An Interview With Dr Katharine Hunt Dorothy – 26/10/01
Much debate at present centres around the teaching of Maori language as a core subject in our schools. The arguments fly back and forth. I interviewed a number of New Zealand adults and here are some of the responses.
“The curriculum is too full already. There’s no time for another subject.”
“If we truly want to be seen as a bicultural society we must not ignore the language of our Maori people.”
“What about teaching the Samoan language? We have a large number of Samoan families who are struggling to make sure that their young people retain their traditional language and culture.”
“New Zealand is wanting to develop a knowledge-based economy. The curriculum should be focussed on the subjects that will train our young people to work in computer jobs or in scientific research. Where does a language not used in commerce fit into this pattern?”
“We shouldn’t force children to learn a second language. If they want to learn it when they grow up they’ll have the motivation to study seriously. At school they’ll just see it as yet another reason for homework.”
“It might be okay for the bright students to have an extra subject, but already a lot of Kiwi students have low literacy standards. If they can’t cope in English how would they cope in Maori or any other second language. They need jobs so they should concentrate on improving their English.”
“We should stick to teaching the three Rs which give a good basis for a job. I wouldn’t employ someone who could speak another language but couldn’t write a decent letter in English.”
“Where would we find enough trained teachers to teach the Maori language?”
How valid are these comments? What are the views of language researchers? To throw some light on the value of language teaching in the primary school curriculum I interviewed ex-pat Kiwi language researcher Dr Katharine Hunt about the findings of researchers on this topic.
Katharine Hunt’s answers to questions many Kiwis are asking at present.
1. Are children better at learning languages than adolescents and adults? Yes. A lot of research supports the claim that only learners who begin to learn a second language at a young age (at least before puberty) will end up with native-like proficiency in that language. While many possible explanations of this phenomenon have been suggested, probably the most widely accepted is a neurological one – that there is a loss of plasticity within the brain as the child ages.
These research findings, however, come from studies of second language acquisition by immigrants, who are immersed in the second language, rather than from studies of children learning a second language in the classroom. Clearly classroom learning of a second language is a very different process, and it doesn’t usually lead to native-like proficiency, regardless of the age at which it begins. Classroom learning doesn’t seem to engage children’s special language ability.
2. In that case, are there any advantages to starting second language teaching at an early age? Will children who start at a younger age end up being more proficient in a language than children who start later? Probably, although the research results are somewhat mixed. One common sense argument is that if children start earlier, they can spend more overall time studying the language. However, this potential advantage can be lost if, when they start high school, students who have already studied the language are placed in classes with beginners. Even in this situation, though, research has shown that children who begin younger show greater proficiency and confidence in speaking a second language than students who begin later.
3. Won’t devoting time to second language study mean that pupils do less well in other important subjects, like reading and mathematics? Surprisingly, the answer to this question is “No”. Studies have shown that second language study actually improves pupils’ performance in other subjects. In a large study of second language teaching in Louisiana, students in grades 3-5 (ages 9-11) who had studied a second language scored higher in tests of English language arts than students who had had extra instruction in English language arts instead of in a second language. Other studies have shown that second language study correlates with higher scores on maths tests.
4. Apart from the academic benefits, are there any other benefits to studying a second language at a young age? Quite a number of researchers have claimed that studying a second language early in life (before puberty) leads students to become more respectful and appreciative of cultural diversity. For a multi-cultural society, this might be the most important benefit.
5. Isn’t early second language study just for the academically gifted? Wouldn’t it be too hard for below-average students? Actually, research in this area shows that second language study in primary school is appropriate for students of all abilities, even those with learning disabilities. Especially in the younger classes, when much of the language work is done orally, second language classes can serve as an academic ‘equalizer’, with below-average students doing as well as above-average students in tests of listening comprehension and speaking.
6. If there is to be a second language programme, what kind of programme should it be? In the US, second language programmes are usually divided into three types. The kind of programme a school would choose would depend on the goals of the school, and the resources which were available.
One type of programme is an immersion programme in which a large part of the curriculum, such as social studies and maths, is taught in the target language. In this kind of programme students typically achieve a high level of proficiency in the target language. However, such programmes are difficult to organize, as they require many resources and specialized teachers.
A second type of programme is called FLEX (Foreign Language Experience). In this kind of programme students study a language for just a short time, usually a few weeks. The programme may allow students to sample different languages, or else it may be part of a social studies or language arts unit. In this type of programme students get exposure to a second language, but do not become proficient in it.
The third type of programme is referred to as FLES (Foreign Language in the Elementary School). In this type of programme language classes are held several times a week throughout the year, as part of the regular school curriculum. Classes in a FLES programme are sequenced, so that students progress from year to year. The goal of this kind of programme is for students to achieve some degree of proficiency in the language.
7. Could the second language be taught as an option in an after-school class? This is possible, but usually parents have to pay for this kind of programme themselves, and so not all students get a chance to participate. After-school programmes also face other challenges. Often there is a single class of very mixed levels, and a different group of students each year. This makes it very difficult for the teacher to provide the kind of sequenced instruction which would allow students to progress from year to year.
8. How much class time would need to be devoted to a language programme for it to be worthwhile? There are not any clear-cut answers here, but obviously the more time spent in language study, the greater proficiency the students will attain in the language. Most programmes meet for at least 75 minutes a week.
9. Given the research you have looked at, would you want your own children to learn a second language at primary school? Definitely! I would love my children to have the opportunity to gain the academic and cultural benefits of learning a second language while they are young. Also, language classes for young children are typically really fun, involving lots of hands-on activities using the second language, rather than rote memorization. I think my children would really enjoy that kind of class, and I hope they will have the chance to participate in one.
Katharine Hunt has a PhD in linguistics and an MA in Teaching English as a Second Language. She currently teaches ESL and linguistics at Bellevue Community College in Washington, USA.
