for, notice (Ellis, 2000, 2002, 2005, Lewis, 1993, 2000) and record for later use, useful meaningful chunks of words in their listening, viewing and reading that could be used in their presenting, speaking and writing. This shows the essential close links between reading and writing and why we now call the field literacy and biliteracy.
3.16 Translanguaging and transliteracy (Baker, 2006, pp. 295-298; Garcia, 2009, pp.42- 72) is the powerful strategic classroom language planning and strategy use where material is presented as listening or reading or viewing input in one language and the outputs or speaking writing or visual presenting are done in the other language. Both languages are used, but there is no translation. Each language is used for different input and output purposes. It is ideal for learning language and curriculum content and for developing literacy in the weaker language. Discussed in depth in Garcia, (2009)
3.17 Similar to this is planned strategic language use (Jacobson, 1990) where each language is strategically used for different planned purposes. That is for example -one language to front load ideas or schema, another to explain, another to clarify, another to make links to known ideas or cultural schema. In this approach there is no direct translation as random code –mixing or switching simply leads to learners waiting for the translation and not bothering to learn the L2/HL (Baker, 2006).
3.15 The view that the teaching of writing should concentrate primarily on the teaching and learning of Genre or Text Types is being challenged (see MoE, NSW, & WA, Australia; MOE/ Learning Media, 2009, Supporting English language learning in primary schools.). Genre teaching has often led to teaching sterile, decontextualised text forms without relevant contexts and student voice and purpose. Instead, students are encouraged to write for functional and communicative purposes and audience ‘in whatever combinations [of text forms or genre] are most effective for the purpose’ (MoE/ Learning Media, 2009, p. 4). This returns 2nd LL to a functions of language approach which integrates listening, viewing reading, speaking, presenting, and writing across key language functions and communicative purposes within an task based (Ellis, 2002, 2005) inquiry model (see Gibbons, 1991, 2002)
3.16 In all curriculum areas the specialised vocabulary, language functions, lexical chunks and other key structures and frequent vocabulary needed to master the learning outcomes of the curriculum area need to be identified in advance of the unit of work. Activities are then planned and taught alongside the curriculum work. Being successful with the curriculum content is largely dependent of being successful with the language (of the curriculum. This is especially true for example in Mathematics where the Numeracy Project approach requires students to be able to use functions of language to sequence, explain, evaluate, justify, argue, persuade and negotiate strategy use and choices, not just get and record the right answer (Meaney, Fairhill & Trinick, 2007).


Summary
The implementation of effective programmes in bilingual /immersion settings is very dependant on having appropriate research informed, whole school/ ECE and whanau/ fanau /syndicate organisation and management policies and strategies in place that supports the operation of the bilingual programme and the achievement of its objectives. The use of inappropriate monolingual organisation and management strategies is the main current barrier to more effective student achievement in most bilingual/ immersion programmes. Teachers can only do what policies and conventions permit them to do. Before reviewing and developing classroom pedagogies, school practices usually need review to ensure that philosophies and practices at all levels of the school are appropriately and most effectively aligned. Failure to do so leads to low levels of student achievement in bilingualism, biliteracy and a structural inability to achieve academic, cultural, linguistic, parental goals and aspirations for the programme.

For enquiries concerning this paper contact: j.mccaffery@auckland.ac.nz
John McCaffery
Senior Lecturer
Te Kura o ngā Matatini o ngā Reo me ngā Toi
School of Arts Languages and Literacies
( English/ Literacy /Languages/TESOL/ Biliteracy/ Bilingual/ Immersion Education )
Faculty of Education, Epsom Campus. Office N Block, N601
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92601, Symonds Street, Auckland 1, Aotearoa/New Zealand
email: j.mccaffery@auckland.ac.nz
Ph: Mob: 027 20 83 766 Home 09 846 9715 Work: 64-9-6238899 ext 48709 Fax; 64-9-623 8811
Greetings from Aotearoa/New Zealand: Kia Ora ra: Talofa lava: Malo e lelei: Kiaorana: Fakalofa lahi atu:Ni hao ma: Mauri...



