Younger is better to learn an L2?

How old were you when you started learning English?

Do you think you would be more fluent and accurate in English if you had started earlier?

Did you learn English ‘naturally’ or in a language institution? Is one way better than the other or does it depend on age?

Children, adolescents and adults have neurological, cognitive and psychological differences in the acquisition of L2. Children seem to be intrinsically better learners, while adolescents and adults have cognitive skills and self-discipline which enable them to utilize a larger volume of comprehensible input within the same exposure time period. On the other hand, older learners may be more greatly affected by the other factors in L2 such as motivation, anxiety and identity. The difference in the acquisition process demands different approaches to instructing learners of different age groups.

Age of acquisition: What does research say?

Age is easier to define and measure than personality, aptitude, or motivation. Nevertheless, the relationship between a learner’s age and his or her potential for success in second language acquisition is under debate.

Children from immigrant families eventually speak the language of their new community with native-like fluency, but the same does not happen to their parents. One explanation is that, as in first language acquisition, there is a critical period for second language acquisition.

Younger is better?

The Critical Period Hypothesis suggests that there is a time in human development (before puberty) when the brain is predisposed to success in language learning. Developmental changes in the brain, it is argued, affect the nature of language acquisition.

It is difficult to compare children and adults as second language learners. In addition to the possible biological differences suggested by the Critical Period Hypothesis, the conditions for language learning are often very different.

Younger learners:

• Younger learners in informal language learning environments usually have more time to devote to learning language.
• They often have more opportunities to hear and use the language in environments where they do not experience strong pressure to speak fluently and accurately from the very beginning.
• Their early imperfect efforts are often praised or, at least, accepted.

Older learners:

• They are often in situations which demand much more complex language and the expression of much more complicated ideas.
• They often get embarrassed by their lack of mastery of the language and they may develop a sense of inadequacy after experiences of frustration in trying to say exactly what they mean.

Critique of the Critical Period Hypothesis

The Critical Period Hypothesis has been challenged in recent years from several different points of view:

• At least in the early stages of second language development, older learners are more efficient than younger learners.
• Learners who began learning a second language at the primary school level did not fare better in the long run than those who began in early adolescence.
• There are countless anecdotes about older learners (adolescents and adults) who have reached high levels of proficiency in a second language.

Does this mean that there is no critical period for second language acquisition?

Patkowski (1980) found that age of acquisition is a very important factor in setting limits on the development of native-like mastery of a second language and that this limitation does not apply only to accent. These results gave added support to the Critical Period Hypothesis for second language acquisition.

Experience and research have shown that native-like mastery of the spoken language is difficult to attain by older learners. Nevertheless, there is some research which suggests that older learners may have an advantage, at least in the early stages of second language learning.

In the Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle study (1982), it was found that adolescents and adults learned faster than children in the first few months of exposure to L2. By the end of the year, the children were catching up or had surpassed the adults on several measures. Nevertheless, it was the adolescents who retained the highest levels of performance overall.

Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle concluded that their results provide evidence that there is no critical period for language acquisition. However, we should also consider that some of the tasks in the study (for example, sentence judgement or translation) were too hard for young learners.

Adults and adolescents may learn faster in the early stages of second language development (especially if they are learning a language which is similar to their first language) but young children eventually catch up and even surpass them if they are surrounded by the language on a daily basis.

Adults and adolescents can also make considerable and rapid progress towards mastery of a second language in contexts where they can make use of the language on a daily basis in social, personal, professional, or academic interaction.

The role of the critical period in second language acquisition is still much debated. Some researchers conclude that there are maturational constraints on language acquisition, but there are also others who consider that the age factor cannot be separated from factors such as motivation, social identity, and the conditions for learning. They argue that older learners may well speak with an accent because they want to continue being identified with their first language cultural group, and adults rarely get access to the same quantity and quality of language input that children receive in play settings.

Many people conclude on the basis of studies that it is better to begin second language instruction as early as possible if we seek the highest possible level of second language skills, the level at which a second language speaker is indistinguishable from a native speaker. But achieving a native-like mastery of the second language is not a goal for all second language learning, in all contexts.

What are the implications for educational settings?

In the chart below you will find a summary of the most important issues to consider when deciding on the most appropriate age to start learning an L2 in educational settings. These ideas apply to both formal and informal educational contexts (i.e.: school education and private L2 classes).

