http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/classics/focus/02aage.

htm

Preamble

In this issue of New Focus, which examines the relationship of age to

second language acquisition for school, two articles are presented.
Virginia P. Collier reviews a number of studies, including her own
recently completed one, that point to an advantage which children in
middle childhood appear to have over younger children and adolescents in
formally acquiring a second language. In the second article, Charles
William Twyford analyzes a number of factors --cognitive, sociocultural,
affective, and linguistic-- that may account for age differences in second
language acquisition. Together the two articles provide an overview for
practitioners that can form the basis for reasoned decisions in setting
objectives, designing curricula, and selecting instructional strategies for
limited-English-proficient students.

The Effect of Age on Acquisition of a Second Language

for School
Virginia P. Collier
George Mason University
Introduction
As the number of non-English- and limited-English-proficient students in our schools
increases steadily, educators are looking for more efficient and cost-effective ways to
improve these students' English skills so that they can participate fully in the curriculum
of their schools. It is natural, then, for teachers, curriculum developers, administrators,
and government officials to ask how long it should take for limited-English-proficient
students to break through the language limitations that hinder their learning and
advancement.
The only simple answer to that question is "It depends." It depends on the learner's
cognitive style, socioeconomic background, formal schooling in first language, and many
other factors. A substantial amount of research, testing the old axiom that young learners
learn best, also tells us that successful language acquisition depends on the learner's age.
This article, recognizing the interaction of many variables in second language
acquisition, will examine what has been said about the effect of age on the amount of
time students need to acquire a second language.
The conclusions presented here, when considered with other research findings and
specific student information, can guide planners and practitioners toward the
implementation of more effective programs for limited-English-proficient students.

Is There a Critical Period for Second Language Acquisition?

Some of the earliest studies of the effect of age on the acquisition of a second language
focused on proving or disproving Lenneberg's (1967) critical period hypothesis.
Lenneberg theorized that the acquisition of language is an innate process determined by
biological factors which limit the critical period for acquisition of a language from
roughly two years of age to puberty. Lenneberg believed that after lateralization (a
process by which the two sides of the brain develop specialized functions), the brain
loses plasticity. Lenneberg claimed that lateralization of the language function is
normally completed at puberty, making post-adolescent language acquisition difficult.
Many studies have tested this hypothesis by comparing children to adults in the
acquisition of pronunciation. Studies examining subjects' pronunciation after over five
years of exposure to the second language consistently find that the large majority of
adults retain their accent when the second language is acquired after puberty, whereas
children initiating second language acquisition before puberty have little or no foreign
accent (e.g., Asher and Garcia, 1969; Oyama, 1976; Seliger, Krashen and Ladefoged,
1975; Tahta, Wood and Loewenthal, 1981). Two studies assessing students' acquisition
of pronunciation after three years of exposure to the second language found that younger
