Foreign Language 1991

8/12/2019 Foreign Language 1991

1/68

FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING

IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS:

ISSUES AND RESEARCH

Irish National Teachers' Organisation

Head Office35 Parnell Square

Dublin 1.Telephone 733533/722893

General SecretaryE. G. Quigley

AN INTO PUBLICATION


2/68

FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING IN PRIMARY

SCHOOLS: ISSUESANDRESEARCH

F O R E W O R D

PART I SECOND AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN PRIMARY

EDUCATION: ISSUES AND RESEARCH

Section 1. Arguments for the early teaching of modern languages

Section 2. History of the early teaching of modern languages

Section 3. Current practice in different countries

Section 4. Foreign languages at primary level: Issues in the Irishcontext

Section 5. Summary

R E F E R E N C E S

PART II SURVEY ON THE PROVISION OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE

TEACHING IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN IRELAND

PART III THE INVOLVEMENT OF VARIOUS AGENCIES IN THE

PROMOTION OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING IN

IRELAND

P A R T IV DISCUSSION

R E F E R E N C E S

A P P E N D I X A


3/68

Foreign Language Teachingin Primary Schools: Issues and Research

F O R E W O R D

The resurgance of interest In foreign language teaching in other Europeancountries, together with the advent of the completion of the single Europeanmarket has begun to focus attention on the question of access to foreignlanguage, particularly the inclusion of a modern European language in thecurriculum at primary level. In order to promote enlightened and well

informed debate regarding foreign language teaching at primary level inIreland the INTO commissioned Mr. John Harris, Instituid TeangeolaioctaEireann, to undertake a comprehensive review of second and foreign

language teaching in other countries including an analysis of the argumentswhich support the introduction of foreign languages from an early age. Inthe light of the unique situation which pertains in Ireland, where twolanguages already receive equal status on the curriculum, Mr. Harris was

also requested to examine the issues of foreign language teaching in theIrish context. Mr. Harris's paper forms Part I of this Report.

The Education Committee conducted a major study to ascertain the currentlevel of foreign language provision in National Schools in Ireland. Theresultsof thequestionnairewere compiled on an INTO districtbasis and thedatawas submitted to theEducation Officerforcollation andanalysis. Theresults of the survey may be found in Part II of the Report. In order toincorporate the views of a wide range of interested parties in the area offoreign language teaching the Education Committee decided to investigatethe involvement2 of various agencies in the promotion of foreign languageprogrammes in Ireland. The views of different agencies are included in Part

III of the Report. Part IV of this Report raises a number of issues which

must be taken into account in any debate on the question of theintroduction of foreign languages at primary level.

The Central Executive Committee wishes to record its appreciation to Mr.John Harris for his comprehensive review of second and foreign languages inthe primary education system.

E.G. Quigley.

General Secretary.

November 1991.


4/68

Foreign Language Teaching in Primary Schools: Issues and Research

PART I

SECOND AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES IN PRIMARY

EDUCATION: ISSUES AND RESEARCH

This paper examines research and issues related to the teaching of secondand foreign languages at primary level. This is a subject with many aspectsto it and there is a very diverse literature. My aim is not to present a case foror against foreign languages in primary school, but simply to try to set outthe main issues and research relevant to the topic. In any case, since quite

detailed references to the literature are given, readers can return to theoriginal reports on which the various arguments are based and make theirown assessment. I have discussed a few topics, such as age andperformance expectations in particular detail, because of their centralimportance. I have also given country-by-country information on theposition of foreign languages in primary education, in the hope that this mayprovide a certain amount of guidance at a time when the position in Irelandis being discussed.

The paper is mainly confined to research on foreign languages taught asindividual school subjects - what is commonly called FLES (foreignlanguages in elementary schools) in the U.S. and ETML (the early teaching ofmodern languages) in Europe. Due to limitations of space, I have had toeither omit reference to many issues or treat them only briefly e.g. syllabus

and method. Neither do I examine the question of immigrant, minority or

lesser used languages to any extent, or the effect of immersion programmes,although potentially there is much to be learned from research in all theseareas (See Sikma & Gorter, 1988).

The paper is in five sections:

Section 1 Arguments for the early teaching of modern languages

Section 2. History of the early teaching of modern languages

Section 3. Current practice in different countries

Section 4. Foreign languages at primary level: Issues in the Irish

context

Section 5. Summary


5/68

ForeignLanguage Teaching in PrimarySchools: IssuesandResearch

ARGUMENTSFORTHE

EARLYTEACHING OF

MODERN LANGUAGES

1. Age and second/foreign language learning. One of the most frequently

quoted arguments in favour of teaching foreign languages at primary level isthat the years before puberty are the best or critical years for acquiring asecond language. The relationship between age and language learning is alsoone of the most frequently debated and researched topics in appliedlinguistics and psycholinguistics. Research on age and language learning

has now been going on for close to forty years with a few studies going backeven earlier (e.g. Penfield, 1953; Thorndike, 1928). Unfortunately, the issuehas turned out to be extremely complex, and even now it cannot be claimedthat it has been fully resolved. There is a consensus, however, that the

question has been answered clearly enough as far as its implications for theteaching of foreign languages at primary level is concerned: younger children

are not any better at learning foreign languages in a school context than

older children or adults are (Smythe, Slennet & Gardner, 1975; SternWeinrib, 1977; McLaughlin, 1985; Genesee, 1987; Singleton, 1989; andLong, 1990). Because of the centrality of the 'optimal age' question to the

debate on foreign languages in primary education, it will be worthwhile tofirst outline some of the main research findings in this area.

The original claim that younger children are better second language learnerswas based on neurological arguments concerning the plasticity of the young

brain, though other arguments, including one based on Piagetian stages ofintellectual growth, have also been advanced (Penfield, 1953, 1965;

Lenneberg, 1967; Krashen, 1975; Rosansky, 1975). This neurological

argument has now been more or less discredited (Mc Laughlin, 1985;

Singleton, 1989). Currently, opinion is divided on the more specific questionof whether the available evidence supports the hypothesis that children arebetter second language learners than adults. Some researchers argue for the

existence of age differences in eventual attainment, in favour of children,

particularly as far as the acquisition of a native-like accent in the secondlanguage is concerned (e.g. Seliger, 1978; Krashen, Long & Scarcella, 1979;Krashen, Scarcella & Long, 1982; Scovel, 1988; Johnson & Newport, 1989;Long, 1990; and Patkowski, 1990). Other researchers believe that the data isinconsistent or that the existence of an advantage for children remains to be

proved (e.g. Stern & Weinrib, 1977; Hatch, 1983; McLaughlin, 1985;Singleton, 1989). A third group of researchers believe the findings show a

clear advantage, at least in the short term, for adults and older children overyounger children in all aspects of second language learning ( e. g. Ellis,


6/68


1985; Flege, 1987; Genesee, 1987: Major, 1987; Snow, 1983, 1987).

Krashen et al (1979; 1982) and Long (1990) believe that these apparent

contradictions in findings can be resolved if a distinction is made betweenshort-term (rate) and long term (ultimate attainment) studies. Long (1990)proposes that the research literature supports the following threegeneralisations about second language acquisition/learning in children andadults: (1) Adults proceed through the early stages of morphological andsyntactic development faster than children (where time and exposure areheld constant). (2) Older children acquire faster than younger children(again in early stages of morphology and syntax, where time and exposureare held constant). (3) Child starters out perform adult starters in the longrun. (Long, 1990, page 260)

It is probably fair to say that most researchers would agree with this

summary of the findings to date and that if they did have reservations thesewould relate to (3). 'short term' (i.e. 'early stages'), as used by Long, meansanything from 25minutesup to theequivalentofone, oreven two,years fulltime naturalistic exposure to the language. 'Ultimate attainment' (i.e. 'in thelong run') means the level of proficiency achieved after 'several years' in the

second language environment. What is important here from the point of viewof the teaching of foreign languages at primary level is that any long termadvantage which younger children might have in second language learning

could never be fully realised within the context of ordinary formal schooling.

This is simply because the number of hours exposure to any secondlanguage which is possible in school is so limited - compared to the amount

of exposure to a second language which is possible in the course of one or

two years full time exposure (all waking hours). In other words, foreignlanguage learning in primary and post-primary school falls well within

Long's 'short-term' category, and thus older children (or adults) would beexpected to learn faster than younger children in that context (Long's

generalisations 1 and 2 above).