References and Bibliography

Aukuso, S. ( 2005) O le Taiala Samoan bilingual unit: A case study of the dual medium programme in the New Zealand context. Auckland: Evaleon Books.
Baker, C. (2000). The care and education of young bilinguals: An introduction for professionals. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. (2006) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (4rd ed.), Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. (2007). A parents and teachers guide to bilingualism (3rd ed). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
. (pp. 62-85). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

C. Baker, & N. H. Hornberger, (Eds.), An introductory reader to the writings of Jim Cummins, (pp. 175-194). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Benton, R., (1996). Language policy in New Zealand: defining the ineffable. In M. Herriman & Burnaby, B. (Eds.), Language policies in English dominant countries: six case studies (pp. 62-98). Clevedon, England ; Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Berryman, M., & Glynn, T. ( 2003) Reciprocal language learning for Māori students and parents. In R. Barnard & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual children’s language and literacy development. (pp. 59-79). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Bialystok, E. (2007). Acquisition of Literacy in Bilingual Children: A Framework for Research. Language Learning, 57 (s1), 45–77.
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 43-61.
Burgess, F. (2010). Enhancing meaning during book experiences in Pasefika Early Childhood Centres. [An on line paper only] Retrieved 18 June 2010 from
http://www.educate.ece.govt.nz/learning/exploringPractice/Literacy/EnhancingMeaningDuringBookExperiences.aspx
Burgess, F. A. (2004). Expansion of meaning during book experiences in two a'oga amata, in Language Acquisition Research. Ministry of Education, Wellington.
Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts: Changing power relations in education. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Cloud, N., Genesee,. F., & Hamayan, E.(2000). Dual language instruction. Boston, MA: Thomson/ Heinle.
Corson, D. (2001). Language diversity and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cummins, J. (1979) Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of educational Research, 49, 221-251.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 18-36.
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2001). Empowering minority students. In C. Baker, & N. H. Hornberger, (Eds.),
An introductory reader to the writings of Jim Cummins, (pp. 175-194). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2003). Biliteracy, Empowerment, and Transformative Pedagogy. Retrieved March 15, 2007, from http://www.iteachilearn.com


Cummins, J. (2008a). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street and N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, (2nd ed.),Vol. 2: Literacy. Boston, MA: Springer Science. Retrieved 22 October 2008 from: http://www.springerlink.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/content/r2043335771317h7/fulltext.pdf
Cummins, J. (2008b). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in Bilingual Education. In J. Cummins and N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education,( 2nd ed)., Vol. 5: Bilingual Education. Boston, MA: Springer Science. Retrieved 22 October 2008 from: http://www.springerlink.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/content/l84828513q1vtl21/fulltext.pdf
Cummins, J. (2008c). Language and literacy teaching for immigrant students: A pedagogical framework. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis – International Journal of Experimental Research in Education, 43(2).
Durie, M. (2001, February). A framework for considering Maori educational achievement. Opening address to the Hui Taumata Matauranga Tuarua. Retrieved on June 24, 2004, from http://www.lianza.org.nz/text_files/Maori1.doc
Dworin, J. E. (2003). Insights into biliteracy development: toward a bi-directional theory of bilingual pedagogy. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 2, 171-186.
Ellis. R. (2000) Form-Focussed Instruction and Second Language Learning" (Ed.). Special issue of Language Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed Second Language Acquisition: A Literature Review. Wellington : Ministry of Education.

