The Effects of Bilingualism On Students and Learning
The Effects of Bilingualism On Students and Learning
The Effects of Bilingualism On Students and Learning
Domenic Corrado
Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
University of Toronto
February 7, 2021
2
Bilingualism is an important element of the world today and as such has been studied in a
variety of ways. Overall, research has determined that bilingualism has a generally positive
effect on learning, however, there remain many discrepancies and lack of attention to critical
areas in in the current research. This paper will examine the current state of research, contrasting
officially bilingual country, and receiving an education in the French language until Grade 11,
has led me to question whether students who had a complete grasp of the language or were
enrolled in a French immersion program could be shown to think or perform in school differently
due to this additional language. I have always wondered how languages have affected ways of
of language, much of the research on bilingualism involves the English language quite
prominently given both its status worldwide and the dominance of English-language literature
and academia. In considering my own positionality and in an effort to combat this linguistic
gender and cultural location. Although featuring a number of North American voices, this paper
also includes the work of researchers from Europe, Central America, Iran, and Israel.
Additionally, the research highlights bilingualism in South Africa and languages stemming from
Asia. This paper wis divided into three sections. The first highlights major findings concerning
the effects of bilingualism on learning. The second examines the scope of these findings and the
extent of these effects. The third highlights additional considerations prominent in studies on this
topic. Before examining the research, it should be noted that in almost all studies, female to male
3
ratios were fairly even. Bilingualism itself is difficult to measure, as languages may be learned at
The first element to examine is the general findings of research to this date. This section
will examine the noted effects of bilingualism on the literacy and linguistic ability, cognitive
ability, and memory of learners. In most cases, multilingualism can be considered an extension
of bilingualism, any positive or negative effects of the latter can often be assumed to extend to at
The most common and well-examined focus of research on the effects of bilingualism
concerns literacy and language ability. This should not be surprising, as bilingualism itself
relates heavily to language, providing an obvious connection to literacy and language learning. A
2006 comprehensive study in the U.S. found that bilingual students in general benefitted from
bilingual instruction in terms of their linguistic ability (Cummins, 2015). However, despite
research having shown an advantage for bilinguals in their language abilities, this has not been
found in all studies (Wodniecka, Craik, Luo, & Bialystok, 2010). A number of suggestion have
been made as to why this discrepancy occurs. One is that since bilingual children are exposed to
two languages, they spend less time developing their knowledge of and ability in either (Singh,
2018; Paradis & Jia, 2017). Essentially, there is concern that splitting time between two or more
languages in effect splits children’s attention and capability as well. In addition, children are
forced to differentiate words, syntax, and other elements of each language they are learning, a
potentially mentally taxing effort. A similar problem occurs over phonology and pronunciation,
4
wherein two languages may feature different sounds produced by the same single or combination
of letters (Singh, 2018). Languages which are vastly different are thought to produce a greater
difficulty for young learners especially. This could be a serious concern especially in English-
dominant countries, which tend to accept many immigrants from different language families
altogether. English L2 learners whose first language was Mandarin or Cantonese have been
shown to initially trail English L2 learners of other languages in verb morphology specifically, as
the Chinese languages lack tense and agreement morphology (Paradis & Jia, 2017). Furthermore,
languages which utilize completely different means of organizing speech and sentence structure,
such as French and Mandarin, may lead young bilingual learners into a web of difficulty. In one
study, aimed at determining the effects of bilingual on infants’ literacy, 40 infants between 7 and
8 months were tested. Half were English-monolinguals while the other half spoke Mandarin as a
second language. The results of the study found no major discrepancy between the abilities of
monolingual and bilingual students in recognizing English words (Singh, 2018). However, the
factor of age may have played a role, which will be examined later in this paper. Although
bilingual children have not been shown to have a serious detrimental malus to their vocabulary
development, evidence from studies in the last decade have given rise to the concern that their
vocabulary development in the dominant monolingual language lags behind that of their
monolingual peers (Singh, 2018). Thus, recent evidence points toward a negative effect on one
element of bilingual’s learning of the dominant language of where they live, but not their overall
language skills. Another factor is that studies have shown that bilingual children learning English
as a second language may not catch up to their English monolingual peers for some time, despite
the suggested benefit of bilingualism (Paradis & Jia, 2017). Additionally, studies conducted in
the Netherlands have found bilinguals to have weaker reading comprehension than their
