Write a comment

1. SUMMARY

This paper examines the research of the effects of bilingualism with a focus on cognitive abilities and executive function. It presents a link between bilingualism and brain function and cognitive development. The authors cite the adaptive control method and demonstrate the impact of bilingualism on cognitive control and attentional processes. The paper’s main focus is on the discussion of cognitive development and bilingualism in young children. The authors discuss how earlier research exhibits both a positive and negative relationship between the use of foreign language in households. The authors effectively argue that this initial research contained many flawed methodologies and cited later research that suggests a positive relationship between bilingualism and cognitive abilities. The authors also highlight gaps in this research such as socioeconomic status. Overall the introduction is well developed and provides clear rationale for the study as well as a review of previous research, but authors could improve by integrating the research question more explicitly in the introduction, allowing for more clarity on the paper’s focus. The authors were able to clearly review the past literature and studies and discuss possible limitations and influences. Towards the end of the introduction, the authors state their focus on young bilingual children and the need for healthcare guidelines that reflect accurate research. Some aspects such as a clear focus of the research and what the authors are testing for would help clarify the purpose of the research. In end of paper, the authors discussed results well, utilizing good tools for collecting data (e.g. BRIEF-P), tying them back to the overall context of Bilingualism. While this was a good paper, there are still some improvements that could certainly be made. 

1. PROS

The paper presented a transparent outline on the research design, including a thorough analysis of the data and highlighting the significance of the results in the context of EF (executive Function) in monolingual versus bilingual kids. The discussion session is well done, including only essential details. Results are easy to understand.

• Tests Used - > Optimal tests utilized, with sufficient justification

• Good Analysis -> Straightforward, mentioned majority of variables that were mentioned (e.g. t-score, BRIEF-P Scale Test scores)

• Good evidence for Intro -> Shows arguments from both sides over discussion regarding L2 

• Evidence-based study design-> Hebbian Learning

1. WEAKNESSES

Procedure Improvements: 

The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP) used in the study should be elaborated on, preferably including a detailed section in the form of a table that consists of the specific questions that were asked to the parents as well as the corresponding answers to justify the significance of this tool of measuring data. 

The 10-25% criteria of exposure to L2 for children to be classified as bilingual for the study seems to be justified by only one piece of evidence, so it is best to make a whole paragraph that centers around the justification of the criteria, including both pros and cons. 

Participants Improvements:

The study included various lurking sample variables. These included uneven distributions within different age groups and higher proportion of boys than girls. These should be addressed in statistical analysis rather than just operational definition. Exclusion criteria are well defined and ethics board approval is clearly stated. In addition, for future research, try to expand sample size, as the participant base was from Alberta only. 

Method Improvements: 

The “grass and snow” test that is mentioned later in the measures section of the paper which seems to be a modified pictorial Stroop test and is not properly listed in the abstract section.

Grammar issues:

Procedure Grammer: 

Change ‘samples’ to ‘sample’ in “The bilingual sample recruited were primarily  simultaneous”

Change ‘receive’ to ‘received’ in “Children were categorized as bilingual if they receive at least 10-25% of  exposure to L2” 

Change ‘parena’ to ‘parents’ in “household and community completed by the parena”

Measures Grammer:

Change ‘body’ to ‘bodies’ in “Mismatched body and heads were randomly selected”

Change ‘on’ to ‘an’ in “they are encouraged to construct  on object of their choice

Discussion Grammar: 

Major citation errors are present in the discussion section. “Holmes et al., 2014” should be Holmes et al., 2015. Additionally, “Bialystok (2015)” should be Bialystok (2017). Section is relatively succinct and discusses the differences with Bialystok 2017. 

Change ‘adaption’ to ‘adaptation’ in “adaptive control hypothesis suggests an adaption in domain general processes of attentional control”

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.