Whether or not Long's assessment of the literature proves to be correct,there can be little doubt that in the context of formal schooling the evidenceis that older children have the advantage over younger children as far assecond and foreign language learning is concerned. Children who start

foreign languages at post-primary either catch up, more or less, with those

who began earlier; or else, older children perform better on evaluation tests

than younger children after equivalent numbers of hours exposure to the

second language (e.g. Burstall, Jamieson, Cohen & Hargreaves, 1974;Carroll, 1975; Ekstrand, 1976; Oiler & Nagato, 1974; Snow & Hoefnagel-

Hohle, 1978).

Burstall et al (1974) who conducted the largest single study on this topic,


7/68


found that when early starters in French (age 8) were compared to the laterstarters (age 11) at age 13, the early starters scored significantly higher thanthe later starters on a speaking test and a listening test, but were eitherequal or worse on reading and writing tests. By age 16, the early and latestarters differed only on the listening test - despite the three extra yearsexposure which the early starters had. When amount of exposure to Frenchwas controlled, however, the older children were consistently superior to theyounger children on all tests. Burstall et al's study has been criticised onvarious grounds (Bennett, 1975; Buckby, 1976; Spicer, 1980; Stern, 1982) -

a matter to which I will return later. What cannot be denied, however, is thatneither Burstall et al's study, nor any other one, provides convincingevidence for the popular belief that younger children are better languagelearners than older children in a school context.

Apart from research such as Burstall's, which concerns the teaching of a

foreign language as a subject, there are a number of other studies whichexamine foreign language learning in early and late immersion programmes

i.e. programs where the target language is used as a medium of instruction

(e.g. French immersion schools in Canada or the all-Irish schools here). Theclearest evidence, that is where account was taken of the number of hoursexposure to the second language, shows that late immersion students (endof elementary /beginning secondary) tend to be better second languagelearners than early immersion students (beginning in kindergarten) (Harley,1986). Other studies which compare early and late immersion students

(Adiv, 1980; Genesee, 1981, 1987; Morrison, 1981) are more difficult tointerpret due to differences in the total accumulated hours exposure to thesecond language and in the distribution and recency of the exposure. Onbalance (Mc Laughlin, 1985) this latter evidence suggests that lateimmersion students may be better learners at least in the more cognitiveaspects of second language learning (e.g. reading comprehension). Thesignificance of these immersion results in relation to the age question is

that, because the second language is learned in a naturalistic context in

such programmes, failure to demonstrate an advantage for younger learners

cannot be explained away in terms, for example, of the unsuitability offormal teaching methods for younger children.

Two other points are relevant. First, it must be emphasised that ourconclusion here relates to the second/foreign language acquisition rate ofstudents in situations where the immersion experience occurs in the earlyprimary school years as opposed to the late-primary or early-post-primaryyears. In other words, it only disposes of the question of 'age' as such. Butthere are other reasons for starting early - whether one thinks of regular'foreign language as a subject' or 'foreign language immersion'. Thesereasons are discussed in some detail below. Second, quite apart from thequestion of whether children are better learners or not, it is now welldocumented that both early and late immersion programmes produce


8/68


9/68

Foreign LanguageTeaching in Primary Schools: Issues and Research

depending on the amount of exposure to French which each programmeprovides (e.g. from 20 minutes exposure per day in the case of core French,to the whole day in the case of French immersion) (Cenesee, 1987).Thecommon sense expectation, in any case, is that even if younger learners are

not any more efficient than older learners, the extra exposure made possible

by the early start in the primary years should produce higher foreignlanguage achievement in the long run (since these early starters will alsobegin to gain any advantage associated with age as soon as they themselvesbecome older learners). Despite this, in the specific context of foreignlanguage teaching at primary level, the evidence generally shows that, inpractice, the initial advantage of early starters deriving from their greater

exposure is largely, though not always completely, eroded as those who start

later quickly begin to catch up. Nevertheless, it will be recalled that even inthe French Pilot Scheme some differences in listening, in favour of the earlystarters, still persisted at age 16. Again it is important to emphasise thatthis remaining difference at 16 is attributable to the extra exposure to thelanguage - not to any fundamental advantage of younger as opposed to olderlearners - since when amount of exposure is controlled, older learnersgenerally do better. In the Oiler & Nagato (1974) study also, some difference

in favour of the early starters still remained at the end of the experiment,

though that difference was not statistically significant.

Even if it is accepted that younger children are not superior learners in a

school context, we still must explain their failure generally to maintain even

their initial achieved advantage. One explanation has centred on theinadequate co-ordination between primary and post primary second

language programmes. In the past, post primary programmes frequentlyeither did not make allowance for the early starters, or combined early andlate starters in the same class. Doubts have also been raised about theappropriateness of the syllabus and teaching methods, the qualifications ofteachers and, in the case of the NFER evaluation, the suitability of the tests

and the design of the study itself (Bennett, 1975; Buckby, 1976; Stern,

1982; and Mc Laughlin, 1985).

In any case, quite apart from any formal research results, there is general

agreement that after the initial enthusiasm for primary school foreignlanguage programmes in the 1960's, many countries, including the U.S. andCanada, became disillusioned with the results of teaching modern languages

as a subject at primary level and, particularly in the U.S.. the popularity ofprogrammes decreased considerably (Mc Laughlin, 1985; Stern & weinrib,1977).

In projects where at least some of the problems just mentioned have been

successfully addressed, the results have been better. A project on the early(third grade) teaching of English as a foreign language in Germany showedthat early starters were significantly better than late starters in English


10/68


listening comprehension, speaking, reading and writing (Doye, 1979).Although differenceswere greater at fifth grade than at seventh grade, theydid remain significant at seventh. Classes lasted 20 minutes a day in thirdand fourth grade and 45 minutes a day in the later post primary grades. Nonegative effects on other subjects such as German and mathematics were

found. At the conclusion of the experiment, most pupils and parentsdeclared themselves in favour of the early start in English. Doye's results, itshould be noted, only show that the initial progress associated with anearlier start can be maintained as an advantage; they do not bear on theseparate question of whether older or younger children are better learners.

Two aspects of the organisation of the project are considered by Doye to besignificant and to account for the difference between his results and the

Pilot Scheme results. First, in the German project all the eight year oldchildren (n=1200) in a particular region of Germany took part and when

they entered post primary school in the same region they found themselvesin English classes with other early beginners. In addition, there was strictcontinuity in the teaching at primary and post primary. Second, all teachersin the participating primary schools were qualified primary school teachersand also qualified foreign language teachers.

Doye points out that neither of these conditions were consistently met in theFrench Pilot Scheme in Britain. It is interesting to note that Oiler & Nagato

(1974) also point to the lack of co-ordination between primary and

secondary programmes as a major reason for the failure of early starters intheir study to maintain their advantage: 'FLES students must mark time'when integrated with later starters in the same classes. It seems reasonable

to assume, then, that if foreign language programmes are well planned andorganised, the initial progress made as a result of the extra exposure to thelanguage at primary level will be maintained as an advantage, to a greater orlesser degree, at post primary level.

1.3 Other reasons for beginning foreign language instruction in

primary school. An important point to mention at the outset is that nonegative effects on other school work, or on native language skills, have beenreported in the case of primary school second or foreign languageprogrammes. This is true whether we consider the teaching of the foreignlanguage as a subject (Burstall et al., 1974; Doye, 1979; Holmstrand, 1979)or its use as a medium of instruction for 'majority language' children inimmersion programmes (Swain & Lapkin, 1981; Genesee, 1987). Even in the

case of pupils of lower academic ability and those from lower socio-economicbackgrounds, immersion at primary level has not been found to have any

long term negative effects on either general academic progress or on nativelanguage skills (Cummins, 1984; Genesee. 1987; Holobow, Genesee,Lambert, Gastright & Met, 1987; Holobow, Genesee & Lambert, 1991).


