Teaching an additional language to children at primary school:

Why? and How?Insights from international

research and experience

Richard JohnstoneBeijing, October 2009

Outline

• Models of Languages Educationo Four different modelso Provisions, Processes and Outcomes

• Younger and older learners• Some key factors

Models

1. Teaching the language as a school subjecto 5-10%

2. Extended: More time (for above)o 10-20%

3. Intensified: Teaching additional contento 15-25%

4. Bilingual Education: Partial/Total (Immersion)o 25-90+%

Model 1: Languages as a Subject

• MLPS: Two EU Surveys (1999; 2006)– Generally positive attitudes shown by pupils– But little evidence of spontaneous creativity in speech

based on internalised rule system– Much evidence of prefabricated utterances– Little or no evidence of successful carry-over into

secondary school education• Upper secondary school (1999)– Why were even the best students ‘turned off’ from

languages?

Model 1: Inhibiting factors

• In some cases, premature, over-ambitious and under-resourced policy implementation

• Lack of sufficient time (amount & distribution)

• Lack of sufficient intensity of challenge• Inappropriate methods

Model 2: Languages as a Subject (Extended)• Croatia mid-1990s– Pupils strongly motivated and confident– All four language skills in action– Fluent , creative and accurate

• Supportive factors– Extended time (1 hour per day)– Explicit transfer of language concepts from L1 to TL– Early introduction of reading and writing– Teachers who had been trained in the TL– Excellent research group in local university

Model 3: Intensified

• Intensified v Language as Subject compared (Finland, 1999)

• Sentence reproduction test• Intensified students

o Fully-developed sentences by end of Grade 3

• Language as Subject studentsoMulti-word fragments but still not fully-developed

sentences by end of Grade 5

Model 3: Supportive factors

• ‘Exposure to L2 in contexts provided by subject-related and school-related contacts is sufficient to trigger pupils’ implicit acquisition of language in spite of the scarce (25%) and often imperfect input’

• Deep learning of content-specific concepts• Higher-order thinking skills• Opportunities to produce elaborate stretches

of speech instead of 1-2 word utterances

Model 4: Bilingual Education

• EPI in French (Scotland: 40%)– State school in area of severe socio-economic

disadvantage• ETI in Scottish Gaelic (Scotland: 80%)– State schools. Mainly children of families which have

English as first language• EBE in English/Spanish (Spain: 40%)– State schools

• In all three cases, no loss of learning in subjects taught in TL and advantage in L1 performance.

Some Further Evidence: Model 2 (Extended)

• Creation of a virtual community for 15-18 year-olds– Context of large-scale drop-out from languages in

upper secondary school (Scotland)

• 29 secondary schools in three regions

Model 2 (Virtual): Processes out of class

• Residential weekendso pupils made up their own dramas o learned how to make digitised films of the dramas they had written and

acted out (full costume)

• Project web-siteo a wide range of ‘blogs’o special evening surgery sessions available to all students

• Regular electronic links to schools in France, German and Spain• Annual special dinner

o 200+ students, parents, local and national politicians, education officials and the press,

o celebrate and demonstrate achievements

11

Model 2 (VIRTUAL): OUTCOMES

• Higher levels of: – performance in national examinations– uptake of foreign language learning in final years of secondary

education– motivation for maintaining study and use of their foreign language

• New sense of identity as a member of three interlocking communities:

The student’s

school

Students in the 29 schools

Partner schools abroad

12

Starting Age?

• Stern (1976) concludes that 'we must avoid the danger of creating a false dichotomy between … early language learning, and … later language learning, and of having to make a clear choice between them. … Each age in life probably has its peculiar advantages and disadvantages for language learning …… In the sixties the mistake was made of expecting miracles merely by starting young. The miracles have not come about. Starting late is not the answer either'.

Beginning Young

• More time• Draw on L1 acquisition processes• Sensitivity to sound system• Formative influence on their personal

development

Beginning later

• Conceptual map of the world, hence easier to learn TL vocabulary?

• More explicit strategies• More knowledge of how to work different

types of discourse• Clearer ideas of Why and What?• But maybe more anxious?

Some key considerations for achieving generalised success

• Societal– Political will + judgement + follow-through– Parental involvement

• Provision– Long-term sustainable national policy– Not rushing ahead too quickly– Good supply of well-trained teachers– Teacher networks for sharing ideas– Up-to-date insights from research and practical experience– Ensuring continuity from primary to secondary education

Some key considerations (continued)

• Processes– Building out from child’s first language – Provision of substantial amounts of varied TL input– Development of strategies for processing input and

reflecting on this, e.g. ‘noticing’– Creating opportunities for self-initiated extended

expression and for self-monitoring of this– Attention to form in ways that go beyond recasts– Early introduction of reading and writing

PROGRESSION: UPS & DOWNS

• Mitchell (2003) claims that second language learning is– not like climbing a ladder; but is– a complex and recursive process with multiple

interconnections and backslidings, and – complex trade-offs between advances in fluency, accuracy

and complexity.

18

Progression: Ups and Downs

• Pelzer-Karpf & Zangl (1997) found that children’s utterances seemed impressive in Years 1&2– but then in Year 3 went through a phase of

‘Systemturbulenz’ in which their grammar control seemed to fall apart

– when the cognitive demands of their tasks were raised to the point that temporarily their grammar-systems could not fully cope

– But by Year 4 it sorted itself out.

CREATIVITY AND ACCURACY

• Limitations of Recasts• Form-focused instruction (FFI) and Corrective

Feedback (CF)o Lyster (2004) studied ‘FFI and CF with Grade 5 children.o FFI and CF were found to be more successful than an

approach based on no-FFI and no-CF. o He also found it useful to encourage pupils in ‘noticing’

particular formal features of the target languageo This helped them develop an awareness of language and

to refine their internalised language systems as they progressed

20

KEY MLPS FACTOR: CONTINUITY

• It works well when across the two sectors (PS-SS) there is the following:– exchange of information and support– reciprocal visits– collaborative planning– mutual esteem– Joint planning by teachers covering 3 years at PS and 2

years at SS

21

EARLY READING

• Mertens (2003) found that children in Grade 1 learning French – benefited from being introduced to written French immediately– showed results superior to those in purely oral approaches

• Vickov (2007) claims that children at Grade 1 in Croatia were– not disadvantaged in their writing in Croatian by being introduced to

writing in English. • Dlugosz (2000) found that the introduction of reading in the foreign

language at kindergarten– even when reading in the first language was also only just starting– helped speed the process of understanding and speaking the foreign

language.• Early reading and writing are central to the national BEP in Spain

22

KEEPING A PORTFOLIO

• Short statements of what learners think they can do o I can explain … a game, a recipe, how to make something o I can narrate/tell … an experience, a story, a filmo I can say … what I like/dislike, and explain whyo I can speak/talk about … my friends, familyo I can read … an illustrated children’s booko I can find … in a text what I am looking for

• Personal diary of occasions outside school when the learner used the target language

• Brief discussion of language-learning problems encountered, and of solutions which the learner has found

• ….. Other?

23

Present into the future

• International ICT projects– Schools in different countries– Students, teachers, others– All contribute to common project– Two or more languages in use– Intercultural learning (local, real, everyday)

24

CONCLUSION: SUCCESSFUL LEARNER

• Plans, practices, revises • Reviews, Self-assesses• Processes input, e.g. notices,

guesses, infers, predicts• Seeks opportunities to use the TL

‘for real’• Seeks feedback: - as well as +• Relates learning & use of ML to

learning of other things• Uses reference material

appropriately• Engages in positive attributions• Interacts and negotiates

meaning, e.g. probes, seeks clarification

• Offers help, seeks help• Takes personal responsibility

• Is aware of and manages different types of discourse

• Produces spontaneous as well as non-spontaneous output

• Focuses on form as well as on meaning, at different times

• Controls anxiety and uses this productively

• Feels confident, self-efficacious• Seeks underlying pattern• Pays attention, focuses

attention, sustains attention• Develops strategies, uses these

and reflects on / revises them• Self-motivates, self-rewards, is

curious and seeks challenges• …… Other?

25

Key References• Blondin, C., Candelier, M., Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., Kubanek-German, A. & Taeschner, T.

(1998). Foreign languages in primary and pre-school education. A review of recent research within the European Union. London: CILT.

• Edelenbos, P., Johnston, R. & Kubanek, A. . (2006) The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to young learners. Brussels: European Commission.

• Johnstone, R., Harlen, W., Macneil, M. Stradling, R. & Thorpe, G. (1999). The attainments of pupils receiving Gaelic-medium primary education in Scotland. Stirling, Scottish CILT for Scottish Office Education Department.

• Johnstone, R . (2002). Evaluation of early partial immersion in French at Walker Road primary school, Aberdeen. Edinburgh, Scottish Executive Education Department

• Johnstone, R. (2002). Addressing the ‘age factor’: some implications for languages policy. Strasbourg, Council of Europe. Reference Study. Language Policy Division.

• Mitchell, R. (2003). Rethinking the concept of progression in the national curriculum formodern foreign languages: a research perspective. Language Learning Journal., Winter, 2003

• Stern, H. H. (1976). Optimum age: myth or reality? Canadian Modern Language Review, 32.