What We Know About Second Language Acquisition : A Synthesis From Four Perspectives

7/28/2019 What We Know About Second Language Acquisition : A Synthesis From Four Perspectives

1/58

http://rer.aera.netResearch

Review of Educational

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/82/1/5The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.3102/0034654311433587

February 20122012 82: 5 originally published online 1REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Burgess-Brigham, Melike Unal Gezer and Catherine SnowL. Quentin Dixon, Jing Zhao, Jee-Young Shin, Shuang Wu, Jung-Hsuan Su, Renata

Four PerspectivesWhat We Know About Second Language Acquisition : A Synthesis From

Published on behalf of

American Educational Research Association

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Review of Educational ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://rer.aera.net/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://rer.aera.net/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.aera.net/reprintsReprints:

http://www.aera.net/permissionsPermissions:

at UNIV OF BATH on April 30, 2012http://rer.aera.netDownloaded from
http://rer.aera.net/http://rer.aera.net/http://rer.aera.net/http://rer.sagepub.com/content/82/1/5http://rer.sagepub.com/content/82/1/5http://rer.sagepub.com/content/82/1/5http://www.aera.net/http://www.aera.net/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://rer.aera.net/alertshttp://rer.aera.net/alertshttp://rer.aera.net/subscriptionshttp://rer.aera.net/subscriptionshttp://rer.aera.net/subscriptionshttp://www.aera.net/reprintshttp://www.aera.net/reprintshttp://www.aera.net/permissionshttp://www.aera.net/permissionshttp://rer.aera.net/http://rer.aera.net/http://rer.aera.net/http://rer.aera.net/http://www.aera.net/permissionshttp://www.aera.net/reprintshttp://rer.aera.net/subscriptionshttp://rer.aera.net/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.aera.net/http://rer.sagepub.com/content/82/1/5http://rer.aera.net/


2/58

What is This?

- Feb 1, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Mar 6, 2012Version of Record>>

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://rer.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/27/0034654311433587.full.pdfhttp://rer.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/27/0034654311433587.full.pdfhttp://rer.sagepub.com/content/82/1/5.full.pdfhttp://rer.sagepub.com/content/82/1/5.full.pdfhttp://rer.aera.net/http://rer.aera.net/http://rer.aera.net/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://rer.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/27/0034654311433587.full.pdfhttp://rer.sagepub.com/content/82/1/5.full.pdf


3/58

Review of Educational Research

March 2012, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 560

DOI: 10.3102/0034654311433587

2012 AERA. http://rer.aera.net

5

What We Know About Second LanguageAcquisition: A Synthesis From Four Perspectives

L. Quentin DixonTexas A&M University

Jing ZhoSun Yat-sen University

Jee-Young ShinShung Wu

Jung-Hsun SuRent Burgess-Brighm

Melike Unl GezerTexas A&M University

Ctherine SnowHarvard University

Educational policies that impact second language (L2) learnersa rapidly-

growing groupare often enacted without consulting relevant research. Thisreview synthesized research regarding optimal conditions for L2 acquisition,facilitative L2 learner and teacher characteristics, and speed of L2 acquisi-tion, from four bodies of workforeign language education, child languageresearch, sociocultural studies, and psycholinguisticsoften overlooked byeducators. Seventy-one peer-reviewed journal articles studying PK-12 L2learners met inclusion criteria. Findings included: 1) Optimal conditions

for L2 learners immersed in a majority-L2 society include strong home lit-eracy practices, opportunities to use the L2 informally, well-implemented

specially-designed L2 educational programs, and sufficient time devoted toL2 literacy instruction, whereas L2 learners with little L2 exposure require

explicit instruction to master grammar; 2) L2 learners with strong L2 apti-tude, motivation, and first language (L1) skills are more successful; 3)Effective L2 teachers demonstrate sufficient L2 proficiency, strong instruc-tional skills, and proficiency in their students' L1; 4) L2 learners require 3-7

RER433587RER10.3102/0034654311433587Dixon et al.Second Language Acquisition

http://rer.aera.net/http://rer.aera.net/http://rer.aera.net/http://rer.aera.net/


4/58

Dixon et al.

6

years to reach L2 proficiency, with younger learners typically taking longerbut more likely to achieve close-to-native results. These findings, even thosemost relevant to education, are not reflected in current US policy. Additionalresearch is needed on the characteristics of successful or unsuccessful L2

learners and L2 teachers. Such research should attend systematically to thedifferences between L2 learning in maximal versus minimal input settings;whereas the psycholinguistic challenges of L2 learning might be commonacross settings, the sociocultural and interactional challenges and opportu-nities differ in ways that can massively impact outcomes.

Keywords: second language acquisition, foreign language education, sociocul-tural, psycholinguistic, English language learners.

Second and foreign language education are topics attracting increasing interestacross the globe. In the United States, the number of children entering school who

speak a language other than English at home is increasing much more rapidly thanthe overall school-aged population (Office of English Language Acquisition,Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English ProficientStudents, 2010). Educators are challenged to help these children reach the level ofproficiency required for learning sophisticated academic content through English.Around the globe, the popularity of learning English as a foreign language hasexploded, making second language (L2) education a mainstream endeavor (Hu,2007).

Nonetheless, immigrant students continue to lag behind native speakers in aca-demic achievement in the United States (National Assessment of EducationalProgress, 2009), and foreign language education in the United States and else-where in the world is far from universally successful (Byun et al., 2011; Chen &Goh, 2011; Robinson, Rivers, & Brecht, 2006). We argue in this review that prog-ress in meeting the educational challenges of L2 learning and teaching has beenhampered by the failure to integrate information from across the several fields ofresearch that are relevant to the topic. We identify four of those fields, briefly sum-marize their contributions to thinking about L2 learning, and then show how theycomplement one another in responding to some important questions of researchand practice, while still leaving others unresolved.

We approach this review by highlighting the contributions from the four groupswho have contributed to research on issues of L2 learning and teaching: foreignlanguage educators, child language researchers, sociocultural researchers, andpsycholinguists. Research from the foreign language educator perspective took offin the decades after World War II, with the founding of the journal LanguageLearning in 1948, of the Center for Applied Linguistics in 1959, and of theInternational Applied Linguistics Association in 1964. Starting in about 1970,researchers in the new field of child language acquisition started applying theirmethods and thinking to L2 learners. Subsequently sociocultural and psycholin-guistic considerations were brought to bear both on first language (L1) and L2

issues. These four groups remain the primary sources of research related directlyto issues of L2 learning.



5/58

Second Language Acquisition

7

These four groups have brought distinct perspectives, with different motivatingquestions, to the field of L2 acquisition (see Table 1). They have worked with dif-ferent default populations acquiring L2s in different contexts. They have alsobrought different methods to their questions and have published in different jour-nals, with the result that they have not communicated effectively across their dis-ciplinary and professional boundaries. Foreign language educators, for example,traditionally focus on L2 acquisition among adolescents or adults in classroomsettings and use correlational or small-scale quasi-experimental methods to iden-tify good students or good teaching techniques. Foreign language educators bringthe most practice-oriented perspective to L2 acquisition but may limit themselvesby thinking of L2 acquisition as an outcome of L2 teaching in a classroom setting,disregarding informal or naturalistic acquisition. Child language researchers, onthe other hand, use descriptive, longitudinal techniques with young L2 learners in

naturalistic settings, often focusing on caregiverchild interactions. Child lan-guage researchers have focused most on what factors influence childrens L1 or L2acquisition. Sociocultural researchers study L2 learners of any age, but they tendto use qualitative methods to understand the social and cultural forces at work inany L2 learning environment. Research from a sociocultural perspective also mayexamine the L2 learners or teachers own point of view and how issues of identityaffect L2 acquisition. Psycholinguists, by contrast, examine the mental processesinvolved in L2 acquisition at any age and typically use quantitative methods tostudy language elicited in laboratory settings, often through controlled experi-ments. They have been very interested in the component skills that build L2 com-

petence and which cognitive skills may be able to transfer from L1 to L2.Researchers from these four perspectives have generally worked at the periph-ery of the issues that are most urgent in U.S. educationsupporting the achieve-ment of L2 learners, bilinguals, and students from language-minority homes inmainstream classrooms. Even the work of foreign language educators, though ofcourse centrally focused on educational issues, has not been exploited for optimalrelevance to L2 learners or to students with academic challenges associated withtheir language-minority status. The other three groups have often asked questionswith implications for education, but not those that address teachers immediateinstructional concerns. Even when they examined L2 acquisition in classroom

contexts, these researchers often did not focus on the curriculum and instructionissues that specifically inform educational practice. Nonetheless, these perspec-tives have contributed much to understanding L2 acquisition; we include themprecisely because they may be less well known to educators than are the findingsof researchers directly evaluating educational programs.

Of course, other bodies of work have contributed to our understanding of L2acquisition as well, notably theoretical linguistics. Linguists are primarily inter-ested in the properties of languages themselves, how languages are similar anddifferent, and how the complexity of linguistic systems should best be represented.Much work in child language was originally motivated by a search for evidence to

support or refute hypotheses on the nature of language, but sociolinguists andpsycholinguists focus more on communicative effectiveness and real-time perfor-mance than on the nature of language itself. The recurrent observation that L2acquisition is, generally, more effortful and less successful than L1 acquisition

http://rer.aera.net/http://rer.aera.net/http://rer.aera.net/


6/58

8

TaBLe

1

Differencesamo

ngtheperspectives

Perspective

Unitofanalysis

Context

Ageoflearners

Lang

uagedomain

focusedon

Majorques

tions

Foreignlanguag

e(FL)

educators

Studentachievem

ent

orproficiency

FLclassroomwith

littleFLexposurein

community

Adolescentsand

adults

Accen

t,grammatical

correctness,reading

ability

Developing

and

improving

teach-

ingmetho

dsand

techniques

Childlanguage

Child

Naturalistic,extended

toteacherorstudent

inclassrooms

Youngchildren

Grammar,lexicon,

exte

ndeddiscourse

(narratives,academic

lang

uage)

Identifyingfactorsthat

influencechildL1

development,bilin-

gualL1acquisition,

childL2a

cquisition

Sociocultural

Studentand

interlocutors

Naturalisticorclass-

room

Any

Comm

unicative

effe

ctiveness,

pragmatics

Understandingsocial

andcultur

aldiffer-

ences,impactof

identity,interper-

sonalinteractions

Psycholinguistic

Cognitiveandbrain

processes

Laboratory,extended

toclassrooms,natu-

ralistic

Any

Grammar,lexicon,

text

structures

Understandingprocess

ofL2acquisition,

transferofL1skills

toL2



7/58


9

does not interest linguists but remains a puzzle for the four groups of researcherswhose work we highlight in this review.

What exactly do we mean when we use the termL2 acquisition? L2 acquisitionincludes second (or foreign) language learning in both naturalistic (unschooled)settings as well as classroom-based learning, including both oral and writtenforms. For the purposes of this article, we define the term broadly to describe thelearning of a second (or subsequent) language by anyone who has basic commandof one (or more) language(s) already. We use the termL2 education to refer spe-cifically to classroom-based instruction or educational programs designed to aidstudents in mastering an L2, in either oral or written form (or both). Within L2education, there are two main contexts that need to be distinguished: a foreignlanguage context and an L2-majority context (referred to by many as a secondlanguage context). Children learning an L2 in a foreign language context have

little exposure to the L2 outside of the classroom. By contrast, children learning anL2 in an L2-majority context are typically surrounded by the L2 within the broadersociety in which they live. This article does not discuss the situation of childrenexposed to two languages from birth, which has been termed bilingual first lan-guage acquisition (De Houwer, 2009), although some of the research perspectiveshave examined bilingual L1 acquisition to better understand how learning an L2after an L1 is established (sequential bilingualism) differs from simultaneous bilin-gualism.

We reviewed the research to address five questions of particular relevance toeducators (see Snow, 1993, 1998, for earlier responses to the first two of these):

1. What are optimal conditions for L2 acquisition?2. What are the characteristics of excellent or unsuccessful L2 learners?3. What are the characteristics of excellent or unsuccessful L2 teachers?4. What are reasonable expectations for speed and accomplishment for L2

learners of different ages?5. Has information generated by the four research perspectives influenced the

formulation of educational policies for L2 learners?

These five questions have been chosen because of their centrality to the fourperspectives and their relevance to L2 education. Question 1 (Q1) illuminates thehome, community, school, and classroom factors that educators need to considerto adjust their schools, programs, and classrooms to better serve their L2 learners.Although studies addressing Q1 come from all four perspectives, socioculturalresearchers may be said to be most concerned with this question. Socioculturalresearchers argue that context is an extremely important and understudied aspectof L2 acquisition. Even though educators may not always be able to set up com-pletely optimal conditions, knowing what to work toward, and improving thoseconditions over which they have control, can help educators improve their L2

students achievement.Question 2 (Q2) and Question 3 (Q3) have been central to foreign languageeducators. Regarding Q2, foreign language educators have typically identified stu-dents who are likely to succeed in L2 classrooms and have in some cases limitedaccess to L2 (or L3) education to those with demonstrated ability. Current educators



8/58

Dixon et al.

10

with L2 students in either foreign language or L2-majority contexts may want touse information on student characteristics to identify students who need extra sup-port or instruction in learning an L2. Regarding teachers, Q3 helps school admin-istrators and district officials distinguish teachers who may be better suited to workwith L2 learners as well as discover what traits or attributes to work toward foster-ing in teachers. When these attributes are identified, preservice and in-servicetraining for teachers can include activities that build these traits. Identifying thesecharacteristics could lead to the development of a screening tool that could excludeteacher education candidates who did not possess important traits that are not train-able; in this way, new teachers could be chosen who will have the best chance ofsuccess of working with L2 learners.

Of most interest to child language researchers and psycholinguists, Question 4(Q4) is perhaps the most urgent: What can educators reasonably expect from L2

learners in different contexts? Answering this question is critical to aiding theformulation of research-based L2 education policies, such as deciding how longL2 education services should be provided for children learning L2 in L2-majoritycontexts. Q4 is also relevant to foreign language educators, in identifying howmany hours of L2 instruction is necessary for students to reach desired bench-marks. In addition, Q4 results can help teachers to set rigorous but attainable aca-demic goals for L2 learners. Question 5 (Q5) ties the other questions together byasking whether current U.S. policy reflects these research findings. If relevantresearch findings have not previously influenced policy, then we need mechanismsto move the policy conversation beyond a single-minded search for the best L2

program to an understanding of why certain approaches might work better withsome students or in some contexts than others.This article is not meant to be a comprehensive review of all studies related to

L2 acquisition; rather, our goal is to demonstrate the value of integrating informa-tion from diverse perspectives in thinking about educational questions. Our reviewthus differs from books such as Ortega (2009) and Mitchell and Myles (2004) byincorporating insights from four distinct bodies of work that are not typicallybrought into relation with one another, and by bringing these bodies of work spe-cifically to an audience of educators and educational researchers. In addition, wereview studies from all four perspectives published up through 2011.

We first describe the methods used for this review, followed by brief overviewsof each of the four perspectives to familiarize the reader with each perspectivesgeneral approach to studying L2 acquisition. In the subsequent findings section,evidence from all four perspectives is synthesized to provide answers to our fiveresearch questions.

Method

Searches for peer-reviewed articles were conducted in Academic Search Complete,Education Full Text (Wilson), ERIC (EBSCO or CSA), Linguistics and LanguageBehavior Abstracts (CSA), PsycINFO (CSA), Social Sciences Full Text (Wilson), and

Sociological Abstracts (CSA). Because a previous review from these perspectives waspublished in 1998, we limited our search to 1997 to 2011. We used terms relating to L2acquisition, such as second language acquisition,ESL,L2,foreign language,foreignlanguage education, andELL education, combined with terms specific to our five



9/58


11

questions, such as optimal conditions, classroom factors, learner characteristics,teacher traits, time, age, educational outcomes, educational policy, and instructionalprograms. To capture references that described each approach, we also searched theabove L2 terms in combination with general terms relating to our four perspectives,such as child language, sociocultural, andpsycholinguistic. We also used the followingliterature reviews on related topics to locate empirical studies that met our inclusioncriteria: August and Shanahan (2006), Bialystok (1997), Birdsong (2006), Genesee,Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, and Christian (2006), Goldenberg and Coleman (2010),Hammer, Jia, and Uchikoshi (2011), Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2000), Liddicoat(2006), Lightbown (2000), Long (2005), Marinova-Todd, Marshall, and Snow (2000),Masgoret and Gardner (2003), Menken (2009), Muoz (2008a, 2008b), Muoz andSingleton (2011), Nikolov and Mihaljevic Djigunovic (2006), Rothman (2008),Saunders and Goldenberg (2010), Scovel (2000), Singleton (2005), Slabakova (2006),

Snow and Kang (2006), Stevens (2006), and Ushioda (2010). Because the listedreviews frequently included studies from a general educational psychology perspec-tive, we refer the reader to them for an additional perspective regarding our questions.In addition, we consulted recent texts by leaders in the fields and handbooks related tothe perspectives and L2 acquisition as additional sources for defining the perspectives,identifying contributions of each perspective to L2 acquisition, and formulating currentissues within each perspective; we have cited these sources when used, with full refer-ences in the reference list.