5
monolingual peers overall, not just in a specific language (Cox, 2017). To determine the veracity
of these claims, longer-term studies must be consulted. A three year study was conducted aimed
at determining how long this process of bilinguals catching up in their L2 may take. It tested 21
bilingual English L2 children in Canada beginning between 8 and 9 years old, split almost evenly
between Cantonese and Mandarin native speakers. The results of this study suggest that bilingual
children who began learning their second language at a latter stage than their first are able to
match the ability of monolinguals in several sub-elements of their L2, such as vocabulary size
(Paradis & Jia, 2017). However, factors such as the difficulty of language tasks presented affect
the timeline for L2 learners to meet the level of native speakers. Additionally, as in younger L2
learners, personal factors such as their learning and language environments affect individual their
rate of achieving fluency (Paradis & Jia, 2017). Despite these findings, another 10 year study
tracking 91 English L2 learners from grades 1-6 found that although they began to close the gap
in the English vocabulary of them and their English L1 peers, they had yet to achieve parity by
Grade 6 and the gap continued to exist (Farnia & Geva, 2011). As the growth rate of the
vocabulary of both sets of learners began to slow at a similar rate, the gap between them may
continue to exist permanently (Farnia & Geva, 2011). This contrasts with the findings of Paradis
& Jia, who suggested that although some L2 learners will require more time to achieve linguistic
parity, it will occur at some point. While the authors of this study suggest that L2s may never
fully catch up, further studies are needed to determine this concretely. Although the L2 learners
in this study included Portuguese, Punjabi, and Tamil L1s, the common L1 was English. In order
to fully universalize this claim, further studies are required in different majority languages, and
for a longer term study past Grade 6. Another study, questioning how bilingual children compare
to monolinguals in letter and category fluency tests, was conducted in Iran. 1,600 children from
6
primary schools were given these tests, including 600 Persian monolinguals from Tehran, 500
bilinguals from a Turkish-Persian area, and 500 from a Kurdish-Persian area. The number of
children was roughly evenly distributed among the three groups, gender, and grade levels
(Kormi-Nouri, A. Moradi, S. Moradi, Akbari-Zardkhaneh, & Zahedian, 2012). The results of the
study were mixed, with bilingual students performing better in the letter fluency test while
performing worse in the category test. The authors note that this discrepancy has been found in
previous research (Kormi-Nouri et al., 2012). Together with the previous study, this illustrates
how language is composed of a number of elements, which can differ in terms of their
correlation to bilingualism. These and other studies have shown this specific issue to be complex.
Overall, these studies and earlier research have illustrated the uncertainty of the absolute benefits
of bilingualism in terms of linguistic ability, which will require further studies to determine.
Prior to the 1960s, research had generally suggested a negative cognitive effect due to
bilingualism (Arefi & Alizadeh, 2008), however, recent studies have shifted the tone. In a review
and analysis of 63 studies concerning bilingualism and cognitive ability, Adesope et al.
concluded that there exists an overall cognitive benefit due to bilingualism. However, outcomes
varied among these studies, with some finding negative associations with bilingualism (Adesope,
Lavin, Thompson, & Ungerleider, 2010). In 2008, a study of children in Grades 1, 3, and 5 in
Iran was performed, seeking to determine the effects of bilingualism on cognitive development.
The children were divided evenly among Farsi monolinguals, Kurdish-Farsi, and Azari-Farsi
bilinguals (Arefi & Alizadeh, 2008). When tested using tasks based on Jean Piaget’s dimensions
of operational thinking, including quantity and weight conservation, and spatial conservation, the
study found no significant difference between the scores of bilingual and monolingual children
7
on these tasks, in line with previous studies (Arefi & Alizadeh, 2008). However, this reliance on
one specific realm of cognitive studies does not encompass all measures of cognitive
development. As well, the authors note that learning an additional language may come easier to
bilinguals, as their brains have already been conditioned to new linguistic development (Arifa &
Alizadeh, 2008). Another study, partly aimed at uncovering the effects of bilingualism on
cognitive abilities, found contrasting results. The authors hypothesis that bilingual children
would have an advantage in executive function, the collection of mental abilities including self-
control of attention which benefit one’s ability in non-linguistic tasks, was proven supported by
the results, which found that monolinguals had slower reaction times in a word retrieval test than
bilinguals (Mueller Gathercole, Thomas, Jones, Guasch, Young, & Hughes, 2010). In a prior
task, bilinguals likewise outperformed their monolingual peers, suggesting an overall benefit
(Mueller Gathercole et al., 2010). The discrepancy between these studies can likely be attributed
to the different standards of measure cognitive ability, illustrating the difficulty of determining
involving adults should be consulted also. A study conducted to identify “cognitive predictors of
individual differences in adult foreign-language learning” (Brooks & Kempe, 2012, p. 281)
compared a diverse group of adults in New York aged 17-41 on their ability to learn Russian.
