The "long-long" term effects of an early start on the learning of English as a Foreign...

1

The "long-long" term effects of an early start on the learning of English as a Foreign Language

Teresa Navés

www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves

tnaves@ub.edu

AAAL Denver 2009

2

ABSTRACT

In the interest of improving second language learners’ proficiency, language policies all over the world advocate an early start in second language learning. English as a foreign language has begun to be introduced in schools earlier and earlier. Contrary to what has consistently been found in second language environments, most studies have shown, that “the sooner, the better” does not necessarily hold true in foreign language contexts. In spite of the wealth of studies on foreign language contexts reporting that starting earlier does not result, in the long run, in better language acquisition, the mainstream literature on the age factor is still reluctant to incorporate these findings into the theoretical framework and continues to ask for further studies to examine the effects of an earlier start in a much longer term.

In study I the author investigated the long-term effects of an early start on EFL learning in a school context (N= 406) and found that in the long run, after approximately 9 years of EFL learning, it was the late starters (OA 11) who significantly outperformed the early starters (OA 8) in EFL proficiency and in writing performance.

3

ABSTRACT

In the II study, the very long term effects of an early start are analyzed using university EFL students with various onset ages (N=95) after more than 12 years of EFL learning.

Multivariate analyses were used in both studies to compare overall English proficiency and holistically and analytically assessed writing performance. Similarly to what has been found in previous studies, when the total amount of exposure was kept constant, starting English at an earlier age did not result in either better writing performance, except in fluency, or higher overall English proficiency.

The results are discussed in the light of the quality and amount of input in EFL contexts and of the cognition hypotheses.

Contrary to findings on the effects of an early start in naturalistic contexts in the long run,starting English at an earlier age in a foreign language context does not result, long term, in better English proficiency or writing performance.

4

STUDY I

The "consensus view" on the effects of age on L2 learning (Long 1990) argues that in the long run, when time and exposure are kept constant, learners who receive natural exposure to an L2 during childhood attain higher levels of L2 proficiency than those beginning as adults--something which has not been found in foreign language (FL) contexts (Muñoz, 2006). Measures of L2 proficiency in the SLA literature, however, have only recently examined proficiency in the context of writing (Hamp-Lyons, 2002). Also, little research has investigated interlanguage writing ability in terms of accuracy, fluency, lexical and syntactic by means of both holistic and analytic measures proposed by Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998).

I will report the results of a study designed (1) to use both holistical and analytic measures of FL writing ability to investigate the long-term effects of an early start in a FL context in L2 writing, and (2), to examine how the analytic measures cluster by means of a exploratory factor analysis. The analyses showed that late starters significantly outperformed their younger peers although the effect size was small (p<.001) (See Norris and Ortega, 2006 in this respect). The EFLs revealed that the analytical measures cluster into four rather than five components. The fifth factor was composed of mean clause-,sentence- and t-unit- length, which overlapped with more traditional measures of syntactic complexity. This poster discusses the implications for SLA of assigning analytical metrics to one construct or another (See also Ortega, 2003).

5

Introduction Why study OA and Writing in FL contexts?

1. Early introduction of FL is becoming more and more popular

2. Parents and educators strongly believe that the sooner learners start learning a language the better

6

Why study OA and Writing in FL contexts?

3. Writing is the skill most often neglected in both teaching and SLA research

4. The long-term effects of an early start on pronunciation are clearer than in writing

5. In naturalistic settings, the sooner the better holds, in foreign language, it may/ does not.

7

Age & SL Research Patkowsky (1980) ES>LS

Johnson & Newport (1989) ES>LS

Bialystok & Miller (1999) CPH DeKeyser (2000) CPH Birdsong & Molis (2001) CPH Jia & Wu (2002) CPH Jia & Aaronson (2003) CPH Stevens (1999, 2004) CPH

8

Recent Neurologist Studies

Studies comparing EB and LB have yielded controversial results

Kim et al. (1997) CPH Chee et al. (1999) CPH

Attained proficiency and language exposure are as important as AoA.