11/68

Foreign Language Teaching in Primary Schools: issues and Research

A frequently heard argument in favour of an early start, for which thereappears to be some basis, is that it may make children more receptive to theidea of learning foreign languages generally. Burstall et al (1974) report thatwhen pupils in the French Pilot Scheme had been successful in their effortsto learn French, they developed more favourable attitudes towards speakingthe language than did those who were not introduced to French until the ageof eleven. On the other hand, where pupils experienced failure after aninitially hopeful start, negative attitudes developed which led to themdropping French as soon as they were permitted to do so, 'convinced thatforeign language learning was beyond their capability'. The solution here,they argue, is a 'sustained effort to redefine the objectives of teaching Frenchin order to meet pupils differing needs...' (Burstall et al, 1974; p. 243).

Another argument in favour of an early start - which again relates toattitude - concerns the value of children developing an understanding and

appreciation of different cultures from an early age, thereby promotinginternational understanding and friendship. Of course, the manner in which- and the extent to which - language learning contributes to this goal

depends very much on the approach to teaching which is involved (Murphy,1988). As Hawkins (1987a) points out, in connection with the Pilot Frenchattitudinal data, the capacity for empathy - the ability to see the world from

someone else's point of view is at its height at about the age of eight or nine,but declines rapidly with the onset of adolescence. This change is associatedwith insecurity and is especially marked, he argues, among boys from 'low

status' families. Learning a foreign language makes heavy demands onempathy: the learner must develop some interest in the foreigner and hisway of life, as in a geography or history lesson, but must also learn to 'tobehave like the foreigner, making the foreigner's ridiculous noises out loudfor his mates to hear" (Hawkins, 1987a; p. 189). The early starter clearly hasan advantage here.

Singleton (1989), mentions some more general arguments in favour of anearly start in foreign languages put forward by Ekstrand (1971) - the factthat all aspects of development are enhanced by early stimulation; thedesirability of beginning early wherever that is feasible given the totalamount of knowledge that the modern student must acquire at school; and

the fact that even if older children are indeed better foreign languagelearners, this is no excuse for delaying instruction any more than a delay inbeginning mathematics or writing would be justified by the fact that olderchildren demonstrate superior skills in these areas.

Finally, there may be more specific advantages to an early start in foreignlanguages in particular countries, or in particular educational systems. For

example, where there are inequalities in access to, or choice of, foreignlanguages at post primary level, the introduction of children to foreignlanguages at primary level may have beneficial effects. This issue is

10


12/68


discussed in more detail in relation to the Irish situation later in the paper.

HISTORY OF THE EARLY

TEACHING OF MODERN

LANGUAGES

Prior to 1950 or so, the teaching of foreign languages was largely confined tosecond and third level education. In the early 1950's, however, interest in

the early teaching of foreign languages began to grow in a number ofcountries, particularly in the U.S.. Within a decade, the number of childrenenrolled in foreign language in elementary school (FLES) programmes in theU.S. had grown to more than a million. Two UNESCO-sponsoredinternational meetings in Hamburg in 1962 and 1966 (Stern, 1967; 1969)were designed to stimulate research on early language teaching and on theeffectiveness of an early start. Three Council of Europe working parties

consistently supported the teaching of foreign languages at primary level

(e.g. see Council of Europe, 1977).

Interest in an early start has been attributed to a number of factors. In theU.S., for example, it has been linked to the general concern with educationalexcellence associated with the Sputnik era and changed attitudes towardsforeign languages deriving from World War II and its aftermath (McLaughlin,1985). The need for intensive language programmes for military personneldeployed in non-English speaking countries led to the development of theaudio-lingual method (the army method) which became highly popular forelementary school programmes also. More general educational argumentsadvanced at the time were the need to radically improve foreign language

learning, to capitalise on the younger child's supposedly greater languagelearning capacity and to enrich the educational experience of primary schoolchildren (Stern & Weinrib, 1977). It was also believed that learning foreign

languages would help children to understand and appreciate cultures otherthan their own. In the post war era, this was seen as an important way topromote international communication and harmony.

The enthusiasm of parents, and pressure from parents' groups, was a majorreason for the rapid growth of primary school foreign language programmes

(Mc Laughlin, 1985). The audio-lingual method of language teaching wasthought to be very promising and it was generally believed that, incombination with the special language learning ability of children, this new

11


13/68


method could quickly produce mastery of second languages. These popularlyheld views were reinforced by psychologists and other professionals.

After this rapid initial growth, however, the movement began to decline inthe early 1970's. Gradually, teaching foreign languages in the elementary

school was no longer seen as the most important way of improvingproficiency and instead attention switched to the need for innovation inteaching languages at secondary and university level (Stern & Weinrib,1977). A number of reasons have been advanced for the decline. Perhaps the

most important is that there was too great gap between aims and actualpupil achievement. Stern & Weinrib (1977) suggest that the early teaching of

modern languages was 'promoted with excessive expectations'. The arrival ofthe audio-lingual method, and the belief that younger children had a uniquecapacity to learn foreign languages, did not seem to be reflected in theprogress of the typical child in a foreign language programme. In practice,

children appeared to find foreign languages just as difficult as any otherschool subject. Mc Laughlin (1985) while acknowledging that the audio-lingual methods were by and large successful in the U.S., suggests that'their doctrinaire use complicated education in many settings'. The methoddid not seem to equip children to generate new meaningful material from the

well drilled corpus of utterances, or, more generally, to use the language forcommunication. In addition, when the audio-lingual method was rigidlyapplied, it meant that little allowance could be made for the child's cognitivedevelopment - particularly the capacity of older children to adopt a more

'abstract, rule governed approach to language'. The intellectual potential ofmany children was stifled in the typical audio-lingual class and they foundthe activities 'frivolous and not worth serious effort' (Mc Laughlin, 1985, p.84). In Britain, likewise, Burstall et al found that -high achieving pupilstend to reject the audio-visual approach in favour of a more 'traditional'grammar-based approach..." (Burstall et al, 1974, p. 244).

Another problem in the United States was that despite the generalenthusiasm for the idea of an early start, programmes were often poorlyplanned. Frequently, teachers were not properly trained or qualified, or were

assigned to teach a language other than the one in which they werequalified. In many cases, no proper provision was made for continuity atpost primary level so that any early advantage secured was not built on. Theextra burden on local school systems and the related increased tax burdenon local communities was enough to erode support for regular in-schoolFLES programmes, particularly when no spectacular results were beingproduced (Mc Laughlin, 1985).

Finally, research results forced a more critical assessment of what was

actually being achieved, with the work of Oiler & Nagato (1974) being veryinfluential in the U.S. and Burstall et al (1974) in Britain. The Pilot Scheme

'French from Eight' had been launched in Britain in 1963 with great

12


14/68

Foreign Language Teaching in Primary Schools: Issuesand Research

enthusiasm and public support. By 1965, 21% of all junior schools includedsome French in their curriculum and in 1970 this percentage had increasedto 35%. Only some of these schools, of course, were part of the Pilot Schemeproper on which the NFER evaluation was based. While the Pilot Schemecertainly showed that it was possible to teach foreign languages at primary

school without negatively affecting other areas of learning, the failure todemonstrate any substantial permanent advantage to an early start in terms

of French proficiency was a big blow to the foreign languages in primaryschool movement.

Many other findings of the NFER study are less well known, though

nevertheless of considerable interest. For example, it was found that girlsconsistently scored higher than boys at both primary and post primary level;children in small rural primary schools scored higher than those in largeurban schools; and higher socio-economic status was associated withgreater success in learning French. In addition, instead of increasingopportunities to study other languages (such as Spanish, German andRussian), as the original project had aimed, secondary schools whichcatered for pupils from the Project primary schools sometimes restrictedtheir foreign language programme to French.

Problems such as these, however, just like problems of teacher competencein foreign language teaching, primary/post-primary co-ordination, andteaching method/syllabus are not conclusive evidence against the teaching

of foreign languages at primary school. Stern & Weinrib (1977, p. 18) believethat the existence of such difficulties is not surprising given that the

teaching of foreign languages at primary level is a relatively new enterprisecompared to the teaching of subjects such as mathematics or reading. Afterall the long-established primary school subjects are not without problems.And none of the difficulties associated with foreign languages at primary

level are either unique or insurmountable. At the same time, it would bevery unwise to ignore the history of such difficulties in planning for foreignlanguages in primary school in the future.

Foreign language teaching at primary level went into decline in a number ofother countries after an earlier period of growth. In France, the Ministry

prohibited any new primary school programmes in 1974 and Girard (SeeStern & Weinrib, 1977) was asked to conduct an inquiry into existingprogrammes. It was found that about 1.5% of the school population were

exposed to foreign languages (mostly English and German) at primary ornursery level. Girard felt, on the basis of direct classroom observation, thatone-third of the classes were 'efficient', one third were 'tolerable' and one

third were 'inadequate'. A large majority of secondary teachers, however,were in favour of the early start and judged it successful.

13


15/68


In Canada the major languages, English and French, are official languagesand the teaching of French, in particular, takes place in a sociolinguistic

context which differs quite markedly from that in many of the othercountries referred to above. During the 1960's and 1970's Anglophoneparents became much more interested in improving French instruction fortheir children and many school systems introduced 'oral French' into theprimary schools. In the province of Ontario in 1975, for example, 28% ofpupils in kindergarten and 38% of pupils in grades 1 - 6 studied French.Dissatisfaction with the results achieved with the typical 20-minute per dayprogramme gradually began to grow, however, since it did not appear lead to'any substantial achievement' for those who started early (Stern & Weinrib,1977). It was partly in response to this situation that the innovative Frenchimmersion programmes at primary level were first developed. The verysuccess of immersion, and the fact that it attracted a great amount ofresearch interest while core French attracted very little, probably added to

the relatively negative perception of core French in the 1970's (Stern, 1986).

In Europe, a number of countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark andHolland had a more long-standing tradition of teaching a foreign language as

a subject at primary level. Significantly, in these countries the issue of the

early teaching of foreign languages did not become controversial in quite thesame way it did in countries such as the U.S. or Britain. Neither was thecycle of initial enthusiasm and high expectations in the 1960's, followed bydisappointment and more sober assessments in the 1970's, a feature of

foreign language teaching at primary level in these countries. What theyseem to have in common - apart from the same foreign language, English -are (a) the fact that the foreign language taught has, to a greater or lesserdegree, the status of a second language - it has some specific functionswithin society, unlike a strictly foreign language; and (b) a particularconcern for more effective second language learning generally - of which thedecision to teach the language at primary level is just one expression. Wewill return later in the paper to a more general discussion of the significanceof the distinction between second and foreign languages at primary level.

Faerch, Haastrup & Phillipson (1984) point out that English, which hasbeen taught in Danish primary schools since 1937 and is presentlycompulsory for all children from age 10,

"...has become so significant in so many spheres of life inDenmark that it is on its way to acquiring the status of asecond language. This is the case if English is needed not justfor foreign trade or as a mark of a certain level of general

education, but as condition for full participation in Danish

society, in connection with politics, technology, business, themedia , sport, etc." Faerch, Haastrup & Phillipson (1984; page

222).

14


16/68


In Sweden, knowledge of English is considered to be 'a national andindividual necessity' (Hoy, 1976). The language has been compulsory for allprimary school children from grade three (age nine) since 1972 and theprogramme is generally considered a success (Hoy, 1976). One Swedishevaluation project (Holmstrand, 1980) is of particular interest because of the

unusually early start in a foreign language which was studied. Swedishpupils who started English in the ordinary way at grade 3 (age 9) werecompared to another group who started even earlier at grade one (age 7).The total number of hours instruction up to the end of grade 6 was equated

for the two groups by spreading instruction time for the early starters morethinly over the six years. The number of hours instruction per week was onlya half hour in the first year, one-and-a-half hours in the second year, twohours in the third and fourth year and three hours in the fifth and sixthyear. At the end of the six-year period, performance of the two groups ofchildren on a range of tests was basically the same, showing that the veryearly (age 7) start was as effective as, though not superior to, the regular(age 9) start.

CURRENT PRACTICE

IN DIFFERENT

COUNTRIES

In this section we give a brief account of the situation regarding the teaching

of foreign languages at primary level in a number of countries. It is difficultto obtain complete and up to date information on each country, a problemthat is made worse by the fact that the situation appears to be changingrapidly in many countries and that primary education is defined differentlyfrom one country to another. The main sources on which the presentaccount is based are three Eurydice documents (Eurydice, 1984; 1988;

1989), Hoy (1976), Council of Europe (1977), and Stern & Weinrib (1977). Inaddition, a considerable amount of useful information on recent changes inthe United States is contained in Rhodes & Oxford (1988); on developmentsin France in Asher (1990); and on the situation in Canada in Stern (1986),Poyen (1990) and Herbert (1990). Although the level of detail varies from

country to country, an attempt has been made to give some information onthe amount of time per week which is devoted to foreign language teaching,the age or grade at which instruction begins, whether languages arecompulsory or not, and what languages are taught.

Perhaps the clearest trend to be observed is one of renewal and increasedparticipation in primary school foreign language programmes in many

15


17/68

Foreign Language Teaching in Primary Schools: Issues andResearch

countries. There is also evidence that at least some of the problemsencountered by foreign language programmes at primary level are similarfrom one country to another - e.g. the need to coordinate primary and post-primary programmes. Increasingly, also, there is evidence of a willingness todeal with such problems in a more systematic way.

Ireland;In 1989 the National Parents Council distributed a questionnaire tothe Parents' Association (or parents' representative) associated with 1000primary schools. The schools had been selected on the basis of geographiclocation and size. Over a third of the questionnaires were completed,representing 11.4% of all primary schools. Twenty one percent of therespondents said that a foreign language was offered as an extra curricularactivity in their school, including 5% who said it was offered free of charge.The average fee was 25.90.

Some pre-service and inservice training in the teaching of French at primarylevel has been conducted by the Colleges of Education in recent years.

The Review Body on the Primary Curriculum which reported in 1990 advisedagainst the introduction of modern European languages into the curriculumin primary schools.

UnitedStates;A survey offoreignlanguages at primary and secondarylevelin the US was carried out in 1986/1987, based on a random sample of all

public and private elementary and secondary schools (Rhodes & Oxford,1988). The response rate was 52% overall. Results showed thatapproximately one-fifth (22%) of all responding elementary schools offeredforeign language classes, with twice as many private elementary schools(34%) as public elementary schools (17%) doing so. Of those which did notteach foreign languages, approximately half reported that they wouldbe/might be interested in doing so while the rest said they would not be.There was slightly more interest among private elementary schools (55%)than public elementary schools (48%). Spanish was the language most

commonly taught (offered by 68% of those elementary schools leaching aforeign language). Next came French (41%), followed by Latin (12%), German(10%), Hebrew (6%), Chinese (3%), Russian (2%), American IndianLanguages (1%), Spanish for Spanish speakers (1%), Greek (1%) and otherlanguages(1%).

There is also some evidence of a growth in the number of elementary schoolforeign language programmes in recent years. For example, while a survey ofelementary schools in eight states in 1981 had shown that only 18% of

schools had foreign language programmes, the 1986/1987 survey reportedby Rhodes & Oxford showed that 27% of schools in these same states hadsuch programmes. Respondents were asked to categorise their foreignlanguage teaching in terms of the following four programme types:

16


18/68

ForeignLanguageTeaching in Primary Schools: Issues andResearch

"Foreign language experience (FLEX): The goals of this programare to get general exposure to language and culture, learn basicwords and phrases, and develop an interest in foreign languagefor future languages study. The aim is not fluency, but rather

exposure to other language(s) and culture(s)".

"Foreign language in the elementary school (FLES): The goals ofthis program are to acquire listening and speaking skills, gainan understanding and appreciation for other cultures, andacquire limited amounts of reading and writing skills. Lessonsin early grades centre around greetings, colours, numbers, food,days of the week, etc., and conversation focuses on topicschildren are familiar with, e.g., family, pets, school. The teacherin this type of program may speak some English in the class".

"Intensive FLES: The goals of this program are the same goalsas in the above program but there is more exposure to theforeign language. This greater exposure includes languageclasses taught only in the foreign language or the foreignlanguage being reinforced in other classes. There is co-ordination between foreign language teachers and otherteachers so that language concepts are carried over into theregular curriculum".