students had retained more accent-free pronunciation when compared to adolescents just
past puberty (Fathman, 1975; Williams, 1979).
Researchers have debated the age at which lateralization actually occurs. Kinsbourne
(1975) proposes completion by birth; Krashen (1973) suggests it may be complete by age
5; Lenneberg (1967) proposes lateralization by puberty. Long (1988) suggests that the
brain's loss of placticity is also due to other aspects of cerebral maturation unrelated to
lateralization. Regardless of the exact timing of lateralization or other related factors,
evidence is very strong that most people who acquire a second language after puberty
retain an accent in the second language.
It may be that the effort to test the critical period hypothesis is called too much attention
to one aspect of language proficiency - pronunciation - and to the child/adult dichotomy.
Educators may be more concerned about differences in language acquisition of young
children (4-7), older children (8-12), and adolescence (13-16), and they are interested in
more aspects of language to be mastered than just pronunciation. The sections which
follow examine the effect of age on school children's acquisition of progressively
complex language domains: first, basic oral skills, then language skills for school
including oral and written skills, and finally language skills in content area development.
Does Age Affect Basic Oral Second Language Development?
The critical period studies usually focused on child-adult differences and suggested that
younger learners, still operating within the critical period, should be superior learners.
However, studies of oral language skill acquisition by children of different ages has led
to the conclusion that, initially, older children acquire faster than younger children.
For example, Ervin-Tripp (1974) found that after nine months of instruction in French, 7-
to-9-year-olds performed better than 4- to 6-year-olds did in comprehension, imitation,
and conversation. Similarly, Fathman (1975) found that in the first year of study, 11- to
15-year-olds were significantly better at acquiring English as a second language than 6-
to 10-year-olds in pronunciation, morphology, and syntax.
In Fathman's study, however, by year three the younger students outperformed the older
ones on the same types of measures. This flip-flop pattern continues in study after study
on short-term versus long-term exposure to the language; i.e., an early advantage is seen
in the acquisition of oral skills for older acquirers (even those after puberty), but younger
acquirers eventually catch up and outperform the older ones after several years' time
(Grinder, Otomo and Toyota, 1962; Hamayan, Saegert and Larudee, 1977; Krashen,
Scarcella and Long, 1982; Oyama, 1978; Patkowski, 1980; Ramirez and Politzer, 1978;
Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978; Stern, 1967; and Winitz, 1981).
It is important to note that these studies report a pattern of age differences as seen in
studies of basic oral skills in a second language, not the more complex skills required for
formal schooling. The next section examines the effect of age on acquiring those skills.
Does Age Affect the Development of Language Proficiency for School??
If English is being acquired for academic purposes, the level of proficiency expected is
much more complex than English for day-to-day survival. Cummins (1979; 1980; 1981a;
1981b) has proposed a model for second language acquisition that distinguishes between
these two types of language proficiency: language for general social interaction and
language for school. Cummins' distinction between face-to-face conversational
proficiency and proficiency which requires the speaker to rely solely on the language
itself can help clarify the effect that age has on the language acquisition of limited-
English-proficient students.

Cummins uses the term 'context-embedded' to describe face-to-face communication

where meaning can be negotiated. This type of communication is enhanced by a wide
range of paralinguistic (e.g., gesture, facial expression) and situational cues. On the other
hand, context-reduced language relies primarily on linguistic or language-based cues to
meaning and is more difficult to produce and comprehend. Cummins' model (see Figure
1) consists of two intersecting continuums: the first from context-embedded language to
context-reduced language, and the second from cognitively undemanding language
(which requires little conscious attention to language forms or choices) to cognitively
demanding language (which requires the active cognitive efforts of the speaker/writer to
produce).
Language proficiency required for school tasks can incorporate the whole range of skills
in all four quadrants, but it is especially for school that students need to develop context-
reduced and cognitively demanding aspects of language in order to function successfully
in the classroom. Swain (1981) describes some of these aspects of language for school:
Language which is used to explain, to classify, to generalize, to abstract,
to manipulate ideas, to gain knowledge, and to apply that knowledge
(doing so eventually with only language providing the contextualizing
cues) constitutes essential aspects of the cognitive demands made on
students as they progress in school. One of the goals of the educational
system is that students be able to make use of decontextualized language,
that is, to be able to use language alone as a tool for learning in reading
and listening; and to use language alone as a tool for conceptualizing,
drawing abstract generalizations, expressing complex relationships in
speaking and writing (p.5).
 For academic purposes, students need to acquire as complete a range of skills in the
second language as possible. Language in school becomes increasingly abstract as
students move from one grade level to the next. Language becomes the focus of every
content area task, with all meaning and all demonstration of knowledge expressed
through oral and written forms of language. It would be good to know, then, at what ages
and after what length of time students do best in acquiring a second language for school.
Several researchers have conducted studies comparing the performance of students of
different ages on language tasks associated with school skills, including reading and
writing. The short-term studies once again show an initial advantage for the older
students, but in contrast to the previous studies cited on basic oral second language
development, the long-term studies show a continuing advantage for the older students
(ages 8 to 12). When examining age on arrival, most studies of both short-term and long-
term acquisition find that students arriving between the ages of 8 and 12 are faster in
early acquisition of second language skills, and over several years' time they maintain
this advantage over younger arrivals of 4 to 7 years. Table 1, on the next page,
summarizes the findings of several studies that support this conclusion.
Based on this review, we can assert that older students (ages 8 to 12) are faster, more
efficient acquirers of school language than younger students (ages 4 to 7). In many of the
studies reviewed, young children beginning the study of a second language between the
ages of 4 and 7 take much longer to master skills needed for academic purposes than
older children do. Why is this so? Several explanations have been proposed, though none
yet has conclusive research support. First, we know that children who enter school at age
5 or 6 have not completed acquisition of their first language, which continues through at
least age 12. From ages 6 to 12, children still are in the process of developing in first
language the complex skills of reading and writing, in addition to continuing acquisition
of more complex rules of morphology and syntax, elaboration of speech acts, expansion
of vocabulary, semantic development, and even some subtleties in phonological
development (McLaughlin, 1984, pp. 41-43).
It may be, then, that when young children are asked to learn a second language for use at
school before their first language has sufficiently matured to serve as a source of
transferable skills, the learning task is very burdensome and requires more time than
older children need--children whose first language skills are available for transfer. (The
older children in the studies cited had received schooling in their first language.)
It has also been argued (Ausubel, 1964; Burtsall, et al., 1974; Cummins, 1981a; Taylor,
1974) that older learners have an advantage in cognitive maturity, which gives them
more strategies for acquiring a new language. For example, Scarcella and Higa (1982)
showed in an experimental study that older learners take a more active role than younger
ones in negotiating understanding and sustaining conversations. As a result, they succeed
in obtaining input that is better suited to their learning needs.
TABLE 1

STUDIES OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISTION FOR SCHOOL

RESEARCHER STUDENTS SKILLS/TASKS RESULTS

Grinder, Otomo, and Second- and Vocabulary, listening Fourth-Graders

Toyota (1962) fourth- graders comprehension superior to second-
after one year of graders
study

Ervin-Tripp (1974) English speakers Listening, imitation, 7- to 9-year-olds

acquiring French taped natural superior to 4- to 6-year-
in Switzerland, conversation, diary olds in syntax,
tested in first 9 writing, translation morphology and
months pronunciation

Burstall (1975) 16-year-old Listening, speaking, Students who started

English speakers reading, writing French at age 8 only
introduced to slightly superior to
French at age 8 or those starting at age 11
11

Ekstrand (1976) Immigrants to Listening, Older students better

Sweden LOR*2; pronunciation, free oral than younger ones on
AOA**6-14 production, reading all measures
comprehension, free
writing

Snow and English speakers Pronunciation, auditory At LOR 6 months,

Hoefnagel-Hohle acquiring Dutch in discrimination, adults and 12- to 15-
(1978) Holland. Age morphology, sentence year-olds superior on
groups: 3-5, 6-7, repetition, sentence all measures. By LOR
8-10, 12-25, and translation, sentence 15-15 months, adult
adults. Tested at judgement, story progress slower; 8- to
LOR 6 months, 10 comprehension, 10-year-olds and 12- to
months and 14-15 Peabody Picture 15-year-olds surpassed
months. Vocabulary Test all others. 3- to 5-year-
olds consistently worst
performers on all
measures

Skutnabb-Kangas Finnish Listening, speaking, Students AOA 9-11

(1979a) immigrants to reading, writing significantly better than
Sweden students AOA 6-8

