Intercultural Education

ISSN: 1467-5986 (Print) 1469-8439 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceji20

A multilingual approach to analysing standardized

test results: immigrant primary school children
and the role of languages spoken in a bi-/
multilingual community
Gessica De Angelis
To cite this article: Gessica De Angelis (2014) A multilingual approach to analysing
standardized test results: immigrant primary school children and the role of languages
spoken in a bi-/multilingual community, Intercultural Education, 25:1, 14-28, DOI:
10.1080/14675986.2014.883167
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2014.883167

Published online: 28 Mar 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 300

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceji20
Download by: [85.73.33.137]

Date: 07 September 2016, At: 08:36

Intercultural Education, 2014

Vol. 25, No. 1, 1428, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2014.883167

A multilingual approach to analysing standardized test results:

immigrant primary school children and the role of languages
spoken in a bi-/multilingual community
Gessica De Angelis*
School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences, Centre for Language and
Communication Studies, Trinity College Dublin, Arts Building, Dublin 2, Ireland
The present study adopts a multilingual approach to analysing the standardized
test results of primary school immigrant children living in the bi-/multilingual
context of South Tyrol, Italy. The standardized test results are from the Invalsi
test administered across Italy in 2009/2010. In South Tyrol, several languages
are spoken on a daily basis and the long-established ethnic groups are speakers
of German (69%), Italian (26%) and Ladin (4%). While the language of instruction for immigrant children attending Italian language schools is Italian, these
children live in Italian- or German-speaking environments. I argue that standardized testing data should be analysed in conjunction with local language information to better serve the educational needs of bi-/multilingual children. The Italian
test results of I and II Generation immigrant children (n = 225) are re-examined
in light of the languages spoken in their living environment. Results show that
the approach used is useful in identifying information that would have otherwise
remained undetected. The additional data provide valuable input for school
administrators, educators and policy-makers and can be used to devise suitable
remedial measures for immigrant children attending school in bi-/multilingual
environments.
Keywords: immigrant children; bilingualism; multilingualism; standardized testing; language acquisition

Introduction
Standardized tests are increasingly used around the world to assess the overall
effectiveness of national school systems and to identify possible areas of weakness
and improvement at the national and regional levels. While many scholars are
critical of the use of standardized testing in education and would welcome improvements and changes (Doecke, Kostogriz, and Illesca 2010; Harper and de Jong 2009;
Menken 2008; Shen, Cooley, and Van 2008, Zwick et al. 2008), for most countries
standardized testing remains the only viable option to gather information on the
educational system at large and to identify changes to propose where and when they
are most needed. Due to the impact of standardized testing on national educational
policies and the possible introduction of remedial measures based on test results, the
question of how informative, reliable and consistent these tests are when used with
linguistically diverse populations must remain under close scrutiny.

*Email: gessica.deangelis@tcd.ie
2014 Taylor & Francis

Intercultural Education

15

Standardized tests are typically administered in the schools language of instruction which, in the case of immigrant children, rarely coincides with the rst or home
language. When children live in bi-/multilingual environments, the matter becomes
even more complex due to the additional exposure to the variety of language(s) spoken within the community. Whatever the amount, extent or context of exposure to
other languages, immigrant children are not usually monolingual and grow up
speaking and understanding more than one language. Their school performance is
nevertheless measured against the performance of children who speak the language
of instruction as their rst language.
Research on language testing and language acquisition has put forward strong
arguments against the use of monolingual norms with bilinguals and second-language
learners (Cook 1997; Kachru and Sridhar 1994; May 2011; Saenz and Huer 2003). It
is clear that a second-language learner may not be able to perform as well as a
monolingual child on a standardized test, but devising different tests on the basis of
student-language background is impracticable and unfeasible in most locations
(Saenz and Huer 2003), particularly where multiple languages are used in the school
context and in the community. This raises the question of what else we can do to
evaluate how immigrant children are performing in schools located in bi-/multilingual
areas, and how we can help them succeed in education.
The study reported in this article is based in Europe, an area of the world where
standardized testing became increasingly common in the 1990s. However, some
European countries, including Italy, have only introduced standardized tests in recent
years, while others are still completing the process of full implementation. Most
countries conduct national testing in the ofcial language of instruction, with some
exceptions in Denmark, Sweden and Estonia, where testing in Danish, Swedish and
Estonian as a second language is already available (Eurydice 2009).
Europe is an interesting region for research on standardized testing and language
use because of the large number of ofcial and minority languages spoken in the
European Unions 28 member states. While most countries are ofcially monolingual or bilingual, multilingualism is widespread in many locations, to the extent that
trilingual primary education is not uncommon (Beetsma 2002; Cenoz 2009; Cenoz
and Gorter 2005). The presence of several languages in a community introduces an
additional challenge for immigrant students who may nd themselves at the
crossroads of three languages: their rst or home language, the ofcial language of
instruction, and the language used within the community.
The current study was based in South Tyrol, Italy, where three languages (Italian,
German and Ladin) have coexisted for a long time. To the best of my knowledge,
studies on the use of standardized testing with immigrant children living in multilingual settings have given no attention to the role of the additional languages spoken
in the community and how these languages may ultimately affect language development. As second-language learning is known to occur during and be promoted by
social interaction (Ellis 1999), it is reasonable to assume that children who are
exposed to languages that differ from their native language and the language of
instruction may be inuenced by additional language exposure. I examine this external factor in more detail using data from the Invalsi standardized test and I propose
an alternative method of interpreting test results based on the languages spoken in
the community. The objective is to show how standardized test results provide us
with valuable information on immigrants school performance when they are read in
conjunction with data on the languages spoken in the community.