These initial searches provided tens of thousands of references, so we reducedthe reference lists by general relevance (according to title). Our inclusion criteria

required that the empirical studies (a) were empirical, (b) were published in peer-reviewed journals, (c) were published between 1997 and 2011, (d) included par-ticipants in grades prekindergarten to 12 (ages 418), (e) addressed at least one ofour five questions, (f) included some measure of L2 proficiency or academicachievement as an outcome, and (g) were conducted from one of the four perspec-tives. As an exception to the first criterion, we retained theoretical or conceptualpieces from our search that described one of our four perspectives as well as arti-cles that described U.S. federal, state, and local educational policy. To determinethe perspective or research tradition from which an empirical study was conducted,we examined methods, participants, setting, theoretical framework, and the orien-

tation of the prior research cited in the study. At this first phase of screening, weexcluded studies that obviously did not address our research questions, such asstudies of assessment, world Englishes, and dialect features. We then combined thearticles from all the searches and removed duplicate references.

After obtaining a pool of 4,457 potentially relevant studies, we examinedabstracts to exclude articles that failed to meet our inclusion criteria. Thisresulted in a reduced pool of 1,541. Many excluded studies described specificlinguistic features in relation to universal grammar, examined code switching,involved university students as participants, measured only socioemotional out-comes, or focused on teaching L2 learners in the content areas (e.g., math, social

science), in which the specific academic content, rather than L2 proficiency, wasthe goal of instruction. At this point, we obtained the articles and looked moreclosely at design, sampling, and methods to screen for quality and confirmed thatthey met our inclusion criteria. We eliminated studies that were identified at this



10/58

Dixon et al.

12

stage as using a convenience sample or arbitrary sampling (e.g., first 20 torespond) or that did not state how the sample was obtained. Among studies usingquantitative data analysis methods exclusively, we eliminated those with samplesizes of fewer than 30, because these smaller studies do not have the statisticalpower to detect effects except for large correlations, which will also be evidentin larger studies (Light, Singer, & Willett, 1990). As we read through the studies,we applied the principles outlined in Scientific Research in Education (NationalResearch Council, 2002) to further assess their quality. We thus obtained a finalpool of 71 empirical studies addressing one of our five questions (see Table 2)and 8 articles describing U.S. policy for Q5. We also identified 63 theoretical,conceptual, or empirical articles for background or current trends relating to oneof the four perspectives, 18 of which we ultimately used. We noted a few studiesthat were repeatedly cited in articles obtained through our search and that seemed

relevant to our questions. We obtained copies of those articles and included the3 that met our other criteria.Studies that met our criteria were apportioned to an author according to which

question they addressed. Studies that addressed more than one of our questionswere considered separately for each question. Studies were coded for perspective,methods, and setting by at least two authors. Key findings and relevance to ourquestion were also noted. The studies pertinent to each question were consideredas a group, and key findings were organized around themes that emerged from thestudies. The original articles were consulted as necessary to further contextualizefindings and look for possible causes of discrepant findings.

Foreign Language Educators Perspective

For centuries, the interest of foreign language educators has basically remained thesame: to enhance effectiveness in L2 education by selecting and testing optimalpedagogical methods and techniques. Theoretically allied with applied linguistics,foreign language educators tend to study L2 learning of mostly adolescent andadult learners in classroom settings.

Among the many models foreign language educators have proposed to under-stand student differences in L2 attainment (Lightbown & Spada, 2006), two mod-els, widely tested in studies that derive from the foreign language educators

perspective, have particular relevance to our questions: the inputinteractionout-put (IIO) model and the socioeducational model. In the IIO model, inputthroughspeech or printprovides the data from which L2 learners must discern the rules(Alcon, 1998). L2 learners then try out their understanding of the rules throughspeech or writingoutput. Interaction then offers learners essential feedback onwhether the learners output was understandable (Gass & Mackey, 2007). Thesocioeducational model proposed by Gardner (1985, 2000), by contrast, focuseson learners integrativeness, attitudes towards the learning situation, and motiva-tion (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003, p. 126). Integrativeness is defined as L2 learn-ers psychological adaptability to another cultural and linguistic community. The

excitement or anxiety L2 learners may feel in an L2 context compose their atti-tudes, and motivation is the observable behavior driven by goals and desires(Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). Though Gardners model has been challenged andmodified by other researchers (Drnyei, 1994, 2000, 2003; Noels, 2001; Woodrow,



11/58

13TaBLe2

Summaryofempir

icalstudiesincludedinthereview

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

AkbariandAllvar

(2010)

30EFLTs,age2348

Secondaryschoolsin

Iran

To

investigate3

T

-relatedvariables

a

ndrelatethemto

s

tudentacademic

a

chievement

Tsreflectivity,senseof

efficacy,andteaching

stylep

ositivelycor-

relatedwithstudent

L2performance

F

Andrews(1999)

3L1ChineseEFLTs

EFLclassesinsecond-

aryschoolsinHong

Kong

To

explorehow

m

etalinguistic

a

warenessaffects

c

lassroominput

Metalinguisticaware-

nessa

idsTin

provid

ingappropriate

instructionalinputfor

L2lea

rners

F

Celaya,Torras,and

Prez-Vidal(20

01)

479L1Spanish-

Catalan,L

2English

startedat8vs.1

1

EFLclassesinSpain

To

testtheeffectsof

a

geonL2learners

w

rittenproduction

Withmo

rehoursof

instruction,later

learne

rsshowedbetter

complexity,f

luency,

andac

curacyofL2

writing

F

Cenoz(2002)

60elementaryand

secondarySs,6year

s

ofL2instruction

EFLclassesinSpain

To

examinetheinflu-

e

nceofageofonset

o

nEFLproficiency

Earlygroupperformed

better

onpronuncia-

tion

F

Lategr

oupperformed

betteronoverall

oralproficiencyand

gram

mar



12/58

14

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

CollinsandW

hite

(2011)

230L1French6th

graders,over5

10

months

EFLclassesinQue-

bec,Canada

Todeterminetheef-

fectoftheintensity

ofEFLinstruction

onL2speaking,

listening,reading,

writing

Noadvantagefor

sa

menumberof

hoursofinstruction

condensedinto5

m

onthsorspread

over10months

F

CsizrandDrnyei

(2005)

8,593L1Hungarian

Ss,ages13and14

EFLandGFLclasses

inHungary

TodescribeL2learn-

ersmotivational

profiles

Integrativemotiva-

tioninfluencedL2

le

arnersintended

le

arningeffortand

L2preference

F

DoizandLas

agabas-

ter(2004)

38L1Spanish-

BasqueSs,L2

Englishstartedat8

vs.1

1

EFLclassesinSpain

Toexaminetheeffect

ageonEFLSs

writtenproduction

Positiveeffectof

le

ngthofexposure

onoverallwriting

proficiency

F

Earlystartersper-

fo

rmedbetteron

fluency,notaccu-

ra

cyorcomplexity

DrnyeiandCsizr

(2005)

8,593L1Hungarian

Ss,ages13and14

EFLandGFLclasses

inHungary

Tofindouthowinter-

culturalcontactis

relatedtointereth-

nicandlanguage

attitudesandL2

motivation

Acurvilinearcontact

attituderelationship

w

ithhighercontact

m

eaningbetterat-

titudesbuthighest

contactassociated

w

ithworstattitudes

andmotivation

F

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)

(continued)



13/58

15

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

Erlam(2003)

70Ss,EL1andvari-

ousL1,ageabout

14

FFLclassesinNew

Zealand

TocompareL2listen-

ing,speaking,and

readingamong

threeinstructional

strategies

Output-basedand

structuredinput

moreeffectivethan

regularcommunica-

tiveL2instruction

F

Mihaljevi

Djigunovi

,Niko-

lov,andOtt(2008)

