2.1 Start as early as possible

The recommendation for an early start is based only in part on the quest for more learning hours. It is also motivated by the widely held belief that young children are ‘better’ at learning languages than older learners. This belief is based on observations of children and adults who, when immersed in the ‘natural’ L2 environment, experience strikingly different results in terms of ultimate attainment of L2 proficiency.

There is ample evidence that learners who begin to learn an L2 in early childhood, use the language in a variety of communicative settings, and those who continue to use it into adolescence and adulthood are likely to be perceived as no different from monolingual native speakers in terms of their pronunciation (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, Reference Hyltenstam, Abrahamsson, Doughty and Long2003) and their use of grammatical morphology (Patkowski, Reference Patkowski1980). They have also been found to make more accurate judgments of grammaticality than those who begin L2 learning later (Johnson & Newport, Reference Johnson and Newport1989; De Keyser, Reference De Keyser2000, Reference De Keyser, Gass and Mackey2012). This has often been attributed to the existence of a critical period in human development, a period before puberty when the brain is thought to be predisposed for successful language learning. However, other research has revealed that the age at which learners’ ability to master the subtleties of L2 grammar begins to decline may be considerably later than this. In a large internet-based study, Hartshorne, Tenenbaum, and Pinker (Reference Hartshorne, Tenenbaum and Pinker2018) found that learners who began L2 acquisition in late adolescence often achieved levels of grammatical knowledge that equaled that of those who started at a much earlier age. Such research is important in showing that beginning to learn a new language in adolescence does not prevent learners from achieving very high levels of proficiency.

When researchers investigate how quickly learners acquire proficiency in L2 (rather than their eventual attainment of linguistic intuitions and performance that are indistinguishable from those of monolingual native speakers), older learners have been found to have an advantage over younger learners (see Krashen, Long, & Scarcella, Reference Krashen, Long and Scarcella1979; Muñoz & Singleton, Reference Muñoz and Singleton2011 for reviews of research). Furthermore, since the late 1970s, research has shown that, when it comes to foreign language learning in school settings, an early start does not guarantee a long-term advantage. In one of the earliest studies, Burstall (Reference Burstall1975) compared British students learning French as a foreign language at different ages and found no lasting advantages for starting L2 instruction in the early grades when the total amount of time for early learning was relatively limited. In more recent large-scale longitudinal research in Spain, Muñoz (Reference Muñoz2006) documented the progress of children receiving limited amounts of instruction in English as a foreign language (EFL) over several years in primary and secondary school. These studies have shown that older learners progress faster than younger learners on a variety of measures including pronunciation, oral fluency, vocabulary acquisition, morphological accuracy, and writing. It has also been observed that although younger learners catch up with older learners on oral (but not written) tasks, they do not surpass them over the period of school learning. In contrast to what has been observed in age-related research in non-instructional settings, where children benefit from thousands of hours of language exposure, the older learners in school settings maintain their advantage.

Muñoz (Reference Muñoz2008) and others have observed that, in order for young children to take advantage of their ability to learn language intuitively, they need massive amounts of language input and opportunities to engage in extensive communicative interactions in the L2, and these are not available in most foreign language contexts. Older learners can use their more advanced cognitive skills and explicit learning abilities to learn more quickly in situations where time for learning is limited and the language input and interaction opportunities are less rich. For example, researchers have compared the L2 development of learners who enter French immersion programs at different times: early learners at kindergarten or grade 1 (about age five or six), mid-immersion learners in grade 5 (about age ten), and late immersion learners in grade 7 (about age twelve). In these studies, learners were tested at different times and after different amounts of instruction. Early immersion learners who were tested at grade 8 had accumulated approximately 4,000 hours of instruction; late immersion learners who were tested at grade 10 had accumulated approximately 1,400 hours of instruction. Evaluations of these learners’ French ability indicated that late immersion learners did as well and sometimes better than the early immersion learners on most measures, suggesting that their superior cognitive abilities, literacy skills, and larger L1 vocabulary and grammatical knowledge made them more efficient learners, compensating for less instructional time (Turnbull, Lapkin, Hart, & Swain, Reference Turnbull, Lapkin, Hart, Swain and Lapkin1998).