16

G. De Angelis

Table 1. Resident population in South Tyrol by language group in 2001 and 2011.
2001
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Val Venosta
Burgraviato
Oltradige-Bassa Ates.
Bolzano
Salto-Sciliar
Valle Isarco
Alta Valle Isarco
Val Pusteria

2011

German

Italian

Ladin

German

Italian

Ladin

96.84
78.66
68.05
26.29
77.15
85.76
85.31
80.96

3.06
21.06
31.57
73.00
4.03
13.22
14.32
5.64

0.10
0.28
0.38
0.71
18.82
1.02
0.37
13.40

97.29
78.54
67.48
25.52
76.79
85.52
85.29
80.48

2.63
21.15
32.07
73.80
4.31
13.20
14.35
5.97

0.08
0.32
0.44
0.68
18.91
1.27
0.35
13.54

The setting
Italy is a linguistically complex nation where a number of languages are spoken on
a daily basis (Tosi 2001, 2004). In addition to Italian as the national language, Italians speak a wide variety of dialects that can be so different that speakers from different regions may not understand one another. In Italy, there are also several
ofcially bilingual and multilingual regions where people of different ethnic origin
live and speak different languages as part of their everyday lives. One of these areas
is the Province of Bozen-Bolzano in South Tyrol, a region in the northern part of
Italy that borders Austria.
For historical reasons, the long-established ethnic groups in this part of the country are speakers of German (69%), Italian (26%) and Ladin (4%) (ASTAT 2011).
These ethnic groups have entirely separate school systems from kindergarten to the
end of secondary school (Baur 2000; Baur, Mezzalira, and Pichler 2008; Romeo
2005). The separation is in place because all students in South Tyrol have the legal
right to be instructed in their native language, a measure that was dened in the
1972 Autonomous Statute in order to protect minority-language rights in the region.
At present, the same measure prevents the establishment of bilingual schooling and
parents of bi-/multilingual children must decide in which language they wish their
children to receive their primary and secondary education.
In Italian-speaking and German-speaking primary and secondary schools, subjects are taught in Italian and German, respectively. Ladin schools adopt a multilingual educational model where subjects are taught in Italian as well as German, and
Ladin is also regularly taught as part of the school curriculum. In addition to Italian,
German and Ladin, recent immigrants have also brought their own languages into
the region. The ofcial languages spoken in the Province of Bozen-Bolzano are not
uniformly distributed, giving rise to situations where children attending Italian language schools may live in a context where the majority of speakers have a different
native language. According to the last two regional censuses (ASTAT 2011), speakers of German, Italian and Ladin are spread across the region as reported in Table 1.
For administrative purposes, the region is divided into eight main areas. The Italianspeaking population mostly lives in the Bolzano area.
The use of standardized tests with bi-/multilingual students
The use of standardized tests with bi-/multilingual student populations has been
subject to substantial criticism. Several scholars have questioned whether

Intercultural Education

17

standardized tests can be regarded as representative of the general population

(Bunch and Panayotova 2008; Olmedo 1981; Solano-Flores 2008), with some
maintaining that test results lead education professionals to focus on numeric data
rather than engage in pedagogical discussions of relevance to speakers of more than
one language (Koyama and Menken 2013). Other scholars believe that standardized
testing is potentially positive for minority students because teachers tend to develop
common expectations for all pupils, regardless of ethnic origin (Mons 2009).
The Invalsi standardized test examined in the present article does not make
specic provision for immigrant students, who are required to take the same Italian
and Mathematics test as native speakers of Italian (Invalsi 2010). This poses
substantial challenges for immigrant students and for rst-generation immigrants in
particular. For example, the use of standardized tests with bi-/multilingual students
has been frequently argued to be a biased and unfair practice because students are
required to perform in a second or subsequent language and stand little chance of
performing as well as their monolingual peers (Kachru and Sridhar 1994; May
2011; Saenz and Huer 2003). In second-language acquisition research, the term
monolingual bias commonly refers to the practice of evaluating students
performance in a second language according to ideal monolingual norms (Baker and
Jones 1998; Bley-Vroman 1983; Brown 2013; Cenoz 2009; Cook 1995, 1997; De
Angelis 2007; Grosjean 1992).
Focusing on European multilingual learning contexts, Lengyel (2010) highlights
how standardized tests adopt a monolingual construct which implicitly denes what
the normal path of acquisition should be, ignoring the complexities associated with
multilingual language development. She further notes that standardized tests do not
assess multilingual competencies such as code-switching or translating, effectively
discounting information of high pedagogical value. Shohamy (2011) refers to the
individuals ability to function in different languages as multilingual functioning and
argues that the language testing literature has given no attention to this ability over
the years. The continued expectation that bi-/multilingual students perform like monolinguals sets them up for failure, and lower results may communicate the erroneous
message that being multilingual is a liability rather than an advantage. Researchers
are also generally concerned about testing bilinguals language abilities because they
are aware that a direct comparison with monolinguals may lead to a negative view
of bilingualism (Treffers-Daller 2011).
In reading literacy, the Pisa 2009 report states that students with an immigrant
background scored lower, on average, than their native peers in all G-8 countries
except Canada (no measurable difference) and Japan (too few immigrants sampled
by PISA to report a comparison), with score differences ranging from 22 points
(United States) to 72 points (Italy) (Miller and Warren 2011, 6). Being tested in a
second language is not, however, the primary reason for students poor performance.
Immigrants low-performance scores are typically linked to socio-economic and
sociocultural factors which are often difcult to tease apart as they are deeply
interconnected and subject to a broad range of cultural mechanisms within society
that affect academic achievement (Paret 2006). Researchers widely agree that a key
predictor for underperforming children is low socio-economic status (SES) (Adesope
et al. 2011; Krashen 2005; Polidano, Hanel, and Buddelmeyer 2013; Vale et al.
2013) which is also linked to high dropout rates at the secondary school level
(Rosenblum, Goldblatt, and Moin 2008).