Elley,W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41. 375–411.
Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters
Franken, M. ( Franken, M. (2005). Principles of effective literacy practice for EAL students in New Zealand Classrooms. Waikato Journal of Education,11(2), 67-82.
Franken, M., May, S., & McComish, J. ( 2005) Pasifika Languages Research Guidelines Project. Literature Review. A review commissioned by the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Hamilton, New Zealand: Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research, University of Waikato.
Franken, M., McComish, J., & May, S. ( 2007) Language enhancing the achievement of Pasifika (LEAP). Retrieved 5th September, 2007, from the New Zealand Ministry of Education website http://www.tki.org.New Zealand/pasifika/r/leap
Franken, M., May, S., & McComish, J. ( 2008) Pasifika Languages Research Guidelines Project. Literature Review. Wellington: Ministry of Education.:
Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. England: Wiley- Blackwell
Gee, P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds), Rewriting literacy :culture and the discourse of other (pp.1-11). New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W.M., & Christian, D. (Eds.), (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gort, M. (2004). Writing processes of young bilinguals : Lessons learned from classroom-based research. Proceedings of the First Symposium on Bilingualism and Bilingual Education in Latin America, Buenos Aires, Argentina, April 2004. Retrieved 7th May 2007 from:http://www.essarp.org.ar/bilinglatam/papers/Gort.pdf
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguistics, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3-15.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Helu-Thaman, K. (1995). Concepts of learning, knowledge and wisdom in Tonga, and their relevance to modern education. Prospects, XXV, (4), 723-733.
Hemara, W. (2000). Māori Pedagogies: A view from the literature. Wellington: NZCER
Houia, W. (2002). An analysis of typical errors of young learners of te reo Mäori. He Puna Körero: Journal of Māori and Pacific Development, 3(2), 44-72.
Human Rights Commission (2008). Languages in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Te waka Reo: Statement on language policy. Wellington: Human Rights Commission.
Human Rights Commission (2009). Te waka reo: National language policy network, e-newsletter. Wellington: Human Rights Commission. Retrieved 14 July 2009, from aotearoaethnicnetwork-bounces@aen.org.New Zealand.
Hunkin-Tuiletufuga, G.A. (2001). Pasefika languages and Pasefika identities: contemporary and future challenges. In C. Macpherson, P. Spoonley & M. Anae (Eds.), Tangata o te Moana Nui: the evolving identities of Pacific peoples in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 196-211). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Jacobson, R. (1990) Allocating two languages as a key feature of bilingual methodology. In R. Jacobson & C. Faltis (Eds.), Language distribution issues in bilingual schooling (pp. 3-31). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Jiménez, R., García, G., & Pearson, P. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1), 90-112.
Johnson, R.K. & Swain, M. (Eds). (1998). Immersion Education: International Perspectives .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnstone, R.M. (2001) Immersion in a Second or Additional Language at School: Evidence from international research. Report for the Scottish Executive Education Department by Richard Johnston. Retrieved 23 May 2010 from http://www.strath.ac.uk/scilt/researchandstatistics/scottishciltpublications/.

Johnstone, R.M. (2002) Immersion in a second or additional language at school: A review of the international research. University of Stirling; Scotland. Scottish Centre for Informationon Language Teaching( CILT). Retrieved 24 March 2005 from http://www.strath.ac.uk/scilt/researchandstatistics/scottishciltpastresearchprojects/immersion/.

Johnstone, R.M. (2003). Evaluation Report. Early Partial Immersion in French at Walker Road Primary School, Aberdeen. The First Two Years: 2000/1 and 2001/2. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department. Retrieved 24 March 2005 from www.scilt.stir.ac.uk/publications/documents/immersion/Summary.pdf
Johnstone, R. M. (2007). Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1(1), 111-128.

