ERIC Identifier: ED350885

Publication Date: 1992-12-00

Author:
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics Washington DC.

Myths and Misconceptions about Second

Language Learning. ERIC Digest.
This Digest is based on a report published by the National Center for Research on Cultural
Diversity and Second Language Learning, University of California, Santa Cruz: "Myths
and Misconceptions About Second Language Learning: What Every Teacher Needs to
Unlearn," by Barry McLaughlin. Copies of the full report are available for $4.00 from
Center for Applied Linguistics, NCRCDSLL, 1118 22nd St. NW, Washington, DC 20037
As the school-aged population changes, teachers all over the country are challenged with
instructing more children with limited English skills. Thus, all teachers need to know
something about how children learn a second language (L2). Intuitive assumptions are
often mistaken, and children can be harmed if teachers have unrealistic expectations of the
process of L2 learning and its relationship to the acquisition of other academic skills and
knowledge.
As any adult who has tried to learn another language can verify, second language learning
can be a frustrating experience. This is no less the case for children, although there is a
widespread belief that children are facile second language learners. This digest discusses
commonly held myths and misconceptions about children and second language learning
and the implications for classroom teachers.
MYTH 1: CHILDREN LEARN SECOND LANGUAGES QUICKLY AND EASILY.
Typically, people who assert the superiority of child learners claim that children's brains are
more flexible (e.g., Lenneberg, 1967). Current research challenges this biological
imperative, arguing that different rates of L2 acquisition may reflect psychological and
social factors that favor child learners (Newport, 1990). Research comparing children to
adults has consistently demonstrated that adolescents and adults perform better than young
children under controlled conditions (e.g., Snow & Hoefnagel-Hoehle, 1978). One
exception is pronunciation, although even here some studies show better results for older
learners.
Nonetheless, people continue to believe that children learn languages faster than adults. Is
this superiority illusory? Let us consider the criteria of language proficiency for a child and
an adult. A child does not have to learn as much as an adult to achieve communicative
competence. A child's constructions are shorter and simpler, and vocabulary is smaller.

Hence, although it appears that the child learns more quickly than the adult, research results
typically indicate that adult and adolescent learners perform better.
Teachers should not expect miraculous results from children learning English as a second
language (ESL) in the classroom. At the very least, they should anticipate that learning a
second language is as difficult for a child as it is for an adult. It may be even more difficult,
since young children do not have access to the memory techniques and other strategies that
more experienced learners use in acquiring vocabulary and in learning grammatical rules.
Nor should it be assumed that children have fewer inhibitions than adults when they make
mistakes in an L2. Children are more likely to be shy and embarrassed around peers than
are adults. Children from some cultural backgrounds are extremely anxious when singled
out to perform in a language they are in the process of learning. Teachers should not
assume that, because children supposedly learn second languages quickly, such discomfort
will readily pass.
MYTH 2: THE YOUNGER THE CHILD, THE MORE SKILLED IN ACQUIRING
AN L2
Some researchers argue that the earlier children begin to learn a second language, the better
(e.g., Krashen, Long, & Scarcella, 1979). However, research does not support this
conclusion in school settings. For example, a study of British children learning French in a
school context concluded that, after 5 years of exposure, older children were better L2
learners (Stern, Burstall, & Harley, 1975). Similar results have been found in other
European studies (e.g., Florander & Jansen, 1968).
These findings may reflect the mode of language instruction used in Europe, where
emphasis has traditionally been placed on formal grammatical analysis. Older children are
more skilled in dealing with this approach and hence might do better. However, this
argument does not explain findings from studies of French immersion programs in Canada,
where little emphasis is placed on the formal aspects of grammar. On tests of French
language proficiency, Canadian English-speaking children in late immersion programs
(where the L2 is introduced in Grade 7 or 8) have performed as well or better than children
who began immersion in kindergarten or Grade 1 (Genesee, 1987).
Pronunciation is one area where the younger-is-better assumption may have validity.
Research (e.g., Oyama, 1976) has found that the earlier a learner begins a second language,
the more native-like the accent he or she develops.
The research cited above does not suggest, however, that early exposure to an L2 is
detrimental. An early start for "foreign" language learners, for example, makes a long
sequence of instruction leading to potential communicative proficiency possible and
enables children to view second language learning and related cultural insights as normal
and integral. Nonetheless, ESL instruction in the United States is different from foreign
language instruction. Language minority children in U.S. schools need to master English as
quickly as possible while learning subject-matter content. This suggests that early exposure

to English is called for. However, because L2 acquisition takes time, children continue to
need the support of their first language, where this is possible, to avoid falling behind in
content area learning.
Teachers should have realistic expectations of their ESL learners. Research suggests that
older students will show quicker gains, though younger children may have an advantage in
pronunciation. Certainly, beginning language instruction in Grade 1 gives children more
exposure to the language than beginning in Grade 6, but exposure in itself does not predict
language acquisition.