18

G. De Angelis

However, the assumption that immigrant children do poorly in school does not
reect reality in some contexts and may be an oversimplication. In a recent study,
for instance, Escamilla, Chavez, and Vigil (2005) showed that Spanish speakers in
English-speaking classes in Colorado were among the highest performing students
in the entire school. The authors note that politicians, educators and parents seem to
accept the idea that immigrants are the cause of a gap in achievement and,
consequently, support the teaching of English only in schools. This is not, however,
an effective solution to close gaps in school achievement as the real problems
low-achieving students are facing are not tackled. Research carried out with children
attending dual-language programmes also shows that differences between students
from low SES schools and mainstream schools can be levelled out (Lindholm-Leary
2010), indicating that suitable pedagogical intervention improves student achievement and success.
With reference to the Basque country, Cenoz and Gorter (2011) stress that
multilingual assessment must take into account that a multilingual speaker cannot be
compared against an ideal monolingual norm, and testing must mirror language use
in society in order to be effective. Moreover, multilinguals are multicompetent
individuals who do not function as monolinguals do (Cook 1992), and this should be
regarded as a key concern in second-language assessment practices (Brown 2013).
Saenz and Huer (2003) review alternatives to traditional standardized testing
which take into account learners backgrounds. Suggestions include practices such
as renorming, dynamic assessment and test modication. Renorming involves devising and applying norms that are tailored to the target population. The practice is
argued to be particularly effective when used with homogenous populations such as
Spanish-speaking immigrants in southern California. The dynamic assessment option
instead involves three core stages: pretesting, teaching and post-testing. During the
pretesting stage, students are asked to complete a regular standardized test. A tutor
then works through similar exercises and tasks during the teaching phase, helping
students to prepare for the nal post-testing phase. The third alternative is test
modication which involves changing and adapting a test to suit the student population. Some examples of useful changes are giving students additional time to
respond, granting credit for answers that are not expressed in correct English and
introducing additional test items.
The Invalsi test is a new requirement for Italian teachers, who are increasingly
feeling pressured to train their students to perform well. The stress teachers experience in relation to standardized and high-stakes testing has been reported in other
parts of the world and has been shown to greatly inuence pedagogical decisions in
the classroom (Palmer and Rangel 2011). For example, Palmer and Lynch (2008)
found that teachers working in a bilingual programme in Texas were strongly
inuenced by the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Olson (2007, 121)
states that in California the pressure to test well on the SAT-9 assessment compelled
bilingual teachers to organize their primary language instruction to skill and drill
teaching in Spanish. Preparing students for good performance, Olson argues,
inevitably translates into lost opportunities for students.
Research on standardized testing in Italy is limited as this type of testing was
only introduced in 2008/9. Some information on teachers attitudes towards testing
is nonetheless available through European Commission documents. For instance, in
a follow-up report on language learning and linguistic diversity in Italy (European
Commission 2006), it is stated that Italian teachers tend to consider testing their

Intercultural Education

19

primary concern, and are used to testing students using long-standing methods such
as written compositions and individual oral tests. These testing practices are deeply
rooted in local pedagogical culture and do not take into account that multilinguals
develop their language skills at a different pace. Many European teachers agree in
principle that immigrants languages and cultures should be valued in school
contexts (De Angelis 2011), but are then faced with the reality that their students
must perform well in standardized or high-stakes tests, which leads them to focus on
the language of instruction at the expense of exploring ways of integrating other
types of literacy into the classroom, such as students languages, music and drama
(Shin 2010).
Discussions about literacy education seem to place more emphasis on
standardized and high-stakes testing than bilinguals home literacy practices and
how these activities can be relied upon in classroom settings (Bomer and
Maloch 2012). Different foci imply that educators do not share the same view
on the role of language within the school context. The scholarship to date
indicates a shift from viewing language as a problem to viewing it as a right
that must be safeguarded. The literature which does not focus on standardized
testing instead typically embraces the position that prior language knowledge
leads to better performance in the school context and bi-/multilingualism is a
resource which is not being used to its full potential.
Research evidence indicates that, provided learning occurs in additive learning
contexts, repeated exposure to a second language is highly benecial for the learning
process (Cenoz 2001; Cenoz and Valencia 1994; De Angelis 2007; Lasagabaster
2000; Sanz 2000) and bi-multilinguals perform differently, and often better than,
monolinguals on most language learning tasks (Abu-Rabia and Sanitsky 2010;
Dillon 2009; Keshavarz and Astaneh 2004; Lasagabaster 2001; Thomas 1988). By
contrast, research that involves subtractive learning environments does not identify
substantial differences between the learning patterns of bi/multilinguals and
monolinguals (Jaspaert and Lemmens 1990; Sanders and Meijers 1995; Van Gelderen et al. 2003). These ndings indicate that the difference between additive and
subtractive learning environments is crucial in facilitating or hindering the path of
language acquisition for bi-/multilingual students, including immigrant children who
typically learn the host language in a subtractive learning context (i.e. with a cost to
the L1). The development of second-language competence has also been found to
be positively correlated with learners desire and interest in integrating into the L2
community and negatively correlated with the fear of assimilating into another
culture and losing ones identity (Clment and Kruidenier 1985).
Social interaction is central to language learning, and children that live in
areas where the majority of the population speaks a language that differs from
the childs language of instruction will have less of an opportunity to hear,
practice and learn the language of instruction in which they are ultimately tested
at school. One way to support immigrant children and help them succeed in
school is to acknowledge the fact that if they live in bi-/multilingual contexts
they may develop different needs from those living in monolingual areas. As a
result, they may need a type of support that takes into account their limited
exposure to the language of instruction in the external living environment. The
interaction between the languages spoken in the community and immigrants
language development in the school language of instruction has not been
adequately addressed in the international literature.