"Immersion: The goals of this program are to be able tocommunicate in the language almost as well as a nativespeaker of the same age and acquire an understanding of andappreciation for other cultures. At least 50 percent of the schoolday is taught in the foreign language, including such subjectsas arithmetic, science, social studies, language arts". (Rhodes& Oxford, 1988, p. 53-54)

Of those elementary schools which reported offering foreign languageinstruction, 41% had FLEX programmes, almost half (45%) had FLES, 12%had Intensive FLES and 2~ had immersion programmes. The vast majority(89%) of schools made room for foreign language instruction during theschool day. The rest offered classes before or after regular school hours oron weekends. Private schools were more likely to have foreign languageclasses integrated in the school day (94%) than public schools (86%).Information on the amount of time devoted to foreign language instructionwas not obtained. In response to an open-ended question about the types of

materials used, 84% of schools cited using teacher-made materials, 70%mentioned commercially published textbooks/ workbooks, 60% audio-visualmaterials, 38% commercially-made foreign language games, and 14%

17


19/68

ForeignLanguageTeaching InPrimarySchools: IssuesandResearch

computer-assisted instructional materials. There were no major differencesbetween public and private schools in this area. Only 26% of the elementaryschools reported that all their teachers were certified for foreign languageteaching at primary level.

Continuity between elementary foreign language instruction and secondaryforeign language instruction was definitely not maintained in 31% ofelementary schools, where students who had already begun study of aforeign language In elementary school are placed in 'Level One' classes

alongside students who had no prior contact with the language. As Rhodes& Oxford comment, it is wasteful of both human and material resources forstudents having studied a language for up to six years to start again at thebeginning when they reach secondary school. Forty-nine percent of schoolsreported that early starters could enroll in more advanced classes, whichmay or may not have been designed to accommodate their prior level.

Canada; Despite the disillusionment with the results of teaching French inprimary schools in the 1960's, which was sharpened still further by thesuccess of French immersion in the 1970's, Core French has stagedsomething of a recovery in recent years. Programmes which had once startedat sixth seventh or eighth grade gradually, in response to parental pressure,moved down to earlier and earlier starting grades - even to kindergarten or

grade 1. Further impetus for renewal and development was provided by thelaunch of the National Core French Study in 1985, a key element of which is

the development of a multidimensional curriculum with four components -Language, Communicative Activities, Culture, and General LanguageEducation (Poyen, 1990; Herbert, 1990; Stern, 1976, 1986).

France: Here also there is evidence of a renewal of interest in the teaching offoreign languages at primary level. Up until 1988-89 the teaching of aforeign language was not compulsory and only some schools provided it. Inthe school year 1986-87, for example, only 1.3% of all pupils were receivingforeign language instruction at primary level. It was usually taught in the

last two years of primary school (pupils 9/10 years old). The number ofhours a week spent on teaching the foreign language was decided locally andranged from 30 minutes to 2 hours within the 27 hour weekly timetable. An

experiment to pilot the teaching of foreign languages in selected primaryschools was initiated at the beginning of the new school year 1989-90. The

aim was to foster a "conscience europeenne" in the new generation of French

citizens by providing them with the means to communicate and beunderstood in a foreign language. Under this new scheme, pupils in the lasttwo years of primary school were to receive two to three hours of languageteaching a week and just over 10% of all primary school children were to beinvolved. While historically foreign language programmes at primary levelwere confined to the more affluent communes, there is evidence that thistime the less prosperous communes are also applying for inclusion (Asher,

18


20/68


1990).

The criteria to be satisfied by each school in order to be involved in thescheme appear to be designed to anticipate and respond to many of thosedifficulties which were identified in the British Pilot French scheme, as well

as many other elementary school foreign language programmes:

i the foreign language to be offered had to be one of thoseoffered in the secondary school (college) to which pupilswould transfer at age.

!i for the sake of homogeneity and cont inui ty , all

experimental schools had to be part of the group that

feeds one college.

iii teaching had to be carried out by staff identified by anInspecteur d'Academie as being suitably qualified.

iv the application to take part in the experiment had toreceive the backing of the various primary and secondaryschool committees (Asher, 1990).

The project will be monitored by teams of evaluators in each of the 27administrative regions. Asher notes that there is apprehension among someacademics who believe that the experiment may reduce the diversity of

language provision in the school system by increasing the dominance of oneforeign language, English: 90% of the experimental schools offer English

alone or as one of a range of languages. More recent information indicatesthat in the year 1990-1991 the proportion of pupils involved in the newscheme doubled.

Netherlands: Since 1985/1986, one foreign language, English, has been

taught for 1 houraweektopupils in fourth, fifthandsixthgrade (age 10 -

12) of all primary schools. In the province of Friesland, both Frisian andDutch have been compulsory since 1979/1980. About 15% of primary

schools in Friesland are bilingual, which means that the Frisian languagegets considerably more attention than it does in other schools in Friesland(Ytsma, 1988). English is a third compulsory language in Frisian schools

also.

Finland; All children learn a second or foreign language, most oftenEnglish, from age 10.

Norway:English is taught to all children from age 10.

19


21/68


Denmark: English is compulsory from the 5th year of primary school (age10) for two and a quarter hours per week (three 45-minute sessions).

Sweden:English is compulsory from age nine.

Belgium:There are 3 national languages (French, German and Dutch). One'second language' (usually another national language) is taught in almost allareas at some stage of primary schooling. In Brussels and linguistic frontierareas it is French when the pupil is Dutch-speaking, and Dutch when thepupil is French speaking. In these areas, the teaching of the secondlanguage is compulsory - 3-4 hours per week in the third and fourth years(age 8-9) rising to 5-8 hours in the last two years of primary school (11 - 12).

Italy: Before 1987 foreign language teaching in primary schools occurredonly on an experimental basis e.g. the ILSSE project (Titone, 1988). The NewPrimary School Programmes Include foreign language teaching and from1992 one foreign language will be taught to all children from grade 2 (aboutage seven).

Federal Republic ofGermany:Regular foreign language teaching begins inthe 5th year at the lower secondary (Hauptschule/Realschule orGymnasium) when children are about 10 years old. In general, the numbersof hours instruction per week decreases from 5-6 hours in 5th and 6th yearsto about 3 hours in the final year of lower secondary (loth year).

UnitedKingdom; French is taught in some primary schools but provision issporadic and has declined since the Pilot Scheme. A 'Pre-Eleven LanguagesNetwork' has links with 25 LEA's, 20 of which still teach a foreign languageat primary level. DES Minister Alan Howarth is quoted in the December1990 Issue of Language World as approving of initiatives to teach foreignlanguages at primary level in cases where "teachers with the appropriateexpertise and the other resources required" are available and he expressesthe hope that "In future the teaching of foreign languages to primary age

children will become very widespread.

In Wales, while all primary schools teach Welsh the policy with regard toteaching it is largely at the discretion of the various local authorities for eachcounty. In general, the County policy towards the language reflects the"Welshness" of the area. So while the aims in some counties may be such asto make every child bilingual, in others it may be to help pupils becomereasonably fluent in Welsh,

Because Scotland has retained its own autonomous legal system andseparate administration of justice It has a different education system thanthe rest of the United Kingdom. Until recently there was little teaching offoreign languages in primary schools, though a few schools taught French

20


22/68

Foreign LanguageTeaching in Primary Schools: Issuesand Research

and Italian experimentally. Within the non-state sector many schools offer aforeign language in the final year of primary school. In 1989 a NationalPilot scheme to teach foreign languages at primary level was initiated underthe auspices of the Scottish Office Education Department. At the same time,a number of regionally based pilots were also launched (Johnstone, 1991;

Connelly, 1991; and McGhee, 1991). The National Pilot projects involvetwelve networks of schools, each network consisting of a secondary schooland its associated primary schools (79 primaries in all). Initially, the projectsinvolved only grade 7 classes (11 year olds) but this has now been extendedto grade 6 (10 year olds). The scheme is being evaluated by a team based atthe Department of Education. University of Stirling (Johnstone, 1991).

