Three myths about learning English in the primary school
Across the world, schools are intensifying the teaching of English as a Foreign Language. The problem is, they often do this for the wrong reasons.
You must have noticed the trend: Schools all over the world are offering English courses earlier and earlier (in some cases even to first graders). They say that this will help students learn more and learn faster, or that it will give learners a competitive advantage in a global economy where English is the global lingua franca. They will tell you that students will never develop a proper English accent if they don’t start lessons early enough, and they will show you pictures of students colouring letters of the English alphabet, which prove that not only is learning taking place, but also it is fun.
The problem with all this is that it is, for the most part, wishful thinking. It is based on three myths about language education, which are sometimes claimed to be supported by scientific evidence. Let’s take a closer look…
Myth 1: An early start leads to better language learning
This is partly true. Despite the volume of research on English Language Teaching, most of the studies are too underpowered to provide conclusive evidence. Results can also be contradictory, because we don’t have an agreed definition of what ‘better’ means.
The evidence we do have seems to suggest that there are some linguistic benefits associated with an early start in English language instruction, but these effects are not very strong. Some studies show that early starters tend to make strong progress, but it is difficult to say whether these positive outcomes are due to an earlier start or a longer period of instruction. Often, the studies that report on the positive effects of early start do so by generating data from schools embedded in privileged communities, because these schools are more likely to engage in such projects. But this makes it harder to tell if the positive effects are the result of instruction or better learning conditions.
While there may be some truth in the statement that sufficient early exposure to a new language can trigger fast learning, similar to that seen in first language acquisition, the input provided in most early English programmes is much below that threshold. The learning effects of such programmes seem to be best at three hours of instruction per week, but they tend to plateau after two years. For schools that provide just one hour of English instruction per week in the first grades, any learning effects amount to little more than rudimentary understanding and minimal development of the productive skills.
One area where an early start seems to have a greater impact is oral communicative skills, i.e., listening and speaking. This may be due to the fact that early English programmes tend to focus on these skills rather than literacy. This is especially the case in countries which use non-Latin alphabets, as teachers tend to proritise developing literacy skills in the native language first.
Whatever the gains associated with an early start, though, a common research finding is that ‘late starters’ tend to catch up, and in some cases overtake those who began learning at an earlier age. In the words of Carmen Muñoz, one of the top scholars in the field:
Research in the last decade in a foreign language context has shown that early starters do not outperform late starters when the amount of instruction or exposure is controlled for, even after many years of study. Rather, in such situations, older school learners are observed to outperform younger school learners after the same number of hours of instruction.
Myth 2: Starting English early has indirect benefits
This argument can be paraphrased as, there’s more to language learning than learning a language. In other words, even if an early start does not produce any remarkable linguistic gains, it’s still a worthwhole endeavour because it is likely to lead to stronger motivation, positive attitudes towards language learning, more tolerance and so on. This is a very weak argument, for at least three reasons — let’s take a look at them.
First, any positive psychological effects that are reported in the literature are most likely the product of good teaching practice, rather than an early start as such. First-graders who spend an hour of English colouring letters or playing games are more likely to report a positive attitude towards English compared to fifteen-year olds practicing grammar. While this suggests a need for more appropriate pedagogy across the curriculum, it says very little about the benefits of starting English earlier.
The second problem with this argument is that most of the supporting evidence comes from studies that took place during the early start programmes. Studies that look into the lasting psychological effects of an early start are relatively scarce.
Finally, this argument are based on two implicit assumptions which are nevertheless spurious. One is that that beliefs and attitudes associated with language learning are stable. The other is that we urgently need to set these beliefs and attitudes ‘right’, before the young learners develop an unhelpful affect. Any parent can tell you how wrong the first assumption is. As for the second one, there is enough evidence to suggest that any psychological benefits associated with an early start are diminished when the novelty wears off.
Myth 3: There’s nothing to lose
This belief is not just wrong, it is actually dangerous. In a debate held at the International Association of Teachers of English Language (IATEFL) in 2014, Professor Fiona Copeland argued that Primary English Language Teaching does more harm than good. The four problems she identified were:
- Resources used in English language education can be put to better use to develop mother langauge literacy and numeracy
- The intensification of English language provision increases social disparity, as it is most beneficial to to those children who already enjoy a privileged status.
- The rapid expansion of English language teaching provision creates shortages of qualified teachers who can deliver effective ELT education to primary school children. This means that it is common to encounter teachers who are qualified to teach children but not English, teachers who can teach English but not children, and teachers who are incapable of both.
- Finally, the message broadcast to learners, their parents and other stakeholders is that local languages, especially those that are not represented in the school system, are not valuable. This can have significant implications in the local linguistic ecology.
More transparency please…
Does all this mean that English should not be taught at all in primary schools? Well, no — after all English lessons must start at some point. What we need os more clarity about why and how this point is selected.
At very least there is a need for a transparently articulated rationale that explains three things:
- what linguistic or other benefits such an early start is expected to bring;
- whether said benefits are commensurate to the investment in funds and in learner effort;
- why investing in such a programme is preferrable to alternatives.
When the evidence for such a rationale draws on research, the studies should ideally be conducted in the same context as where the project will take place. Research findings in education do not travel well, and there is a danger that subtle differences between educational settings limit the value and generalisablity of findings.
While the empirical evidence for early English language education is inconclusive at best, it causes some alarm to see that language education policies in many countries seems to be enthusiastically, and uncritically, in favour of starting English language instruction at a very early age.
But such grounding is not enough.
The voices of teachers involved in primary English language teaching, the perspectives of learners learners who have been taught languages at young ages, and the opinions of their parents are all just as important, and should be given space. So, if you have any insights that you would like to share, I would love to hear from you.
This post draws on information that I published in my blog , and especially these two posts:
- Teaching English to Young Learners: Some insights from the Literature
- Primary English Language Teaching Does More Harm than Good
The posts also provide links to supporting literature and other useful resources. If you are a language teaching professional, or if you are one of those people who like to dig deeper into evidence, you may enjoy visiting.
