Monolingual, bilingual, multilingual: Does it matter? The role of individual differences in primary foreign language learning

Florence Myles, Tracey Costley, Christina Gkonou, Karen Roehr-Brackin & Angela Tellier

University of Essex

1

Education policy on primary foreign languages in England

The education system in England has undergone many substantial changes over the years (Hofkins & Northen, 2009)

The Nuffield Inquiry (The Nuffield Languages Inquiry, 2000) recommended L2 learning in all state primary schools

The Rose Review, a government-commissioned independent review of the primary curriculum (Rose, 2008), recommended that language learning be compulsory for all children at Key Stage 2 (ages 7-11)

Accepted by 2008 government, but rejected in 2010 by incoming coalition government

Since September 2014, it has been a statutory requirement for state primary schools in England to offer a foreign language at KS2

2

Policy vs. reality

While offering L2 instruction is desirable in principle, the learning context is important

In particular, policy makers do not seem to take into account that many primary school classrooms in England are not monolingual English

Many classrooms will include children with English as an Additional Language (EAL)

“There are more than a million children between 5–18 years old in UK schools who speak in excess of 360 languages between them.”(https://naldic.org.uk/the-eal-learner/research-and-statistics/)

There is variation across regions, schools and classes

3

https://naldic.org.uk/the-eal-learner/research-and-statistics/

4

Monolingual, bilingual, multilingual: Does it matter?

Our exploratory case study addressed the following RQs:

(1) Does being bi/multilingual impede or facilitate the foreign language learning process?

In particular, what is the role of individual learner differences?

(2) How do EAL children, monolingual children and their teachers perceive and relate to the learning of foreign languages?

(3) Do teachers and other children draw on EAL children’s bi/multilingualism, and if yes, how?

5

Individual differences in child L2 learning

There is ample evidence for the role of individual differences in cognition, affect and conation in adult L2 learning (Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003)

Less research with child L2 learners, but still:

Language learning aptitude has been shown to predict L2 achievement (Kiss, 2009; Kiss & Nikolov, 2005; Muñoz, 2014; Sáfár & Kormos, 2008)

Metalinguistic awareness is positively associated with L2 development (Tellier, 2015; Tellier & Roehr-Brackin, 2013; 2017)

Attitudes may be related to L2 achievement, though the evidence is mixed (Cenoz, 2003; Tellier, 2015)

6

Case study school

Large mainstream co-educational primary academy with over 500 pupils (national average = around 275)

Situated in a large commuter town, close to the town centre

In terms of socioeconomic status, a less affluent area

Latest OFSTED report classified the school as requiring improvement

Children between the end of KS1 and the end of KS2 made average progress in reading, below average progress in maths, and well below average progress in writing (for 2015-2016)

Proportion of children whose first language is not English close to 50% (national average = around 20%)

7

Case study school

Very supportive of EAL children; displays a welcoming ethos

Dedicated EAL teaching room for small groups of children

Specialist staff: EAL co-ordinator, EAL specialist, and EAL learning support

Attractive multilingual displays and multilingual interactive school information board for parents

Multilingual school song

8

Participants

Children in two Year 4 classes (ages 8-9)

French lesson scheduled once a week

Use of Rigolohttps://global.oup.com/education/content/primary/series/rigolo/?region=uk

None of the children was L1 French

Class Alpha (N = 25; EAL = 13) and Class Beta (N = 24; EAL = 11)

Class teachers who also taught the French classes as non-specialists (N = 2)

Modern foreign languages and EAL coordinator (N = 1)

9

Data collection

Individual interviews with class teachers and MFL coordinator

Individual interviews with all children

Observation of a French class with each teacher

Measures completed by the children:

Biographical background questionnaire

Attitude questionnaire

Test of L2 French proficiency

Test of metalinguistic awareness

Test of associative memory/vocabulary retention ability

10

Attitude questionnaire

Closed-ended items with a 5-point answer scale (‘definitely no’ – ‘no’ – ‘not sure’ – ‘yes’ – ‘definitely yes’):

1. I think I do well at my school work.

2. I think I’m good at languages.

3. Learning a language is fun!

4. I’m looking forward to learning other languages.

5. I’m enjoying my French lessons.

6. I find learning French easy.

Open-ended item:

7. I think learning French is ___________________

11

Test of L2 French proficiency

Specifically designed for the study, based on the content of Rigolothat we expected to have been covered in the French classes up to the point of data collection

Listening (vocabulary) subtest: 4-way multiple-choice items in picture format

Listening (sentences) subtest: 4-way multiple-choice items in picture format

Reading subtest: Simple reading comprehension with answers to be written in English

Grammar subtest: 3-way multiple-choice items targeting plural of nouns, grammatical gender, negation, adjectival agreement

12

Test of metalinguistic awareness

6 tasks taken from the 11-task test of metalinguistic awareness developed by Tellier (2013)

All tasks draw on an artificial mini-language invented for the test

Tasks target metalinguistic terminology, subject and object case marking, adjective placement, orthographic similarities between words in a class, plural marking on nouns and verbs, adjectival agreement by gender and number

13

Test of associative memory/vocabulary retention ability LLAMA B from the LLAMA aptitude test suite (Meara, 2005)

Two-minute study phase during which test taker must learn a set of picture-word associations

Test phase assesses accurate recognition (receptive knowledge)

14

RQ1

Does being bi/multilingual impede or facilitate the foreign language learning process?

In particular, what is the role of individual learner differences?

15

Overview: Comparison of EAL and monolingual children

16

Attitudes17

L2 French proficiency18

Metalinguistic awareness19

Associative memory20

Overview of effects

21

Results for the whole cohort (N = 49)

MANCOVA

Dependent (outcome) variables:

L2 French proficiency

Metalinguistic awareness

Associative memory

Attitudes

Fixed factors:

EAL status (Bi-/multilingual vs. monolingual English)

Gender

Covariate:

Class (Alpha vs. Beta)

22

Effect of gender

Girls do better than boys on the test of L2 French proficiency

F(1, 42) = 8.476, p = .006, partial eta squared = .168 (small effect)

Girls report more positive attitudes than boys

F(1, 42) = 7.148, p = .011, partial eta squared = .145 (small effect)

No effect on metalinguistic awareness or associative memory

No interaction with EAL status

23

Effect of EAL status

Monolingual children show a trend towards better performance on the test of metalinguistic awareness

F(1, 42) = 3.735, p = .060, partial eta squared = .082 (small effect)

No effect on L2 French proficiency, associative memory or attitudes

No interaction with gender

24

Focus on French

25

Results: Relationships for the whole cohort (N = 49)

L2 French proficiency correlates significantly with the individual difference variables measured:

Metalinguistic awareness: r = .501** p = < .001

Associative memory: r = .446**, p = .002

Attitudes: r = .346*, p = .016

26

Results: Relationships by group

EAL group shows the expected correlational pattern:

Greater metalinguistic awareness and better associative memory are associated with increased L2 French proficiency

Monolingual group does NOT show this pattern:

Metalinguistic awareness and associative memory are not related to L2 French proficiency

27

EAL group Monolingual group

MLA LLAMA B MLA LLAMA B

L2 French r = .678**p < .001

r = .560**p = .004

r = .303p = .141

r = .276p = .202

MLA r = 494*p = .014

r = - .290p = .179

Comparison of EAL and monolingual English children

A possible interpretation is that the EAL children are challenged in the French class

There is a mutually reinforcing cycle: Greater metalinguistic awareness and associative memory allow for improved development of French proficiency, and probably vice versa

The French class requires EAL children to learn a new language (L3) through English (L2)

By contrast, the French course seemingly caters for the weaker monolingual children

Individual differences do not matter for improved development of L2 French proficiency

28

Results: EAL children’s level of English

EAL children’s level of English based on the school’s own assessment classifies from Level A (‘New to English’) to Level E (‘Fluent’) in accordance with Department for Education requirements

Level of English is correlated with the variables measured:

L2 French proficiency: r = .396, p = .055

Metalinguistic awareness: r = .529**, p = .008

Associative memory: r = .553**, p = .005

29

EAL children’s level of English

Correlational pattern suggests that a higher level of English and thus more balanced bi-/multilingualism is associated with better metalinguistic awareness, better associative memory and (marginally) better L2 French proficiency

Caveat: The test instructions were in English in all cases, so we cannot exclude a task effect

30

RQ2 and RQ3

(2) How do EAL children, monolingual children and their teachers perceive and relate to the learning of foreign languages?

(3) Do teachers and other children draw on EAL children’s bi/multilingualism, and if yes, how?

31

How do class teachers perceive and relate to the learning of foreign languages?

Home language is primarily for home; the language of the classroom is English

Learning French is a great leveller (as EAL and monolingual children all start from scratch)

Expectations in terms of achievement are low: a few words; ‘real’ French learning in secondary school

Rigolo programme easy to use for non-specialists: ‘quick fix’

Children enjoy French; but not enough time for real progress; French is not a priority in a busy curriculum

32

Do teachers draw on EAL children’s bi/multilingualism? What are the languages used in the observed French classes?

No direct reference is made to EAL children’s multilingualism during the French classes that we observed

English is the language of classroom management

33

Do teachers draw on EAL children’s bi/multilingualism? What are the languages used in the observed French classes?

French is used primarily to repeat a word or short phrase produced by the class teacher or a character in the Rigolo programme

Some translation of French words and short phrases children hear

In one class, some writing of individual words

Class based exclusively on the Rigolo video

Children very enthusiastic and enjoy the class

Language as an object of study or as a communicative tool absent from the French class (focus was exclusively on the rote-learning of individual words and short phrases)

34

How do children (EAL and monolingual) relate to (the learning of) foreign languages?

All children are aware of the multilingual nature of the school and think about multilingualism positively

Knowing different languages is useful to make friends and to help others in and out of school

Nearly all children say they like learning French, but find it difficult (both monolingual and multilingual children)

35

How do children (EAL and monolingual) relate to (the learning of) foreign languages?

When asked what languages they know, most monolingual children mention French, whereas multilingual children do not; they seem to be more aware that they know very little French yet

Pronunciation and spelling are often mentioned as particularly difficult

Their understanding of French as a language does not go beyond a set of new words to learn (both monolingual and multilingual children)

36

Thank you!

Acknowledgement:

We would like to thank the staff and children of the primary school where this research was carried out. 37

References (1)

Cenoz, J. (2003). The influence of age on the acquisition of English: General proficiency, attitudes and code-mixing. In Garcia Mayo, M. d. P. & Garcia Lecumberri, M. L. (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language (pp. 77-93). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hofkins, D., & Northen, S. (2009). Introducing the Cambridge Primary Review. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.

38

References (2)

Kiss, C. (2009). The role of aptitude in young learners' foreign language learning. In Nikolov, M. (Ed.), The age factor and early language learning (pp. 253-76). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kiss, C. & Nikolov, M. (2005). Developing, piloting, and validating an instrument to measure young learners' aptitude. Language Learning, 55, 99-150.

Meara, P. (2005). Llama Language Aptitude Tests. University of Wales Swansea

Muñoz, C. (2014). The association between aptitude components and language skills in young learners. In Pawlak, M. & Aronin, L. (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism: Studies in honour of David Singleton(pp. 51-68). Cham: Springer.

The Nuffield Languages Inquiry. (2000). Languages: The next generation.London: The Nuffield Foundation.

39

References (3)

Rose, J. (Ed.). (2008). The Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum: Interim report: Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Sáfár, A. & Kormos, J. (2008). Revisiting problems with foreign language aptitude. IRAL, 46, 113-36.

Tellier, A. (2013). Developing a measure of metalinguistic awareness for children aged 8-11. In Roehr, K. & Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (Eds.), The metalinguistic dimension in instructed second language learning (pp. 15-43). London: Bloomsbury.

Tellier, A. (2015). Metalinguistic awareness and foreign language learning in primary school: A classroom study with children aged 8 to 9 years. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Essex

Tellier, A. & Roehr-Brackin, K. (2013). The development of language learning aptitude and metalinguistic awareness in primary-school children: A classroom study. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 62, 1-28.

40

References (4)

Tellier, A. & Roehr-Brackin, K. (2017). Raising children's metalinguistic awareness to enhance classroom second language learning. In García Mayo, M. d. P. (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 22-48). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

41