717L1Croatianand

L1HungarianSs,

age14

EFLclassesinCroatia

andHungary

TocompareCroatian

andHungarianEFL

SsL2performance

CroatianSshigherL2

pr

oficiency

F

Non

significantimpact

of

startingage,fre-

qu

encyofclasses,

an

dgroupsizeon

L2attainment

Navs,Torras,and

Celaya(2003)

520L1Catalan-Sp

an-

ish1st6thgraders,

L2startage8vs

.11

EFLclassesinSpain

Toanalyzehowage

ofonsetandageat

testinginfluenced

writingafter200,

416,and726hours

ofFLinstruction

Late

learnersper-

fo

rmedsignificantly

be

tteronaccuracy,

fluency,lexical

co

mplexity,and

mostofmeasuresof

sy

ntacticcomplex-

ityinL2writing

F

PufahlandRhodes

(2011)

3,670K12elemen-

taryandseconda

ry

schools

EL1schoolsinUS

Toexaminehowwell

theschoolscan

prepareSstocom-

municateinLOTE

FLc

ourseofferings

de

creasedoverpast

10

years

F

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)



14/58

16

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

Robinson,Rivers,and

Brecht(2006)

1,398adults,L

OT

E

startedindifferent

settings

LOTE(FLorL1)in

US

Toinvestigatewhat

factorspredict

speakingalanguage

otherthanEnglish,

aswellastheprofi-

ciencylevel

Hom

elanguagelearn-

in

gbestpredictorof

speakingaLOTE

verywell

F

FLlearningmostly

unsuccessful

Seek(2007)

62EFLTs;93EFLT

candidates

SchoolsinSlovenia

Toexplorethelan-

guageneedsofTs

inSlovenia

Tsn

eedsufficientL2

proficiencytofunc-

tioninavarietyof

settings

F

Tsn

eedgrammatical,

phonological,lexi-

cal/sociolinguistic

training

SollarsandP

umfrey

(1999)

156children,mean

age5

EFLclassesinMalta

Tocomparethe

effectsoftwo

teachingmodelson

youngL2learners

Olderchildrenbetter

L2oralandreading

performance

F

Rec

iprocalmodelof

te

achingandlearn-

in

geffective

White,Muo

z,and

Collins(20

07)

150L1Frenchor

Catalan-Spanish

8th

graders

EFLclassesinQue-

bec,Canadaand

Spain

Toevaluatetheeffect

ofform-focused

instructionon

theacquisitionof

Englishpossessive

determiners

Exp

licitinstruction

anddirectcontras-

tiveanalysesin

limitedL2exposure

contextseffective

F

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)

(continued)



15/58

17

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

Wode(1999)

75L1German7th

graders

EFLclassesinGer-

many

Tofindoutwhether

incidentallearn-

ingoccursinFL

orcontent-FL

classrooms

Ssincontent-based

FLclassesbetter

in

cidentalL2vo-

cabularylearning

F

Bongaerts,vanSum-

meren,P

lanken,

andSchils

(1997)

44L1Dutchadults,

L2startedafter12;

15EL1s

EFLintheNether-

lands

Toexaminewhether

thelatelearn-

erscouldattaina

native-likeperfor-

manceintheL2

pronunciation

Som

elatestarters

showednative-like

L2pronunciation

F,P

BarnandCelaya

(2010)

144L1Catalan-Span-

ishSs,L2starte

dat

8vs.1

1

EFLclassesinSpain

Toexaminepragmatic

fluencyofL2learn-

ersofdifferentages

with7yearsofL2

instruction

Pragmaticproficiency

in

creasedwithL2

proficiency

F,P

Sparks,Patto

n,

Ganschow,and

Humbach(2009)

54EL1highschool

Ss,2yearsL2

learning

FFL,G

FL,S

FL

classesinUS

Tofindoutstrong

precursorsoforal

andwrittensecond

languageprofi-

ciency

Significantcorrela-

tionbetweenL1

aptitudeandL2

proficiency

F,P

L2aptitudestrongest

predictorofL2

proficiency

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)



16/58

18

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

GonzalezandUhing

(2008)

48L1SpanishL2

Englishchildren

,

meanage4.3

Familyliteracypro-

graminUS

Toexaminewhat

homefactors

influencechildrens

oralL1andL2

proficiency

Libraryuseimportant

fororalL2

C

Inte

ractionwith

extendedfamilyim-

portantfororalL1

Hammer,Davison,

Lawrence,

andMic-

cio(2009)

72L1Spanishchi

l-

dren,meanage4.1

EL1preschoolclasses

inUS

Toexaminetheinflu-

enceofmaternal

languageuseon

childsL1andL2

vocabulary

Increasedmothers

useofEnglishno

effectonL2Eng-

lish,negativeeffect

onL1Spanish

vocabulary

C

Hammer,Lawrence,

andMiccio(2008)

83L1SpanishL2

Englishchildren

,

meanage3.9

EL1preschoolclasses

inUS

Toexaminethe

vocabularyand

comprehension

developmentofbi-

lingualpreschoolers

overtwoyears

Spa

nishonlyathome

lo

werEnglishat

startandend,faster

growth

C

Spa

nishandEnglish

athome,higher

E

nglishatstartand

end

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)

(continued)



17/58

19

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

Hammer,Miccio,and

Wagstaff(2003)

43SpanishEnglish

bilingualchildren,

meanage3.8

EL1preschoolclasses

intheUS

Toexaminetheinflu-

enceofhomeliter-

acyenvironmenton

childrensemergent

literacyskillsover

twoyears

Pressforachievement

andfrequencyof

m

otherchildbook

re

adingpositively

correlatedwithchil-

drensL2literacy

C

MacSwanan

dPray

(2005)

89L1SpanishL2

EnglishSs,grad

es

K3

Bilingualclassesin

US

Toevaluatethe

bilingualprogram

andtesteffectsof

ageonlanguage

attainment

Weakevidencefor

youngchildrens

advantageinlearn-

in

grate

C

Variabilityinratefor

ESLchildrento

achieveparitywith

nativespeakers

Pez,Tabors,and

Lpez(2007)

319L1SpanishL2

Englishbilinguals;

144L1Spanish

controls,age4.4

preschoolclassesin

USandPuertoRico

Toexaminethedif-

ferencebetween

Spanishbilingual

andmonolingual

childrensearly

literacyskills

Stro

ngerlanguage

skillsinEnglish

th

anSpanish,

exceptphonologi-

calawareness,in

bilingualchildren

C

Reese,Garnier,Galli-

more,andGolden-

berg(2000

)

66L1SpanishL2

Englishchildren

,

gradesK7;ove

r8

years

EL1kindergarten

classroomsinUS

Toinvestigatehome

andeco-cultural

factorsthatinflu-

enceL1Spanish

SslaterL2reading

achievement

EarlySpanishliteracy

andoralEnglish

predictedlater

Englishreading

C

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)



18/58

20

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

ParentsyearsinUS

predictedchilds

oralEnglish

proficiencyatK

Roberts(200

8)

33L1Hmongand

L1

Spanish,L

2English

children,meanage

4.34

EL1preschoolclasses

inUS

Toexaminetheeffect

ofreadinginL1

andL2athomeon

L2vocabulary

Com

biningclassroom

L2instructionand

L1bookreadingat

homecontributed

positivelytoL2

vocabularylearning

C

Tagoilelagi-L

eota,

McNaughton,Mac-

Donald,an

dFarry

(2005)

23L1Samoanand26

L1Tonganchild

ren,

meanage5

EL1classroomsin

NewZealand

Toexaminethebilin-

gualandbiliteracy

developmentof

ESLchildrenover

1.6years

Increasingcontrol

overEnglish,w

hile

decreasingcontrol

overL1

C

Weakeningrelation-

shipbetweenlit-

eracyinL1andL2

Winsler,D

az,Espi-

nosa,andR

odr-

guez(1999

)

46L1SpanishL2

Englishchildren

,

ages34

Bilingualpreschools

inUS

Toexaminethe

concurrentandlon-

gitudinaleffectsof

attendingbilingual

preschoolsonlan-

guageproficiency

inbothlanguages

Earlyexposureto

Englishnotrelated

to

L1-Spanishloss

C

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)

(continued)