It seems reasonable to expect that one advantage of an earlier start in classroom learning is that learners will accumulate more instructional time over the school years. Ironically, experience has shown that an early start is not always associated with more hours. Lowering the starting age sometimes means spreading the limited hours out over longer periods, rather than adding hours for language learning (Lightbown, Reference Lightbown2008). Even when an early start does result in an increase in instructional time, offering an additional 20 minutes a day three times a week for two or three years does not add up to a substantial amount of time, and the linguistic gains resulting from such small increments of instructional time appear to be extremely limited. This was evident in a study involving 53,000 students, aged 14–15 years, in several European countries (ESLC, 2012) where some of the students had begun learning a first foreign language at age six and an additional language later. While students generally did better on the language they had been learning since age six, their proficiency remained limited. As Muñoz and Spada (Reference Muñoz, Spada, De Houwer and Ortega2019, p. 234) report, ‘there was still a sizable number of students who did not reach beyond an A1 level in the first FL for reading (46%), listening comprehension (39%), and writing (33%). While testing experts estimate that 90–100 hours are required to reach an A1 level, some of these students had taken three to eight times more hours extended over many years to reach that level.’

Another important finding regarding the long-term effects of an early start is that proficiency acquired through early exposure can be lost if learning is not sustained. This is true for both L1 (e.g., Wong Fillmore, Reference Wong Fillmore2000) and L2 development (e.g., Burling, Reference Burling1959; Hansen, Reference Hansen1999). Students in French immersion programs who continued to use French for academic study in secondary school maintained and developed proficiency that surpassed that of students who ceased to have extended contact with the language (Turnbull et al., Reference Turnbull, Lapkin, Hart, Swain and Lapkin1998). Pfenninger (Reference Pfenninger2014) found that students with early exposure to a foreign language in Swiss elementary schools did better than those who started later only if their exposure to and instruction in the language continued into adolescence.

To summarize, a variety of research studies suggest that unless it is possible to both substantially increase the time available for foreign language instruction early in the primary school curriculum and maintain opportunities for learning into the adolescent years, starting instruction as early as possible will not substantially improve outcomes. In the case of learners whose L1 is a minority language, an early start will entail a substantial number of additional hours of instruction. However, an early start for L2 instruction may also prevent children from continuing to develop and use their L1 while they are learning the L2 (Swain, Reference Swain1981). We will now turn to the question of how restricting L1 use in order to accord more time to L2 affects learning outcomes.

2.2 Use only L2 in the classroom

In foreign language classrooms, teachers have been urged to use only the new language and to discourage students from using their L1 during L2 instruction. Because classroom time for foreign language learning is typically very limited, such a policy is motivated by the desire to give students the greatest exposure to the L2. Nevertheless, a strict adherence to such a policy overlooks the well-documented evidence that previously learned languages are always present in the mind of the learner, even when the focus is on the new language (Kroll, Dussias, Bogulski, & Valdes-Kroff, Reference Kroll, Dussias, Bogulski, Valdes-Kroff and Ross2012), and a reference to the language(s) students already know can be a useful bridge to understanding both the meaning and the structures of the new language, ultimately saving ‘time’ and leading to more effective learning (Cook, Reference Cook2001).