Conclusions

There is strong evidence of the existence of a Critical Period for L2 demonstrating the value of early exposure to the second language.

However, the initial point of learning cannot play the same role in a naturalistic and in a classroom context; the earlier may be the better but provided that it is associated with enough significant exposure, other important conditions include that exposure to young learners should be intensively distributed giving learners opportunities to participate in a variety of L2 social contexts.

In the end, more important than the starting age of acquisition is the amount and frequency of exposure to the L2.

 

References

http://carla.umn.edu/learnerlanguage/ind_diff.html

Lightbown, P; Spada, N. (2001) Factors affecting Second Language Learning in English Language Teaching in its Social Context (pp. 28-43)

Muñoz, C. (2010). On how age affects foreign language learning. Advances in Research on Language Acquisition and Teaching: Selected Papers. Gala

Qin Zhao, A; Morgan C. (n.d.). Consideration of Age in L2 Attainment – Children, Adolescents and Adults. Asian EFL Journal

Which coursebook to use (if any)?

Some weeks ago I shared a post about the decision of using a coursebook (or not). If you haven’t read it yet, here is the link To use or not to use coursebooks? Suppose you have decided (or are compelled) to use a coursebook and you are free to decide which coursebook to use, or you have been using a coursebook for some time and you want to change it because it is out-of-date or you are just bored, what issues should you consider to make the best choice? There are thousands of coursebooks in the ELT market, which one will be the best fit for your students and your own teaching approach? Well, this post intends to help you in that choice.

If you have been teaching for some time, you probably know some of the coursebooks, especially those published by the most famous ELT editorials. Maybe some of your colleagues have recommended the ones they are most comfortable with (or the ones you should never consider!). Maybe, there are some limitations in the availability of some of the coursebooks and there are only certain books you and your students can access. Taking these considerations into account, choose two or three coursebooks to evaluate (of course you can evaluate as many coursebooks as you want, but the decision will be harder if you have to evaluate many options).

Remember that after choosing a coursebook and telling your students (and sometimes their parents) which one/ones they will need to buy, it will be troublesome to convince them later that they will have to buy another book (coursebooks are not cheap for some educational contexts) because the first one was a bad choice (your bad choice!). So, take time to evaluate your options so that you end up with the best coursebook.

Evaluation of ELT coursebooks

Tomlinson and Masuhara’s (2004:1) definition of materials evaluation is: “Materials evaluation involves measuring the value (or potential value) of a set of learning materials by making judgements about the effect of materials on people using it”.

Teachers interested in the evaluation of ELT materials can find many frameworks and criteria developed by researchers and coursebook authors (Byrd, 2004; Cunningsworth, 1995; Harmer, 2007; McGrath, 2002; Sheldon, 1988; Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2004; Williams, 1983). However, as McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara (2013: 52) state “(…) there does not seem as yet an agreed set of criteria or procedures for evaluation”.

In this post I will discuss two frameworks: McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara’s (2013) which attempts to provide a comprehensive framework which might be applied in the majority of ELT situations worldwide; and, Littlejohn’s (2011) framework which aims to evaluate the materials ‘as they are’, not the ‘materials-in-action’ (i.e. as the teacher thinks the material should be used).

1 Coursebook evaluation in two stages

McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara (2013) examine materials in two stages: an external evaluation (cover, introduction, table of contents) and a more detailed internal evaluation.

The external evaluation “(…) aims at examining the organization of the material as stated explicitly by the author/publisher by looking at: the ‘blurb’, or the claims made on the cover of the d/students’ book, and the introduction and table of contents” (op. cit.: 54). To achieve this the  following information should be gathered (op. cit.: 55-58):

• target audience
• the proficiency level
• the context in which the material will be used
• how the language is organized into units, modules, etc.
• the authors’ views on language, methodology and the relationship between the language, the language process and the learner
• whether the material will be used as the ‘core’ course
• whether  it is locally available
• visuals, layout and presentation
• presence of vocabulary lists or appendixes
• cultural bias, representation of minority groups
• the inclusion of digital materials (CDs, DVDs, downloadable materials), and the inclusion of a teacher’s book and tests

According to these authors, after this stage and having in mind the profile of the learners, we will have enough information to identify if the material is potentially appropriate and is worth a deeper inspection. 

The internal evaluation seeks to find information about:

• the presentation of the skills (coverage, proportion, integration)
• grading and sequencing (the type of progression, principle underlying progression, levels)
• whether discourse skills are included
• the ‘authenticity’ of the listening materials
• the nature of interaction in oral dialogues (natural or artificial dialogues?)
• the relationship of tests and activities to learners’ needs and the content of the book
• suitability for different learning styles and access to self-study
• the possibility of engagement for learners and teachers in terms of needs, goals, skills and beliefs.

Then, an overall evaluation can be made considering:

• the usability factor (possibility of integration to the syllabus)
• the generalizability factor (whether the whole coursebook can be used or only a part of it)
• based on the previous factor, the adaptability factor
• the flexibility factor (how rigid is the sequencing and grading?).

However, these authors as well as Tomlinson (2004), state that the success or failure of a material can only be fully determined after a while and post-use evaluation.

2 Coursebook evaluation based on methodology and linguistic aspects

Littlejohn (2011) does not take into account the ‘superficial aspect’ of materials or their content, his framework focuses on the methodology and the linguistic nature of the coursebook.

The author identifies three levels of analysis: objective description, subjective description and subjective inference.

In level 1 ‘objective description’, we will find the information about:

• publication date
• intended audience
• type of material (general, specific, main course, etc.)
• the amount of classroom time required and type of use (self-study, order, etc.)
• published form, number of pages, use of colour
• components (teacher’s book, student’s book, CDs, etc.)
• the division into sections, access (indexes, detailed content, hyperlinks, etc.)
• how the sections are distributed between teachers and students, length of sections and any pattern in them.

In the ‘subjective analysis’ in level 2, we analyse what teachers and learners will have to do in each task to test the claims made by the material (a task is defined by this author as any proposal made to students whose aim is bringing about the learning of the L2). For each task we need to identify:

• the process, including turn-take (the learners’ role in classroom discourse),
• focus: on meaning? form? or both?
• mental operations: the mental processes required, like repetition, deducing, hypothesizing
• type of classroom participation: alone? pair work? in groups?
• and the content of the input and of the learners’ output (written or oral? individual sentences or discourse?), source (from the material? the teacher? or the students?) and nature (grammar explanation? fiction? or personal information?).

Based on the previous levels of analysis we can determine the aims of the material and the basis for the selection and sequencing, the following step is to identify the teacher’s and the learners’ roles implied in it. Finally, a conclusion about the material as a whole can be done (subjective inference).

Littlejohn proposes a further step which is to analyse the teachers/students/institutions situation and their expectations from the material to decide its rejection, adoption, adaptation or supplementation.

Material analysis

What aspect should you consider to evaluate the coursebook itself? Littlejohn summarizes them with the following image

Aspects of an analysis of language teaching materials. (Taken from Littlejohn – 2011 p. 18).

With the analysis of the material and the analysis of your teaching context in mind, you might have enough information to reject, adopt, adapt, supplement or use the material with its pros and cons and discuss them with your students (it would be a great source of discussion at least).

Are you ready to evaluate a book? You can download the free PDF workbook How to evaluate coursebooks with both frameworks to apply right away and choose the one you feel most comfortable with.

 

 

References

LITTLEJOHN, A. 2011. The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan Horse. In Materials Development in Language Teaching (2^nd Edition). Cambridge University Press.

MCDONOUGH, J., SHAW, C., AND MASUHARA, H. 2013. Materials and Methods in ELT. A Teacher’s Guide (3^rd edition). Wiley-Blackwell, UK.

Project-based Learning

What is a project in an educational context? Can we work with projects in the same way we usually work? Is a project a longer version of a lesson? What are the advantages and the disadvantages of Project-based learning? Is it incompatible with traditional ways of evaluation? In this post, I intend to give answers to these questions acknowledging that more questions may come up from my writing.

Characteristics of project work

Project work is defined by Ribé and Vidal (1993: 5) as “(…) a full implementation of a second or a third generation task”, but it is longer and more complex than a task, it is a macro-task. It consists of micro-tasks that can be expanded or reduced according to the negotiation carried out between the teacher and the students. The steps, length, process and product are pre-planned by the teacher, “but not totally predetermined” (Idem).

Grant (n.d: 1) states that Project-based learning is an instructional method centred on the learner that allows in-depth investigation of a topic. Having more autonomy, students take more responsibility for their learning process (Tassinari, 1996; Wolk, 1994; Worthy, 2000 in op. cit.: 1); “(…) project-based learning and the construction of artifacts enable the expression of diversity in learners, such as interests, abilities and learning styles” (Grant, n.d.: 2).