20

G. De Angelis

Invalsi testing in Italy and in South Tyrol

The Invalsi national standardized test was introduced in Italy in 20082009 by
ministerial decree (art. 5, law 176/07) and its full implementation was scheduled to be
completed over a three-year period, between 20082009 and 20102011. The Invalsi
testing was successfully introduced as planned and is currently being administered
across the country on a yearly basis. The data discussed in this article relate to the test
administered in primary schools in 20092010, including the Italian language primary
schools in the Province of Bozen-Bolzano in South Tyrol. The South Tyrol database
was made available by the Committee for Quality Evaluation of the Italian School
Board (Comitato di Valutazione, Intendenza Scolastica Italiana) for research purposes.
In order to account for the many immigrant children attending school in the various regions of the country, the 2009/2010 Invalsi test introduced a distinction
between Italians (born and raised in Italy from Italian-speaking parents), I Generation immigrants (immigrants born outside of Italy from non-Italian-speaking parents)
and II Generation immigrants (immigrants born in Italy from non-Italian-speaking
parents). Immigrant children were found to be unevenly distributed across the
territory. The national average of I Generation immigrants was 3.1% across Italy and
7.1% in South Tyrol, while the national average of II Generation immigrants was
5.6% across Italy and 12.0% in South Tyrol (Invalsi 2010). Percentages recorded for
South Tyrol were the highest in the country.
According to the Invalsi national results for the year 2009/2010 (Invalsi 2010),
there were differences between the performance of second-grade school children in
different groups, with Italian children outperforming I and II Generation immigrants,
and II Generation immigrants also outperforming I Generation immigrants. Results
of this kind show a typical pattern where immigrants who are experiencing the most
difculties are those of most recent immigration.
Regional results for South Tyrol, however, showed a different pattern. While
Italian-speaking children outperformed I and II Generation immigrants, just as those
at national level did, no signicant difference was found between the performance
of I and II Generation immigrant children. This was an unexpected result which
raised several questions among educators and policy-makers in the area.
Methods
In light of the Invalsi national and regional test results for the years 2009/2010, the
present study was designed to evaluate whether analysing standardized test results in
conjunction with information on the languages spoken in the bi-/multilingual
territory of South Tyrol provides educators and policy-makers with additional
insights for immigrant childrens school progress. Four questions are used to
evaluate whether children attending schools in Italian-speaking or German-speaking
areas of South Tyrol perform differently on the Italian test. The expectation is that
the dominant language spoken in the community bears an inuence on childrens
acquisition of Italian, the school language of instruction. The questions that guided
the study were as follows:
(1) Do I Generation immigrants who live in the Italian-speaking area of South
Tyrol perform differently on the Italian test than II Generation immigrants
who live in the same area?

Intercultural Education

21

Table 2. I and II Generation immigrant children living in Italian- or German-speaking areas

of South Tyrol.
Dominant language
Italian
German
Total

I Generation

II Generation

Total

45
37
82

72
71
143

117
108
225

Table 3. Participants divided by area and dominant local language.

Area

Dominant language

Bolzano
Oltradige-Bassa Atesina
Burgraviato
Valle Isarco
Alta Valle Isarco
Val Pusteria
Total

Italian
German
German
German
German
German

n
117
32
52
12
2
10
225

(2) Do I Generation immigrants who live in German-speaking areas of South

Tyrol perform differently on the Italian test than II Generation immigrants
who live in the same areas?
(3) Do I Generation immigrants who live in Italian-speaking area of South Tyrol
perform differently on the Italian test than I Generation immigrants who live
in German-speaking areas of South Tyrol?
(4) Do II Generation immigrants who live in the Italian-speaking area of South
Tyrol perform differently on the Italian test than II Generation immigrants
who live in German-speaking areas of South Tyrol?
Participants
Participants were I and II Generation immigrant children (n = 225) attending Italian
language schools in South Tyrol, Italy. All children were enrolled in second-grade
classes in the year 2009/2010. The children lived in different areas of South Tyrol
where the dominant language within the community was either Italian or German.
The percentage of speakers for each language is listed in Table 1. A summary of the
number of participants according to immigrant status (I or II Generation) and
dominant language in the community is provided in Table 2. Childrens location
within South Tyrol is reported in Table 3.
Materials
The Italian test was based on a narrative text and a series of exercises which
students were asked to complete during a 35-min period. The test contained a total
of 22 questions and 26 items which were divided as follows: 17 questions with
multiple choice and cloze answers, and a sentence reconstruction exercise with ve
questions. Prior to the Italian test, students were also given a preliminary reading
test which included 40 wordpicture matching items. The purpose of this initial