FOREIGN LANGUAGES AT

PRIMARY LEVEL: ISSUES

IN THE IRISH CONTEXT

4.1 Local information and international comparative data. There are two

very general kinds of information or factors which we need to take into

account in making any general decision about foreign languages in primaryeducation in Ireland. First, there are the local factors, including our overall

language education goals; how a primary school programme mightcontribute to the achievement of these goals; how it might be expected toaffect current problems and practices at post primary level; how proficient inforeign languages teachers already are and what their attitude to teachingthese languages might be; and the amount of time which it was planned todevote to foreign language teaching at primary level. In addition, it would bedesirable to know what proportion of the population are in favour of primaryschool foreign language programmes; what do they expect from suchprogrammes; and what resources would they be prepared to commit to theenterpr ise At present we have no in fo rmat ion on these questionscomparable to the kind of sociolinguistic, attitudinal and educational datawhich we have on Irish and the teaching of Irish at primary and postprimary levels (e.g. CLAR, 1974, 1975; 0 Riagain & o Gliasain. 1984; Bord

na Gaeilge, 1986; Harris & Murtagh, 1988, 1991; Irish National Teachers'

Organisation. 1976. 1985).

Second, it would be very desirable to have detailed comparative data from arange of countries showing, in reasonably precise functional or linguisticterms, what can be achieved in teaching foreign languages at primary level;

and how this varies according to factors such as teaching time and pupilabilities. It would also contribute greatly to decision-making to have

21


23/68

Foreign Language Teaching In Primary Schools: Issues and Research

comparative information on how specific programme outcomes are related tovariables such as social class, extra school language contact, teacherqualifications, method and syllabus. Unfortunately, research of this kindessentially a primary level equivalent of the Carroll (1975) and Lewis &Massad (1975) IEA studies - has not yet been carried out.

4.2 Performance expectations for second and foreign languageprogrammes. In the absence of both local information and internationalcomparative data it will be useful to consider whether any guidance of amore general kind can be gained from the experiences of other countries. AsI will try to show, the distinction between second and foreign languages is aparticularly useful one in evaluating what are reasonable goals andperformance expectations in teaching foreign languages at primary level inIreland. This is an important issue since, in the past, parents in manycountries appear to have lent their support to the enterprise of teaching

foreign languages at primary level on the basis of quite ambitiousexpectations.

While the distinction between second and foreign languages is not entirely

unambiguous (Seshadri & Alien, 1979), it will be sufficient for presentpurposes to define a second language as one which may be encounteredoutside the language class and a foreign language as one which may not.Clearly, from the point of view of language learning, any extra exposure tothe target language, but particularly exposure which involves active

interaction in the language, is an advantage. In addition, however, where alanguage can be considered to a greater or lesser extent a second language,there are usually specific features in the language teaching situation itselfwhich confer important further advantages.

Thus, where the language taught is a second language - for example.English in Sweden or Irish in Ireland - it is commonly taught to all childrenat particular grades in primary school, and all children continue to study

the language on transferring to post primary. Contrast this with the teaching

of foreign languages, and particularly with situations where there are anumber of foreign languages taught, so that children with different foreignlanguage backgrounds come together at post primary level. It is easy to listpurely language teaching advantages which tend to be associated withsecond language programmes, as opposed to foreign language programmes,at primary level:

In the second language situation, there will be a fairly generally shared, evenif limited, knowledge of the language in the population and, mostimportantly, among parents. This is unlikely in the strictly foreign languagesituation - unless there are unusually stringent educational provisions. In

the second language situation, particularly where there is a long standingprogramme of instruction in the target language, virtually all parents will be

22


24/68


better equipped to help with homework, to listen to reading, to practicegrammar and even to converse occasionally in the language.

In the second language situation, a greater proportion of primary teachersare likely to have an adequate knowledge of the target language, irrespective

of any specific professional training. In practice also, teachers in secondlanguage situations are more often qualified in both primary education andlanguage teaching.

In the second language situation there is a larger, and more widely shared,pool of experience in teaching the target language. In addition, there are

economies of scale associated with such enterprises as the development ofcourse materials and the organisation of teacher training.

Less extreme variations in proficiency among incoming pupils at post

primary may be expected in the case of second languages since there are noabsolutestarters - as there arewhere different foreign languages have beentaught at primary. This means not only fewer problems from a teachingpoint of view, but also less likelihood of more able pupils having to mark

time (and becoming bored) while less proficient students try to catch up.

At primary level, the second language teacher is almost always the regularclass teacher, whereas in the case of foreign languages (e.g. in the U.S.) thismay not be so. This clearly affects the extent to which the target language

can be extended beyond the language class proper as a medium ofinstruction or of classroom communication. At post primary level, also, witha common target language (the second language situation), teaching throughthe medium of that language or installing it as a general means of classroomcommunication poses fewer problems than it would in the situation wherethere is a diversity in foreign language experience among incoming pupilsand among teachers themselves.

Consistent with the points just made, our review in section 2 shows that in

countries such as Sweden and Denmark, where a second rather than astrictly foreign language is involved, primary school language programmesare generally considered more satisfactory. The inherent advantages of thesecond language teaching situation are also frequently exploited in actualpractice. In Sweden, for example, English is used as a means of classroomcommunication (Hoy, 1976), just as Irish is in our own primary schools. Wecannot say with certainty whether the more favourable outcome in the

second language situation is mainly due to the kind of language teachingadvantages just outlined above, or whether it is due to the additionalexposure and extra-school support which is also commonly available in thatsituation. The picture is further complicated by the fact that the countrieswhich have English as a second language (more or less) are also the ones

23


25/68


which seem to take non-native language teaching most seriously - at postprimary as well as at primary level.

Even though Irish may not have all the sociolinguistic and other advantagesof the specific second language situation in the Scandinavian countries

(where the language in question, English, is a world language with a uniquestatus) Irish does appear to share all the other advantages associated withthe second language type of situation. What has been built up in the case ofIrish at primary level, then, is very substantial and will not be easilyreproduced in the case of foreign languages: e.g. the widespread teachercompetence in the Irish language itself; the reservoir of skill and experience

in teaching this particular language to pupils of this particular age; and thetradition of using Irish for classroom communication and sometimes as amedium of instruction.

Some, but not all, of the educational advantages of the second languagesituation listed above could be achieved by limiting programmes at theprimary level to just one foreign language. It is unlikely, however, given thekinds of educational, political and cultural reasons why people seek foreignlanguages at primary level at present, that the idea of confining teaching to

just one foreign language would be acceptable. There is also the practical

point that primary teachers will differ in their command ofdifferent foreignlanguages and that any programme at primary level would presumably try totake advantage of existing foreign language proficiency among teachers. In

any event, even if a primary school programme were limited to just oneforeign language, at least some of the other advantages of the second

language situation - such as the relatively widespread knowledge of thelanguage among parents - still would not accrue.

All this suggests that because Irish already reaps the benefits of a secondlanguage situation, our performance expectations for a foreign language

programme at primary level, other things being equal, should be more

modest than they are for Irish. Yet something very close to the contrary viewis sometimes expressed in casual conversation on this topic - the suggestionis made that results in the case of Irish at primary level are disappointing ifnot uniquely poor, and there is an implication that it probably would not betoo hard to surpass such a level of achievement in the case of foreignlanguages, if these were properly taught. In all probability this kind ofnegative assessment of Irish, and the correspondingly positive assessment of

the prospects for modern languages, simply mirrors the history of teachingforeign languages at primary level in other countries which we described inSection 2. In other words, the cycle of initial enthusiasm being followed by

more critical evaluation which is typical of many countries. The only

essential difference is that in the case of Irish we already have real practicalexperience of the outcomes of teaching the language over a long period,whereas in the case of foreign languages we do not.

24


26/68


In fact, the negative assessment of FLES programmes in the U.S. andelsewhere, bears striking similarities to the case of Irish. A dominant issueto emerge in each case was the problem of unrealistic expectations, basedpartly on unfounded assumptions about the language learning potential of

younger children, and partly on over estimations of the effectiveness ofaudio-visual and audio-lingual methods (Stern, 1983; McLaughlin, 1985).The audio-visual methods introduced for Irish in the 1960's (e.g.Department of Education, 1969), were in many respects similar to theaudio-lingual methods applied to the teaching of French in the U.S. around

the same time - methods that until relatively recently were considered themost up to date and effective approach to language teaching. Not

surprisingly, then, the disillusionment with the outcome has been as sharp

in the case of Irish as it has been elsewhere. Indeed, the specific criticisms ofaudio-lingual methods in the U.S. and Britain, which we mentioned earlier,

will have a familiar ring to many teachers of Irish: the difficulty childrenhave in generalising from the specific set of utterances learned; the problemof using the language learned for real communication; and the frustration ofbrighter and older children, who are capable of adopting a more abstractand rule governed approach to language, with the constraints of rigidly-applied audio-lingual /audio-visual methods.