19/58

21

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

Childrenwhoat-

te

ndedbilingual

preschoolshowed

greatergainsin

productiveoralL2

skillsovertime

Barnett,Yaro

sz,

Thomas,Jung,and

Blanco(20

07)

About131L1Spa

nish

L2Englishchil-

dren,ages34

EL1classesvs.b

ilin-

gualclassesinUS

Tocomparetheeffect

ofTWBEprogram

andEnglishonly

immersionprogram

onchildrensoral

language,l

iteracy

andmath

TW

BEprogramfa-

cilitativeofSpanish

vocabularylearning

w

ithoutexpenseof

Englishloss

C,P

Childrengainedin

la

nguage,l

iteracy

andmathinboth

programs

Kovelman,B

aker,and

Petitto(2008)

150L1Spanishch

il-

dren,ages79

BilingualandEL1

schoolsinUS

Toexaminedifferent

patternsofreading

performanceamong

bilingualchildren

Significantimpact

ofageofonseton

childsreading

performance

C,P

Optimalreading

performanceofthe

childrenlearning

L2beforeage3

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)



20/58

22

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

LipkaandSiegel

(2007)

128ESL;703EL1;

meanstart,age5

ESLclassesinCanada

Tocompareandcon-

trastthepredictors

ofreadingskills

ofESLsandL1Ss

over4years

Proficiencygapex-

pectedtobeclosed

w

ithin4years,with

balancedliteracy

program

C,P

Carhill,Surez-Oroz-

co,andPez(2008)

274L2English

adolescentswith

variousL1s,agesof

arrival714

ESLinUS

Toexamineindividual

andsocialfactors

foracademicEng-

lishL2learning

Tim

espeaking

Englishininformal

settingspositively

associatedwith

Englishlanguage

proficiency

SC

Echevarria,S

hort,and

Powers(20

06)

4406th8thgrade

rs,

5669%Hispan

ic,

3141%Asian/PI

EL1schoolsinUS

Toexaminetheeffect

oftheSIOPmodel

onSsliteracy

achievement

Sshighergaininaca-

demicwritingskills

w

heninstructedby

Tstrainedinthe

SIOPmodel

SC

O.GarcaandBartlett

(2007)

About350L1Spa

nish

secondarySs

Bilingualhighschool

inUS

Toexaminehowa

bilingualeducation

modelcansupport

newlyarrived

Latinoimmigrant

youth

Eng

lishandSpanish

w

erebothvalued

andusedstrategi-

callyforpedagogy

SC

Graduationandstate

exampassrates

high

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)

(continued)



21/58

23

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

Gillanders(2

007)

1EL1T;5L1Spa

n-

ishpre-Kchildren

EL1pre-Kclassin

US

Toexplorehoweffec-

tiveTsrelationship

withESLchildren

influencesL2learn-

ing

Tsh

owedculturally

sensitivity,estab-

lishedemotional

closeness,incorpo-

ra

tedL1andcre-

atedaninteractive

environmentamong

peers

SC

JiaandAaronson

(2003)

10L1Chinesechil-

dren,s

tartage5

16

EL1schoolsinUS

Toexaminethefac-

torsthatinfluence

languageswitch

andpreference

betweenL1andL2

over3years

Learnersstartingbe-

fo

reage9switched

preferencetoL2in

oneyear

SC

Olderlearners

m

aintainedtheirL1

la

nguagepreference

over3years

KirkSenesac

(2002)

573650Ss;39Ts

TWBEschoolinUS

Toexaminewhat

contributestoa

successfultwo-way

bilingualprogram

over10years

Betterreading

achievementcom-

paredwithdistrict,

nationalnorms

SC

Stro

ngcollaborative

connectionwiththe

homeandcom-

m

unity

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)



22/58

24

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

McIntyre,Kyle,Chen,

Muoz,an

dBeldon

(2010)

7Ts;109ESLSs,

gradesK-6

SIOPclassroomsand

non-SIOPclass-

roomsinUS

Toexaminereading

developmentof

ESLSsinclass-

roomswithSIOP

withoutSIOP

instruction

SIO

PSsmade

significantgainsin

reading,non-SIOP

S

sdidnot

SC

deJong(200

2)

130L1SpanishSs;

128EL1Ss,grades

K5

Bilingualclassesin

US

Toexamineifa

TWBEprogram

succeedsacademi-

cally

TW

BESsgained

g

rade-levelprofi-

ciencyinEnglish

andSpanishbyend

o

fGrade5

SC,P

Abrahamssonand

Hyltenstam

(2009)

195L1SpanishL

2

SwedishSs,started

age147

L2SwedishinSwe-

den

ToexamineL2learn-

erswhosesuccess

couldrejectthe

CPHonpronuncia-

tion

Smalloddsofnative-

likeL2attainment

b

yadultlearners

P

Duursmaetal.(

2007)

96L1SpanishL2

English5thgraders

EL1classesinUS

Tostudytheroleof

homeandschool

factorsonbilin-

gualsvocabulary

development

L2

vocabularynot

associatedwith

E

nglishuseat

h

omeforlowSES

S

s;L1vocabulary

p

ositivelyassoci-

atedwithhomeand

schoolsupportfor

S

panish

P

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)

(continued)



23/58

25

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

BialystokandMiller

(1999)

33L1Chinesespe

ak-

ers;28L1Spanish

speakers,meanstart

age10vs.2

1;28

EL1

ESLinCanada

Toexaminethe

influenceofL1,

structure,task,on

grammaticality

judgment

Differentperformance

patternsforearly

andlategroups

P

Differentperformance

outcomesbetween

Spanishearlyand

la

tegroups,but

notbetweentwo

C

hinesegroups

Birdsongand

Molis

(2001)

61L1Spanishspe

ak-

ers,startagebefore

orafter17

ESLinUS

Toexaminetheage

effectsonnative-

likeattainment

Dec

liningL2profi-

ciencywithincreas-

in

gageoflearning

after17

P

Age

ofacquisition

predictedchildsL2

attainment

Branum-Mar

tin,Foor-

man,Francis,and

Mehta(2010)

1,338L1Spanish

L2

English1stgrad

ers

EL1vs.b

ilingual

classesinUS

Tomodeleffectsof

languageofinstruc-

tion,c

lassroom

differencesand

generalcontexton

bilingualSsL1and

L2readingcompre-

hension

All

factorsinteract

complexlyininflu-

encingSsL1and

L2reading

P

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)



24/58

26

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

Spa

nishmaintenance

programspositively

associatedwith

Spanishreading

comprehension

DeKeyser(2000)

57L1Hungarianim-

migrants,starta

ge

beforeorafter1

6

ESLinUS

Totestthecorrelation

betweenageofar-

rivalandgrammati-

calityperformance

The

oldertheageof

acquisition,t

he

lo

wergrammatical-

ityjudgmentscores

P

Neg

ligiblecorrelation

betweenaptitude

scoresandageof

arrival

DeKeyser,Alfi-

Shabtay,andRavid

(2010)

138L1Russian,

L2EnglishorL

2

Hebrew,s

tartag

e

471

ESLinUS;Hebrew

L2learnersinIsrael

Toexaminetherela-

tionshipbetween

ageofacquisi-

tionandultimate

attainmentinL2

grammar

Significantrelation-

shipbetweenapti-

tu

deandultimate

attainmentforthe

ageofacquisition

1840years

P

deRamreza

ndShap-

iro(2006)

165L1SpanishL2

EnglishSs,acro

ss

Grades15

Bilingualvs.E

L1

classesinUS

Tocomparereading

levelsandgrowth

rateofreading

betweenESLSsin

bilingualandEL1

classrooms

Slowergrowthrate

ofL1SpanishESL

Ssascomparedto

generaleducation

Ssacrossgrades

andovertime

P

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)

(continued)



25/58

27

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

Flegeetal.(2006)

151L1KoreanL2

Englishimmigrants,

ageofarrival6

14

or2140

ESLinUSorCanada

ToevaluateKorean

immigrantsforeign

accent,over1.2

years

Kor

eanchildrenhad

closer-to-native-like

pronunciation

P

Detectableforeign

accent,regardless

ofageofarrival

FlegeandMacKay

(2004)

72L1Italianim-

migrants,ageof

arrival213vs.