Lapkin, Swain, Tenth-grade Listening, speaking, Tenth-graders starting

Kamin, and Kanna students who reading, writing at age 12 (1400 hours
(1980) began French of instruction) roughly
immersion equivalent to group
program at age 5 starting at age 5 (4000
or age 12 hours of instruction)

Ferris and Politzer Eighth-grade Writing Students schooled in

(1981) Mexican Spanish in Mexico for
immigrants to the grades K-3 equal to
 U.S. those schooled
completely in English
in the U.S. for 9 years.
Students of AOA 9
years, LOR 5 years had
more positive attitudes
toward school and
higher grade point
averages than those of
LOR 9 years, AOA 5
years

Cummins, Swain, Japanese students English vocabulary, On second language

Nakajima, in Canada, Grades reading, preposition school skills, older
Hanscombe, Green 2-3 and 5-6; usage, sentence students significantly
and Fran (1984) Vietnamese ages repetition, oral better; on context-
9-17 interviews embedded measures
(basic skills), younger
students better. First
language school skills
accounted for
significant proportion
of variance in second
language skill

 LOR = Length of residence

** AOA = Age on arrival
Finally, Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1978) concluded after a study of second language
acquirers in Holland that their finding of superior initial performance by older learners
was perhaps due to the greater academic demands placed on these learners by the
schools, creating higher levels of motivation in them than in younger learners to learn the
language necessary for success in school.
Whatever the reasons might be, practitioners should be alert to the differences between
younger and older school children in the amount of time required for them to develop
second language skills adequate for schooling. Older learners (ages 8 to 12) have an
advantage, at least initially.
Does Age Affect Content-Area Achievement When Schooling is in a Second
Language?
Collier (1987) analyzed the length of time required for 1,548 immigrants to the U.S. to
become proficient in second language skills for all content areas when schooled only in
English. Students who had been mainstreamed after instruction in English as a second
language were tested in the fourth, sixth, eighth, and eleventh grades on reading,
language arts, social studies, science, and mathematics using standardized tests produced
by Science Research Associates (SRA). The study included a range of students
beginning with those who began exposure to English, their second language, at age 5 and
continuing through those beginning at age 15. Length of residence ranged from two to
five years. Over 75 first languages were represented in the sample. Only students who
were at grade level when they entered the U.S. and who had no previous exposure to
English were included in the study. Social class background of the sample was middle to
upper class in the home country with relatively lower income in the U.S. but with strong
middle-class aspirations.
Collier found that students who were 8 to 12 years old on arrival were the first to reach
norms for native speakers (50th percentile or normal curve equivalent [NCE]) on all
content-area tests, doing so within four to five years. Students who were 5 to 7 years old
on arrival fell significantly behind the older children in academic achievement, requiring
five to eight years to reach the 50th NCE, assuming a continued rate of gain similar to
the one at the time of the study. Arrivals at ages 12 to 15 experienced the greatest
difficulty reaching age and grade norms, requiring 6 to 8 years at their same rate of gain.
That finding appears at first glance to contradict the generalization that older students
whose first language proficiency is better developed acquire a second language for
school more rapidly than younger students. However, it may actually be pointing to the
increasing complexity of language development at each succeeding grade level and the
results of taking time away from content-area instruction while acquiring a second
language. Students who are 12 years old on arrival, for example, and who enter seventh
grade and begin their schooling completely in English with no previous exposure to
English, must take time to acquire beginning levels of basic oral English. As they master
sufficient basic English and develop a wide enough range of vocabulary in English to
move into deeper development of English for school, they may, in the meantime, lose
two to three years of learning in mathematics, science, and social studies at their age and
grade level. Secondary students can ill afford a loss of two to three years of complex
content-area development if they are to achieve at the performance level of native
speakers after a given period of time.
After puberty, then, despite advantageous learning rates, there are two problems with
beginning acquisition of a second language: (1) students are more likely to retain an
