Myths and Misconceptions about Second

Language Learning
Print
Collect It!
Email

By Barry McLaughlin
Educational Resource Information Center (U.S. Department of Education)
Updated on May 8, 2009

As the school-aged population changes, teachers all over the country are challenged
with instructing more children with limited English skills. Thus, all teachers need to know
something about how children learn a second language (L2). Intuitive assumptions are
often mistaken, and children can be harmed if teachers have unrealistic expectations of
the process of L2 learning and its relationship to the acquisition of other academic skills
and knowledge.

As any adult who has tried to learn another language can verify, second language
learning can be a frustrating experience. This is no less the case for children, although
there is a widespread belief that children are facile second language learners. This
digest discusses commonly held myths and misconceptions about children and second
language learning and the implications for classroom teachers.

Myth 1: Children Learn Second Languages Quickly and Easily.

Typically, people who assert the superiority of child learners claim that children's brains
are more flexible (e.g., Lenneberg, 1967). Current research challenges this biological
imperative, arguing that different rates of L2 acquisition may reflect psychological and
social factors that favor child learners (Newport, 1990). Research comparing children to
adults has consistently demonstrated that adolescents and adults perform better than
young children under controlled conditions (e.g., Snow & Hoefnagel-Hoehle, 1978). One
exception is pronunciation, although even here some studies show better results for
older learners.

Nonetheless, people continue to believe that children learn languages faster than
adults. Is this superiority illusory? Let us consider the criteria of language proficiency for
a child and an adult. A child does not have to learn as much as an adult to achieve
communicative competence. A child's constructions are shorter and simpler, and
vocabulary is smaller. Hence, although it appears that the child learns more quickly than
the adult, research results typically indicate that adult and adolescent learners perform
better.

Teachers should not expect miraculous results from children learning English as a
second language (ESL) in the classroom. At the very least, they should anticipate that
learning a second language is as difficult for a child as it is for an adult. It may be even
more difficult, since young children do not have access to the memory techniques and
other strategies that more experienced learners use in acquiring vocabulary and in
learning grammatical rules.
Nor should it be assumed that children have fewer inhibitions than adults when they
make mistakes in an L2. Children are more likely to be shy and embarrassed around
peers than are adults. Children from some cultural backgrounds are extremely anxious
when singled out to perform in a language they are in the process of learning. Teachers
should not assume that, because children supposedly learn second languages quickly,
such discomfort will readily pass.

Myth 2: The Younger the Child, the More Skilled in Acquiring an L2

Some researchers argue that the earlier children begin to learn a second language, the
better (e.g., Krashen, Long, & Scarcella, 1979). However, research does not support this
conclusion in school settings. For example, a study of British children learning French in
a school context concluded that, after 5 years of exposure, older children were better L2
learners (Stern, Burstall, & Harley, 1975). Similar results have been found in other
European studies (e.g., Florander & Jansen, 1968).

These findings may reflect the mode of language instruction used in Europe, where
emphasis has traditionally been placed on formal grammatical analysis. Older children
are more skilled in dealing with this approach and hence might do better. However, this
argument does not explain findings from studies of French immersion programs in
Canada, where little emphasis is placed on the formal aspects of grammar. On tests of
French language proficiency, Canadian English-speaking children in late immersion
programs (where the L2 is introduced in Grade 7 or 8) have performed as well or better
than children who began immersion in kindergarten or Grade 1 (Genesee, 1987).

Pronunciation is one area where the younger-is-better assumption may have validity.
Research (e.g., Oyama, 1976) has found that the earlier a learner begins a second
language, the more native-like the accent he or she develops.

The research cited above does not suggest, however, that early exposure to an L2 is
detrimental. An early start for "foreign" language learners, for example, makes a long
sequence of instruction leading to potential communicative proficiency possible and
enables children to view second language learning and related cultural insights as
normal and integral. Nonetheless, ESL instruction in the United States is different from
foreign language instruction. Language minority children in U.S. schools need to master
English as quickly as possible while learning subject-matter content. This suggests that
early exposure to English is called for. However, because L2 acquisition takes time,
children continue to need the support of their first language, where this is possible, to
avoid falling behind in content area learning.

Teachers should have realistic expectations of their ESL learners. Research suggests
that older students will show quicker gains, though younger children may have an
advantage in pronunciation. Certainly, beginning language instruction in Grade 1 gives
children more exposure to the language than beginning in Grade 6, but exposure in
itself does not predict language acquisition.

Myth 3: The More Time Students Spend in a Second Language Context,

the Quicker They Learn the Language.
Many educators believe children from non-English-speaking backgrounds will learn
English best through structured immersion, where they have ESL classes and content-
based instruction in English. These programs provide more time on task in English than
bilingual classes.

Research, however, indicates that this increased exposure to English does not
necessarily speed the acquisition of English. Over the length of the program, children in
bilingual classes, with exposure to the home language and to English, acquire English
language skills equivalent to those acquired by children who have been in English-only
programs (Cummins, 1981; Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991). This would not be expected
if time on task were the most important factor in language learning.

Researchers also caution against withdrawing home language support too soon and
suggest that although oral communication skills in a second language may be acquired
within 2 or 3 years, it may take 4 to 6 years to acquire the level of proficiency needed
for understanding the language in its academic uses (Collier, 1989; Cummins, 1981).

Teachers should be aware that giving language minority children support in the home
language is beneficial. The use of the home language in bilingual classrooms enables
children to maintain grade-level school work, reinforces the bond between the home
and the school, and allows them to participate more effectively in school activities.
Furthermore, if the children acquire literacy skills in the first language, as adults they
may be functionally bilingual, with an advantage in technical or professional careers.

Myth 4: Children Have Acquired an L2 Once They Can Speak It.

Some teachers assume that children who can converse comfortably in English are in full
control of the language. Yet for school-aged children, proficiency in face-to-face
communication does not imply proficiency in the more complex academic language
needed to engage in many classroom activities. Cummins (1980) cites evidence from a
study of 1,210 immigrant children in Canada who required much longer (approximately
5 to 7 years) to master the disembedded cognitive language required for the regular
English curriculum than to master oral communicative skills.

Educators need to be cautious in exiting children from programs where they have the
support of their home language. If children who are not ready for the all-English
classroom are mainstreamed, their academic success may be hindered. Teachers should
realize that mainstreaming children on the basis of oral language assessment is
inappropriate.

All teachers need to be aware that children who are learning in a second language may
have language problems in reading and writing that are not apparent if their oral
abilities are used to gauge their English proficiency. These problems in academic
reading and writing at the middle and high school levels may stem from limitations in
vocabulary and syntactic knowledge. Even children who are skilled orally can have such
gaps.

Myth 5: All Children Learn an L2 in the Same Way.

Most teachers would probably not admit that they think all children learn an L2 in the
same way or at the same rate. Yet, this assumption seems to underlie a great deal of
practice. Cultural anthropologists have shown that mainstream U.S. families and
families from minority cultural backgrounds have different ways of talking (Heath,
1983). Mainstream children are accustomed to a deductive, analytic style of talking,
whereas many culturally diverse children are accustomed to an inductive style. U.S.
schools emphasize language functions and styles that predominate in mainstream
families. Language is used to communicate meaning, convey information, control social
behavior, and solve problems, and children are rewarded for clear and logical thinking.
Children who use language in a different manner often experience frustration.

Social class also influences learning styles. In urban, literate, and technologically
advanced societies, middle-class parents teach their children through language.
Traditionally, most teaching in less technologically advanced, non-urbanized cultures is
carried out nonverbally, through observation, supervised participation, and self-initiated
repetition (Rogoff, 1990). There is none of the information testing through questions
that characterizes the teaching-learning process in urban and suburban middle-class
homes.

In addition, some children are more accustomed to learning from peers than from
adults. Cared for and taught by older siblings or cousins, they learn to be quiet in the
presence of adults and have little interaction with them. In school, they are likely to pay
more attention to what their peers are doing than to what the teacher is saying.

Individual children also react to school and learn differently within groups. Some
children are outgoing and sociable and learn the second language quickly. They do not
worry about mistakes, but use limited resources to generate input from native speakers.
Other children are shy and quiet. They learn by listening and watching. They say little,
for fear of making a mistake. Nonetheless, research shows that both types of learners
can be successful second language learners.

In a school environment, behaviors such as paying attention and persisting at tasks are
valued. Because of cultural differences, some children may find the interpersonal
setting of the school culture difficult. If the teacher is unaware of such cultural
differences, their expectations and interactions with these children may be influenced.

Effective instruction for children from culturally diverse backgrounds requires varied
instructional activities that consider the children's diversity of experience. Many
important educational innovations in current practice have resulted from teachers
adapting instruction for children from culturally diverse backgrounds. Teachers need to
recognize that experiences in the home and home culture affect children's values,
patterns of language use, and interpersonal style. Children are likely to be more
responsive to a teacher who affirms the values of the home culture.

Conclusion

Research on second language learning has shown that many misconceptions exist about
how children learn languages. Teachers need to be aware of these misconceptions and
realize that quick and easy solutions are not appropriate for complex problems. Second
language learning by school-aged children takes longer, is harder, and involves more
effort than many teachers realize.

We should focus on the opportunity that cultural and linguistic diversity provides.
Diverse children enrich our schools and our understanding of education in general. In
fact, although the research of the National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and
Second Language Learning has been directed at children from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds, much of it applies equally well to mainstream
students.

References

Collier, V. (1989). How long: A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a

second language. "TESOL Quarterly, 23," 509-531.

Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications

for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. "TESOL Quarterly, 14," 175-187.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting

educational success for language minority students. In "Schooling and language
minority students: A theoretical framework." Los Angeles: California State University;
Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center.

Florander, J., & Jansen, M. (1968). "Skolefors'g i engelsk 1959-1965." Copenhagen:

Danish Institute of Education.

Genesee, F. (1987). "Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and

bilingual education." New York: Newbury House.

Heath, S. B. (1983). "Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms." New York: Cambridge.

Krashen, S., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, rate, and eventual attainment in
second language acquisition. "TESOL Quarterly, 13," 573-582.

Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). "The biological foundations of language." New York: Wiley.

Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. "Cognitive Science,

14," 11-28.

Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of nonnative phonological

system. "Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5," 261-284.

Ramirez, J.D., Yuen, S.D., & Ramey, D.R. (1991). "Longitudinal study of structured
English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education
programs for language minority children. Final Report." "Volumes 1 & 2." San Mateo, CA:
Aguirre International.

Rogoff, B. (1990). "Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context."

New York: Oxford.

Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Hoehle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition:
Evidence from second language learning. "Child Development, 49," 1114-1118.

Stern, H. H., Burstall, C., & Harley, B. (1975). "French from age eight or eleven?"
Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.