1526;18EL1

ESLinCanada

TocompareItalian

learnersperception

ofEnglishvowels

withthatofnative

speakers

Highdiscrimination

scoresbyearly

le

arners

P

MoreL1use,lower

vowelperception

scores

Flege,Yeni-K

omshi-

an,andLiu

(1999)

240L1KoreanL2

Englishimmigrants,

ageofarrival1

23;

24EL1

ESLinUS

TotesttheCPHin

thecontextofL2

acquisition

Morepronounced

fo

reignaccentand

decreasinggram-

m

aticalityjudgment

te

stscoreswith

olderageofarrival

P

Biggereffectsofage

ofarrivalonL2

phonologythan

m

orphosyntax

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)



26/58

28

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

GevaandYaghoub

Zadeh(2006)

181L2Englishlearn-

ersofvariousL1s,

meanage7.37;70

EL1

EL1Schoolsin

Canada

Toinvestigatehow

youngESLchildren

developtheirL2

wordandtextread-

ingefficiency

ESL

andEL1sameon

Englishreadingand

cognitivetasks

P

EL1

betterinoral

English

Hakuta(2011)

11,0

003rd,5th,and

7thgraders;24%

L2Englishlearners

ofvariousL1s

EL1schoolsinUS

Todescribeand

discussthedevelop-

mentofkeyissues

inESLfield

80%

ESLSsinter-

m

ediatein2years,

80%fullyproficient

in

7years

P

Stro

ngassociation

betweenL2profi-

ciencyandcontent

achievement

Hakuta,Bialystok,

andWiley

(2003)

2,016,317L1Span-

ishspeakersand

324,444L1Chi-

nesespeakers

L2EnglishinUS

Toexaminethe

effectofageof

acquisitiononL2

proficiencyina

largesampleofESL

learnerswithat

least10yearsinUS

SuccessinL2acquisi-

tiondeclinedgradu-

allywithincreas-

in

gage,nosharp

decline

P

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)

(continued)



27/58

29

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

Hemsley,Ho

lm,and

Dodd(200

6)

28L1Samoan;34

L1Vietnamese;

30

EL1,meanage11.3

EL1schoolsinAus-

tralia

Tocomparelexical

skillsof2ESLL1

groupshaving6

yearsofAustralian

schoolingwithEL1

group

Nodifference

betweentwoL1

groups

P

EL1

betteratEnglish

vocabulary,notat

nonwordtasks

JeanandGev

a(2009)

149ESL;64EL1,

Grades4and5

ESLclassesinCanada

Tocomparethe

lexicalknowledge

ofelementary

monolingualEL1

childrenwiththatof

ESLchildren

Nodifferenceoncog-

nitiveprocessingor

w

ordnaming

P

EL1

groupbetterat

Englishvocabulary

LpezandTashakkori

(2004)

117L2EnglishSs

;98

EL1,gradeK1

Bilingualvs.E

L1

classesinUS

Toexaminetheef-

fectsofaTWBE

programonEnglish

literacydevelop-

ment

SsinTWBEand

m

ainstreampro-

gramscoreclosely

in

Englishreading

bytheendofone

year

P

LpezandTashakkori

(2006)

32L2English5th

graders

Bilingualclassesin

US

ToexamineTWBE

andTBEonaca-

demicachievement

withSsofdifferent

L2proficiency

TW

BEandTBEno

differenceinEng-

lishreading

P

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)



28/58

30

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

TWBEwassignifi-

cantlybetterthan

TBEprogramon

Spanishreading

Marsdenand

David

(2008)

80L1EnglishSs,

200

vs.6

50hoursof

FL

instruction

FFLandSFLinUK

Tocomparelexical

diversityacrosslan-

guagesandacross

ages

Olderlearnersmore

le

xicallyandin-

flectionallydiverse

la

nguage,because

ofmorehoursof

in

struction

P

McDonald(2

000)

28L1Spanishand

24

L1VietnameseESL

learners,s

tartag

e

before5vs.a

fter

14;14EL1

ESLinUS

Toexaminetowhatex-

tentL2grammatical-

ityjudgmentmight

beinfluencedbyage

ofonsetandL2

Spanishearlylearners

performedcloseto

native

P

Vietnameseearlyand

la

telearnerspoor

performancein

comparisonwith

nativeandSpanish

sp

eakers

Mihaljevi

Djigunovi

(2010)

4148thgraders,start

agebefore10vs.

after10

EFLclassesinCroatia

Tocomparewriting

competenceofearly

andlatebeginners

Lategroupoutper-

fo

rmedbyearly

grouponalltests

P

Earlylearnersstrong

in

teractionofL1

andL2competence

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)

(continued)



29/58

31

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

Miralpeix(2007)

93L1Catalan-Spa

n-

ish,startage8v

s.

11,68yearsof

L2

instruction

EFLclassesinSpain

Toexaminethe

influenceofageof

onset,cognitivema-

turityandamount

ofexposureon

EFLsproductive

vocabulary

Sim

ilarlevelsof

productivevocabu-

la

rybetweenlate

startersandearly

starters

P

Ojima,Matsuba-

Kurita,Nakamura,

Hoshino,andHagi-

wara(2011

)

359L1Japanesep

ri-

marySs,ages69

EFLclassesinJapan

Toinvestigatethe

possibleeffectsof

startinglanguage

learninglateon

phonologicalpro-

cessing

Noevidenceforearly

startersattainment

advantage

P

Positivecorrelation

betweenlonger

hoursofexposure

andEnglishprofi-

ciency

Piske,MacKay,and

Flege(2001)

72L1Italianadults,

L2startedage

720;18EL1

ESLinCanada

TotesttheCPHfrom

theperspectiveof

foreignaccent

Age

ofL2learn-

in

gandamount

ofcontinuedL1

usesignificantly

predicteddegreeof

fo

reignaccent

P

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)



30/58

32

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

Quiroz,Snow

&Zhao

(2010)

50L1SpanishL2

Englishmother-

childpairs

ESLinUS

Toexploretheimpact

ofinteractionand

exposureonyoung

L2learners

-MoreL2inhome,

higherchildL2skills

-Morenonparental

bookreadingand

m

orematernalques-

tionsduringbook

re

ading,higherL1&

L2vocabulary

C

Reichle(2010)

22L2Frenchspea

k-

ers,ageofarrival

134;44L1Fre

nch

speakers

L2Frenchinfranco-

phonecountries

TotestCPHbyex-

amininganomalies

ininformation

structure

Ceiling-levelperfor-

m

anceamongearly

le

arners

P

Effectsofage,

re

gardlessofageof

arrival

vanBoxtel,B

on-

gaerts,and

Coppen

(2003)

30L1GermanandL1

Frenchimmigra

nts,

startage12+;44L1

Dutchspeakers

L2DutchintheNeth-

erlands

TotestlateL2learners

possibilityofacqui-

sitionofL2native-

levelgrammar

Afe

wlearners

performedcloseto

nativenorms

P

Differenceinper-

fo

rmancebetween

L1FrenchandL1

G

ermanspeakers

Yeni-Komshian,

Flege,and

Liu

(2000)

240L1Koreanim

-

migrants,ageof

arrival123;24

L1

Koreanand24EL1

controls

ESLinUS

ToexamineKorean

immigrantsL1and

L2pronunciation

proficiencywhen

comparedwith

monolinguals

You

ngestgrouphad

highestL2pronun-

ciationproficiency,

w

hileoldestgroup

hadbestL1pronun-

ciation

P

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)

(continued)



31/58

33

Authors

Participants

Context

Purpose

Keyfindings

PSP

PositiveeffectofL2

usefrequencyand

yearsofschool-

in

ginUSonL2

pronunciation

HarleyandH

art

(1997)

65L1English11th

graders,L2started

atGrade1vs.7

FrenchFLimmersion

classesinCanada

Toexaminetheef-

fectsoflanguage

aptitudeonL2

outcomes

Earlylearnersbet-

te

rinvocabulary

re

cognitionandlate

le

arnersbetterin

w

rittentask

P,F

Larson-Hall(2008)

200L1JapaneseS

s,

L2startage31

2

EFLinJapan

Toinvestigatethe

effectsoflearning

atayoungageon

languageproficien-

cyinthecontextof

minimalinput

Neg

ativecorrelation

betweenstarting

ageandgrammati-

calityjudgment

P,F

Betterperformanceof

earlystartersasa

grouponphonemic

discrimination

Note.