accent, and (2) if academic work is not continued while students are acquiring a second
language, there is not enough time left in high school to make up the lost years of
academic instruction.
Conclusions
It is clear that age (or age-related factors) is a major variable in the acquisition of a
second language for school. In the early stages of acquisition, older students are faster
and more efficient than younger students. Older students have the advantage of cognitive
development in their first language to assist them with acquiring school skills in the
second language. This early advantage diminishes after the first year for adults, but
remains for older children and adolescents for continuing development of their second
language skills. Adolescents past puberty are likely to retain an accent in the second
language. Otherwise, they are capable of developing complete second language
proficiency.
When schooled only in the second language, students in the 8-12 age range on arrival
may be the most advantaged acquirers of school skills in the second language, since they
have some first language skills to transfer and they still have time to make up the years
of academic instruction lost while acquiring basic second language skills and beginning
to acquire school skills in the second language. Even though adolescents can acquire
second language school skills at a fast pace, they have less time to make up lost years of
academic instruction easily.
It is important to note that the effect of age diminishes over time as the acquirer becomes
more proficient in the second language. Differences are generally found through the first
five years after arrival. It takes language minority students in any type of program a
minimum of four years to reach native speakers' level of school language proficiency and
may take as many as eight or more years, depending on age on arrival and type of school
program, as well as sociocultural factors and the individual characteristics of each second
language acquirer.
References
Asher, J., and Garcia, G. (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign language. Modern
Language Journal, 38, 334-341.
Ausubel, D.D. (1964). Adult versus children in second-language learning: Psychological
consideration. Modern Language Journal, 48, 420-24.
Burstall, C., Jamieson, M., Cohen, S., and Hargreaves, M. (1974). Primary French in the
balance. Slough: NFELR Publishing Co.
Burstall, C. (1975). Primary French in the balance. Educational Research, 17, 193-198.
Collier, V.P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic
purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641.
(ERIC Abstract) or (NCBE Abstract)
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic
interdependence, the optimal age question, and some other matters. Working Papers on
Bilingualism, 19, 197-205.
Cummins, J. (1980). The entry and exit fallacy in bilingual education. NABE Journal,
4(3), 25-59.
(ERIC Abstract) or (NCBE Abstract)
Cummins, J. (1981a). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada:
A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, 132-149.
(NCBE Abstract)
Cummins, J. (1981b). The role of primary language development in promoting
educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of
Education, Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-
49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center, California State
University.
(NCBE Abstract)
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and
pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K, Handscombe, J., Green, D., and Tran, C. (1984).
Linguistic interdependence among Japanese and Vietnamese immigrant students. In C.
Rivera (Ed.), Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency
assessment: Research and application (pp. 60-81). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Ekstrand, L. (1976). Age and length of residence as variables related to the adjustment of
migrant children, with special reference to second language learning. In G. Nickel (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics (Vol. 3, pp.
179-197). Stuttgart: Hochschulverlag.
Ervin-Tripp, S.M. (1974). Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly,
8,111-127.
(NCBE Abstract)
Fathman, A. (1975). The relationship between age and second language productive
ability. Language Learning, 25, 245-253.
Ferris, M.R., and Politzer, R.L. (1981). Effects of early and delayed second language
acquisition: English composition skills of Spanish-speaking junior high school students.
TESOL Quarterly, 15, 263-274.
Grinder, R., Otomo, A., and Toyota, W. (1962). Comparisons between second, third, and
fourth grade children in the audiolingual learning of Japanese as a second language. The
Journal of Educational Research, 56(4), 463469.
Hamayan, E., Saegert, J., and Larudee, P. (1977). Elicited imitation in second language
learners. Language and Speech, 20(1), 86-97.
Kinsbourne, M. (1975). The ontogeny of cerebral dominance. In D. Aaronson and R.