In the context of second language learning by minority language children, it is often asserted that the most effective instruction will be ‘English only’ (with ‘English’ representing the majority language or the ‘official’ language of the school). To be sure, the intention of such a policy is to create the maximum amount of time for learning the L2. However, it is also based on the belief that learning will be most successful if students are discouraged from reverting to L1 when they encounter difficulty in the L2, that using both languages will create confusion for them, and that they should be encouraged to ‘think in the L2’. This belief has been challenged by many studies of minority language children showing that when they are able to draw on both their L1 and their growing L2 knowledge, they are less likely to lose out on early opportunities to acquire academic content knowledge and skills, including basic literacy. Furthermore, learners’ L1 has been found to be a powerful contributor to their L2 development, reinforcing the view that languages are mutually supportive and that the underlying cognitive skills developed through one language can be accessed in the other (Cummins, Reference Cummins2001). The research on this topic includes large-scale comparison studies of bilingual and English-only programs in the US where the sustained use of learners’ L1 has led to achievements in L2 literacy and other academic subjects that are comparable to or better than those of L2 learners in monolingual English-only programs (Collier & Thomas, Reference Collier and Thomas2017).

When monolinguals come to school having already spent thousands of hours learning their L1 (which is also the school language), their language knowledge continues to grow rapidly throughout their years in school. For this reason, minority language children who are L2 learners must run to catch up with a moving target. In their review of decades of research on the education of English language learners in the US, Collier and Thomas (Reference Collier and Thomas2017) conclude that to reach age-appropriate achievement across school grades it takes ‘an average of 6 years for those who start in kindergarten and receive quality dual-language schooling in both L1 and L2 for a minimum of six years, with at least half of the instructional time in their L1. It takes still longer, seven to ten years or more, if students have not had the opportunity to be schooled in their L1, and many in this situation do not reach grade-level achievement and are often referred to by school personnel as ‘long-term English learners'. (Collier & Thomas, Reference Collier and Thomas2017, p. 207).

Studies in a variety of contexts have shown that the maintenance and continued development of L1 has a strong positive correlation with the academic success and L2 proficiency of minority language children (Goldenberg, Reference Goldenberg2008). Furthermore, the regular use of more than one language, if it is sustained throughout life, has been found to have benefits for cognitive performance that extend far beyond success in school (Bialystok, Craik, Klein, & Viswanathan, Reference Bialystok, Craik, Klein and Viswanathan2004). Researchers have increasingly emphasized the value of being ‘multicompetent’ (Cook, Reference Cook1992) and able to operate successfully in a variety of social, cultural, and intellectual environments, drawing on all one's linguistic resources. As a result, a number of instructional approaches have been developed to encourage L2 learners to continue using their L1. This includes multilingual teaching (Cenoz, Reference Cenoz2009; Chumak-Horbatsch, Reference Chumak-Horbatsch2012), translanguaging (García, Reference García2009), and plurilingual education (Piccardo, Reference Piccardo2013).

While concerns have been raised by teachers (and parents) that using the L1 in the L2 classroom may create confusion for learners and that it will interfere with their L2 learning, research suggests the opposite. Studies that have compared learners' use of L1 in group interaction versus exclusive L2 use have revealed that L1 use leads to improved information sharing and more fluid and efficient interaction. This is thought to free up learners' cognitive resources enabling them to focus on the structural and semantic elements of the L2 (Storch & Wigglesworth, Reference Storch and Wigglesworth2003). There is also a growing body of research showing that approaches to L2 instruction which incorporate learners' L1 have a positive impact on their multilingual identities and contribute to improved cognitive and linguistic development (García, Reference García2017).

Clearly, the place of learners' L1 varies in different school and community contexts, and it is essential to recognize the inadequacy of general statements about what the role of L1 is or should be. For example, it is extremely challenging to provide opportunities for L1 growth by children from immigrant or minority language groups who have not had educational opportunities in their L1 because of interrupted or inadequate schooling and who have few or no peers who share their L1 in their new school or community. They may arrive with little or no knowledge of the new language but also with no academic L1 experience on which to build their proficiency in the new language. For these learners, it is also challenging to find materials or teachers to support continued L1 growth. At the other end of the spectrum are majority language speakers, e.g., English speakers in Canada or the UK, who are learning an additional language in an instructional program in classes where both their peers and their teachers share the same L1. In this context, the challenge is to keep the L1 from overwhelming the L2 when students' proficiency in the new language limits their ability to use the L2 meaningfully. In the former case, L1 maintenance may depend primarily on encouraging parents to continue using their family language with their children at home and finding creative ways to acknowledge students' L1 abilities in the classroom (Sanchez-Lopez & Young, Reference Sanchez-Lopez and Young2018). In the latter case, the pedagogical benefits of drawing on students' L1 through metalinguistic conversations or in some elements of group work can recognize the value of what students already know while keeping the focus on learning and using the L2 (Ballinger, Lyster, Sterzuk, & Genesee, Reference Ballinger, Lyster, Sterzuk and Genesee2017).