MYTH 3: THE MORE TIME STUDENTS SPEND IN A SECOND LANGUAGE

CONTEXT, THE QUICKER THEY LEARN THE LANGUAGE.
Many educators believe children from non-English-speaking backgrounds will learn
English best through structured immersion, where they have ESL classes and content-based
instruction in English. These programs provide more time on task in English than bilingual
classes.
Research, however, indicates that this increased exposure to English does not necessarily
speed the acquisition of English. Over the length of the program, children in bilingual
classes, with exposure to the home language and to English, acquire English language skills
equivalent to those acquired by children who have been in English-only programs
(Cummins, 1981; Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991). This would not be expected if time on
task were the most important factor in language learning.
Researchers also caution against withdrawing home language support too soon and suggest
that although oral communication skills in a second language may be acquired within 2 or 3
years, it may take 4 to 6 years to acquire the level of proficiency needed for understanding
the language in its academic uses (Collier, 1989; Cummins, 1981).
Teachers should be aware that giving language minority children support in the home
language is beneficial. The use of the home language in bilingual classrooms enables
children to maintain grade-level school work, reinforces the bond between the home and
the school, and allows them to participate more effectively in school activities.
Furthermore, if the children acquire literacy skills in the first language, as adults they may
be functionally bilingual, with an advantage in technical or professional careers.
MYTH 4: CHILDREN HAVE ACQUIRED AN L2 ONCE THEY CAN SPEAK IT.
Some teachers assume that children who can converse comfortably in English are in full
control of the language. Yet for school-aged children, proficiency in face-to-face
communication does not imply proficiency in the more complex academic language needed
to engage in many classroom activities. Cummins (1980) cites evidence from a study of
1,210 immigrant children in Canada who required much longer (approximately 5 to 7
years) to master the disembedded cognitive language required for the regular English

curriculum than to master oral communicative skills.

Educators need to be cautious in exiting children from programs where they have the
support of their home language. If children who are not ready for the all-English classroom
are mainstreamed, their academic success may be hindered. Teachers should realize that
mainstreaming children on the basis of oral language assessment is inappropriate.
All teachers need to be aware that children who are learning in a second language may
have language problems in reading and writing that are not apparent if their oral abilities
are used to gauge their English proficiency. These problems in academic reading and
writing at the middle and high school levels may stem from limitations in vocabulary and
syntactic knowledge. Even children who are skilled orally can have such gaps.
MYTH 5: ALL CHILDREN LEARN AN L2 IN THE SAME WAY.
Most teachers would probably not admit that they think all children learn an L2 in the same
way or at the same rate. Yet, this assumption seems to underlie a great deal of practice.
Cultural anthropologists have shown that mainstream U.S. families and families from
minority cultural backgrounds have different ways of talking (Heath, 1983). Mainstream
children are accustomed to a deductive, analytic style of talking, whereas many culturally
diverse children are accustomed to an inductive style. U.S. schools emphasize language
functions and styles that predominate in mainstream families. Language is used to
communicate meaning, convey information, control social behavior, and solve problems,
and children are rewarded for clear and logical thinking. Children who use language in a
different manner often experience frustration.
Social class also influences learning styles. In urban, literate, and technologically advanced
societies, middle-class parents teach their children through language. Traditionally, most
teaching in less technologically advanced, non-urbanized cultures is carried out
nonverbally, through observation, supervised participation, and self-initiated repetition
(Rogoff, 1990). There is none of the information testing through questions that
characterizes the teaching-learning process in urban and suburban middle-class homes.
In addition, some children are more accustomed to learning from peers than from adults.
Cared for and taught by older siblings or cousins, they learn to be quiet in the presence of
adults and have little interaction with them. In school, they are likely to pay more attention
to what their peers are doing than to what the teacher is saying.
Individual children also react to school and learn differently within groups. Some children
are outgoing and sociable and learn the second language quickly. They do not worry about
mistakes, but use limited resources to generate input from native speakers. Other children
are shy and quiet. They learn by listening and watching. They say little, for fear of making
a mistake. Nonetheless, research shows that both types of learners can be successful second
language learners.

In a school environment, behaviors such as paying attention and persisting at tasks are
valued. Because of cultural differences, some children may find the interpersonal setting of
the school culture difficult. If the teacher is unaware of such cultural differences, their
expectations and interactions with these children may be influenced.
Effective instruction for children from culturally diverse backgrounds requires varied
instructional activities that consider the children's diversity of experience. Many important
educational innovations in current practice have resulted from teachers adapting instruction
for children from culturally diverse backgrounds. Teachers need to recognize that
experiences in the home and home culture affect children's values, patterns of language use,
and interpersonal style. Children are likely to be more responsive to a teacher who affirms
the values of the home culture.

CONCLUSION
Research on second language learning has shown that many misconceptions exist about
how children learn languages. Teachers need to be aware of these misconceptions and
realize that quick and easy solutions are not appropriate for complex problems. Second
language learning by school-aged children takes longer, is harder, and involves more effort
than many teachers realize.
We should focus on the opportunity that cultural and linguistic diversity provides. Diverse
children enrich our schools and our understanding of education in general. In fact, although
the research of the National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second
Language Learning has been directed at children from culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds, much of it applies equally well to mainstream students.

REFERENCES
Collier, V. (1989). How long: A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second
language. "TESOL Quarterly, 23," 509-531.
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications
for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. "TESOL Quarterly, 14," 175-187.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In "Schooling and language minority students: A
theoretical framework." Los Angeles: California State University; Evaluation,
Dissemination, and Assessment Center.
Florander, J., & Jansen, M. (1968). "Skolefors'g i engelsk 1959-1965." Copenhagen:
Danish Institute of Education.
Genesee, F. (1987). "Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual

education." New York: Newbury House.

Heath, S. B. (1983). "Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms." New York: Cambridge.
Krashen, S., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, rate, and eventual attainment in second
language acquisition. "TESOL Quarterly, 13," 573-582.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). "The biological foundations of language." New York: Wiley.
Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. "Cognitive Science,
14," 11-28.
Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of nonnative phonological system.
"Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5," 261-284.
Ramirez, J.D., Yuen, S.D., & Ramey, D.R. (1991). "Longitudinal study of structured
English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education
programs for language minority children. Final Report." "Volumes 1 & 2." San Mateo, CA:
Aguirre International.
Rogoff, B. (1990). "Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context."
New York: Oxford.
Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Hoehle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition:
Evidence from second language learning. "Child Development, 49," 1114-1118.
Stern, H. H., Burstall, C., & Harley, B. (1975). "French from age eight or eleven?" Toronto:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education