Project-based learning takes ideas from constructivism in which learning is seen as the construction of knowledge through interaction (Perkins, 1991; Piaget, 1969; Vygotsky, 1978 in op. cit.: 2), and constructionism (Harel & Papert, 1991; Kafai & Resnick, 1996 in op. cit.: 2) which takes the notion that people learn best when they construct an artifact that can be shared and reflected upon (ibid).

From a language learning point of view, project work requires comprehensible language input (Krashen), comprehensible language output (Swain), the process of content and language learning, negotiation of objectives, and self-access materials (Ribé & Vidal, 1993: 6-7).

Project work is also aligned with Widdowson’s notion of ‘authenticity’:  how the reader responds to a text (in Ball & Hockly, n.d.) See my post Reading in an L2: the idea of ‘Authentic Reading’  for more details on authenticity. From this perspective, a text may elicit an authentic response from the reader independently of its nature (i.e.: whether it is an original text in English or an adaptation of one).

Advantages and disadvantages of project work

Project work or Project-Based Learning (PBL) has many advantages such as,

• enhancing learners’ autonomy
• fostering motivation and engagement
• developing language learning and skills
• catering for individual differences
• authentic use of the L2
• developing problem-solving skills
• enhancing cooperative learning
• integrating content and language learning

However, some teachers may be overwhelmed by the changes necessary for its implementation. There are three main aspects of PBL that teachers and learners might find challenging:

• classroom management changes radically
• students and teachers need to undertake different roles and they might probably feel uncomfortable with that change.
• students without experience in group work may have difficulties negotiating compromise (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Socha & Socha, 1994 in Grant, n.d.: 9)

To overcome these problems, it is important to begin slowly, a short-term project about a topic students are familiar with might be a good choice (Grant, n.d.:9). Working with group dynamics before starting the project is advisable. Assessment should provide constructive and authentic feedback; to achieve that, the most appropriate assessment tools are rubrics, learning diaries or portfolios.

Evaluation of project work

In a project work, different types of assessment are needed to evaluate content, language, presentation, effort, attitude and cognitive development. Therefore, we will need both formative and summative assessment tools. Each aspect of the project can be evaluated from different points of view (Ribé & Vidal, 1993: 82). Common tools used in project work are, 

• self-assessment
• peer assessment checklists
• questionnaires
• learning diaries
• rubrics
• portfolios.

However, as teachers usually must fulfil institutional requirements too, traditional testing can be included in the project and integrated as another way of evaluating students’ progress.

Main elements of a project

• Understanding the dynamic of a project.
• Provide a context for the project (situation, audience)
• Which problem/ questions should the project respond to?
• Which is the final outcome?
• How will the final outcome be evaluated?

Instrumental elements of a project

• How to divide the project into stages?
• Division of roles
• Content learning needs
• Language learning needs
• Resources needed
• Estimated time of the project
• Evaluation throughout the project  (assessment tools? schedule?)

Project-based learning into practice

In this section, you will see how I planned a project about a tourism blog for teenagers or young adult learners. The name of the project is Show the world why your city is worth visiting. A collaborative blog. 

Cover of the project

 

Below, you will see the first two pages of the Teacher’s notes to show you how I included the main and some of the instrumental elements of a project into a teaching plan.

Teacher’s notes p. 1

Teacher’s notes p. 2

*If you want to get the rest of the Teacher’s notes and the students’ handout for this project, you can buy it at Teachers Pay Teachers

Have worked with projects? Which projects are you proud of? Would you add more advantages to Project-based learning? And more disadvantages? What have you learned from Project-based learning?

If you haven’t worked with projects yet, what prevents you from doing so? Do you think it is too time-consuming? Do you think it requires too much effort and skills from teachers? Can all learners benefit from project work?

Share your thoughts with us!

 

 

References

BALL, P. AND HOCKLY, N. (n.d.). Developing Language Skills in the Classroom. Funiber.

GRANT, M. (2002) “Getting a grip on project-based learning: theory, cases and recommendations” [online], Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal a service of NC State University, Raleigh, NC, Vol. 5(1). Available at https://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/win2002/514/project-based.pdf [Retrieved: 19^th February 2016]

RIBÈ R. AND VIDAL, N. 1993. Project Work; Step by step. Heinemann. England.