22

G. De Angelis

exercise was to evaluate whether children were capable of decoding written words
at an average speed for their age.
Results
Ratios of correct answers were rst analysed descriptively, then test results for I and
II Generation immigrant children were compared using four independent samples ttests. The independent variable was the language predominantly spoken in the living
community.
I and II Generation immigrants
The performance of I and II Generation immigrant children living in Italian- or
German-speaking areas of South Tyrol was analysed. Descriptive results with mean,
standard deviation and p values are reported in Table 4.
Italian-speaking area
Among I and II Generation immigrants in the Italian-speaking area of South Tyrol
(n = 117), there was no signicant difference between I Generation immigrants
(M = .520, SD = .253) and II Generation immigrants (M = .455, SD = .230), t(115) =
1.439, p = .153, CI.95 .025, .155. The non-signicance of the Levenes test
( p = .243) indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was tenable and
the results suggest that I and II Generation immigrants living in the Italian-speaking
area of South Tyrol performed similarly on the Italian test.
German-speaking area
Among I and II Generation immigrants in German-speaking areas of South Tyrol
(n = 108), there was a signicant difference between I Generation immigrants
(M = .386, SD = .215) and II Generation immigrants (M = .498, SD = .206), t(106) =
2.661, p = .009, CI.95 .197, .029. The non-signicance of the Levenes test
( p = .451) indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was tenable.
Cohens d = .538 shows a medium effect. The null hypothesis was rejected. These
results suggest that I and II Generation immigrants living in the German-speaking
area of South Tyrol did not perform similarly on the Italian test, with II Generation
immigrants scoring signicantly higher results.
I and II Generation immigrants were also compared with each other. Results are
reported in Table 5.
Table 4. I and II Generation immigrants test results by dominant language spoken in the
community.
I Generation

II Generation

Dominant language

SD

SD

Italian
German

45
37

.520
.386

.253
.215

72
71

.455
.498

.230
.206

.153
.009*

*p < .05.

Intercultural Education

23

Table 5. I and II Generation immigrants test results by immigrant status.

Italian-speaking area

German-speaking areas

Immigrant status

SD

SD

I Generation
II Generation

45
72

.520
.455

.253
.230

37
71

.386
.498

.215
.206

.011*
.238

*p < .05.

I Generation immigrants
Among I Generation immigrants in schools in Italian- and German-speaking areas of
South Tyrol (n = 82), there was a signicant difference between the group in the Italian-speaking area (M = .520, SD = .253) and the group in the German-speaking areas
(M = .386, SD = .215), t(79.9) = 2.609, p = .011, CI.95 .032, .238. Cohens d = .622
shows a medium effect. The signicance of the Levene test ( p = .025) indicated that
the assumption of homogeneity of variance was untenable, hence unequal variances
were assumed. The null hypothesis was rejected. These results suggest that I Generation immigrants living in Italian- or German-speaking areas of South Tyrol did not
perform similarly, with those living in Italian-speaking areas scoring higher results.
II Generation immigrants
Among II Generation immigrants in Italian- and German-speaking areas of South Tyrol
(n = 143), there was no signicant difference between the group in the
Italian-speaking area (M = .455, SD = .230) and the group in the German-speaking
areas (M = .498, SD = .206), t(141) = 1.184, p = .238, CI.95 .115, .028. The Levene
test was not signicant ( p = .262), hence the assumption of homogeneity of variance
was regarded as tenable. These results suggest that II Generation immigrants living in
Italian- or German-speaking areas of South Tyrol performed similarly in the Italian test.
Discussion
As previously noted, the Invalsi national results showed a signicant difference
between I and II Generation immigrants performance across the country, with I
Generation immigrants scoring the lowest. This is an expected pattern which was
not, however, observed in South Tyrol, where the difference between I and II
Generation immigrants was found to be non-signicant (Invalsi 2010). As II
Generation immigrants are children born and raised in Italy while I Generation
immigrants are not, the result raised substantial concern and provoked key
discussions among educators and policy-makers in the area.
The most likely response of any school board to the nding that I and II
Generation immigrant children do not perform differently on a standardized test
would be to introduce remedial measures across the system in the form of additional
support for school staff and children. These may include hiring second-language
teachers to provide language support or introducing novel pedagogical measures
tailored to the immigrants needs. Planning remedial measures for students attending
schools in bi-/multilingual territories can be a complex task due to the delicate
balance between the languages spoken in the territory and those spoken in the
school context, particularly given nancial constraints.