Rieber (Eds.), Developmental psycholinguistics and communication disorders. New
York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Krashen, S.D. (1973). Lateralization, language learning, and the critical period: Some
new evidence. Language Learning, 23, 63-74.
Krashen, S.D., Scarcella R.C., and Long, M.A. (Eds.). (1982). Child-adult differences in
second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
(ERIC Abstract) or (NCBE Abstract)
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., Kamin, J., and Hanna, G. (1980). "Report on the 1979 evaluation
of the Peel County late French immersion program, grades 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12."
Mimeographed. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Long, M. (1988). Maturational constraints on language development. University of
Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, (7)1,1-53.
McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second language acquisition in childhood: Vol. 1. Preschool
children (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological
system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5,261-285.
Oyama, S. (1978). The sensitive period and comprehension of speech. Working Papers
on Bilingualism, 16, 1-17.
Patkowski, M.S. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second
language. Language Learning, 30, 449- 472.
(NCBE Abstract)
Ramirez, A.G., and Politzer, R.L (1978). Comprehension and production in English as a
second language by elementary school children and adolescents. In E.M. Hatch (Ed.),
Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 31-332). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
(NCBE Abstract)
Scarcella, R.C. and Higa, C.A. (1982). Input and age differences in second language
acquisition. In S.D. Krashen, R.C. Scarcella and M.H. Long (eds.), Child-adult
differences in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
(NCBE Abstract)
Seliger, H., Krashen, S., and Ladefoged, P. (1975). Maturational constraints in the
acquisition of second languages. Language Sciences, 38, 20-22.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1979). Language in the process of cultural assimilation and
structural incorporation of linguistic minorities. Wheaton, MD: National Clearinghouse
for Bilingual Education.
(NCBE Abstract)
Snow, C., and Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition:
Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114-1128.
Stern, H.H. (Ed.) (1967). Foreign languages in primary education: The teaching of
foreign or second languages to younger children. London: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1981). Time and timing in bilingual education. Language Learning, 31,1-15.
(NCBE Abstract)
Tahta, S., Wood, M., and Loewenthal, K. (1981). Foreign accents: Factors relating to
transfer of accent from the first language to a second language. Language and Speech,
24(3), 265-272.
Taylor, B.P. (1974). Toward a theory of language acquisition. Language Learning, 24,
25-35.
Williams, L. (1979). The modification of speech perception and production in second
language learning. Perception and Psychophysics, 26(2), 95-104.
Winitz, H. (1981). Input considerations in the comprehension of first and second
language. Annals of the New York Academy Sciences, 379, 296-308.
(NCBE Abstract)
Other References for Further Reading
Asher, J., and Price, B. (1967). The learning strategy of total physical response: Some
age differences. Child Development, 38, 1219-1227.
Brown, H.D. (1980). The optimal distance model of second language acquisition. TESOL
Quarterly, 14, 157-164.
(NCBE Abstract)
Collier, V.P. (1987). "Choosing language tests: A taxonomy of language proficiency
measures." Paper presented at the annual convention of Teachers of English to Speakers
of Other Languages, Miami, FL
Cummins, J. (1978). Educational implications of mother tongue maintenance in
minority-language groups. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 395-416.
(NCBE Abstract)
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention.
Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18-36.
(NCBE Abstract)
Ekstrand, L (1978). English without a book revisited: The effect of age on second
language acquisition in a formal setting. Didakometry, No.60. Malmo, Sweden:
Department of Educational and Psychological Research, School of Education.
Gale, K., McClay, D., Christie, M., and Harris, S. (1981). Academic achievement in the
Milinigimbi bilingual education program. TESOL Quarterly, 15,297-314.
Genesee, F. (1978). Is there an optimal age for starting second language instruction?
McGill Journal of Education, 13, 145- 154.
Gersten, R., and Woodward, J. (1985). A case for structured immersion. Educational
Leadership, 43(1), 75-79.
Harley, B. (1986). Age in second language acquisition. San Diego: College-Hill Press.
(NCBE Abstract)
Krashen, S.D., Long, MA, and Scarcella, R.C. (1979). Age, rate, and eventual attainment
