#
President's Message: June/July 1999
David C. Nunan, President of TESOL, 1999-2000, discusses the global explosion in the demand for English and its potential impact on young learners.
TESOL Matters Vol. 9 No. 3 (June/July 1999)
David C. Nunan, President of TESOL, 1999-2000
What do Costa Rica, Thailand, and Italy have in common? I guess the possibilities are endless. However, in terms of language education, they all have at least one thing in common -- in each country, the government has recently made English compulsory at the elementary level of the schooling system. They are not alone in this. Around the world, children are being compelled to learn English at younger and younger ages.
At a governmental level, this trend has been prompted by an unprecedented, global explosion in the demand for English, which, in turn, is driven by economic and technological factors. English is seen as an essential tool, either for economic and technological development or for maintaining a perceived or actual superiority in the economic and technological marketplace. Governmental policy initiatives are reinforced at a personal level by parents who perceive that competence in English will give their children a comparative advantage when it comes to further education and employment.
This development might be seen as a great opportunity for us as English language educators. The whole world wants our skills and knowledge. However, this development isn't necessarily all good news. Over the past few months, I have worked with teachers from Latin America, Europe, and Asia, who are being required to introduce English in the early years of schooling. All expressed considerable concern at the development. Although governments want more English taught in school, there appears to be a general reluctance to come up with adequate levels of funding. In a number of countries, elementary school teachers are being deployed or redeployed as English teachers without training, resources, or support. The notion that if you can speak the language, you can teach it, is alive and well -- even at official government levels. Reluctance to provide adequate funding for English language education is reinforced by the economic difficulties confronting many countries at the present time. In these and other countries, then, the matter becomes a political issue of getting adequate resources to enable teachers, curriculum developers, and material writers to design, deliver, and evaluate effective language programs.
Behind the drive to introduce English at younger and younger ages is the assumption that younger is better, that a child who begins learning English (or any other language, for that matter) at the age of 5 will be more proficient in the language at age 12 than will a child who begins learning at age 8. It is an assumption that rarely appears to be questioned at the level of policy.
So what does research have to say on the question of the optimal age to begin foreign language study? Unfortunately, most of the research is irrelevant to settings in which English is taught as a foreign language. Many of the claims in favor of beginning language study in elementary school are based on North American investigations into the effects of foreign language programs in the elementary school (FLES). Not only are these studies noncomparable, several of the more prominent studies suffer from poor research design, which calls into question the validity of their results.
Research into the education of immigrant children in the U.S. and Canada has also been cited to support the "younger = better" position. However, the context of this research is also very different from the EFL contexts to which the results are extrapolated. Again, some of the more prominent studies suffer from questionable research design.
Regardless of the problems of interpretation created by contextual factors and faulty research design, the results themselves are by no means clear-cut. In his book-length review of the research, Singleton (1989) asserts that "there is no consistent support in the literature for the notion that younger second language learners learn more efficiently or successfully than older learners" (p. 137). He concludes that "the 'younger = better' premise on which the case for the early introduction of second languages tended to be made in the past can no longer be accepted in its simple form" (p. 262). This is not to say that the early introduction of second or foreign languages should be avoided but that the evidence in favor of such a position is simply not there. In fact, Singleton points out that although there is no strong empirical support for early second language instruction, other arguments, such as the educational merits of early contact with another culture, can be made. However, he concludes with the caveat that unless the policy is supported by high-quality materials, adequately and appropriately trained teachers, and favorable public attitudes, the experience may be negative and the results counterproductive.
Given the lack of empirical support for the "younger = better" hypothesis, educational authorities should exercise caution before committing themselves to the early introduction of foreign languages. Those that do commit should be prepared to support their decision with adequate resources, with appropriately trained teachers, and with curriculum models that are sensitive to the context into which they are being introduced. Recently, I was asked what TESOL could do to assist one of its international affiliates in a country that was introducing English into the early years of the elementary school system. It seemed to me that TESOL had a role to play in four key areas: advocacy, standards, professional development, and research.
In terms of advocacy, TESOL can assist affiliates in developing strategies for influencing policy within their own contexts and situations so that decision making is informed by the profession as well as being driven by economic, technological, and political imperatives. In addition to acting on behalf of teachers, there is also a need to consider the rights of learners. All individuals have the right to an education in their first language, and this right might be violated with the premature introduction of English into elementary education.
TESOL can work with affiliates in countries moving toward the early introduction of English to develop and promote minimum standards for the training and employment of English teachers working with younger learners. It can do this by sharing standards that have already been developed and by helping affiliates adapt these standards to their own pedagogical contexts.
TESOL can work on the development of a research agenda to address crucial questions to do with age and the development of English language proficiency in a range of foreign language contexts. In this area TESOL can work with the newly established TESOL International Research Foundation to develop and fund a research agenda that addresses the question of whether, and in what contexts, younger is actually better. Support and advice can be given to those who want to experiment with different curricular models -- traditional models, communicative language teaching, context-based models, perhaps partial immersion -- to identify which of these appears to work best in particular contexts.
Finally, in relation to professional development, TESOL can work with teachers who have specialized in the teaching of young learners to design and deliver educational programs to teachers working in the area. Such teachers could be encouraged to present their work at TESOL conventions, and a "teaching young learners" program could be incorporated into the non-U.S. TESOL academies that are currently being planned.
Let me conclude by reiterating that I am not opposed to the introduction of English in the elementary school. However, if this initiative is to achieve its goal of improving general levels of English language proficiency, it needs to be carefully planned, adequately supported and resourced, and closely monitored and evaluated. Without planning and support, the initiative, however well intentioned, is likely to be counterproductive.
References
Singleton, D. (1989). Language acquisition: The age factor. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
David C. Nunan, President of TESOL, 1999-2000