The 16 bilinguals in the group performed better on testing, illustrating the hypothesized transfer
of knowledge from a second language when learning a third, thus giving bilinguals a distinct
advantage (Brooks & Kempe, 2012). It should be noted that this advantage stems from the
additional ways of thinking that a second language may provide to a bilingual learner, and may
not be seen between all languages. Determine this would of course demand further studies
involving a multitude of language families. In another study featuring North American adults
8
from 18-88, a task measuring non-verbal cognitive abilities was utilized. The results were that
monolinguals performed better on this task, which the authors suggest may have been due to fact
that although bilinguals may benefit from greater cognitive ability than monolinguals, their
mental processing may in fact be less efficient, being split between two languages (Wodniecka et
al., 2010). This could result in a negative outcome compared to monolinguals, however this
requires further research to determine the extent of this effect. He distinction between overall
cognitive benefit and the results of testing leave an imperfect impression of how beneficial
Studies concerning the effect of bilingualism on memory mainly focus on adult learners,
likely due to the knowledge that memory ability generally decreases in later adulthood, making
any effect of bilingualism significant. In a study seeking to determine these effects using two
memory-based tasks, a general advantage in memory capabilities was found among bilinguals
(Wodniecka et al., 2010). However, the authors highlight the importance of other factors, which
will be examined later in this paper. Additionally, memory-based research involving young
children should be conducted, in order to present a fuller picture of the effects on memory. This
is especially important as some studies examining children with a limited grasp on their L2 have
shown a strong relationship between their phonological short-term memory and their ability to
develop their L2 vocabulary (Farnia & Geva, 2011). Thus, the effects of memory and becoming
bilingual may also be related to this focus. Overall however, more studies into the relationship
between bilingualism and memory are required, as well as a larger scope in terms of age and
regards, there exist questions over the limitations and scope of these effects. In this section, the
extent to which the effects of bilingualism are related to the age of learners, specific subject
fields, and learners’ exposure to both languages, at home and in school, will be questioned.
The first major question is whether the effects of bilingualism, whether positive or
negative, remain the same with age. Essentially, will a fully grown bilingual adult have the same
benefits or face the same challenges as a bilingual child? A study of 42 Australian Italian-
English bilinguals, evenly split between younger and older adults aged 19-41 and 47-80,
respectively, compared the two groups on their processing of words in both languages
(Siyambalapitiya, Chenery, & Copland, 2009). The results of quantitative testing revealed that
the younger bilinguals were able to identify cognates quicker than noncognates, while the older
group on average recognized noncognates quicker. The authors suggest that this shift may be the
result of the similarity of cognates between English and Italian leading to cognitive slowdown
among the older group, which would relate to research which has shown “poorer inhibitory
mechanism with increasing age” (Siyambalapitiya, Chenery, & Copland, 2009, p. 552).
However, the relatively small sample size of this study makes it difficult to concretely establish
these as universal effects. Conversely, Wodniecka et al. concluded that the advantage which the
bilinguals in their study were found to posses was most applicable to older adults, being quite
limited among younger adults (2010). Of course, these are two different effects, but the
discrepancy illustrates the difficulty of claiming an overall benefit towards either younger or
older learners. Kormi-Nouri et al. similarly found a changing effect based on age, even withing a
short timespan, in their study of Iranian children. They noted that the older bilingual primary
10
school children performed worse than monolinguals on the categorization test, suggesting that
that this is due to the existence of an “interference” (Kormi-Nouri et al., 2012, p. 359) between
languages which occurs when bilinguals reach a state of balance between both languages after
several years of having learned their second language. Again, the development and evolution of a
person, even within a few years, is shown to have potentially large ramifications for the benefit
they may possess by being bilingual. Cox’s study specifically sought to determine whether older
bilingual adults would exhibit the same benefits to learning a third language as younger adults,
noting that no prior studies had attempted to do so (Cox, 2017). 45 adults over 60, including both
English monolinguals and English-Spanish bilinguals, were tested on their ability to determine
syntax-based elements of Latin sentences using a computer program. The results indicated that
they had the same benefit to learning at third language as younger monolinguals (Cox, 2017).