Thus, to think that the teaching of foreign languages at primary level in thefuture would not be subject to fundamentally the same kinds of difficulties

that Irish has been subject to in the past, would be to repeat history in arather ironic way. Admittedly, the teaching of Irish at primary level is aboutto undergo changes, just as the teaching of modern languages at postprimary already has. But that kind of periodic reappraisal and improvementof language teaching methods and courses has always gone on, and does nottake from the fact that, as in the past, broadly the same factors govern theprospects for all language teaching at primary level. In any event, there isnow a substantial amount of empirical evidence that the performance ofprimary-school children in learning Irish is at about the level that would beexpected given the amount of lime they spend on the language each day

(Harris, 1984; Harris & Murtagh, 1988).

The tendency to find the learning of Irish wanting, and to have an overlypositive view of the prospects for teaching foreign languages is sometimesexacerbated by references to inappropriate or irrelevant examples in Europee.g. the European Schools, or bilingual schools in Belgium. Of course, it isvery instructive to examine language teaching and learning in thesesituations, but to expect that they have direct implications for the standardof achievement which is possible in either Irish or foreign languages, where

these are taught as single school subjects to all children, would be quitewrong. In interpreting the achievements of programmes in other countries.

25


27/68


due accountmust be taken of all the educational and sociolinguistic aspectsof the context in which the languages are taught, including any selectivefactors which may be operating in the kind of children who are beingenrolled.

We already have our own home-grown versions of some of these kinds ofspecial language teaching situations - e.g. English speaking children whoattend Gaeltacht schools side by side with native Irish speaking children; orEnglish speaking children attending all-Irish schools outside the Gaeltachtareas. Research shows that these children have impressive levels ofachievement in Irish (Harris, 1984; Harris & Murtagh, 1987; 1988). But we

would never think of expecting the Irish achievement of children in suchspecial circumstances to be matched by children in ordinary schools. Yetquite the same care is sometimes not taken in considering the relevance ofexamples from Europe.

None of this, of course, is an argument against the introduction of foreign

languages at primary level. Most of the educational arguments for an earlystart are essentially the same for foreign languages as they are for Irish orany other second language. If we accept these arguments, then the questionis simply how important do we feel a particular foreign language is -assuming that teaching the language at primary level is necessary to achieve

the goals we have set ourselves. As Stern & Weinrib (1977) point out in a

discussion of the teaching of second and foreign languages:

Ultimately, the decision on the stage of education at which to introduce asecond language is an educational, cultural and political one. There may beno overpowering reason in the biology of the child development in favour ofteaching languages to younger children. But there are no overpoweringreasons against it either. An understanding of the role of a second languagein a community, and an appreciation of its educational and cultural value,are perhaps more important than the search for a psychologically orbiologically optimal age. (Stern & Weinrib, 1977; p. 19).

4.3 Foreign language programme issues in Ireland. The many issuesconcerning the kind of foreign language programme which might be suitablefor Irish primary schools are interrelated in a complex manner. Thus,

questions such as the broad aims of the programme, the amount of time perweek to be devoted to it, the range of languages which might be considered,and the kind of syllabus which would be appropriate cannot be evaluated inisolation. With regard to time, for example, most countries which have

primary school foreign language programmes seem to spend somewherebetween half an hour and three hours per week on it. If a very small amountof time is envisaged, say half an hour to one hour per week, this would seemto suggest that a programme with a 'language awareness' (Hawkins, 1987a;1987b; 1989), or 'general language education' (as in Canada), or 'foreign

26


28/68


language experience (FLEX)' orientation (as in the U.S.) might be moreappropriate than one which tried to develop substantial communicativeskills in the language. Courses of study in language awareness try todevelop in the learner "a sensitivity to and conscious awareness of thenature and functions of language and its role in life" (An Bord Curaclaim

agus Scruduithe, 1987, p. 46).

Likewise, if the primary school programme were to allow a choice among anumber of different foreign languages, the emphasis again probably shouldbe on language awareness or language experience, if the problem of pupilsarriving in post-primary with substantially different foreign language skillsis to be avoided. Finally, the language awareness and language educationorientation seems particularly suitable in an Irish context where there wouldbe three languages, English, Irish and the foreign language on which to basesuch a component and from which to draw examples.

At the moment very little information is available on how foreign languagesare taught at primary level in Ireland, how much time is devoted to them, orhow effective existing foreign language teaching is. Eilish Hurley in Hurleyand Orr (1989) suggests that for a primary school programme consisting of

two 20-minute sessions per week, objectives might consist of the following:

broadening the pupils horizons to include mainland Europe; helping them tobetter appreciate Irish language and culture; preparing them to learn, and toenjoy learning, French or other languages at post primary; and widening

their experience of the nature and functions of language i.e. languageawareness, developed in conjunction with Irish and English. The syllabus forsixth class (11/12 year olds) would be a foundation for, but would not be incompetition with, post primary. Pupils would get some exposure to basicstructures and sounds in the foreign language by means of games, songs,role-playing and sketches and there would be a focus on civilisation/culture. Orr in the same article (Hurley & Orr, 1989) mentions half an hourper week as a possible time allotment, and like Hurley, emphasises thatcourse content should be complementary to the language curriculum at postprimary, she feels there should be no explanation of structures andgrammar, on the grounds that this is a task for post primary. Songs, rhymesand games whose content would be suitable for primary but not postprimary and which introduce important structures would be used (See alsoHurley, 1989).

Needless to say the teaching of Irish will already have developed in Irishprimary school pupils some aspects of the kind of language awareness that,in other countries, may be developed by teaching foreign languages. Thiskind of language awareness could be further built on and enriched by the

introduction of a foreign language element. Two other advantages areconferred by Irish. First, pupils, from their experience with Irish, are familiar

27


29/68

ForeignLanguage leechinginPrimarySchools: Issuesand Research

with the notion of learning and using another language and have very likelyacquired some language learning skills that they would not otherwise have.Second, teachers are qualified in language teaching, because of Irish, if not

in specific modern languages. As Meestringa (1987) points out in relation tothe introduction of English, which is a compulsory foreign language, intobilingual Frisian-Dutch schools:

The teachers who teach Frisian and Dutch and who will also have to teachEnglish are skilled in the use of more than one language in school; theyhave knowledge of and insight into the learning of a second language andexperience with the work forms that are useful for stimulating second-

language development.

These advantages, which Irish also has, are not available in many otherforeign language situations.

Another issue of interest here is how Irish primary school pupils themselvesfeel about the idea of learning foreign languages. In a study carried out by

Institiuid Teangeolaiochta Eireann and Aonad Curaclaim na RoinneOideachais in 1989, pupils in sixth-grade classes in 20 schools distributedaround the country were administered various tests (Harris & Murtagh,1991). Although the classes represented the full range ofpupil abilities andsocio-educational conditions, the pupils as a group had marginally lowerEnglish verbal reasoning scores than pupils nationally.

Among the tests they were administered was an Irish adaptation of theGardner's (1985) Attitude Motivation Test Battery. One of the scales on that

test is the Interest in Foreign Languages Scale which consists of 10positively stated items about learning and speaking foreign languages. Thelargest proportion of pupils disagreeing with any of these ten positivestatements was 12.5%. For example, 79.8% of pupils agreed with thestatement "I would like to learn a foreign language at school even if I didn'thave to do it.n, while 8.8% were 'neutral' and 11% disagreed. Looking at

responses to this same question at the class level, it was found that in 12 ofthe 20 classes more than 80% of the pupils agreed that they would like tolearn a foreign language, while in all but one of the remaining classes morethan 60% agreed. In the case of three classes in disadvanlaged areas, theproportions agreeing were 61%. 78% and 81%. Thus, there is evidence ofgenerally positive attitudes to the notion of learning foreign languages across

a wide range of sixth grade primary school pupils and classes. Of course,this conclusion must be interpreted in the light of the fact that the vast

majority of these pupils probably had no direct experience of learning foreignlanguages and may not have been thinking very immediately of the effort

and application which is involved in learning any language.

Finally, in this regard, mention should be made of the notion of content-

28


30/68


based language instruction. Quite simply, this means teaching subjectmatter other than language through the medium of the target language - asalready happens in immersion and all-Irish schools and to a lesser extent inmany ordinary schools. Interest in the potential of content-based languageinstruction in ordinary schools has grown enormously in the U.S. in recent

years and there are now numerous books and articles on the topic (Leaver &Stryker, 1989; Brinton. Snow & Wesche, 1989; Snow, Met & Genesee, 1989;Tucker & Crandall, 1989; and Spanos. 1989). What distinguishes the work

done in recent years, however, is the systematic approach which has beenadopted to analysing the language needed to teach different kinds of subjectmatter, and to discovering how different aspects of language learning can bepromoted depending on the nature of the subject matter being taught. Onemajor advantage of content-based language instruction is that it provides away of dealing with the frequent complaint that 'in order to make a place for

elementary school foreign language instruction in the curriculum somethingmust be taken out' (Curtain & Martinez, 1990). Conventional timeconstraints on school subjects can be relaxed to some extent when bothlanguage instruction and content instruction are proceeding at the sametime. At the moment it would appear that this strategy may be more usefulin the case of Irish - where the tradition of and experience with Irishmedium instruction already exists - but obviously some potential exists inthe foreign language area as well.

4.4 Equality and the transition to post-primary.A number of studies in

the last few years have demonstrated that there are significant inequalitiesin the distribution of foreign language teaching at post-primary level in

Ireland (Hannon et al, 1983; Lynch, 1989; and Ruane, 1990). Unevencurricular provision, allocation within schools and student choice patternsin foreign languages - related to variables such as social class, gender andregion - have now been documented. Ruane (1990) reports, for example, thatin 1987/1988. 81. 3% ofgirls but only 63 . 6% ofboys studied French at

junior cycle. Lynch (1989) shows that vocational andcommunity/comprehensive schools are worse providers of foreign languages

than secondary schools; and that fee-paying secondary schools are morelikely to provide both modern and classical languages than free-schemesecondary schools. Hannon et al (1983) found that rural schools are likely tooffer fewer foreign languages than urban schools. Lynch (1989) reports thatGerman is statistically more likely to be offered in cities or large towns and

less likely to be offered in small towns and rural areas.

It would be surprising if the recent growth in the teaching of foreignlanguages as an extra curricular activity at primary level (National Parents

Council. 1989) did not reflect, if not actually exacerbate, some of theseinequalities. The very fact that existing foreign language teaching at primarylevel is generally paid for by parents almost guarantees, for example, the

29


31/68

Foreign LanguageTeaching in Primary Schools: IssuesandResearch

existence of social-class related inequalities. To leave the situation as it is atpresent, then, would be to run the risk of reinforcing, if not actuallyextending, the kind of inequalities at post-primary level which are alreadygiving cause for concern. On the other hand, if some foreign languageeducation could be provided for all pupils at senior grades in primary school,

it might help, other factors being equal, to reduce such inequalities. Thereare at least two ways in which this might happen - by equalising the amountof exposure to foreign languages among all pupils at primary level, and bydeveloping a positive orientation to the idea of foreign language learninggenerally among pupils who would not otherwise have considered it at postprimary.

Inthisregard,it is interestingtonotejusthowmanystudents failtotakeatleast one foreign language at post primary at present - though failure to

study a foreign language is determined, admittedly, by many other factorsapart from individual pupil choice. Ruane (1990) reports that when theproportions of students taking the individual foreign languages at juniorcycle in 1986/87 are added together, it may be estimated that 82.7% atmost, and very likely considerably fewer than that, took a foreign languageat junior cycle. Some indication of the extent to which this figureoverestimates the true participation rate is given by the fact that theproportion for French at junior cycle is only 72.4%, and that the otherlanguages are often taken as second languages in addition to French. Only65.2% of students, at most, took a foreign language at senior cycle in that

same year.

While it is reasonable to hope that a primary school foreign languageprogramme which was available to all children would improve participationrates and help to reduce some of the inequalities just mentioned, this willnot be an automatic consequence. For one thing, results of the French PilotScheme in Britain indicate that similar, but less pronounced, inequalitiesare likely to be observed at primary level. Burstall, it will be recalled, foundthat boys scored significantly lower than the girls on all French achievement

tests. In addition, from age 13, the low- achieving boys tended to dropFrench significantly more often than low- achieving girls did. Even thoughthe girls studying French at sixteen represented, therefore, a considerablywider range of ability than those boys who had chosen to continue, the girlsstill scored significantly higher on the French achievement tests. Similarly, itwas found that from very early on in the experiment, high socio-economicstatus was associated with high achievement in French. Interestingly, the

transition to post primary tended to increase social-class related disparitiesin French achievement. Similar gender and social class differences have

been found in the case of achievement in Irish at primary level (Harris, 1984;Harris & Murtagh, 1991).

A more general point which emerges from this discussion is that it is

30


32/68


virtually impossible to understand any issue related to foreign languages atprimary level without taking careful account of existing practices andproblems at post-primary and tertiary level. The effect on later foreignlanguage learning of introducing a primary school programme will depend toa large extent on how well-articulated the primary and post primary

programmes are, what attitude to language learning has been cultivated inthe early stages, how many and which foreign languages are provided at thetwo levels, and similar factors. Likewise, we must consider if theintroduction of foreign languages at primary is the best or only way of

achieving aims such as increased participation and the reduction in genderand social-class related inequalities in foreign language learning. Are therechanges which could be effected at post-primary, for example, which wouldachieve the same results as effectively or even more effectively?

Ideally, of course, all these issues would be tackled systematically in thecontext of a national language policy (O Murchu, 1990) or a national foreignlanguage plan (Ruane, 1990). In Ruane's view a language teaching policywould outline a rationale for the place of foreign languages in the curriculumin terms of the various social, economic and vocational benefits which wouldbe expected to accrue to pupils and to society generally as a result of their

study. More specific questions about foreign language teaching would beanswered in the context of that general rationale: e.g. at what age shouldforeign language study start; which categories of pupils should be offeredparticular foreign languages; and how long should pupils study each

language? Ultimately, however, the resolution of the question of foreignlanguages in primary school in Ireland will also require a substantial periodof pilot testing and systematic evaluation.

SUMMARY

It is feasible to teach foreign languages to primary school children.Nevertheless, younger children do not appear to have any unique languagelearning capacity, at least in a school context. Older children often catch up

with children who have started earlier, though in some cases there is aquestion about whether the early starters were given an adequateopportunity to capitalise on their initial advantage. Where primary schoolforeign language programmes are well organised, and where pupils transferto post primary programmes which take account of their earlier start, theadvantage appears to be maintained. The advantage derives from the extra

time spent learning the language, however, not from the younger age of thechildren as such.

31


33/68


There are a number of other arguments - for some of which there isempirical evidence - in favour of the early teaching of modern languages. Forexample, pupils who start earlier seem to develop more favourable attitudesto learning and speaking the language - but only if they achieve somesuccess in the programme.

After a period of stagnation and decline, there is now evidence of revival,development and extension of foreign language programmes in Europe and

North America. The new pilot schemes to teach foreign languages at primarylevel in Scotland and France, for example, are attempting to build insafeguards relating to the transition to post-primary - one of the persistentproblems which has undermined early modern language programmes in thepast.

The issue of performance expectations for second and foreign languageprogrammes at primary level is important. Second languages, such as Irish,usually have specific educational advantages which foreign languages donot. Where these advantages exist, performance expectations should bemore modest for a foreign language programme than for a second languageprogramme. Among the educational advantages associated with a secondlanguage programme are the fact that since all pupils learn the language,the transition to post primary is not problematical in the way that it often isfor foreign languages; and, in the case of a second language, most parentswill have some knowledge of the language which allows them to supervise

homework and generally to support the school's efforts more effectively at apractical level.

It isimportant to guard against the notion that the early teaching of modernlanguages is so effective that we only need to start off a programme to beable to demonstrate this in practice. The history of the 'foreign language inprimary school' movement proves the opposite. In all probability, the variousproblems of primary school programmes described here are su

Documents

Foreign Language 1991