Jones Diaz, C. & Harvey, N. (2002). Other words, other worlds: Bilingual identities and literacy. In. L. Makin & C. Jones–Diaz (Eds.), Literacies in the early childhood (pp.175-195). Sydney: MacLennan & Petty.
Jones-Diaz, C., & Harvey, N. (2007) Other words, other worlds: bilingual identities and literacy. In L.Makin, C. Jones-Diaz, & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in childhood (pp. 203-216). Sydney: Elsevier.
Keegan, P. J. (2003). The Māori vocabulary knowledge of year 6 students in Māori-medium education. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Keegan, P. J. (2005). Maori Vocabulary. In A. Bell, R. Harlow & D. Starks (Eds.), Languages of New Zealand (pp. 131-148). Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington Press.
Kenner, C. (2000). Biliteracy in a Monolingual school system? English and Gujarti in South London. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13(1), 13-30.
Kenner, C. (2004) Living in simultaneous worlds: Difference and integration in bilingualscript-learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7(1), 43–61.
Kenner, C., Gregory, E., Ruby, M., & Al-Azami, S. ( 2008) Bilingual learning for second and third generation children, Language Culture and Curriculum,21(2)
Latu, S. M. (2006). A case study of a Tongan Bilingual Unit. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lenker, A., & Rhodes, N. (2007). Foreign Language Immersion Programs: Features and Trends Over 35 Years. CAL Digest February, 2007. Retrieved 5 April, 2007 from http://www.cal.org/resources/immersion
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: the state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (Ed.). (2000). Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
Lindholm- Leary, K. ( 2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Lowman, C., Fitzgerald, T., Rapira, P., & Clark, R. (2007). First language literacy skill transfer in a second language learning environment: Strategies for biliteracy. Set 2, 24-28.
Malakoff, M. and K. Hakuta. (1991). Translation skills and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 141-166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
May, S. (2005) Introduction: Bilingual/immersion education in Aotearoa/New Zealand: setting the context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(5), 365-376.
May, S., Hill, R., & Tiakiwai, S. (2004). Bilingual/Immersion education: Indicators of good practice: Final report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
May, S. & Hill, R. (2005) Māori medium education: Current issues and challenges. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(5), 377- 403.
May, S., & Hill, R. (2008). Maori-medium education: Current issues and challenges. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Can schools save indigenous languages: Policy and practice on four continents (pp. 66-98). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
McCaffery, J ( 2008) Models and approaches to Bilingualism . Unpublished doctoral work. Faculty of Education, University of Auckland
McCaffery, J., McMurchy-Pilkington, C., & Dale, H.(1998). Teaching and learning issues in Māori medium education: immersion plus one. Paper presented at the Community languages and ESOL Conference, Massey University, Palmerston North, 25-28 September 1998.
McCaffery, J. & Tuafuti, P. (1998). The development of Pacific Islands bilingual education in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Many Voices 13, 11-16.
McCaffery, J., & Tuafuti, P. (2003). Samoan children’s bilingual language and literacy development. In R. Barnard & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual children’s language and literacy development. (pp. 80-107). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
McCaffery, J., & Tuafuti, P. (2002, October). Key principles of bilingual education. A paper presented at the Ulimasao First National Pasifika Bilingual Education Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved November 20th 2002 from: www.ulimasao.org.nz
McCaffery, J., & Fuatavai, N. (2003). A guide to the rationale, approaches, models and programme variations in bilingual students acquisition of language and literacy: Bilingual Education. A koha contribution to the Language Acquisition/ Bilingual Education Forum Research Division, Ministry of Education, Brentwood Hotel Wellington October 9-10, 2003.
McCaffery J. Villers H, & Lowman, C . (2008) Biliteracy: Finding the words to write in two languages within a diverse school setting. In refereed proceedings of the 2nd Language Education and Diversity Conference Hamilton: University of Waikato
McCaffery, J., & Lowman, C. (2009, March). The need for differentiated instruction for bilingual/immersion learners. Unpublished presentation to the Auckland Literacy Network, Richmond Road School, Auckland, New Zealand.McNaughton, S. (2002). Meeting of Minds. Wellington: Learning Media.
McCaffery, J., & McFall- McCaffery, J.T. ( 2010 ) O tatou ō aga’i i fea?/`Oku tau ō ki fe?/where are we heading ?: Pasifika languages in Aotearoa/ New Zealand,
AlterNative 6, Special Pasifika Edition.
McNaughton, S. (2002). Meeting of Minds. Wellington: Learning Media.
McNaughton, S., MacDonald, S., Barber, J., Farry, S. Woodard, H. (2006). Nga Taumatua - Research on literacy practices and language development (Te Reo) in Years 0-1 in Māori medium classrooms. Wellington.
MacPherson, C. (1984). On the future of Samoan ethnicity. In P. Spoonley, C Macpherson, D Pearson, & C. Sedgewick (Eds.), Tauiwi: Racism and ethnicity in New Zealand (pp.107-127). Palmerston North, N.Z.: Dunmore Press.
MacPherson, C. (2004). From Pacific Islanders to Pacific people and beyond. In P. Spoonley, C. MacPherson, & D. Pearson (Eds.), Tangata, Tangata: The changing ethnic contours of New Zealand (pp.135-156). Southbank, Vic, Australia: Thomson.
Ministry of Education ( 2007). Te Marautanga o Aotearoa: He tauira hei korerorero. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education/ Learning Media, (2009). Supporting English language learning in primary schools. (Four separate texts: yr 1-2, yr 3-4, yrs 5-6 and yrs 7-8) Wellington: Learning Media.
Meaney, T., Fairhall, U., & Trinick, T. (2007). Te reo tätaitai: developing rich mathematical language in Maori immersion classrooms. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from http://www.tlri.org.nz/publications/.