in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 573-582.
Long, M.H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of
research. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 573-582.
Malherbe, E.G. (1978). Bilingual education in the Republic of South Africa. In B.
Spolsky and R. Cooper (Eds.), Case studies in bilingual education. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
(NCBE Abstract)
McConnell, B.B., and Kendall, J.R. (1987, April). "Application of the cohort model to
evaluate bilingual programs: The 'BELEPS' program." Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC
Medina, M., Saldate, S., and Mishra, S. (1985). The sustaining effects of bilingual
instruction: A follow-up study. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 12(3), 132-139.
Ogbu, J.U., and Matute-Bianchi, M.E. (1986). Understanding sociocultural factors:
Knowledge, identity, and school adjustment. In California State Department of
Education, Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority
students (pp. 73-142). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center,
California State University.
Olson, L, and Samuels, S.J. (1973). The relationship between age and accuracy of
foreign language pronunciation. Journal of Educational Research, 66, 26-267.
Plante, A.J. (1977). The Connecticut "pairing" model proves effective in bilingual/
bicultural education. Phi Delta Kappan, 58, 427.
Ramsey, C.A, and Wright, E.N. (1974). Age and second language learning. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 94,115-121.
Rivera, C. (Ed.). (1984). Language proficiency and academic achievement. Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
(NCBE Abstract)
Schumann, J.H. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In
R.C. Gingras (Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 27-
50). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
(NCBE Abstract)
Scovel, T. (1981). The effects of neurological age on nonprimary language acquisition.
In R. Andersen (Ed.), New dimensions in second language acquisition research (pp. 33-
42). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Seliger, H.W. (1981). Exceptions to critical period predictions: A sinister plot. In R.
Andersen (Ed.), New dimensions in second language acquisition research (pp. 47-57).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Seright, L (1985). Age and aural comprehension achievement in francophone adults
learning English. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 455-473.
(NCBE Abstract)
Snow, C., and Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1977). Age differences in the pronunciation of
foreign sounds. Language and Speech, 20, 357-365.
Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (1981). Bilingual education in Ontario: A decade of research.
Toronto: Ministry of Education.
(ERIC Abstract) or (NCBE Abstract)
Tempes, F., Burnham, L., Pina, M., Campos, J., Matthews, S., Lear, E., and Herbert, C.
(1984, January). "Implementing theoretically sound programs: Do they really work?"
Paper presented at the annual conference of the California Association for Bilingual
Education, San Francisco.
(NCBE Abstract)
Thogmartin, C. (1982). Age, individual differences in musical and verbal aptitude, and
pronunciation achievement by elementary school children learning a foreign language.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 20(1), 66-72.
Troike, R. (1978). Research evidence for the effectiveness of bilingual education. NABE
Journal, 3(1), 13-24.
(NCBE Abstract)
Vorih, L, and Rosier, P. (1978). Rock Point community school: An example of a Navajo-
English bilingual elementary school program. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 263-269.
(ERIC Abstract) or (NCBE Abstract)

About the Author

Virginia P. Collier is currently Assistant Professor of Education and Associate Director
of the Center for Bilingual/Multicultural/ESL Teacher Preparation at George Mason
University in Fairfax, Virginia. Her research focuses on teaching methods, language
assessment, curriculum development, and second language acquisition as applied to
bilingual/ESL settings. Dr. Collier is co-author of the teacher training textbook, Bilingual
and ESL Classrooms: Teaching in Multicultural Contexts (McGraw-Hill, 1985).
These publications were prepared under Contract No. 300860069 for the Office of
Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA), U.S. Department of
Education. The contents of these publications do not necessarily reflect the views or
policies of the Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial
products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

This digital version was prepared by ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education,

Teachers College, Columbia University as part of its subcontract activities with NCBE.
NCBE Home Page
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu