Feature Articles Second Language Acquisition at the Early Childhood Level: A 5-Year Longitudinal Case Study of Pre-Kindergarten Through First-Grade Students BONNIE BILLAK The International School Nido de Aguilas This 5-year longitudinal study investigated the English lan- guage acquisition and development of students in pre-Kinder- garten through Grade 1 at a U.S.-accredited international school. Of the 1,509 students tested, the overwhelming majority were nonnative English speakers. The data provide valuable insight into the rate of second language acquisition for students at each grade level, including information on twins and stu- dents with learning differences. A strong emotional factor affecting language learning was also revealed. In addition, the researcher reviewed speaking scores to determine any far-reach- ing future correlation with reading/literacy test scores at the kindergarten and fourth-grade levels. Information on interven- tions used in an effort to raise proficiency levels and the effects of native- versus nonnative-English-speaking teachers on lan- guage scores is also included. doi: 10.1002/tesj.63 In recent years there has been growing interest worldwide in second language learning for very young, early childhood–age children. This interest has caused much controversy, because some educators and parents feel that learning a second language at such early ages can cause unnecessary stress for the young language learners and perhaps interfere with acquisition of their native language (Burns, Werker, & McVie, 2003; Crawford, 1999), whereas others feel that the younger the better; because children 674 TESOL Journal 4.4, December 2013 Ó 2012 TESOL International Association
Transcript
Feature Articles
Second Language Acquisition atthe Early Childhood Level: A
5-Year Longitudinal CaseStudy of Pre-Kindergarten
Through First-Grade Students
BONNIE BILLAKThe International School Nido de Aguilas
This 5-year longitudinal study investigated the English lan-guage acquisition and development of students in pre-Kinder-garten through Grade 1 at a U.S.-accredited internationalschool. Of the 1,509 students tested, the overwhelming majoritywere nonnative English speakers. The data provide valuableinsight into the rate of second language acquisition for studentsat each grade level, including information on twins and stu-dents with learning differences. A strong emotional factoraffecting language learning was also revealed. In addition, theresearcher reviewed speaking scores to determine any far-reach-ing future correlation with reading/literacy test scores at thekindergarten and fourth-grade levels. Information on interven-tions used in an effort to raise proficiency levels and the effectsof native- versus nonnative-English-speaking teachers on lan-guage scores is also included.doi: 10.1002/tesj.63
In recent years there has been growing interest worldwide insecond language learning for very young, early childhood–agechildren. This interest has caused much controversy, because someeducators and parents feel that learning a second language at suchearly ages can cause unnecessary stress for the young languagelearners and perhaps interfere with acquisition of their nativelanguage (Burns, Werker, & McVie, 2003; Crawford, 1999),whereas others feel that the younger the better; because children
674 TESOL Journal 4.4, December 2013� 2012 TESOL International Association
are like sponges at this age, early childhood years are the mostopportune time for learning a new language (Petitto et al., 2001;Shore, 2002). To gain insight into this controversy for the benefit ofstudents, educators, and parents, I conducted a 5-year researchproject to study the various aspects of second language acquisitionin children in pre-Kindergarten through Grade 1.
Because of the scarcity of studies of very young bilingualchildren, little information is available regarding typical languagedevelopment at the preschool age (McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, &Leos, 2005). As reported by Paez, Tabors, and Lopez (2007), at thetime of their project there were only two studies with data on thelanguage and literacy development of preschoolers learning asecond language (Dickinson, McCabe, Clark-Chiarelli, & Wolf,2004; Hammer, Miccio, & Wagestaff, 2003). Therefore, the datafrom this 5-year (2005–2009) longitudinal case study with a largeparticipant population (1,509 students) should be highly relevant.In addition, the second language development of students in twopre-Kinder classes (3-year-olds) was tracked through Kinder II(5-year-olds, equivalent to U.S. kindergarten level), thus providingan additional relatively large sampling of detailed information,such as actual second language growth or lack of language growthat each level, second language growth in comparison to native-English-speaking peers, and the effects of English as a secondlanguage (ESL) services on their second language acquisition. Inaddition, because many of the teachers in this study werenonnative English speakers, as a by-product of the research thestudy data provide insight into the controversy as to whethernative or nonnative English speakers are better for secondlanguage teaching (Braine, 1999; Holliday, 2005). The study alsoprovided valuable data regarding second language learning bytwins and students with identified learning differences (includinga student with a form of autism) as well as information onemotional and psychological factors affecting language acquisitionand language growth that support and extend the findings of Paezet al. (2007).
To explore possible far-reaching effects of second languagelearning in early childhood and common factors, if any, affectingfirst and second language acquisition, I correlated the case study
Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood 675
findings with data from the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS),a U.S.-based standardized test given each year to students at thestudy site, and with findings from two language studies donewith native-English-speaking children at the early childhood age(Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Snow, Porche, Tabors, & Harris,2007). This correlation provided enlightening data, of specialvalue for educators, regarding the far-reaching effects of bothnative and second language development in early childhood andvalidated many of the findings in this case study. Normally it isnot considered appropriate to compare the scores of native andnonnative English speakers on a standardized test created fornative English speakers; however, the correlation was done inthis study because it is common practice for international schoolsto administer these tests to all students in order to comparethe academic achievement of their students to students at U.S.schools. It is also done because there are no tests measuringthese skills normed on bilingual populations. Regarding thistopic, the U.S. Department of Education has stated: “Acomparison group of English-speaking monolinguals is notalways the optimal comparison group for bilingual individuals;however, for purposes of studying English languagelearning students in the U.S. educational system, includingsuch comparisons can be important” (quoted in McCardle et al.,2005, p. 70).
Overall, the data from this 5-year study provide valuableinsight into the issue of second language learning in earlychildhood and thus can be used by educators worldwide inmaking informed decisions regarding the development of theirsecond language programs at the early childhood level, whetherthey be decisions regarding the benefits of offering this type ofprogram, factors to consider in designing programs, and/orcurriculum development.
STUDY QUESTIONSThe research asked the following study questions:
1. What is the rate of second language acquisition for students at the earlychildhood level, that is, pre-Kinder, Kinder I, Kinder II, and Grade 1? Thefollowing subquestions were investigated as well:
676 TESOL Journal
a. Will the rate of second language acquisition be similar for each year ofinstruction and equal for boys and girls?
b. Will twins have equal scores?c. At the end of Kinder II, how much higher will the scores of pre-Kinder
students be, compared with the other students, because they have theadvantage of being at the school for the greatest number of years?
d. Will native language acquisition be affected by second language acquisi-tion at such an early age?
e. Is lack of yearly progress in second language acquisition a red flag foridentifying students with emotional and/or learning problems?
2. Will the level of second language acquisition be higher for students in clas-ses with native-English-speaking teachers? This question produced the fol-lowing subquestion:
a. Do curriculum, teacher technique, and early intervention play more of arole in language learning than the native language of the teacher?
STUDY SITEThe study was conducted at an international school in SouthAmerica, a member of the American Association of Schoolssupported by the U.S. Department of State’s Overseas SchoolsProgram. It is a pre-Kinder through Grade 12 school with a U.S.-based curriculum. All instruction is in English; therefore, it isimperative that students develop fluency in English as quickly aspossible. It was this factor that marked the school as a prime sitefor the research study.
Overall, the majority of teachers are from the United States andCanada. However, at the early childhood level, the overwhelmingmajority are nonnative-English-speaking teachers with highEnglish proficiency levels at or bordering on native Englishspeaker levels. As part of the employment process, nonnativeEnglish speakers are required to take the TOEFL to determinetheir level of English proficiency. All pre-Kinder through Grade 1classes have both a teacher and an aide. The aides are highlyqualified, most having teaching degrees, years of teachingexperience, or both; therefore, they are aides in the sense ofco-teachers rather than helpers. At the time of the study, all aideswere nonnative English speakers with high English proficiencylevels.
Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood 677
The student population is made up of children of U.S. andother foreign diplomats and businessmen as well as host countrychildren. Schoolwide, most students are from the country in whichthe school is located, with students from the United Statesnumbering second. In 2009, the pre-Kinder classes (3-year-olds)had students from 12 countries; Kinder I (4-year-olds) from 18countries; Kinder II (5-year-olds) from 19 countries; and Grade 1(6-year-olds) from 20 countries. Many classes have no nativeEnglish speakers, whereas others may have as many as 5. Care istaken to even out these numbers, but it is often not possible onaccount of the high mobility rate of the student population due totheir parents’ corporate or diplomatic transfers at the completionof duty tours.
The school feels that spreading out the native English speakersamong the different classes at each grade level provides thenonnative English speakers with language role models to helpdevelop and improve their English skills. Grade placement isdetermined by the results of standardized entrance tests givenby the early childhood/elementary psychologist. The tests aregiven in English or Spanish, based on the needs of the students.For other languages, a family member translates for the child(C. Hurtado, personal communication, May 2009). The principalmakes the final decision regarding grade-level placement.
ESL pull-out services are offered for qualifying studentsstarting in Kinder II. These services consist of 30-minute classes5 days a week. Students are selected for ESL services based ontheir ESL test scores (The Story of Ana test; Bartley, Gimpel,Hansen, Nelson, & Snowling, 1997), that is, a beginner or verylow-intermediate level score in the end-of-year Kinder I masstesting or on the same test when it is given to new students justentering the school in Kinder II. Students new to the school aretested for ESL services based on the recommendation of teachersor the school psychologist. The ESL program is content based.Students are allowed up to 2 years in the ESL program. After thistime, they are expected to have English proficiency levels highenough to function satisfactorily in a regular classroom withminimal or no special assistance in English; that is, the studentshould understand instructions and be able to perform speaking,
678 TESOL Journal
writing, and reading tasks independently at a satisfactory orhigher level.
METHODS AND MATERIALSDuring the study period, all Early Childhood Center (ECC)students (pre-Kinder through Grade 1) were tested one by one atthe end of each school year to determine their listening andspeaking proficiency levels. The purpose was to establish theirlevel of English proficiency in each of the two skill areas and tocreate a database to measure their language growth from year toyear. From the start of the research in May 2005 until thecompletion of the study in May 2009, a total of 1,509 students weretested, including native English speakers in the test population.Testing both native and nonnative English speakers wasconsidered to be an important factor, because it provided data fora comparison of rates of language acquisition for both studentgroups—that is, are there similarities in native and secondlanguage acquisition? A database was set up so that one couldeasily look up the name of a student and track his or her languagegrowth from year to year.
In 2005, no pre-Kinder testing was done because schooladministrators felt that the children were too young for secondlanguage testing, even though the school had no problemrigorously testing them when they applied for admission to theschool. However, after seeing the great benefits gained from thefirst year of testing other ECC grade levels (e.g., earlyidentification of very low-proficiency students, identification ofneed for teacher training, curriculum restructuring), the schoolrequested that pre-Kinder students be included in the 2006–2009testing. In that way, a complete picture of English acquisition andproficiency levels at the ECC level was created.
I did all of the testing during the 5-year period to eliminatepossible discrepancies caused by the use of multiple testers. Priorto the testing, even though most of the students knew me fromseeing me in the ECC building or in their classes on a daily basis, Ivisited each classroom to meet with the students so that theywould not consider me a stranger at test time. I took an appealingpuppet with me to meet the children, and the puppet was later
Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood 679
placed on the table in the test area for moral support, but not to beplayed with during the test.
The listening and speaking portions of The Story of Ana test(Bartley et al., 1997) were used to determine students’ proficiencylevels at the end of each school year. This is a criterion-referencedtest developed for use in schools in Prince George’s County,Maryland, a Washington, D.C., suburb. This test was chosen basedon its comprehensive data regarding both listening and speakingskills (e.g., understanding and use of grammatical features,sentence structure, ability to ask questions that can be obtainedfrom the questions) and on the speed with which it can beadministered. It also appeals to the students, because it relates thestory of a young girl’s first day at school. This is also the ESLentrance/exit test used at the study site.
There was some concern that perhaps the students wouldmemorize the answers because the same version of the test wasgiven throughout the study. This did not prove to be a problem,because the test requires students to look at various photos andcreate original sentences to answer the questions rather than tostate one set answer. Also, it was not likely that early childhoodstudents would memorize the test. Because the test is intended forKinder and above, it was adapted slightly for use with thepre-Kinder students. Based on the recommendations of thecreators of the test, two listening and four speaking questionswere omitted because they were felt to be developmentallyinappropriate for Kinder-age children, thus making themalso inappropriate for pre-Kinder students. In addition, I deletedone listening and one speaking question because I did not feel thestudents had the background knowledge to answer thesequestions and even pre-Kinder native English speakers hadstruggled with them.
A week was allowed for testing each grade level. For all classesexcept pre-Kinder, the teachers would bring small groups ofstudents (or one student at a time) to my classroom to be tested.The students not being tested at the moment would wait withtheir teacher or aide in a holding area supplied with big books andpuzzles. In that way, the students were kept calm and happywhile waiting to be tested. If a student was absent on test day, he
680 TESOL Journal
or she was rescheduled for a later day. The pre-Kinder testing wasdone in a quiet area in the pre-Kinder part of the school.
During the test, the student sat at a table facing me. The testbooklet is made so that a large photo faces the student, andquestions for the tester to ask related to the photo are on the sidefacing the tester. The answer sheet has the targeted grammaticalitem listed on it so that the tester can mark whether or not thestudent correctly answered the question.
Because all language learning is a building process, whether itbe a native language or a second language, hypothetical scoregoals for each grade level (Table 1) were set based on my ESLbackground and experience in working with young children,while also taking into consideration the school administration’sexpectations for second language development.
Once the testing was completed, I conducted data analysis foreach grade level. First, I charted the scores by individual classes.The charts included the students’ names, their listening andspeaking scores for all years they were tested, and a notation as towhen they had entered the school. Scores for each class wereaveraged (native speaker scores omitted) to produce a moredetailed look at language development by grade level. Next, Icharted the data by actual score to see how many students fell intoeach range of the proficiency level categories. In this way it waseasy to see if the students had scored at the top, middle, or lowerend of each proficiency level. I then charted the scores for eachgrade level by proficiency level, thus showing, in summaryformat, the total number of students at each proficiency level eachyear, including a notation indicating how many students at each
TABLE 1. Speaking and Listening Goals at the Different Grade Levels
Speaking goals Listening goals
Pre-Kinder
Mid- to upper beginner level Mid- to upper beginner level
Kinder I Upper intermediate level Upper intermediate to advanced levelKinder II Mid- to upper advanced
levelMid- to upper advanced level
Grade 1 Upper advanced level Upper advanced level
Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood 681
level had been at the school since pre-Kinder and how many werenative English speakers. In addition, I conducted a more detailedanalysis for two classes that were tracked from pre-Kinderthrough Kinder II. The scores for these classes were categorized inthe following manner: boys, girls, native English speakers, andboys and girls receiving ESL services. I graphed their scores tomeasure growth. Also, I did a special analysis of scores for twinsand students with special needs. (More information on these casescan be found in the Results section.) Finally, each year I dividedup and averaged the scores of Kinder II students according to theyear in which they had entered the school in order to determinethe advantage the pre-Kinder students would have as a result ofbeing at the school for the greatest number of years. This analysisprovided unexpected and surprising data, as the next sectionshows.
RESULTSThroughout the study, listening scores on the tests were very highat all grade levels, demonstrating that listening is a skill that earlychildhood–age children quickly acquire. Therefore, this reportfocuses only on the findings regarding speaking skills.
Table 2 shows the pre-Kinder results for 2006–2009. Aspreviously mentioned, no testing of pre-Kinder students was donein 2005. The goal set for pre-Kinder students was the mid to upperend of the beginner level. Throughout the study, one class met thetargeted goals and even improved scores in each of the followingyears. Students in the other two classes scored mostly at the lowbeginner level throughout the study.
The Kinder I data (Table 3) show that students with verylow scores in pre-Kinder progressed in their language skilldevelopment in Kinder I, but often remained low in comparisonwith their peers. The targeted goal for the Kinder I students wasthe high intermediate level. In 2009, 42 students scored at thislevel, a significant increase from the 26 scoring at this level in 2005.
Throughout the 5 years of research, Kinder II had the mostdramatic language growth of all of the grade levels in the study(Table 4). In 2005 only 42 out of 87 students were at theadvanced level. However, in 2009, 83 out of 100 students were
682 TESOL Journal
at the advanced level and the number of students at thelower proficiency levels had greatly diminished. This increase inproficiency levels can perhaps be attributed to both a greaterconcentration on English instruction in the Kinder II classes andto the cumulative effect of students developing higher Englishproficiency levels in grades prior to Kinder II.
In all years of testing, first-grade students scored very high inthe area of speaking (Table 5). This was not surprising because thefirst grade has a strong U.S.-based language curriculum, and anEnglish-only policy is strictly enforced through positive disciplinetechniques (praise, positive feedback, etc.) and scaffolding topromote success and help students develop a strong sense of self-confidence when using English. Most of these students had alsobenefited from English instruction in earlier ECC grades at theschool.
TABLE 2. Pre-Kinder Speaking Scores: Number of Students at EachProficiency Level 2006–2009
Year Beginner Intermediate High intermediate Advanced Total students
Note. NS = Native English speaker.*Numbers in parentheses show students at the school since pre-Kinder.
Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood 683
The results of the 2005 testing show that 86 out of 92 first-gradestudents were at the advanced level at the time of testing in 2005.Of the 86 students, 14 were native English speakers and 47 hadbeen at the school since pre-Kinder. The remaining six studentswere at the high intermediate level—four had been at the schoolsince pre-Kinder. Because new students are always entering theschool throughout the year, six students at the high intermediatelevel would not be surprising. However, the fact that four of thesix had been at the school since pre-Kinder and failed to reach theexpected advanced-level proficiency goal after 4 years of Englishinstruction serves as a red flag for these students—are therepossible learning disability problems, for instance? (Moreinformation is provided in the Discussion section.)
TABLE 4. Kinder II Speaking Scores: Number of Students at EachProficiency Level 2005–2009
Note. NS = Native English speaker.*Numbers in parentheses show students at the school since pre-Kinder.
684 TESOL Journal
In 2009, scores were more encouraging because only one of thefour students at the high intermediate level had been at the schoolsince pre-Kinder. Of the 88 students at the advanced level, 22 werenative English speakers and 33 had been enrolled at the schoolsince pre-Kinder. Thus, at the end of first grade in 2009, all but 1of the students enrolled in the school since pre-Kinder were at theadvanced level in speaking.
The 5 years of test data show that the score goals for all gradelevels were right on target. Even though all students did not meetthe projected goals, a significant number did, thus suggesting thatthe targets were correct.
DISCUSSION
Question 1: What Is the Rate of Second Language Acquisition atthe Early Childhood Level?During the study, the language development of students in thepre-Kinder class of 2006 (51 students) was tracked through Grade1 and the pre-Kinder class of 2007 (46 students) through Kinder II.The purpose of the tracking was to monitor and gain detailedinformation regarding the students’ rate of English languageacquisition at each grade level. When the scores of both groupswere graphed, the results showed that their English languageacquisition followed a common expectation for native languageacquisition—namely, girls had greater language growth in pre-Kinder than boys. Boys had a big language growth spurt in KinderI. At the end of Kinder II, the boys and girls could be consideredeven in terms of their English learning (Gurian & Stevens, 2011).
The study also gathered the following data related to thevarious subquestions. I present it here because I feel it to be ofmerit and worthy of future investigation.
Will twins have equal language scores? During the casestudy, 16 sets of twins were tested. In all cases, one twinscored higher than the other in speaking. There was a 2-pointor more test score difference in 9 out of 16 sets of twins. In thecase of boy-girl twins, the girls scored higher than theirbrothers in six out of seven cases. These results were notsurprising; studies have shown that one twin is usually
Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood 685
stronger than the other in verbal skills in their native language(Gucuyener et al., 2011) and that girls develop oral proficiencyas much as 1 year ahead of boys (Gurian & Stevens, 2011). Intheir study, Gucuyener et. al. (2011) also found that twinsconceived through the in vitro process had lower nativelanguage scores than twins conceived naturally. This interestingfinding could perhaps hold true also for second languagelearning; however, it is an item needing future study.
Will native language acquisition be affected by secondlanguage acquisition at such an early age? With regard to thecommonly expressed fear that native language acquisition will beaffected by second language learning at this early age, it isimportant to note that throughout the 5 years of the study allstudents in Kinder II and Grade 1 had Spanish classes for a45-minute period 5 days a week. There were special classes forSpanish as a second language learners and other classes fornative Spanish speakers. Discussions of this topic with teachersof Spanish revealed that based on their interactions with thestudents, as well as on their class work and standardized testsresults, at no time was there ever any concern or evidence tosuggest a loss or diminishment of Spanish skills as a result oflearning English at this early age.
Is lack of yearly progress in second language acquisition ared flag for identifying students with emotional or learningproblems? In addition to providing information regardinglistening and speaking proficiency levels, the test data provided anunexpected surprise. The scores proved to be highly reliable inhelping to identify students with learning or emotional difficulties.This was especially interesting to see in the graphs done for thepre-Kinder classes. It was surprising to find that some studentshad no change in their language test scores after a whole year in aclassroom or to see that a student had done well one year, but hadno change in their language test score the following year. Severalstudents even backtracked slightly in their language developmentfrom one year to the next, thus showing a loss in some languageability. Although these findings are based on only one testinstrument, the fact that these situations occurred several times
686 TESOL Journal
during the 5-year case study shows that this phenomenon meritsfurther study.
The cumulative files of students with low scores or scores thatshowed little or no change from one year to the next werechecked, and in almost every case there was documentation in thefile regarding a diagnosed learning problem or suspected problemof some sort. In the case of several students, their second languagedevelopment was greatly affected by their home situation, such asparents divorcing or a sibling with a recently diagnosed seriousillness. However, with ESL assistance, these students were able toreach ESL exit level. One student with a high-functioningpervasive developmental disorder (similar to Asperger’ssyndrome) reached the proficiency level required for exit from theESL program. This fact once again confirms the value of earlyintervention.
At the end of Kinder II, how much of a score advantage willthe students enrolled in the school since pre-Kinder have overthose enrolling in later years? Another interesting and surprisingphenomenon surfaced as a result of data analysis. In all 5 years ofthe study, when the Kinder II scores were analyzed, the Kinder IIstudents who had started at the school in pre-Kinder had lowerspeaking score averages than Kinder II students who had enteredthe school in later years. Students starting in Kinder I had thehighest averages each year the Kinder II scores were checked. Inall cases, the native English speaker scores were omitted beforecalculating the averages. School files were checked to see if thestudents entering in Kinder I had perhaps attended pre-Kinder inan English-speaking school. The data show that the overwhelmingmajority had not attended school at the pre-Kinder level and thefew who had had attended schools with instruction in their nativelanguage. (More information regarding possible causes of thisphenomenon is provided in the next section.)
Question 2: Will the level of second language acquisition behigher for students in classes with native-English-speakingteachers? When the test scores for individual classes wereaveraged (with native speaker scores removed), the classes withnonnative-English-speaking teachers had the highest speakingscore averages in almost every case. Also, during the first year of
Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood 687
testing, I kept hearing the same mistakes with regard to the use ofhe/she and in the floor versus on the floor. Starting in the second yearof testing, I kept a tally of these mistakes on the top of the answersheet to see if certain classes had more student mistakes thanothers. The tally results show that year after year the native-English-speaking teachers often had much higher student mistaketotals (with these two items) than the nonnative-English-speakingteachers. This is important to note because international schoolsspend a significant amount of time and money recruiting native-English-speaking teachers, assuming that they will provide higherquality English instruction. It also helps to dispel the commonbelief that if you are a native speaker of English, you willautomatically be an effective or superior teacher of English.
Teacher technique. In all years of testing at the pre-Kinderlevel, one class consistently reached the targeted mid to upperbeginner level and even increased score averages each year.During the yearly testing, there was also a marked differencein the level of self-confidence these students displayed whenusing English in comparison with students in the other twopre-Kinder classes. This was noticeable by the way theyhappily came for testing, the ease and speed with which theyanswered test questions, and their overall level of self-generatedsociability with the tester. The majority of students in the othertwo classes scored at the lower end of the beginner level.Because all teachers at this level are nonnative English speakersteaching the same curriculum, this disparity in proficiencylevels among the classes would suggest that teaching techniqueis perhaps an influencing factor in language learning at thisearly age.
At the Kinder I level, some classes had very high classaverages, whereas others consistently scored lower throughout the5 years of the study. As in the case of pre-Kinder, the samevariables were present—nonnative-English-speaking teachersteaching the same curriculum—so it appears that once again thedata suggest that teaching technique is an influencing factor inlanguage learning for students in this age group.
Interventions to assist teachers. Each year during the researchstudy, the test scores were reviewed and interventions
688 TESOL Journal
implemented in an effort to improve English language proficiencylevels. For example, in the early years of the study, the very highlistening scores and low speaking scores suggested that the classeswere highly teacher fronted. With the teachers doing all of thetalking, students were not being challenged to develop their oralskills. Therefore, an ECC ESL Committee was formed to offertraining and resource materials for teachers to help correct thissituation. Later, the committee compiled a supplement for theresource materials with language-building activities based onusing blocks, because a recent research study found that blocks arean effective tool for encouraging and developing oral skills(Christakis, Zimmerman, & Garrison 2007). In-service trainingsessions were held to familiarize teachers with the materialincluded in the resource book and its supplement as well as todemonstrate fun, interactive ways to use SMART Boards, dataprojectors, and digital cameras for activities to develop speakingskills.
Possible value of early intervention and curriculumalignment. After the testing each year, Kinder I students withspeaking scores at the beginner or very low intermediate levelwere taken into the ESL program in Kinder II in an effort to raisetheir English proficiency level. This early intervention techniqueproved to be highly effective. In selecting these students, it wasinteresting to find that during all 5 years of the study the majorityof students taken into the ESL program in Kinder II were studentswho had started at the school in pre-Kinder.
To determine the long-range ripple effect of this phenomenon,a search was done to determine the grade at which studentsreceiving support services (i.e., Learning Center, reading, ESL[Kinder II–Grade 2 classes] and gifted and talented support)entered the school, because these services would be languagerelated. The results show that in all four areas approximately halfof the students being served had enrolled in pre-Kinder.
Possible explanations for this phenomena, excepting giftedand talented, could be the lack of a strong English program atthe pre-Kinder level or lack of curriculum alignmentbetween the pre-Kinder and Kinder I curricula, which putstudents in a catch-up situation. Another possible explanation
Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood 689
could be more psychological. An important finding of this studywas the powerful psychological and emotional factors affectinglanguage learning at an early childhood age. For example, inconversations with low-scoring students entering Kinder II, Ioften heard their exasperation and sense of hopelessness whenfaced with the English demands in their classrooms. As oneKinder II student told me during a moment of deep frustration,“Before, they said I spoke enough English and now they say it’snot enough.” This conflict arose because students at the study sitewere often allowed to communicate in Spanish on a regular basisin pre-Kinder, thus using only a minimum of English. To have achild spend his or her day happily communicating with teachersand peers in Spanish one year and then to be told the next yearthat everything must be in English does not seem fair play. Whenstudents advance to Kinder I, they must face not only the shockof having everything in English, but also the double task ofcatching up in the development of their English skills whiledealing with a more demanding curriculum. This can have theeffect of a major blow to the ego, causing them to feel hopeless(Hinton, Miyamoto, & Della-Chiesa, 2008; Izard, 2009). Somestudents more or less give up or turn off to English. Therefore, toensure maximum language learning, the study data show that itis of utmost importance for schools to have a clear and consistentphilosophy regarding English language development at all earlychildhood grade levels; that is, not Spanish and English one yearand English only in other years. Even 4- and 5-year-olds dislikesituations with changing rules.
The finding that the majority of students entering the ESLprogram in Kinder II had been enrolled at the school sincepre-Kinder, and that almost half of the students receiving supportservices had also been at the school since pre-Kinder, could alsorelate to research done by Mendro, Jorand, Gomez, Anderson, andBembry (1998), who found that the achievement loss caused by1 year with a poor teacher could not be remediated by 2 yearswith effective teachers. In the school in which I conducted myresearch, the teachers were highly qualified. However, it wasperhaps their teaching technique and the lack of emphasis onEnglish usage in the classroom that caused the low achievement.
690 TESOL Journal
Recent studies have shown that the pre-Kinder level offers animportant opportunity to prepare students for later school years(La Tercera, 2010). It has also been found that some students fellbehind when they did not have an opportunity to attend pre-Kinder (La Tercera, 2010). From a language acquisition standpoint,the results of this study support the benefits of this pre-Kinderpreparation and show the need for, and value of, good solidEnglish instruction at the pre-Kinder level. In fact, based on thedata from this study, it appears to be of critical importance. Asstated by Paez et al. (2007), the focus in preschool educationshould be on developing the oral skills of second languagelearners through language-focused activities. This is especiallyimportant because the growing consensus is that the earlychildhood years are a critical time for language and literacylearning (Petitto & Dunbar, 2004; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998;Snow & Tabors, 1993).
For years, the Head Start Program has shown the value of earlyintervention for later school success for children at risk or with nolanguage stimulation at home. Head Start is a national program inthe United States that promotes school readiness througheducational, social, and other services to students and theirfamilies. As a result of mounting evidence showing the greatimportance of the early years in the growth and development ofchildren, in 1995 the Early Head Start Program for children frombirth to 3 years was established (Office of Head Start, 2011). Thestudents in this study may be considered the opposite of HeadStart students from an economic and social standpoint, given thatthe majority come from wealthy and well-to-do families. However,they are similar to Head Start children in the area of languagestimulation, because many of their parents do not speak Englishand often work long hours or are away on business trips for longperiods of time, sometimes months. Some families hire tutors tohelp the children with their language acquisition, but othersprovide no extra support. As a result, the findings of this studysupport the Head Start premise regarding the value of earlyintervention for later school success, whether the students comefrom underprivileged or privileged backgrounds (Office of HeadStart, 2011).
Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood 691
Possible long-range implications of early languageacquisition at the early childhood level. The results of alongitudinal study of English-speaking children from low-incomefamilies found that language stimulation at home and in earlychildhood centers predicts literacy abilities in kindergarten(Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). A more far-reaching study of theimplications of early language stimulation found that languageabilities in kindergarten greatly predict fourth-grade readingcomprehension abilities (Snow et al., 2007). To once again take alook at the long-range implications of second language learning atthe early childhood level, I analyzed the data collected in thisstudy to see if these findings would hold true for second languagelearners, given that it has been established that language skillsfrom a native language transfer to second language learning(Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, & Humbach, 2009). First, I comparedThe Story of Ana speaking scores for pre-Kinder and Kinder II.Next, I compared the students’ 2005 Kinder II speaking scoreswith their reading scores on the ITBS, which is given to fourth-grade students each year at the school where I conducted thisresearch. In both cases, I verified that these findings held true forthese students even though the majority are second languagelearners from upper-middle-class and upper-class families.Students with low speaking scores in pre-Kinder had speakingscores in Kinder II that were lower than the majority of their peers.In the case of the fourth-grade ITBS reading scores, based on theschool’s percentile standards for determining students at academicrisk (25th or below) or at moderate academic risk (26th–40th;Hurtado, 2009), I found that all but two of the low-scoringstudents in Kinder II also scored low on the fourth-grade ITBSreading test in both vocabulary and comprehension. The twoexceptions were low only in vocabulary. It is important to keep inmind that these percentile standards were established by theschool taking into consideration the fact that the majority of itsstudents are second language learners.
As a result of the yearly testing and interventionsimplemented, the language proficiency levels of the youngchildren rose dramatically at all grade levels. Also, as a result ofthe in-service training, teachers expressed that they now feel more
692 TESOL Journal
qualified to deal with second language learners and are able tocreate environments in their classrooms that are warm, caringcommunities of learners that maximize language acquisition andgrowth.
CONCLUSIONSThe findings from this research clearly show that even theyoungest students at the early childhood level, 3-year-olds, arefully capable of learning a second language if placed in the properlearning environment. For example, analysis of test scores anddata from throughout the 5-year study show that in school settingsa strong English program at the pre-Kinder level is of utmostimportance. Without a strong content-based English program atthis level, optimally aligned with both the Kinder I curriculum andKinder I entrance expectations, students are likely to fall behind intheir second language acquisition and perhaps never catch upunless special ESL-type services are offered to them. This canpossibly affect both their self-confidence and future academicsuccess, especially at schools in which all subjects are taught inEnglish. Special care also needs to be taken to ensure that thefeelings and beliefs of the adults in charge of ECC students do notlimit their opportunities to learn a second language or createlearning environments that hinder or thwart this natural andamazing gift of early childhood learning—that is, beliefs that thestudents are too young to learn a second language or that learningthe new language will have detrimental effects on their proficiencyin their native language. Lastly, the teaching techniques of theteachers were found to be more important in successful secondlanguage learning than the native English speaker status of theteacher.
The research also clearly shows that unless there areextenuating learning or emotional conditions causing learningdifficulties, early childhood–age learners are truly like littlesponges eagerly feeding on all of the language opportunitiescoming their way, whether they be first or second languageopportunities. The findings of this study show unequivocally, yearafter year, that the overwhelming majority of the ECC students atall levels, pre-Kinder through first grade, successfully learned
Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood 693
English as a second language. They were not overly stressed, norwere there signs that their native language was affected in theprocess. It is hoped that educators worldwide will find the datafrom this study useful in their efforts to promote, develop, andstrengthen their early childhood programs and that parents withchildren learning a second language in early childhood settingswill breathe a bit easier and look on second language learning as agolden opportunity for their children.
THE AUTHORBonnie Billak is an early childhood ESL specialist at TheInternational School Nido de Aguilas in Santiago, Chile. Inaddition to teaching, her work includes teacher training and ESLprogram development and evaluation. Each year she continuesstudent tracking and data collection for the project featured in thisarticle.
REFERENCESBartley, C., Gimpel, C., Hansen, R., Nelson, J., & Snowling,
R. (1997). The story of Ana. Maryland: Prince George’s CountyESOL-Language Minority Program.
Braine, G. (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burns, T. C., Werker, J. F., & McVie, K. (2003). Developmentof phonetic categories in infants raised in bilingual andmonolingual environments. In B. Beachley, A. Brown, &F. Conlin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual Boston UniversityConference on Language Development (Vol. 1, pp. 173–184).Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Christakis, D., Zimmerman, F., & Garrison, M. (2007). Effect ofblock play on language acquisition and attention in toddlers:A pilot randomized controlled trial. Archives of Pediatrics andAdolescent Medicine, 161, 967–971. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.10.967
Crawford, J. (1999). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, andpractice. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Education Services.
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Clark-Chiarelli, N., & Wolf, A.(2004). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness in
694 TESOL Journal
low-income Spanish and English bilingual preschool children.Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 323–347. doi:10.1017/SO142716404001158
Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning literacy withlanguage: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore,MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Gucuyener, K., Arhan, E., Soysel, S., Ergeneknon, E., Turan, O.,Onai, E., & Atalay, Y. (2011). Language assessment of non-handicapped twins at age 5 years. Pediatrics International, 53,944–939. doi:10.1111/j.1442-200x.2011.03425.x
Gurian, M., & Stevens, K. (2011). Boys and girls learning differently!A guide for teachers and parents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hammer, C. S., Miccio, A. W., & Wagestaff, D. A. (2003). Homeliteracy experiences and their relationship to bilingualpreschoolers’ developing English literacy abilities: An initialinvestigation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,34, 20–30. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2003/003)
Hinton, C., Miyamoto, K., & Della-Chiesa, B. (2008). Brain research,learning, and emotions: Implications for education, research,policy and practice. European Journal of Education, 43, 87–103.doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00336.x
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an internationallanguage. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hurtado, C. (2009). Report on ITBS scores obtained by students ingrades 3 through 8. Santiago, Chile: The International SchoolNido de Aguilas.
Izard, C. (2009). Emotion theory and research: Highlights,unanswered questions, and emerging issues. Annual Review ofPsychology, 60, 1–25. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163539
La Tercera (2010, julio 11). En Chile mas de la mitad de loscolegios no da prekınder. Retrieved from http://www.latercera.com
McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., & Leos, K. (2005). Englishlanguage learners and learning disabilities: Research agendaand implications for practice. Learning Disabilities Research andPractice, 20(2), 68–78. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00122.x
Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood 695
Mendro, R. L., Jorand, H. R., Gomez, E., Anderson, M. C., &Bembry, K. L. (1998, April). Longitudinal teacher effects onstudent achievement and their relation to school and projectevaluation. Paper presented at the 1998 meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Office of Head Start. (2011). Organization chart: Program description.Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs
Paez, M. M., Tabors, P. O., & Lopez, L. M. (2007). Dual languageand literacy development of Spanish-speaking preschoolchildren. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(2),85–102. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2006.12.007
Petitto, L. A., & Dunbar, K. (2004, October). New findings fromeducational neuroscience on bilingual brains, scientific brains, and theeducated mind. Paper presented at the Conference on BuildingUsable Knowledge in Mind, Brain and Education, HarvardGraduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.
Petitto, L. A., Katerelos, M., Levy, B. G., Gauna, K., Tetreault, K., &Ferraro, V. (2001). Bilingual signed and spoken languageacquisition from birth: Implications for the mechanismsunderlying early bilingual language acquisition. Journal of ChildLanguage, 28, 453–496. doi:10.1017/SO305000901004718
Shore, R. (2002). Baby teacher: Nurturing neural networks from birth toage five. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing readingdifficulties in young children. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.
Snow, C. E., Porche, M. V., Tabors, P. O., & Harris, S. R. (2007). Isliteracy enough? Pathways to academic success for adolescents.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Snow, C. E., & Tabors, P. O. (1993). Language skills that relate toliteracy development. Yearbook in Early Childhood Education, 4.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-term relationships among early first language skills, secondlanguage aptitude, second language effect, and later secondlanguage proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 725–755.doi:10.1017/SO142716409990099