Abutalebi et al. (2001) Perani & Abutalebi, (2005)

9

Age & FL Research 70- 80’s

LS>ES

Burstall (1975 a,b; 1977) NFER LS>ES Gratton (1980) LS>ES Yamada (1980) ES>LS Holmstrand (1982) EPAL LS>ES Vilke (1988) LS>ES

10

Age & FL Research 90’s-00’s: LS>ES

Griffin (1993) LS>ES Luo & Tsao (1993) LS>ES Nikolov (2000) Ferrari (2002) ES>LS Kuo (2002, 2003) LS>ES Urponen (2004) LS>ES

11

Age & FL Research 70’s-00’s

LS>ES Overall, for morphosyntax, in the long run and same amount of instruction

LS>ES

12

Age & FL Research 70’s-00’s

LS>ES Overall, for morphosyntax, in the long run and same amount of instruction

LS>ES

13

Reinterpreting research on Age and SL / FL

Krashen, Long et al. (1978, 1982) Long (1990)

The Consensus View R. Ellis (1994) The Catch-up Conundrum

Singleton (1995) and Singleton & Ryan (2004)

14

The Consensus View R. Ellis (1994)

Adult learners [LS] will be overtaken by child learners [ES] who receive ENOUGH EXPOSURE to the L2.

THIS IS LESS LIKELY TO HAPPEN IN INSTRUCTIONAL SETTINGS because the critical amount of exposure is usually not available in the former.

15

Singleton (1995)

THE CONSENSUS VIEW CAN BE BROADENED TO INCLUDE FORMAL L2 LEARNING if

16

4: Age & FL Writing. BAF

17

Long-term Effects of Early Start on EFL ?

Basque Country & BAF Research In the long run, after the same amount of instruction LS

in EFL proficiency and in EFL writing

BQ: Cenoz (2002, 2005), García Mayo et al. (ed) (2003), Lázaro (2002), Lasagabaster & Doiz (2003), Doiz & Lasagabaster (2004)BAF: Muñoz (ed) (2006), Navés, Torras & Celaya (2003), Navés (2006), Navés, Miralpeix & Celaya (2005), Torras, Navés, Celaya & Pérez-Vidal (2006)

18

Muñoz, C. (ed)(2006) and García Mayo & García Lecumberri (ed.) (2003)

The empirical studies collected by García-Mayo and García-Lecumberri (2003) and the studies from the BAF project collected in Muñoz (2006a) have found that less than 1,000 hours of instruction in foreign language contexts does not provide enough opportunities for Early Starters (ES) to catch up with Late Starters (LS) except in a few oral tasks

(Celaya & Naves, in press)

19

Muñoz, C. (ed) (2006) García Mayo & García Lecumberri (ed.) (2003)

Their research concluded that in the long run, after seven to ten years of learning English as a foreign language, when early and late starters, all of whom had received the same total number of hours of instruction, were compared when they were about to leave high school, it was the late starters who significantly outperformed the early starters in most domains, especially in cognitively demanding tasks such as that of writing.

(Celaya & Naves, 2009)

20

Muñoz, C. (ed) (2006) BAF Project

21

Muñoz, C. (ed) (2006) BAF Project

Late starters significantly outperformed the early starters not only in cognitively demanding tasks such as writing (Torras, Navés, Celaya and Pérez-Vidal, 2006) but also in vocabulary learning and productive vocabulary in particular (Miralpeix, 2006); in oral fluency (Mora, 2006); in phonetics (perceiving and producing English sounds in native-like manner) (Fullana, 2006); in grammar-, cloze-, dictation-, listening-comprehension- tests and in both reception and production measurements of an oral interview and the textual cohesion of an oral narrative (Muñoz, 2006b).

22

Study I: Research Questions

Does less than 1,000 h of instruction in a FL context provide enough opportunities for ES to catch up to LS in

(I) EFL proficiency (II) EFL writing ability (holistically assessed) (III) EFL writing components (analytically

scored) Accuracy Fluency Lexical Complexity Syntactic Complexity

23

Study I. Methodology

Participants (2 x 3) (Onset x Exposure) OA 8 OA 11

Instruments Bio-data questionnaire EFL Proficiency Tests Timed-composition Task

Holistic assessment Analytical Measures (dependent variables)

24

Study I. Participants

2X3ES

OA:8Grade 11

LSOA:11

Grade 12

Total

1. 726 h school exposure only

53 50LS-726

103

2. 850 h (with approx. 125 h out-of-school instruction)

31ES-850

120 151

3. Repeaters with 850 h total

40 112 152

Total 124 282 406

Back to RQ1-6 Back to RQ7

25

Study I. Instruments

Biodata questionnaire

EFL Proficiency tests:

Standardised MC 50-item grammar test 30-item cloze 50-word dictation 25-item listening comprehension

Timed-composition task Holistically assessed Analytically scored

26

Study I. Analytical Measures (p. 184-86)

Accuracy(24)

Fluency(10)

LexicalComplexity

(22)

Syntactic Complexity

(29)

FREQ

-Error-free Production Units:EFCLEFSEFTU

-Production Units:WTCLSTU

-Lexical Class sophistication: N sophisticat.-Lexical Class Types: Noun Types

ModalsPassivesSubordinated ClNodesRelative ClNominal Cl

RATIO

-Error-free Production Unit RatiosEFCLxCLEFCLxSEFCLxTU

-Production Unit LengthWxCLWxSWxTU

-Lexical TTR-Lexical Var (McClure, 91 Chaudron, 90)-Word Variation(Chaudron, 90)

SubxTUClxSClxTUTUxS

27

Study I. Results for RQ 1-6

P<.001 Onset Exposure

page

1. EFL Prof.2. Wrt Ability

3. Accuracy4. Fluency5. Lexical C.6. Syntactic C.

******

************

NS***

NSNSNSNS

277

289

298

310319

328

Back

28

Study I. Results for RQ 1-6 (T6-52 p.339) (T8-1 p.380)

(3x2) Less Sophisticated

M

Highly Sophisticated

M

1. EFL Prof.2. Wrt Quality

OA 11OA 11

3. Accuracy4. Fluency5. Lexical C.6. Syntactic C.

OA 8OA 8OA 8OA 8

OA 11OA 11OA 11OA 11

29

Study I. Results for RQ 7 (p. 374) (Table 8.2. p.382)

LS-726 ES-850

Less Sophisticated

M

Highly Sophisticated

M

1. EFL Prof.2. Wrt Quality

OA 11=

3. Accuracy4. Fluency5. Lexical C.6. Syntactic C.

=OA 8

==

OA 11OA 11

=OA 11

30

Study I. Summary of Results (P.382) LS >

ESIn highly sophisticated mearues of

RQ1-6(2X3)2 OA

3 Exposure

RQ7ES-850h LS-726h

1. EFL PROF2. Wrt Quality3. Accuracy4. Fluency5. Lexical C.6. Syntactic

C.

OA 11OA 11OA 11OA 11OA 11OA 11

OA 11=

OA 11 LSOA 11 =

=OA 11

31

Study I. Summary of Results (P.382) LS > ES

(Highly sophisticated M.)(Notice order)

RQ1-6 (2X3)

RQ72 grps

Early start

benefit

1. EFL PROF3. Accuracy6. Syntactic C.4. Fluency6. Lexical C.2. Writing

Qual.

OA 11OA 11OA 11OA 11OA 11OA 11

OA 11OA 11OA 11

OA 11 ===

NONONO

NO /???

32

Study II: Research QuestionsAfter more than 10 years of EFL in a FL context do ES to catch up to LS in

(I) EFL proficiency (II) EFL writing quality (holistically assessed) (III) EFL writing components (analytically

scored) Accuracy Fluency Lexical Complexity Syntactic Complexity

33

Study I. Methodology

Participants University students: OA 3-7 OA 8-9 OA 10-11

Instruments Bio-data questionnaire EFL Proficiency Test: D measure Timed-composition Task

Holistic band scale Analytical Measures

34

Study II. with University EFL learners

N= 95

35

Study II. with University EFL learners

N= 95

36

Study II. Instruments

Biodata questionnaire

EFL Proficiency tests: D measure (Golkar & Yamini, 2007; Lam, 2006;

Meara, 1992; Meara & Buxton, 1987; Meara & Jones, 1988)

Timed-composition task Holistically assessed Analytically scored

37

Study II Analytical Measures

Accuracy(4)

Fluency(4)

LexicalComplexity

(5)

Syntactic Complexity

(7)

FREQ

-Error-free Production Units:EFCLEFS

-Production Units:WTCLS

-Lexical Class Types

Subordinated Cl

RATIO

-Error-free Production Unit RatiosEFCLxCLEFCLxS

-Production Unit LengthWxCLWxS

-Lexical TTR2-X lex-Y lex--Word Variation(Chaudron, 90)