24

G. De Angelis

Many of the immigrant children attending Italian schools in German-speaking

areas typically hear German in the living community, use Italian at school and
speak another language in the home. In contrast, immigrant children living in
Italian-speaking areas are likely to develop their Italian language skills both within
and beyond the school context. Due to this difference, the Invalsi data for South
Tyrol were reanalysed and reassessed, focusing on local language information. The
performance of I and II Generation immigrants was compared across the region,
using the language predominantly spoken in the living community as an
independent variable.
The results show some signicant differences with respect to I Generation immigrants living in German-speaking areas of South Tyrol. Specically, when I and II
Generation immigrants are compared, the results show a pattern that is similar to the
one found at national level, namely that II Generation immigrants perform signicantly better than I Generation immigrants. The same difference does not emerge for
I and II Generation immigrants living in the Italian-speaking area of South Tyrol,
where results conrm the pattern of no-difference found at regional level. These
comparisons indicate that analysing standardized test results in conjunction with
local language information provides additional input on the performance of
immigrant children attending school in the German-speaking areas. I and II Generation immigrants were also compared with each other between areas. II Generation
immigrants attending school in German- or Italian-speaking areas of South Tyrol
performed similarly on the Italian test. This was not the case for I Generation
immigrants who did not perform similarly across the two areas; those living in
German-speaking areas obtained signicantly lower results. Such patterns may
remain undetected in general results for standardized tests.
Overall, the ndings suggest that I Generation immigrant children living in German-speaking areas of South Tyrol experience more difculties with Italian. This is
probably due to the fact that these children have fewer opportunities to communicate
in Italian within their community and have little access to after-school activities
organized in Italian. Due to the limited presence of Italian-speaking families in their
community, they are also likely to have fewer Italian-speaking friends to play with
after the school hours. As a result of the limited exposure to Italian outside of the
school context, these childrens path of acquisition seems to be affected and it may
take longer to develop literacy skills comparable to children who are also I Generation immigrants but live in an Italian-speaking area. The differences identied seem
to level out with II Generation immigrants.
The approach used in this study shows that by analysing standardized test results
in conjunction with local language data, one can successfully identify additional
information on childrens progress. The information may be useful for school administrators who manage nancial resources and for educators who need to devise
effective remedial measures. With respect to the latter, unless children are given the
chance to increase their opportunities for interaction, they are likely to remain at a
disadvantage for a much longer period of time. Unfortunately, opportunity to
communicate is an external factor which is often overlooked in the international
literature (De Angelis 2012). In some cases, the individual may be willing to
communicate with others, but has little opportunity to do so. Remedial measures
must take into account that children living in locations where different languages are
spoken develop different needs and require a different type of intervention.

Intercultural Education

25

Conclusion
Immigrant children face a number of difculties when studying in a second language, particularly when the language of instruction does not coincide with the language spoken in the community. The study presented in this article shows that when
multiple languages are involved, standardized test results should be interpreted in
conjunction with local language information to identify the groups of learners who
most need support. Underperforming schools will gain a better understanding of
how the learners in their school and community compare with learners in other
regions while policy-makers and administrators will be able to devise educational
strategies that are informed by actual data and distribute nancial resources accordingly. Further longitudinal research is needed to monitor childrens progress over
time and identify when language development reaches the stage of academic prociency needed to function effectively at school.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the Committee for Quality Evaluation of the Italian School Board,
Province of Bozen-Bolzano (Comitato di Valutazione, Intendenza Scolastica Italiana, Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano), for having made the South-Tyrolean database available for
research purposes. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their excellent
work and advice.

Notes on contributor
Gessica De Angelis is an assistant professor of Applied Linguistics at Trinity College Dublin,
Ireland. She is also the vice-president of the International Association of Multilingualism
(200911; 20112014) (see www.iamultilingualism.org). Her main research interests are in
second-/third-language acquisition, cross-linguistic inuence, multilingualism and language
education. She has been focusing on various strands of inquiry within these elds, especially the role of prior non-native language knowledge in the language acquisition process
and the cognitive impact on bi/multilingualism on language learning. In 2007, she published
Third or Additional Language Acquisition (Multilingual Matters). She is also a co-editor of
two volumes: (1) New Trends in Crosslinguistic Inuence and Multilingualism research
(2011, Multilingual Matters), co-edited with Jean-Marc Dewaele; (2) Teaching and learning
in multilingual contexts. Sociolinguistic and educational perspectives (2014, Multilingual
Matters), co-edited with Agnieszka Otwinowska. She has also published several articles and
book chapters on multilingualism, language acquisition and language education (http://
www.tcd.ie/slscs/staff/deangelg.php).

References
Abu-Rabia, S., and E. Sanitsky. 2010. Advantages of Bilinguals over Monolinguals in
Learning a Third Language. Bilingual Research Journal 33 (2): 173199.
Adesope, O. O., T. Lavin, T. Thompson, and C. Ungerleider. 2011. Pedagogical Strategies
for Teaching Literacy to ESL Immigrant Students: A Meta-Analysis. British Journal of
Educational Psychology 81 (4): 629653.
ASTAT, Istituto Provinciale Di Statistica. 2011. http://www.provinz.bz.it/astat/it/default.asp.
Baker, C., and S. Jones. 1998. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baur, S. 2000. Le insidie della vicinanza. Comunicazione e cooperazione in situazioni di
maggioranza/minoranza [The Pitfalls of Living Close to One Another. Communication
and Cooperation in Majority/Minority Contexts]. Bolzano: Provincia Autonoma di
Bolzano, Edizioni Alpha&Beta.