Thus, this study suggests that some benefits of bilingualism remain into older age. Overall, these
studies have shown that the division of bilinguals based on age seems to differentiate some of the
effects that bilingualism has on learning, although no overall consensus can be made currently.
A second consideration is the extent of the effect of bilingualism in subject fields aside
from language, which as mentioned prior is the central focus of research. Some research has
focused on math, such as Leikin’s study of the effect of bilingualism on mathematical creativity.
The study involved 37 kindergarten children in Israel, of which 14 were Hebrew monolinguals
and 23 Hebrew-Russian bilinguals, and utilized two rounds of visual and spatial tasks. Leiken
hypothesized that bilingual students would display greater creativity then monolinguals. In line
with this, the bilingual students did show higher levels of creativity in problem-solving, as well
as performing better overall, although a significant difference only appeared in the second round
11
of testing (Leiken, 2013). The specific focus on math was noted by Leiken as well, who also
hypothesized that the creativity used in general and in math are distinct, and the influence of
bilingualism on each is as well. The two tasks each relied on one of these types of creativity, thus
the lack of correlation between the scores of each group of children led Leiken to confirm this
hypothesis (2012). What this means is that the effect of bilingualism on creativity is itself
divided into smaller areas of investigation. Although this study only involved young children,
this gives an even greater importance to further research related to math and other subjects. In
another study involving over 2,000 Chicago-area students from Grades 3-5, of which only a
small minority were bilingual, students were given standardized tests in math for each
appropriate grade level (Marian, Shook, & Schroeder, 2013). Although standardized tests have
been criticized often, in this case they provide a common paradigm through which to mono- and
(Marian et al., 2013). It must be said however, that this benefit may stem from their being placed
in bilingual classrooms, rather than simply being bilingual themselves. This impact of learning
environments will be covered later. Other studies have focussed on science, including a recent
albeit small study questioning how bilingual students use their bilingualism in this subject and
the unique language of science. 16 Swedish-Turkish bilinguals between the ages of 13 and 14 in
a suburban Swedish school were interviewed. As five had been in Sweden for less than five
years, while the rest also used Turkish heavily, there was a reliance on Turkish as a means of
better understanding scientific terms and language by translating words from Swedish. However,
the authors note that these translations resulted in the proper or exact meaning of some science
study however, this presents only limited view into how bilingualism truly affects studying
12
science. Therefore, more concrete research is required in order to determine an overall benefit, if
one exists. In addition to these subjects, there is little research into the effects of bilingualism, if
any, in others, specifically art. This is especially important considering the emphasis placed on
Content and Language Integrated Learning, the method of teaching students a subject through a
second language, therefore learning both simultaneously. Thus, uncovering any potential effects
A third element which has been suggested to determine the scope and degree of the
effects of bilingualism is the exposure of bilinguals to both languages. Singh notes, for example,
that the likely greater exposure to English that the bilingual infants studied had may have
improved their linguistic abilities in comparison to those of a similar age examined in another
study using similar tasks, which found that bilingual infants performed worse than monolinguals
(2018; Polka, Orena, Sundra, & Worrall, 2017). Paradis and Jia also note this impact on English
L2 learning (2017), while Wodniecka et al. suggest that the degree to which a second language is
used may be even more influential in one’s ability than how early they learned it (2010). Thus,
the exposure of bilinguals to each language can radically affect their abilities and performance.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, fluency and use are also important, as Cox notes that evidence suggests
that the degree to which an individual is adept at both languages as well fuels the advantage for
bilinguals in learning additional languages (2017). Kormi-Nouri et al. similarly suggested that
older bilingual children enrolled Persian monolingual programs performed worse than younger
ones due to having increasingly lost their grasp of their first language over time (2012). The
study of Welsh children by Mueller Gathercole et al. found that teenage bilinguals from Welsh-
13
only and English-Welsh mixed households performed better than bilinguals from English-only
households, attributing it to their more balanced use of both languages, while in a one task
Welsh-only household bilinguals performed worse on English fluency, due to a lack of common
use (2010). Significant attention has also been paid to two-way bilingual programs, those in
which both languages are utilized fairly evenly, instead of traditional programs in which the
region dominant language is emphasized, often with the goal of assimilation. In such programs in
which a minority language is used for at least half of the total instructional time, students’ grasp
of that language has been shown to improve consistently, without negatively affecting the
majority language (Cummins, 2015). Marian et al. hypothesized that students in a two-way
bilingual program whose first language was a minority language would perform better than those
in majority language-focussed program. Of the 232 bilingual primary school students, 157 had
Spanish as their first language, with 134 enrolled in a two-way program and 23 in English-
The results suggested that two-way programs benefitted bilingual students in this age group
overall, both majority- and minority-language, as the math and reading scores of its students
increased each grade, especially in math, while those of students in the English-led bilingual
program did not (Marian et al., 2013). The authors suggest that the Spanish-native portion of the
two-way students benefitted especially as they received instruction in their first language as well
as English, unlike those in the English-focussed program who were instructed on these subjects
in their first language. However, they also note that the students in this study were not tested
prior to entering the program, meaning that they could have simply performed better even
without the effects of the program (Marian et al., 2013). Additionally, the sample sizes of the
three groups aside from the monolingual English students were relatively small, making a
14
definite statement difficult. Similarly, Leiken hypothesized that bilingual children in his study
who were enrolled in the two-way bilingual Hebrew-Russian class would perform better than
difference among these two sets of bilinguals in terms of creativity (Leiken, 2013). Despite this,
he suggests that continued enrollment in two-way education can “contribute more prominently to
the development of creativity in problem solving” (Leiken, 2013, p. 442). In addition, this is only
Lindholm-Leary and Borsato sought to examine how bilingual students who were in a two-way
program in their elementary years fare academically up until the end of high school, noting the
lack of research into this area specifically (2005). The study involved 139 students in a
California high school, nearly evenly split among Grades 9-12, of which 92 were mainly
desired career paths, attitudes toward school, and their average grades in a variety of subjects.
The results of the questionnaires suggested that bilingual students in two-way programs have an
overall positive attitude concerning school, particularly math, and faired at least averagely in
math since entering middle school (Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2005). However, a lack of a
comparable set of non-two-way program students leaves this information somewhat untenable.
Overall, two-way programs seem to generally benefit bilingual students more than traditional
majority-language programs. In effect, they accentuate any positive effects that bilingualism may
So far, what have been discussed are the effects of bilingualism on learners and the range
factors that can affect a bilingual learner’s abilities and the effects of bilingualism themselves,
Nieto notes that in the U.S., for example, most bilingual students—many of which speak
(2017). Nieto calls for teachers to become more adept to teaching in classrooms featuring
students from a variety of linguistic bases, in effect to become “sociocultural mediators” (2017,
mediators”, teachers can help bilingual students—especially those whose language of instruction
is not their primary one—by creating connections between their school and home lives, where
the languages spoken are likely to be different (Nieto, 2017). Although Nieto focusses
specifically on English-medium classrooms and students whose primary language is not English,
I consider many of the points and suggestions to be fairly universal. The role that teachers have
considered especially significant that their role in supporting bilingual students, and as a result
bilingualism, teachers also promote biculturalism, allowing them to maintain their identity while
opening new paths to more effective learning (Nieto, 2017). Cummins notes the example of
South Africa, where the history of apartheid as an attack on cultural and linguistic identity still
affects bilingual students today. This occurs as that students are pushed towards increased
16
instruction in English by parents who see it as the “language of power and social advancement”
(Cummins, 2014, 274). Thus, despite bilingual instruction proving beneficial in many respects
according to research, many students are neglected to receive it. In a qualitative study involving
Turkish-Dutch bilinguals aged 14-17 in Flanders, where bilingual instruction is rare, Agridag
found that students lacked knowledge in the possible benefits of bilingual education, minority
language were ignored in classrooms, and their use was actively discouraged by both teachers
and other school authorities, both actively and passively (2009). Thus, the willingness of teachers
and educators to recognize the unique linguistic and cultural identities of their learners is an
study consulted recognized this and mentioned the background of those included. Mueller
Gathercole et al. found that socioeconomic status did not correlate to the performance of students
in the physical task, however it did in the memory-based task (2010). This would suggest that
socioeconomic status affects certain elements of cognitive ability more than others. Lindholm-
Leary and Borsato noted that the Hispanic students in their study were generally faced with
lower socioeconomic conditions, however those in two-way bilingual programs still performed
better than those in traditional programs, similarly to their English-native peers, who were
generally of a better socioeconomic background. However, Marian et al. found that the overall
higher SES of English-native bilinguals correlated to their better overall performance than
Spanish-native bilinguals (Marian et al., 2013). Cummins highlights the fact that bilingual
students of a low SES face a greater difficulty in maintaining parity in either language with
socioeconomic status seems to have a mixed effect on bilingual learners, although it is not hard
to imagine that a quite significant correlation could exist in many respects. However, more
specific research in a wider variety of foci with socioeconomic considerations in mind should
Conclusion
Discovering what effects bilingualism has on learning is a important goal considering the
number of bilingual learners globally and the increasingly connected world we live in. Overall,
the research examined in this paper has shown that bilingualism presents a number of positive
effects on learning in general. The many complications in determining the overall effects,
however, have been shown to make definitively stating the effects in a number of areas difficult.
Despite this, the literature highlighted in this paper has provided many insights into the general
effects of bilingualism, the extent and limitations of these effects, and outside factors which
affect the ability of bilingual learners. Through this literature and further research, including a
greater diversity of both researchers and the languages involved, the effects of bilingualism may
References
Adesope, O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-
207-245. doi:10.3102/0034654310368803
Agirdag, Orhan. (2009). Exploring bilingualism in a monolingual school system: Insights from
Turkish and native students from Belgian schools. British Journal of Sociology of
Arefi, M., & Alizadeh, S. (2008). The effects of bilingualism on cognitive development: A case
Brooks, P. J., & Kempe, V. (2012). Individual differences in adult foreign language learning:
The mediating effect of metalinguistic awareness. Memory and Cognition, 41, 281-96.
doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0262-9
Cox, J. G. (2017). Explicit instruction, bilingualism, and the older adult learner. Studies in
org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1017/S0272263115000364
org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/09500782.2014.994528
http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/14675986.2015.1103539
19
Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2011). Cognitive correlates of vocabulary growth in English language
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000038
Kormi-Nouri, R., Moradi, A., Moradi, S., Akbari-Zardkhaneh, S., & Zahedian, H. (2012). The
effect of bilingualism on letter and category fluency tasks in primary school children:
doi:10.1017/S1366728910000192
doi:10.1177/1367006912438300
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Borsato, G. (2005). Hispanic high schoolers and mathematics: Follow-up
Marian, V., Shook, A., & Schroeder, S. R. (2013). Bilingual two-way immersion programs
doi:10.1080/15235882.2013.818075
Mueller Gathercole, V. C., Thomas, E. M., Jones, L., Guasch, N. V., Young, N., & Hughes, E.
doi:10.1080/13670050.2010.488289
Nieto, S. (2017). Becoming sociocultural mediators: What all educators can learn from bilingual
Paradis, J., & Jia, R. (2017). Bilingual children’s long‐term outcomes in English as a second
Polka, L., Orena, A. J., Sundara, M., & Worrall, J. (2017). Segmenting words from fluent speech
Singh, L. (2018). He said, she said: Effects of bilingualism on cross-talker word recognition in
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000186
Siyambalapitiya, S., Chenery, H. J., & Copland, D. A. (2009). Bilingualism and aging: Reversal
of the cognate advantage in older bilingual adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(3), 531-
554. https://doi-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1017/S0142716409090262
Ünsal, Z., Jakobson, B., Molander, B., & Wickman, P. (2018). Science education in a bilingual
Wodniecka, Z., Craik, F. I. M., Luo, L., & Bialystok, E. (2010). Does bilingualism help
memory? Competing effects of verbal ability and executive control. International Journal
org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/13670050.2010.488287