ModalsxClModalsxSSubxClSubxSClxSClxTU

38

Study II. Results for Fluency Onset 8-9 > (Onset 3-7 = Onset 10-11)

*(p=.046)

p=.097

Total number of sentences

Essay length

39

Study II. Results for Lexical Var. Onset 8-9 > (Onset 3-7 = Onset 10-11)

*(p=.031)

Chaudron (1990)Word Variation

40

Study II. Results in the long-long run: NS but* OA 8-9 > (OA 3-7=OA 10-11)

Less Sophisticated

Measures

Highly Sophisticated

M

1. EFL Prof.2. Wr Quat

==

3. Accuracy4. Fluency5. Lexical V6. Syntactic

=* (Sent)

==

==

* (WordVar)=

41

Study I. Discussion and Conclusions

(I) Unlike in SL contexts, in FL settings, less than 1,000 h of instruction are NOT sufficient for ES (OA 8) to catch up to LS (OA 11)(where exposure are kept constant) as far as

1. EFL proficiency2. EFL writing ability3. Sophisticated indices of EFL writing components

(accuracy, fluency, lexical and syntactic complexity)

Why?

42

Study I. Discussion and Conclusions

(II ) The writing components do not seem to develop in parallel

(III) EFL Proficiency and Writing quality seem to behave differently.

43

Study I. Discussion and Conclusions(IV) (RQ7) ES (OA 8) with approx.

125 more h of instruction manage to catch up LS (OA 11) -with fewer h of instruction- only in writing quality, fluency (essay length) and lexical complexity. Older learners (LS) (OA 11) with 125 less h of instruction than ES (OA 8) still are significantly better in EFL proficiency and writing accuracy and syntactic complexity.

44

Study II. Discussion and Conclusions

1. In the long-long run, in an EFL context, OA does not seem to be the best predictor for either

overall EFL proficiency, writing quality or writing components of

accuracy, fluency, lexical diversity and syntactic complexity.

since no significant differences were found between the groups with different onset ages.

45

Study II. Discussion and Conclusions

2. In the long-long run in an EFL context a very early start (OA 3-7) is not beneficial at all since there were no significant differences or differences were in favour of LS (OA 8-9)

overall EFL proficiency, writing quality or writing components of

accuracy, fluency, lexical diversity and syntactic complexity.

46

Study II. Discussion and Conclusions

3. In the long-long run in an EFL context, learners with OA 8-9 significantly outperformed earlier starters (OA 3-7) and later starters (OA 9-10) ONLY in the area of writing fluency as measured by total number of Sentences and in the area of lexical variety in writing as measured by Chaudron’s (1990) lexical variation.NO differences were found between the groups for

overall EFL proficiency, writing quality or the writing components of

accuracy, and syntactic complexity.

47

Study II. Discussion and Conclusions

4. In the long-long run in an EFL context, learners with OA 8-9 caught up with OA 10-11

In study I, after seven to nine years of instruction, OA 11 learners systematically outperformed OA 8 learners in all the areas studied. In study II, however, NO significant differences are found between OA 10-11 & OA 8-9 in most areas.

48

Main referencesGarcía Mayo, M. d. P., & García Lecumberri, M. L. (Eds.). (2003). Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language: Theoretical Issues and Fieldwork. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Muñoz, C. (Ed.). (2006). Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Muñoz, C. (2008). Symmetries and Asymmetries of Age Effects in Naturalistic and Instructed L2 Learning. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 578-596. Munoz, C. (2008). Age-related differences in foreign language learning. Revisiting the empirical evidenceMunoz, C. (2008). Age-related differences in foreign language learning. Revisiting the empirical evidence IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46(3), 197-220.

49

Main referencesNavés, T., Torras, M. R., & Celaya, M. L. (2003). Long-term Effects of an Earlier Start. An Analysis of EFL Written Production. In S. Foster-Cohen & S. Pekarek (Eds.), EUROSLA-Yearbook. (Vol. 3, pp. 103-130). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Torras, M. R., Navés, T., Celaya, M. L., & Pére-Vidal, C. (2006). Age and IL Development in Writing. (156-182) In C. Munoz (Ed.), Age  Factor: Multilingual Matters. Celaya & Navés, T. (In Press) Age-related differences and associated factors in foreign language writing. Implications for L2 writing theory and school curricula in multilingual contexts. Manchón, R. Writing theory and practice in foreign language contexts. Clevedon. Multilingual Matters.