26

G. De Angelis

Baur, S., G. Mezzalira, and W. Pichler. 2008. La lingua degli altri. Aspetti della politica
linguistica e scolastica in Alto Adige-Sdtirol dal 1945 ad oggi [The Language of the
Other. Aspects of Educational and Language Policies in South-Tyrol from 1945 to the
Present Day]. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Beetsma, D. 2002. Trilingual Primary Education in Europe. Inventory of the Provisions for
Trilingual Primary Education in Minority Language Communities of the European.
Union. Ljouwert/Leeuwarden: FryskeAkademy/MercatorEducation.
Bley-Vroman, R. 1983. The Comparative Fallacy in Interlanguage Studies: The Case of
Systematicity. Language Learning 33: 117.
Bomer, R., and B. Maloch. 2012. Diverse Local Literacies and Stardardizing Policies.
Language Arts 90 (1): 4450.
Brown, A. 2013. Multicompetence and Second Language Assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly 10: 219235.
Bunch, G. C., and D. Panayotova. 2008. Latinos, Language Minority Students, and the
Construction of ESL: Language Testing and Placement from High School to Community
College. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 7 (1): 630.
Cenoz, J. 2001. The Effect of Linguistic Distance, L2 Status and Age on Cross-Linguistic
Inuence in Third Language Acquisition. In Cross-Linguistic Inuence in Third
Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, edited by J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen,
and U. Jessner, 820. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J. 2009. Towards Multilingual Education. Basque Educational Research from an
International Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J., and D. Gorter, eds. 2005. Trilingual Education in Europe. International Journal of
the Sociology of Language, Vol. 171. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cenoz, J., and Gorter, D. 2011. A Holistic Approach to Multilingual Education: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal 95 (iii): 339343.
Cenoz, J., and J. F. Valencia. 1994. Additive Trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque
Country. Applied Psycholinguistics 15: 195207.
Clement, R., and B. Kruidenier. 1985. Aptitude, Attitude and Motivation in Second
Language Prociency: A Test of Clements Model. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology 4: 2137.
Cook, V. 1992. Evidence for Multicompetence. Language Learning 42: 557591.
Cook, V. 1995. MultiCompetence and the Learning of Many Languages. Language,
Culture and Curriculum 8: 9398.
Cook, V. 1997. Monolingual Bias in Second Language Acquisition Research. Revista
Canaria De Estudios Ingleses 34: 3550.
De Angelis, G. 2007. Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
De Angelis, G. 2011. Teachers Beliefs about the Role of Prior Language Knowledge in
Learning and How These Inuence Teaching Practices. International Journal of
Multilingualism 216234.
De Angelis, G. 2012. The Effect of Population Distribution on L1 and L2 Acquisition:
Evidence from the Multilingual Region of South Tyrol. International Journal of
Multilingualism 9 (4): 407422.
Dillon, A. M. 2009. Metalinguistic Awareness and Evidence of Cross-Linguistic Inuence
among Bilingual Learners in Irish Primary Schools. Language Awareness 18 (2):
182197.
Doecke, B., A. Kostogriz, and B. Illesca. 2010. Seeing Things Differently: Recognition,
Ethics, Praxis. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 9 (2): 8198.
Ellis, Rod. 1999. Learning a Second Language through Interaction. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Escamilla, K., L. Chavez, and P. Vigil. 2005. Rethinking the Gap: High-Stakes Testing
and Spanish-Speaking Students in Colorado. Journal of Teacher Education 56 (2):
132144.
European Commission. 2006. Follow-up of the Action Plan on Language Learning and
Linguistic Diversity. Italy. http://www.labeleuropeolingue.it/politiche/PIANO%20DI%
20AZIONE/Follow%20up%20Piano%20di%20azione%20in%20Italia_en.pdf.

