Pilot study finds bilingual education enhances inhibitory control and reasoning in children, suggesting cognitive benefits.
Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: This pilot study examined the effects of Italian/English bilingual education on cognitive development. Specifically, it investigated whether biliteracy—the ability to read and write in two languages—offers new insight into the relationship between language and cognition, and whether it supports specific cognitive advantages. Design/Methodology/Approach: Twenty-six children aged 9 to 10 were tested across two groups: one attending a bilingual Italian/English school in London, UK, and the other a monolingual Italian state school in Florence, Italy. Participants completed a battery of verbal and non-verbal tasks targeting executive functions: inhibitory control, working memory, reasoning, and verbal fluency. Data and Analysis: Children’s performance was compared using group-level contrasts across accuracy and response time. Descriptive trends and task-specific outcomes were examined to identify potential cognitive differences. Findings/Conclusions: Overall, the two groups performed similarly across most tasks. However, children in the bilingual program showed higher accuracy and faster response times in a task assessing inhibitory control and monitoring. They also performed more accurately—though more slowly—on a reasoning task, suggesting more deliberate and effective problem-solving strategies. Originality: This is among the first studies to explore biliteracy and cognition through a cross-national, matched-sample design with Italian/English bilingual children. It contributes to a growing evidence base on the cognitive outcomes of bilingual education. Significance/Implications: Findings suggest that bilingual education fostering biliteracy may enhance core executive functions relevant to academic learning. The results highlight the need for further research, including larger-scale and longitudinal studies focused on biliterate populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oberc et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: