Korean Job Discussion Forums

turtlepi1 · Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE

Well, I have to admit being an ESL teacher of children (at least for this year) I don't know nearly enough about L2 learning. (Heck all they need is an native voice, right?) Smile

I was talking to my Korean co-teacher who said she would not place her child in an English daycare program because it will screw up her daughters Korean...I said to myself...BAH...that's hogwash...then I said to myself (says who?) So I did a little reading...

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/ncrcdsll/epr5.htm

I don't take it as fact quite yet (lots more reading to do), but interesting none the less...

This is a chance for all of you with "book learnin'" to flex your muscles...as for everyone else don't be afraid to wade in...

What are your thoughts and theories on langage acquisition.

Summary of topics from the article.. (a little big to cut and paste but a quick read.)

MYTH 1:
CHILDREN LEARN SECOND LANGUAGES QUICKLY AND EASILY

MYTH 2:
THE YOUNGER THE CHILD, THE MORE SKILLED IN ACQUIRING A SECOND LANGUAGE

MYTH 3:
THE MORE TIME STUDENTS SPEND IN A SECOND LANGUAGE CONTEXT, THE QUICKER THEY LEARN THE LANGUAGE

MYTH 4:
CHILDREN HAVE ACQUIRED A SECOND LANGUAGE ONCE THEY CAN SPEAK IT

MYTH 5:
ALL CHILDREN LEARN A SECOND LANGUAGE IN THE SAME WAY

peppermint · Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:50 pm Post subject:

Not sure what country you're from, but you might consider looking up some info on French immersion programs in Canada. Anglophone parents can send their children to schools where the language of instruction is French from Kindergarten on through high school. Most of these schools are publicly funded so surely there are surveys out there on their effectiveness.

turtlepi1 · Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE

I'm from Canada and that is where my assuming that "earlier the better" was true if this paper is to be believed then that is not entirely the case...

And in the West once someone convinces us something is fact the bureacrasy keeps it that way for a long time. Besides if you didn't start children early in immersion then they would be too far behind later on...

That would be a political issue and organizational issue not entirely based on learning outcomes...but yes, I do want to look into that material.

the_beaver · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

the_beaver · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Zed · Joined: 20 Jan 2003 Location: Shakedown Street

Earlier and sufficient exposure is certainly the case if you want to achieve native proficiency eventually. While adults may learn more quickly, early exposure tends to lead to more proficient native-like language skills over time. That is to say that someone exposed to a language at 5 will speak more like a native at 20 (15 years exposure) than someone who was exposed at 15 will speak at 30 (15 years). Countless studies indicate this to be true and indicate that it there is a decline in native proficiency based on age of exposure as early as age 3. Other studies which debate this can only show that the ability to learn certain facets of language decrease over time. In general, the hypothesis holds true. Of course exposure has to be of significant duration and quality (importance ) for this to be true.

If you want to check out the studies yourself, I can send you a list of the 14 or 15 studies I read on this the past 2 months.

Sliver · Joined: 04 May 2003 Location: The third dimension

You might like this article to give an opposing view

http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/researchbildebate.html

One thing to note is the article you posted was written over ten years ago and 'current thinking' on this aspect of L2 acquisition seems to swing on a ten year pendulum.

I don't have a defendable view either way because I don't know enough about it.

turtlepi1 · Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE

Well like I said I don't really have enough information to have an opinion at this point. I am just coming out of a bad week and I feel like talking again.

I thought maybe I would get people here talking and I would learn something in the process. That article was just the first one I googled on the subject. It was old but it cited articles over many years 1969-1990.

Educational theory I understand but as it applies to the L2 learner, nope. So this is my project to keep me sane for the month.

Zed · Joined: 20 Jan 2003 Location: Shakedown Street

One thing that you brought up in the OP makes me curious though. Do L2 immersion programs adversely affect L1 acquisition? I'd have to look into that more closely. As a brother of someone who was raised in a French immersion program I'd say no but that hardly is a scientific analysis.

Zed · Joined: 20 Jan 2003 Location: Shakedown Street

Zed · Joined: 20 Jan 2003 Location: Shakedown Street

I suppose in the context of the article posted by Sliver, one would need to know if the program was unilingual. (The hagwon/yuchiwons I worked at were bilingual immersion.)

canadian_in_korea · Joined: 20 Jun 2004 Location: South Korea

I don't know much about this either, in TESL they taught us that children younger than 8 and older than 12 learn second languages more easily.....so i guess their point was between 8-12 isn't a good time to begin second language learning. I thought this was interesting considering that this is the time public schools begin...around grade 3 is it not? I have been warned about my own children when they come...I want them to learn Korean, so I told my husband he should speak to them in Korean and I will speak to them in English. People who have done this have said the children are in fact bilingual...speaking both languages like a native speaker, however the age they start speaking is later than average...if any of you have experience/knowledge about this I would be interested to get your input... Smile

Zed · Joined: 20 Jan 2003 Location: Shakedown Street

Strange that's exactly the time that many early proponents of the critical period hypothesis claimed were the key years. More recent proponents have moved that figure down but I've never heard anyone ever claim that it was easier for someone to learn an L2 after the age of 12 unless of course they're not talking about native proficiency and simply referring to the ability to memorize vocabulary and general grammatical rules.

I_Am_Wrong · Joined: 14 Sep 2004 Location: whatever

There has been lots of studies done on whether L2 acquisitions has an adverse effect on L1 and most tend to agree that in the long run it has no noticeable effects by adulthood. In Canada, I attended a Russian immersion kindergarten and up until grade 6 half of all my schooling was in Russian. I continued to study Russian until grade 11, but I was still able to maintain top marks in English throughout school. I remember having friends who entered into the French immersion program in grade 7 and complaining in grade 10 or 11 that their English skills were suffering, however, by University that was no longer the case because their English skills caught back up incredibly fast.

bosintang · Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 7:31 am Post subject:

This reminds me of a related article I read on the BBC awhile back:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3739690.stm - Learning Languages Boost Brain

Learning a second language "boosts" brain-power, scientists believe.
Researchers from University College London studied the brains of 105 people - 80 of whom were bilingual...

People who learned a second language at a younger age were also more likely to have more advanced grey matter than those who learned later, the team said...

It means that older learners won't be as fluent as people who learned earlier in life....