Moll, L. C., & Dworin, J. E. (1996). Biliteracy development in classrooms: Social dynamics and cultural possibilities. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 221-246). Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press.
Mizutani, S. (2001). An investigation of the effects of goal-setting on language learning Moll, L. C., Sáez, R., & Dworin, J.E.(2001). Exploring biliteracy: Two student case examples of writing as a social practice. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 435-449.
Mora, J. K. (2001a). Effective instructional practices and assessment for literacy and biliteracy development. In S. R. Hurley & J.V. Tinajero (Eds.), Literacy Assessment of Second Language Learners (pp. 149-166). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Nation, P. (2001) Learning and teaching vocabulary in another language. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Padrón, Y.N. (1992). The effect of strategy instruction on bilingual student’s cognitive strategy use in reading. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(3 & 4), 35-61.
Penton, R., Glenn, J., English, C., & Ministry of Education. (2004). Effective literacy strategies in years 9 to 13. Wellington, N.Z.: Learning Media.Pérez, B.( 2004). Becoming Biliterate: A Study of Two-Way Bilingual Immersion Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Podmore,V., with Samu, T., & the A’oga Faa Samoa (2006). O le tamama lana a’oga, o le tama ma lona fa’asinomaga. Final research report from the A’oga Fa’a Samoa for the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education
Rau, C. (2004). He mātai mātātupu: assessment for Māori medium literacy learning. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Rau, C. (2005a). Literacy Acquisition, Assessment and Achievement of Year Two Students in Total Immersion in Māori Programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(5), 404-432.
Rau, C. (2005b). Te Hapai Ako, Mātauranga Reo, Kura Strand of Pen Schooling Improvement Initiative. Report to the Ministry of Education. Ngaruawahia: Kia Atamai Trust.
Rau, C. (2008). Assessment in indigenous language programmes. In E. Shohamy & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd ed), Vol. 7: Language Testing and Assessmen, (pp. 319-330). New York: Springer.
Rau, C., Whiu, I., Thomson, H., Glynn, T., & W, M. (2001). He Ara Angitu: A Description Literacy Achievement for Year 0–2 Students in Total Immersion in Māori Programmes, Report to the Ministry of Education. Ngaruawahia: Kia Atamai Trust.
Reyes, M.(2001).Unleashing possibilities: Biliteracy in the primary grades. In M. Reyes & J. Halcón (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students (pp. 96-121). New York: Teachers College Press.
Ricciardelli, L.(1992) Bilingualism and cognitive development in relation to threshold theory. Journal of psycholinguistic Research, 21, 301-316.
Riches, C., & Genesee, F. (2006). Cross-linguistic and cross-modal aspects of literacy development. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian, D. Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 64-108). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rogoff, B.(1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Royer, J.M. & Carlo, M.S. (1991) Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language. Journal of Reading, 34 (6), 450-455.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
Si'ilata, R. (2004). Talaaga o gagana a tamaiti mai le Pasifika : Language stories of children from the Pacific. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Siilata, R/ Ministry of Education (2007). The Pasifika teacher aide handbook. Auckland: Ministry of Education.
Si’ilata, Rae. (2006 ) Supporting Pasifika bilingual teacher-aides in mainstream primary classrooms. Final report to the Ministry of Education . Auckland: Uniservices.
Si’ilata, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2004). Pasifika students’ perceptions of their L1 maintenance at home and school: Language to climb a coconut tree. The TESOLANZ Journal 12, 22-38.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education - or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slavin, R. & Cheung, A. ( 2003). Effective reading programmes for English language learners. Report No. 66. Baltimore: Centre for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR). CRESPAR / John Hopkins University. Retrieved April 20, 2005, from www.csos.jhu.edu
Smith, G. H. (1997). The development of kaupapa Maori theory and praxis. Doctoral thesis, University of Auckland monograph. Auckland: The International Research Institute for Maori and Indigenous Education, University of Auckland.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonising methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin: Zed Books and Otago University Press.
Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: current status and future directions. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (Eds.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp.271-288). New York: Springer Science.
Tagoilelagi-Leota, F., McNaughton, S., MacDonald, S., & Farry, S. (2005). Bilingual and biliteracy development over the transition to school. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(5), 455-479.
Tanielu, L. (2008). O le a'oa'oina o le gagana, faitautusi ma le tusitusi i le a'oga a le faifeau : Ekalesia Faapotopotoga Kerisiano Samoa (EFKS) - Literacy education, language, reading and writing in the pastor's school : Congregational Christian Church of Samoa (CCCS). Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Auckland.
Thomas, W.P & Collier, V.P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. NCBE Resource Collection Series 9 December. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Also available, www.ncela.gwu.edu/effectiveness/thomas-collier97.pdf:332K
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development. Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Essex, England: Pearson.
Tuafuti, P., & McCaffery, J. (2005). Family and community empowerment through bilingual education. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(5), 480-503.
Valdés, G. (2004). Between support and marginalization: The development of academic language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 102-132.
Verhoeven, L. (1991). Acquistion of biliteracy. In J. H. Hulsijn & J. F. Matter (Eds.), Reading in two languages (pp. 61-74). Amsterdam: AILA.
Verhoeven, L. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: The linguistic interdependency hypothesis revisited. Language Learning, 44, 381-415.