Intercultural Education

27

Eurydice. 2009. National Testing of Pupils in Europe: Objectives, Organisation and Use of
Results. Brussels: Eurydice.
Grosjean, F. 1992. Another View of Bilingualism. In Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals,
edited by R. J. Harris, 5162. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Harper, C. A., and E. J. de Jong. 2009. English Language Teacher Expertise: The Elephant
in the Room. Language and Education 23 (2): 137151.
Invalsi. 2010. Rapporto_SNV_2009/10. Rilevazione Degli Apprendimenti. Servizio Nazionale
Di Valutazione. Accessed March 8. http://www.invalsi.it.
Jaspaert, K., and G. Lemmens. 1990. Linguistic Evaluation of Dutch as a Third Language.
In Bicultural Education and Trilingual Education: The Foyer Model in Brussels, edited
by M. Byram and J. Leman, 3056. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon.
Kachru, Y., and S. N. Sridhar. 1994. Sources of Bias in SLA Research. Monolingual Bias in
SLA Research and a Reality Check for SLA Theories. TESOL Quarterly 28 (4):
795805.
Keshavarz, M. H., and H. Astaneh. 2004. The Impact of Bilinguality on the Learning of
English Vocabulary as a Foreign Language (L3). International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 7 (4): 295302.
Koyama, J., and K. Menken. 2013. Emergent Bilinguals: Framing Students as Statistical
Data? Bilingual Research Journal 36 (1): 8299.
Krashen, S. 2005. The Hard Work Hypothesis: is Doing Your Homework Enough to
Overcome the Effects of Poverty? Multicultural Education 12 (4): 1619.
Lasagabaster, D. 2000. Language Learning and the Development of Metalinguistic
Awareness. RassegnaItaliana Di LinguisticaApplicata 1: 103116.
Lasagabaster, D. 2001. The Effect of Knowledge about the L1 on Foreign Language Skills
and Grammar. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4 (5):
310331.
Lengyel, D. 2010. Language Diagnostics in Multilingual Settings with Respect to Continuous
Procedures as Accompaniment of Individualized Learning and Teaching. The Linguistic
and Educational Integration of Children and Adolescent from Immigrant Backgrounds.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Lindholm-Leary, K., and N. Block. 2010. Achievement in Predominantly Low SES/
Hispanic Dual Language Schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism 13 (1): 4360.
May, S. 2011. The Disciplinary Constraints of SLA and TESOL: Additive Bilingualism and
Second Language Acquisition, Teaching and Learning. Linguistics and Education: An
International Research Journal 22 (3): 233247.
Menken, K. 2008. English Learners Left behind: Standardized Testing as Language Policy.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Miller, D. C., and L. K., Warren. 2011. Comparative Indicators of Education in the United
States and Other G-8 Countries: 2011. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics/U.S. Government Printing Ofce.
Mons, N. 2009. Theoretical and Real Effects of Standardized Assessment. Eurydice:
Brussels.
Olmedo, E. 1981. Testing Linguistic Minorities. American Psychologist 36 (10):
10781085.
Olson, K. 2007. Lost Opportunities to Learn: the Effects of Education Policy on Primary
Language Instruction for English Learners. Linguistics and Education: An International
Research Journal 18 (2): 121141.
Palmer, D., and A. Lynch. 2008. A Bilingual Education for a Monolingual Test? The Pressure to Prepare for TAKS and Its Inuence on Choices for Language of Instruction in
Texas Elementary Bilingual Classrooms. Language Policy 7 (3): 217235.
Palmer, D., and V. S. Rangel. 2011. High Stakes Accountability and Policy Implementation:
Teacher Decision Making in Bilingual Classrooms in Texas. Educational Policy 25 (4):
614647.
Paret, Marcel. 2006. Language Background and Early Academic Achievement: Disentangling
Language-Minority Status, Social Background, and Academic Engagement. CSE Technical Report 679: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student
Testing (CRESST).

28

G. De Angelis

Polidano, C., B. Hanel, and H. Buddelmeyer. 2013. Explaining the Socio-Economic Status
School Completion Gap. Education Economics 21 (3): 230247.
Romeo, C. 2005. Storia, Territorio, societ. Alto Adige Sdtirol, Percorsi Di Storia
Contemporanea [History, Territory, Society. South-Tyrol: Contemporary History]. Bozen,
Folio.
Rosenblum, S., H. Goldblatt, and V. Moin. 2008. The Hidden Dropout Phenomenon among
Immigrant High-School Students: The Case of Ethiopian Adolescents in Israel A Pilot
Study. School Psychology International 29 (1): 105127.
Saenz, T. I., and M. B. Huer. 2003. Testing Strategies Involving Least Biased Language
Assessment of Bilingual Children. Communication Disorders Quarterly 24 (4):
184193.
Sanders, M., and G. Meijers. 1995. English as L3 in the Elementary School. ITL Review of
Applied Linguistics. 107108: 5978.
Sanz, C. 2000. Bilingual Education Enhances Third Language Acquisition: Evidence from
Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics 21: 2344.
Shen, J., and V. Cooley. 2008. Critical Issues in Using Data for Decision-Making.
International Journal of Leadership in Education 11 (3): 319329.
Shin, S. J. 2010. Teaching English Language Learners: Recommendations for Early
Childhood Educators. Dimensions of Early Childhood 38 (2): 1321.
Shohamy, E. 2011. Assessing Multilingual Competencies: Adopting Construct Valid
Assessment Policies. Modern Language Journal 95 (3): 418429.
Solano-Flores, G. 2008. Who is given Tests in What Language by Whom, When, and
Where? The Need for Probabilistic Views of Language in the Testing of English
Language Learners. Educational Researcher 37 (4): 189199.
Thomas, J. 1988. The Role Played by Metalinguistic Awareness in Second and Third
Language Learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9 (3):
235246.
Tosi, A. 2001. Language and Society in a Changing Italy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Tosi, A. 2004. The Language Situation in Italy. Current Issues in Language Planning 5
(3): 247335.
Treffers-Daller, J. 2011. Operationalizing and Measuring Language Dominance.
International Journal of Bilingualism 15 (2): 147163.
Vale, C., M. Weaven, A. Davies, N. Hooley, K. Davidson, and D. Loton. 2013. Growth in
Literacy and Numeracy Achievement: Evidence and Explanations of a Summer
Slowdown in Low Socio-Economic Schools. Australian Educational Researcher 40 (1):
125.
Van Gelderen, A., R. de Schoonen, K. Glopper, J. Hulstijn, P. Snellings, A. Simis, and M.
Stevenson. 2003. Roles of Linguistic Knowledge, Metacognitive Knowledge and
Processing Speed in L3, L2 and L1 Reading Comprehension: A Structural Equation
Modeling Approach. International Journal of Bilingualism 7 (1): 721.
Zwick, R., J. C. Sklar, G. Wakeeld, C. Hamilton, A. Norman, and D. Folsom. 2008.
Instructional Tools in Educational Measurement and Statistics (ITEMS) for School
Personnel: Evaluation of Three Web-Based Training Modules. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice 27 (2): 1427.