C=childlanguageresearchers;CP=criticalperiod;CPH=criticalperiodhypothesis;

EFL=Englishasaforeignlanguage;EL1=Englishasthefirstlanguage;

ESL=Englishasa

secondlanguage;

F=foreignlanguageeducators;FFL=

Frenchasaforeignlanguage;FL=foreignlanguage;GFL=Germanasaforeignlanguage;L1=firstlanguage;L2

=secondlanguage;

LOTE=languageotherthanEnglish;P=psycholinguists;PI=PacificIslander;PSP=perspectives;SFL=Spanishasaforeignlanguage;TBE=transitionalbilinguale

ducation;TWBE=

two-waybilingua

leducation;pre-K=prekindergarten;

SC=socioculturalresearchers;SIOP

=shelteredinstructionobservationpro

tocol;S=student;T=teacher;US=UnitedStates.

TAbLE

2(co

ntinued)



32/58

Dixon et al.

34

2006), its recognition of the importance of motivation and its identification ofrelated variables have made it noteworthy.

Child Language Researchers Perspective

Child language researchers have studied the natural sequence of language acquisi-tion, the role of language input, childrens developmental errors and their verbalinteraction with adults and other children (Bavin, 2009). Research on how a childacquires the L1 has influenced theories in L2 acquisition and practices in L2 edu-cation. Coming from a variety of theoretical orientations, child language research-ers started studying child language with descriptive methods such as parentsdiaries and audio or video transcription of childrens utterances. With the develop-ment of cognitive science and advanced technology, child language researchershave been able to study child language development from the perspective of men-

tal representations of the lexical and syntactical information contained in chil-drens linguistic systems (Gleason & Thompson, 2002). Child languageresearchers have also studied language interactions between caretaker and child orteacher and child, examining what types of interactions promote childrens lan-guage development (Cote, 2001; Pan, Rowe, Singer, & Snow, 2005; Quiroz, Snow,& Zhao, 2010). Child language researchers emphasize the developmental aspectsof L1 and L2 acquisition, for example, that errors are systematic and rule governed(Paradis, 2005; Paradis, Rice, Crago, & Marquis, 2008).

Sociocultural Approaches to L2 Learning

Social and cultural researchers argue that L2 acquisition cannot be fully under-stood without examining the specific social interactions learners engage in withintheir cultural contexts. Originally, sociocultural approaches to L2 learning emergedfrom new perspectives in anthropology, sociology, cultural psychology, and cul-tural studies (Swain & Deters, 2007; Tarone, 2007; Zuengler & Miller, 2006).Sociocultural researchers emphasis on the importance of a learning environmentssocial features in optimizing L2 acquisition is based largely on sociocultural the-ory, which in turn was informed by Vygotskys (1978) developmental theory.Vygotsky argued that all human cognitive processes originate from social interac-tion; what begins as social problem solving or communication is internalized to

become individual cognitive processes (Eun, 2011). Vygotsky argued that learnersreach new levels of development by obtaining mediation from others who havealready mastered the task (Lantolf & Thorne, 2007; Takahashi, 1998).

Another major current in what can be broadly considered the sociocultural per-spective derives from Hallidays systemic functional linguistics (Eggins, 2004).Halliday (1991/2007b) theorized that people use language to create meaningswithin their social and cultural context. Hallidays work emphasized the immedi-ate social context more than the overarching culture, but he acknowledged these asinterrelated. Halliday (1978/2007a) related this to L2 learning by pointing out thatthe L2 learners must learn the new contexts they are likely to encounter in using

the L2 as well as the new types of content that are expected in these new contexts.The interaction between L2 learners and their environment emphasized by

sociocultural theory converts the traditional L2 teachers obsession with linguisticcorrectness into a concern with appropriateness. Bachman (1990) divided L2



33/58


35

proficiency into organizational competence andpragmatic competence, assertingthat both types of competence were important for successful L2 learning. Bachmandefined organizational competence as the capability to acquire general linguisticknowledge prescribed by traditions and norms andpragmatic competence as theability to apply linguistic knowledge appropriately in different cultural and con-textual situations. After Bachman, researchers have incorporated direct and con-trastive pragmatic teaching into L2 classroom activities (Barron, 2008; Fredsted,2008; A. L. Garca, 2006).

In sum, the sociocultural approach has brought attention to the social and cul-tural dimensions of languages, thus changing the role of the teacher and the goalof and strategies for L2 learning. The purpose of L2 learning is seen as acquisitionof more than linguistic forms; L2 teaching is redirected to assist individual learnersin finding their own effective ways of communicating in different contexts. This

emphasis on the communicative component of languages has given rise to renewedcommunicative teaching in many contexts, refocused on how communication canbe accomplished within specific social and cultural contexts.

The Psycholinguistic Approach to L2 Processing

Psycholinguistic research is interdisciplinary, incorporating theories and researchmethods from linguistics, developmental psychology, neuropsychology, and cog-nitive science. At its most basic, psycholinguistics seeks to explain the internalprocesses that lead to successful (or unsuccessful) L2 learning by observing exter-nal, naturally occurring linguistic behaviors or experimental task performance.

Current research in L2 acquisition from a psycholinguistic perspective answersquestions such as the following: Is information involving two or more languagesprocessed in separate systems or in a shared system? Do bilinguals or multilingualshave a cognitive advantage over monolinguals? Are the processes in L1 and L2language general or language specific? How do L1 and L2 acquisition interact witheach other?

Many psycholinguists use connectionist models in their research. Connectionistcomputational models are derived from close analyses of language learning behav-iors, neuroimaging evidence, and observation of individuals with learning impair-ment. These models propose that input provides the examples learners need to

create connections between basic processing units; more input reinforcing a cer-tain rule leads to a stronger connection, which in turn leads to more predictableperformance (Ellis, 2002, 2003; Seidenberg, 2007).

MacWhinney (2005, 2008) recently proposed a unified model of both L1 andL2 acquisition. Under the unified model, L2 acquisition processes are not verydifferent from L1 acquisition, except that L2 acquisition starts with more informa-tion (from the L1); L2 learners acquire new mappings of sound to meaning basedon the existing L1 system. As learners L2 proficiency increases, the dependenceon L1 decreases.

Although a connectionist framework is widely used by psycholinguists in L2

acquisition research, it has been challenged because of the lack of empirical evi-dence supporting it (VanPatten & Benati, 2010) and its insensitivity to meaningand associated context (Seidenberg, 2007). Pinker (1999) challenged connection-ism on the grounds that it was essentially associative and could not explain the



34/58

Dixon et al.

36

application of rules to new verbs, although he suggested irregular verbs and otherexceptions to grammatical rules might be learned in this way. Also from a psycho-linguistic perspective, Cummins (1981) originated the interdependence hypoth-esis, which proposes that certain shared cognitive skills underlie academicproficiency in a bilinguals two languages; this hypothesis has been the focus ofmuch research in L2 acquisition.

The focus of psycholinguistic research on L2 remains strategies rather thanrules, processes rather than outcomes. Psycholinguists, who historically focusedon adult L2 acquisition, have now started to study L2 acquisition in childhood(Paradis, 2007). The uniqueness of psycholinguistics lies in providing theoreticalmodels that offer a fundamental architecture for understanding how L2 acquisitionworks in the mind. In addition, psycholinguists have joined with neuropsycholo-gists in the use of online processing techniques such as event-related brain poten-

tials and functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate not only word-levellanguage production and comprehension but also sentence-level processing mech-anisms (Brown & Hagoort, 2000). To date, much more work using neurocognitivetechnologies has been done on monolinguals, especially English-speaking mono-linguals, than on speakers of other languages or bilinguals.

Findings

In this section, we provide evidence-based answers to our five questions, usingstudies found through the process detailed in the method section. Although we setout to review studies about L2 acquisition in all kinds of different settings, two

settings dominated the studies found: L2 acquisition of English among children ofimmigrants to the United States and foreign language classroom settings. We inte-grate the research from the four bodies of work to answer each of our five questionsin turn.

Q1: What Are Optimal Conditions for L2 Acquisition?

The definition of optimal conditions is relative; there is no one best way to edu-cate L2 learners. Optimal conditions for acquiring an L2 for different populationsvary according to learning contexts, pedagogical goals, program setup, learnercharacteristics, and the interactions among these contextual variables.

L2 Learners in L2-Majority Contexts

Contextual variables.Reese, Garnier, Gallimore, and Goldenberg (2000) foundthat young children from higher socioeconomic status (SES) homes and thosewhose parents and grandparents attained higher education levels predicted L1 lit-eracy skills, which then promoted L2 reading proficiency in middle school. Carhill,Surez-Orozco, and Pez (2008) found that maternal education and parental L2English skills were significant predictors of oral academic L2 proficiency in ado-lescent immigrantsbut the strength of the association decreased when exposure

to L2 at school and in informal settings were also considered. They also found thatthe opportunity to use L2 in informal settings had the largest effect on L2 oralproficiency, controlling for age, time in the United States, parental L2 skills, andL2 use in school. Interestingly, Jia and Aaronson (2003) found that older children



35/58


37

in their sample made more friends who mostly used L1 than younger children, whowere limited in their friend pool to those in their class or in their neighborhood.Combined with Carhill et al.s (2008) findings, these results suggest that some ofthe advantage that young L2 learners may have in learning the L2 may be relatedto opportunities to use the L2 with peers. (Age and L2 acquisition are dealt with inmore detail regarding Q4.)

Home environment.Many studies have found a correlation between parents use ofL2 at home and their childrens L2 vocabulary and literacy skills, in some casesseveral years later (Duursma et al., 2007; Hammer, Lawrence, & Miccio, 2008;Quiroz et al., 2010). However, Hammer, Davison, Lawrence, and Miccio (2009)examined L1 Spanish-speaking families change in home language use over 3years, as their children attended 2 years of preschool and 1 year of kindergarten.

Hammer et al. found that increased use of L2 English at home did not help thechildrens L2 vocabulary or literacy development, but it did depress the childrensL1 vocabulary. Hammer et al.s (2009) findings suggest that educators should notask parents to change the language they use at home, recognizing that parents withlow L2 proficiency may not provide the quality of L2 input that their children needfor home L2 use to aid L2 development.

Home literacy practices in L1 or L2, such as frequency of book reading withchildren and taking children to the library, also contribute to later L2 oral languageand literacy achievement (Gonzalez & Uhing, 2008; Hammer, Miccio, & Wagstaff,2003; Reese et al., 2000; Roberts, 2008). Examining home book reading practices

more closely, Quiroz et al. (2010) found that the more mothers asked labelingquestions in L1, the higher their childrens vocabulary was in both L1 and L2,though the effect was stronger for L1.

Bilingual education programs.Bilingual education, particularly two-way pro-grams, is supported by several studies. Winsler, Daz, Espinosa, and Rodrguez(1999) found that young, low-income, Mexican-origin L2 learners of English inthe United States who attended bilingual preschool programs for 1 or 2 yearsgained L2 proficiency, with no harm to their L1 proficiency, compared to a matchedcontrol group. In one secondary school, a bilingual education model that combined

L1 content instruction with intensive L2 instruction for a whole school of L1Spanish speakers, mostly newly arrived immigrants from the same home country,was shown to be highly successful as measured by graduation rates and passingrates on the states challenging graduation exams (O. Garca & Bartlett, 2007).

Two-way bilingual programs combine L2 learners of English who all speak thesame L1 (usually Spanish) with L1 English speakers; the goal is for all students tobecome fully proficient in both languages (de Jong, 2002). Two separate case stud-ies of elementary-level two-way bilingual programs indicate this type of programcan be successful at promoting an L2 among L1 speakers of a minority languageand L1 speakers of the majority language in the United States (de Jong, 2002;

Lpez & Tashakkori, 2004). In a third case study of a preK8 two-way bilingualprogram in the United States with students selected by lottery, Kirk Senesac (2002)found L2 learners of English who had been in the program for at least 5 years



36/58

Dixon et al.

38

consistently performed above grade-level monolingual norms on standardizedtests of L2 reading. At the preschool level, children who were randomly assignedto two-way bilingual made equal progress in English oral vocabulary and literacyskills, with better progress in Spanish vocabulary, compared to those who had beenrandomly assigned to English immersion (Barnett, Yarosz, Thomas, Jung, &Blanco, 2007). In a comparison of English L2 learners in two-way bilingual com-pared to transitional bilingual programs, Lpez and Tashakkori (2006) found nodifference between the students English reading proficiency after 4 or 5 years intheir respective programs; however, two-way students met oral English proficiencycriteria for exiting English L2 services more quickly than did transitional bilingualstudents.

Characteristics of instruction.The quality of instruction can also influence L2

outcomes. Optimal conditions for L2 acquisition may include well-implementedspecialized instruction for L2 learners, such as the sheltered instruction observa-tion protocol (SIOP) model (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006; McIntyre, Kyle,Chen, Muoz, & Beldon, 2010). The SIOP model, based on sociocultural princi-ples, includes the following components for lesson planning, implementation, andevaluation: preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies,practice or application, lesson delivery, and review or assessment (McIntyre et al.,2010). The SIOP model has been found to improve L2 learners middle schoolwriting (Echevarria et al., 2006) and elementary school reading (McIntyre et al.,2010) skills, compared to students from matched classrooms and schools and con-

trolling for previous achievement.

Time.Branum-Martin, Foorman, Francis, and Mehta (2010) reported that time inL2 reading instruction was positively related to L2, and negatively related to L1,reading comprehension among first-grade English L2 learners in bilingual pro-grams in Texas and California. This finding suggests that cross-linguistic transferdoes not happen immediately or automatically and that sufficient time needs to beallocated to literacy development in L2.

L2 Learners in Foreign Language Settings

Explicit instruction. In foreign language classrooms with limited L2 exposure,teachers explicit instruction about grammatical features of L2 seems to be benefi-cial in L2 learning. White, Muoz, and Collins (2007) found that using explicitinstruction involving contrastive information and repeated contextualized prac-tice (p. 283) to teach English possessive determiners helped students gain moreaccuracy in the posttest on the target structure. Three types of instructionstruc-tured-input instruction that focused on form, output-based instruction that focusedon meaning, and regular communicative-based L2 instructionwere tested in arandomized experiment by Erlam (2003). Erlam found that both the structured-input and output-based groups performed better than controls on orally producingFrench pronouns, but only the output-based class performed significantly betterthan the control group on written production.



37/58


39

Intensity. Students who received 400 hours of L2 instruction in 5 months asopposed to the same number of instructional hours over 10 months did not sig-nificantly differ in their L2 listening comprehension, vocabulary, and spelling(Collins & White, 2011).

Content-based instruction.Wode (1999) found that students studying one subjectthrough L2 English in Germany produced a greater number of lexical itemsandmore that had not come from grade-level L2 textbooksthan the controls who hadthe same amount of L2 language arts instruction.

SummaryOverall, optimal conditions for L2 learners in L2-majority contexts include higherfamily SES and parent and grandparent education, strong home literacy practices,

opportunities for informal L2 use, well-designed and well-implemented educa-tional programs specifically for L2 learners, and sufficient time for L2 literacyinstruction. Of these, educators can influence several: They can encourage homeliteracy practices by sending home books and other literacy materials and prompt-ing parents to read with their children in either L1 or L2 and to take their childrento the library; they can promote informal L2 use by mixing L2 learners with L1speakers and encouraging integrated extracurricular activities; they can ensure theeducational programs and lesson plans implemented in their schools followresearch-tested designs and are well implemented; and they can ensure sufficienttime is apportioned to literacy development in the L2. Research in optimal condi-

tions for L2 learners in a foreign language setting is more sparse. However, itappears that explicit instruction helps students, particularly in learning grammar,that intensity of L2 instruction makes no difference, and that using academic con-tent to teach the L2 may be beneficial to building vocabulary in the L2.

Each of the four perspectives contributed to these findings. Foreign languageeducators tended to study the effect of different instructional techniques, programfeatures, or program configurations on L2 outcomes. Child language researchersexamined how young L2 learning children fare in different contexts and studiedthe role of L1 proficiency on L2 outcomes. Sociocultural studies focused on pro-grams that take an explicit interest in social or cultural context, such as SIOP and

two-way bilingual. Two-way bilingual programs also build on the work of childlanguage researchers who note childrens strength in implicit language learning.Psycholinguistic studies on optimal conditions in L2 learning quantified the effectsof different contextual variables on L2 outcomes. Results must be viewed cau-tiously; most of the studies reviewed for this question lacked randomization andadequate controls and were investigated only with a small sample, weak

Documents

What We Know About Second Language Acquisition : A Synthesis From Four Perspectives