3.1 Provide periods of intensive instruction

When it is not possible to substantially increase the time available for classroom learning, ‘compact’ or ‘intensive’ instruction – teaching more intensively over shorter periods of time – has been an effective alternative (Hawkins, Reference Hawkins, Hawkins and Perren1978). While these innovations often permit a modest increase in the time available for teaching and learning, their main characteristic is that they concentrate the available hours for L2 instruction. For example, a number of schools in Quebec, Canada, experimented with what has come to be called ‘intensive English’ instruction for French-speaking students (Lightbown & Spada, Reference Lightbown and Spada1994, Reference Lightbown and Spada1997). In one model, learners engage in English language activities for four or five hours a day, five days a week, for one half of one school year (five months); in the other half of the school year, they intensively study the other subjects in their curriculum, in French, their L1. In other schools with intensive programs, students have English activities for up to half of each school day for the full ten months of one school year. In both of these models, intensive English is available for only one year, in grade 5 or grade 6, when students are between ten and twelve years of age.

The L2 proficiency of students who have completed an intensive English program has been compared with that of older learners who had been in English classes for 20 to 45 minutes each day for three or four years of primary school and four years of secondary school. Intensive English learners showed sustained advantages on L2 listening and reading comprehension and oral production measures, even after they returned to the regular dripfeed programs in secondary school (Lightbown & Spada, Reference Lightbown and Spada1991).Footnote ³ Similarly positive results have been reported for learners in intensive French programs elsewhere in Canada (Germain, Lightbown, Netten, & Spada, Reference Germain, Lightbown, Netten and Spada2004).

The success of intensive instruction in comparison to dripfeed instruction leaves open the question of whether certain concentrations of time are more effective than others. Collins and White (Reference Collins and White2011) compared programs in Quebec in which students received a similar number of hours of instruction, distributed over either a part of the school year or the entire year. They found that the groups who received the most concentrated instruction made the most progress but the differences were small (See also Collins, Halter, Lightbown, & Spada, Reference Collins, Halter, Lightbown and Spada1999). Lapkin, Hart, and Harley (Reference Lapkin, Hart, Harley and Lapkin1998) compared the L2 progress of learners in French language programs in Canada with learners who received different degrees of concentrated instruction (e.g. 80 minutes per day over 5 months versus 150 minutes per day over 10 weeks). They observed advantages for learners in the more concentrated classes but only on some measures. The benefits of different levels of intensity/concentration may not be realized until a certain threshold of time is reached. For example, in a review of more than 15 studies comparing learner gains in programs in Europe with different amounts and distributions of time, Muñoz (Reference Muñoz2014) found no differences between groups until the time surpassed 300 hours. Larson-Hall (Reference Larson-Hall2008) investigated the long-term effects of starting age by looking at the English knowledge of Japanese college students with minimal amounts of contact with English. She found that those who had begun learning earlier (at age 9) did better on some measures than those who had started later (age 12 or 13) but that these ‘modest benefits’ emerged only when learners had accumulated a substantial number of hours of instruction.

For L2 learning at school, the evidence suggests that providing more intensive instruction for older children rather than starting as early as possible and spreading limited amounts of instructional time over a longer period will lead to better outcomes. Nevertheless, educational policy makers continue to make decisions based on a misinterpretation of evidence drawn from both research and experience that report on the success of early bilingual development in home and community environments.

3.2 Integrate the teaching of language and academic subjects

One problem that arises when educators seek to add hours to foreign language instruction is that classroom time is limited for all subjects. From a zero-sum perspective of curriculum planning, time spent teaching L2 is time away from teaching mathematics or history. Many schools around the world have addressed this issue by implementing content-based language teaching (CBLT).Footnote ⁴ CBLT approaches such as immersion, English-medium instruction (EMI), and content and language-integrated learning (CLIL) add time for language learning without taking away time for learning other material (Lightbown, Reference Lightbown2014). For example, learners in Canadian French immersion programs receive at least half their academic content instruction in French, (between 12 and 24 hours a week or 500–1,000 hours per year), and they develop significantly higher levels of French language proficiency than children learning French as a subject. Indeed their French language comprehension abilities are considered comparable to those of their peers who are L1 speakers of French. French immersion learners who have had several years of education almost entirely in French do not experience delays or interruptions in the development and use of interpersonal communicative skills in English, their L1. Furthermore, once they begin to receive some of their academic instruction in English, students develop proficiency in academic uses of English that is equivalent to or better than that of their peers who have been educated primarily in English. With respect to their knowledge of curriculum content taught in French (e.g., history and science), their test performance is comparable to that of English L1 students in English-medium schools (Genesee, Reference Genesee1987). Similar outcomes have been reported in other immersion programs (Tedick & Wesely, Reference Tedick and Wesely2015).

In educational programs where minority language students receive all or most of their instruction in the L2, the amount of time spent in L2 instruction may reach 1,200 hours in a school year. These students arrive at school at different ages, and their success at school depends on their learning the school language. It may be the majority language of the community (e.g., English for a Hmong speaker in a Minneapolis school) or the official language of education (e.g., French for a Hausa speaker in rural Niger). One measure that may be used to define success for these children is the ability to use language in social interactions. In a supportive environment, both children and adolescents typically acquire the ability to use every day oral language within a couple of years. This ability, which Cummins (Reference Cummins1979, Reference Cummins2001) labeled Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) allows students to participate in conversations and is often interpreted as evidence of success in L2 learning. However, students must also learn to understand, speak, read, and write the language well enough to use it in order to learn the content of academic subjects. The Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) needed in these contexts involves considerably more vocabulary and different ways of using language than is typically needed for BICS. As noted by Collier and Thomas (Reference Collier and Thomas2017), CALP can take an average of six years to develop. It may take longer if the L2 learner has had little prior educational experience and opportunity to develop L1 knowledge and skills, especially literacy, and if ongoing education in and through their L1 is not possible.

It is important to emphasize that while CBLT approaches such as CLIL, EMI, and immersion respond to the time limitations for L2 learning in both foreign and second language settings, they have their own challenges. For example, research has shown that many minority language learners submersed in monolingual EMI in North America do not succeed linguistically or academically (Goldenberg, Reference Goldenberg2008). This is particularly the case with secondary school learners who have not had opportunities to develop CALP through L1 and who do not receive sufficient L2 linguistic support within and outside of school to cope with the demands of the academic language of schooling (Gunderson, Reference Gunderson2007). The absence of language instruction that is adapted to the learners’ proficiency in the L2 is also typical of some EMI programmes where students are taught as if they are already competent users of English. Similar concerns have been expressed about CBLT programs in foreign-language contexts, where students often experience difficulty coping with the language in content-based materials. Furthermore, in some CLIL programs, problems have arisen when teachers realized that they lacked the specific L2 proficiency needed for teaching academic subjects or for helping students identify and overcome problems they had with the language itself (Banegas, Reference Banegas2012; Morton, Reference Morton2018). To provide successful subject-matter instruction for L2 students, teachers need training in language and language pedagogy (de Oliveira & Schleppegrell, Reference de Oliveira and Schleppegrell2015) as well as the academic content they teach. Schools and school systems need to take account of the fact that learning through L2 is more difficult than learning through L1. However, if proficiency in L2 is a serious goal, the additional effort is worthwhile.