A Synthesis of Empirical Research on the Linguistic Outcomes of Early Foreign Language Instruction

Running head: LINGUISTIC OUTCOMES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 1

A Synthesis of Empirical Research on the Linguistic Outcomes

of Early Foreign Language Instruction

Becky H. Huang

Department of Bicultural-Bilingual Studies

University of Texas San Antonio

Becky H. Huang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Bicultural-Bilingual

Studies at the University of Texas San Antonio. Mailing Address: One UTSA Circle, San

Antonio, TX 78249, U. S. A.; Email: [email protected]; Phone: 1-210-458-5573.


Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Educational Testing Service under a postdoctoral fellowship award.

I thank Xiaoming Xi and the reviewers of the International Journal of Multilingualism for their

helpful comments on an earlier draft, and Rachel Adler, Melissa Lopez and Paige Vetter for their

research assistance. All the remaining errors are my own responsibility.


Abstract

Early foreign language (FL) programs have grown rapidly worldwide in the past two

decades, resting on the assumption that “earlier is better” for learning a FL. However, the

majority of empirical studies that investigated the “earlier is better” hypothesis were

conducted in naturalistic immersion contexts. Given the substantial differences in the

quality and quantity of input and instruction, whether or not the results in immersion

contexts can be generalized to FL learning contexts remains unknown. The current study

aimed to fill this gap by reviewing and synthesizing 40 empirical studies published in the

past fifty years that examined the age of learning effect in FL learning contexts. Overall,

the synthesis revealed no solid evidence for a younger learner advantage in short-term or

long-term linguistic outcomes. We conclude with implications for research and practice.

Keywords: early foreign language education, formal classroom instruction, age of

learning effect, research synthesis, critical/sensitive period.

(word count = 149)


1. Introduction

The past two decades have witnessed a phenomenal increase of early foreign language

(FL) education programs worldwide, most of which are early English as a FL (EFL) programs.

The age of compulsory EFL education has been lowered from middle school to elementary

grades or even kindergarten in many parts of the globe (Enever, 2012; Nunan, 2003). According

to a recent publication on the FL policy in Europe, almost all European countries expect children

to begin learning a FL by nine years of age (Enever, 2012). As well, the United States is seeing a

growing number of early FL programs in the form of afterschool programs or early two-way

immersion instruction (Howard, Sugarman, & Christian, 2003).

1.1. The Passion for Early Foreign Language Instruction

Although the age of compulsory FL education has been lowered to early elementary

school in numerous countries, many parents strongly believe in starting FL education as early as

possible, preferably even before the compulsory age (Enever, 2012). The “fever” for learning a

FL early has raised major concerns among educators and researchers. Researchers have observed

negative effects of early FL instruction, such as children’s aversive reactions toward EFL

instruction (Hsieh, 2011). Although research on bilingual language development does not show

negative impacts of the second language (L2) on the first language (L1) when both languages are

developed in parallel, some early immersion programs aim to provide an optimal environment

for learning the FL by maximizing the exposure to the FL, and thus sacrificing children’s L1

development (Nikolov & Djigunovic, 2006).

1.2. Earlier is Better: The Premise of Early Foreign Language Education

The rapidly-growing early FL programs are built on the assumption of the critical period

hypothesis (CPH). The CPH is most strongly associated with Lenneberg (1967), who proposed


that biological maturation guides human language acquisition. He argued that the human brain

reaches its mature state in puberty, making it difficult to acquire a L2 beyond this stage.

Lenneberg and later proponents of the CPH argue that, due to maturational constraints and loss

in brain plasticity, complete mastery of the L2 at the native-like level is out of reach if learning

does not occur within the critical window of opportunity (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009;

DeKeyser, 2012; Long, 2005). In the classic CPH conception, the critical window entails a fixed

and invariant timeline, and the consequences are also irreversible. However, L2 acquisition

research generally showed more variability in the onset, length, and offset of the window

(Birdsong, 1999; Werker & Tees, 2005). Some researchers have thus argued to use “sensitive”

period (Knudsen, 2004) or “optimal” period (Werker & Tees, 2005) rather than “critical” period

to describe the differences in ultimate L2 outcomes due to learners’ starting age. In contrast to

the CPH, the “sensitive” or “optimal” period does not make strong claims about specific cut-off

points and their irreversible effects.

The majority of the empirical research on the CPH has been conducted in an immersion

context. There are two types of studies: short-term and long-term, which differ in the

participants’ length of residence in the L2 country (Krashen, Long, & Scarcella, 1979).

Participants’ ages of arrival (AoA) in the new country is generally used as the index of the

neurobiological development. Although there is no clear cut-off point between short-term and

long-term studies, many researchers use a five-year criterion for long-term studies, and some

even use a ten-year criterion (Birdsong, 2009; DeKeyser, 2000). The short-term studies generally

compare learners’ L2 outcomes within one or two years of arrival in the new country (e.g., Snow

& Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978), and learners with an older AoA are found to perform better than


those with a younger AoA in the initial stages. The results are attributed to older learners’ higher

level of cognitive skills and learning strategies.

Research that examined long-term outcomes are mostly retrospective studies that include

adult participants whose AoAs vary from infancy to adulthood. This body of research has

consistently found a negative correlation between AoA and long-term L2 attainment. The

majority of these studies examined discrete linguistic domains such as phonological production.

Overall, empirical research on the L2 outcomes in immersion contexts shows that younger

learners experience an initial disadvantage compared to older learners, but younger learners

catch up and surpass older learners in the long-term outcomes. The AoA effect is also stronger

for phonological production than for grammatical knowledge (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu,

1999; Huang, 2013). To explain the variations of the AoA effect across L2 domains, several

researchers have proposed the multiple critical periods hypothesis (e.g., Singleton & Ryan,

2004), which posits different critical windows for different areas of languages. The closure for

phonetics/phonology is generally believed to end the earliest whereas the closure for syntax ends

last, although the specific ages of closure are still under debate.

1.3. Applicability of the Empirical Research to Foreign Language Instruction Contexts

Given the differences in immersion vs. FL instruction contexts, it remains an empirical

question whether the findings from immersion studies can be applied to a FL context in which

input and instruction is limited and structured (Muñoz, 2006, 2008; Singleton, 2003). With the

exceptions of learners residing in an ethnic enclave or under similar circumstances, learning in

an immersion context involves a significant amount of interaction in the L2. In contrast, FL

learning is usually limited to classroom settings, and the amount of instructional time ranges


between less than an hour per week to short daily lessons. There is also little meaningful

interaction in the target language and/or with native speakers of the target language.

However, compared to the extensive volume of research on the CPH in immersion

contexts and the abundant research on FL instruction in general, relatively little research

specifically compares FL outcomes of younger vs. older learners. There is also no synthesis of

empirical research on learning outcomes in FL contexts, with the exception of one study by

Gallardo del Puerto (2007) that found no linguistic advantage of early FL instruction1. However,

this synthesis only included recent empirical studies conducted in Europe, and was thus limited

in the scope of the synthesis. To investigate the inferential gap of generalizing findings to FL

learning contexts, the current study synthesizes empirical studies examining the younger learner

advantage in FL learning contexts that were conducted during the past 50 years. Results from the

study will afford us a better understanding of the learning mechanism by unveiling the effects of

learning contexts on learning outcomes. The study also bears immediate educational implications

for FL educational policy and parenting decisions. The specific research questions are:

1. Do the results of empirical research on foreign language learning reveal advantages for

younger learners?

2. Do the results differ by language modalities or tasks?

2. Methodology & Results

We conducted our search through both major research databases, such as Linguistics and

Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) and PsycINFO, and the Google Scholar search engine.

For the initial search, we used a combination of two sets of keywords related to the age of

learning variable (age, age of learning, age effect, starting age, critical period hypothesis) and

1 We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing our attention to this study.


foreign language learning context (foreign language, early foreign language education,

instructed second language learning, formal instruction). To be included in the synthesis, studies

were required to: 1) be empirical studies published in English during the past 50 years from 1964

to 2014, 2) be published in peer-reviewed journals, technical reports, edited books, and

conference proceedings, 3) include the age of learning variable by comparing younger and older

learners, and 4) be conducted in a FL formal instruction context or laboratory setting. By

"laboratory setting,” we meant that most of the research was conducted in a controlled

experimental setting, and participants received short-term laboratory training in a foreign

language. Since these studies examined the early advantage of learning a new language in a

limited input context, which in a way resembled the formal FL learning context, we decided to

include them in the synthesis. Note that we also came across some publications written in a

language other than English, such as Stankowski Gratton (1980) (in Italian), but we excluded

them due to constraints in research resources.

After the first round of screening based on each study’s title, we conducted a second

round of screening for each identified study: we read the abstract of each study and excluded

those that did not meet the original criteria. Studies excluded from this round of selection fell

into four categories: 1) the study had actually been conducted either in a naturalistic immersion

context or in a two-way/dual immersion context (e.g., Asher & García, 1969); 2) the study

included only adult late learners (e.g., Bongaerts, 1999); 3) the study was a review article or

commentary rather than an empirical study (e.g., Johnstone, 2002; Nikolov, 2010); 4) the study

did not include language measures (e.g., Heining-Boynton & Haitema, 2007).

We found a total of 42 studies that fit our selection criteria, and we read each of them

thoroughly. Based on the number of data points (single vs. multiple) and type of language


outcomes (short-term vs. mid-/long-term), we divided all studies into three categories: 1) single-

time-point laboratory studies on short-term (ST) outcomes (n = 10); 2) single-time-point studies

on mid- to long-term (MT/LT) outcomes (n = 19), and 3) multiple-time-point studies on both

short-term and long-term outcomes (n = 13)2. Below, we present the results by each category.

2.1. Single-Time-Point Laboratory Studies on Short-Term (ST) Outcomes

We found 10 studies that fell into this category (See Table 1). With the exception of one

study that tested EFL learners from Japanese L1 background (Yamada, Takatsuka, Kotabe, &

Kurusu, 1980), all the studies involved native English speakers learning various FL. All 10

studies used current age as the proxy for AoL, and compared the ST outcomes of FL learning

between younger and older learners. The age/grade level of participants ranged from

kindergarteners to adolescents, and half of the studies also included adults as comparison groups.

The numbers of participants varied from 18 to 25. Two of the 10 studies examined vocabulary

outcomes (Politzer & Weiss, 1969; Yamada et al., 1980). Except for one study by Yamada et al.

(1980) that focused solely on vocabulary outcomes, all of the studies assessed listening

comprehension or phonological perception/production.

Four out of the 10 studies did not involve any training whereas the other six provided

some training/instruction ranging from one session of 12 experimental trials to 10 sessions of FL

classes over three weeks. Out of the ten studies, two (Tahta, Wood, & Loewenthal, 1981,

phonological production; Yamada, et al., 1980, vocabulary outcomes) observed a younger

advantage whereas the other eight found no such advantage, and half of the ten studies actually

found that older learners outperformed younger learners in short-term results. Overall, the results

were mixed even though almost all 10 studies measured the same language domains (i.e.,

2 We did not further divide multiple-time-point studies by the type of outcomes (short-term vs. long-term) because

all of them examined both outcomes.


listening comprehension and phonological perception/production). The mixed results may be

attributed to the wide variation in L1-FL pairings and the amount of FL training instruction.

< Insert Table 1 about here >

2.2. Single-Time-Point Studies on Mid-/Long-Term (MT/LT) Outcomes

Nineteen studies fit under this category (See Table 2). All but four were conducted in

Spain, and five (Cenoz, 2002, 2003; Miralpeix, 2006; Mora, 2006; Navés et al., 2003) used data

from the larger Barcelona Age Factor project (Muñoz, 2006). With the exception of two studies

in England and Wales and Scotland that examined the learning of French as a FL by native

English speakers (Burstall, 1975; Low, Brown, Johnstone, & Pirrie, 1995), all the others

involved learning EFL by various L1 speakers. All were retrospective studies comparing mid-

term (MT) or long-term (LT) FL outcomes of learners with varying AoLs, which was defined as

learners’ ages/grades of initial FL instruction and ranged from preschool to secondary grades.

The current ages of the participants ranged from 9 years to adult. About half of the studies

controlled for the length of instruction via research design, and the other half used statistical

techniques for control.

In the immersion studies that examine the age of learning effect, researchers typically

adopt a “five-year residence” criterion for LT outcomes because longitudinal research had

revealed a plateau of L2 proficiency after five years of residence (Conger, 2009). There is no

such criterion in the FL literature, and some researchers argued that it would take much longer to

capture the LT differences between younger and older learners in FL contexts (Muñoz, 2006,

2008; Singleton, 2003). Singleton (1995) specifically proposed that an extended period of 18


years may be required for younger learners to catch up and surpass older learners. In our

analysis, we labeled the studies in this category as “MT/LT” results.

The synthesis revealed that 11 out of the 19 studies showed consistent results across

language modalities. Among the 11, five found no differences between younger and older

learners, five found an older learner advantage. Only one found a clear early advantage

(Mihaljević Djigunović, Nikolov, & Ottó, 2008), but length of instruction was not controlled in

the study design and was confounded with AoL. In contrast, the other seven found discrepancies

in performances across modalities. Overall, older learners either outperformed younger learners

or performed similarly to younger learners. There were only a few cases where younger learners

performed better than older learners in speech perception (Larson-Hall, 2008; Lin, Chang, &

Cheung, 2004), pronunciation and speech production (Cenoz, 2002; Low, Duffield, Brown, &

Johnstone, 1993), and listening comprehension (Burstall, 1975).


2.3. Multiple-Time-Point Studies on Both Short-Term (ST) and Long-Term (LT) Outcomes

Thirteen studies fell into this category (See Table 3), and all but one study (Low et al.,

1993) were conducted in Spain. Even though all studies involved data at two or three time points,

only four were longitudinal studies following the growth of the same cohorts (García Mayo,

2003; Muñoz, 2006; Torras & Celaya, 2001; Torras, Navés, Celaya, & Pérez-Vidal., 2006). The

other studies either used cross-sectional designs or mixed designs that included both same and

different cohorts who were matched on AoL, which ranged from age 4 to adult. To help better

understand the effects of AoL, we further coded each study for whether there was a trend of

younger learners “catching up” with older learners, defined as the observation of no significant


differences between younger and older learners at the final point despite an initial older learner

advantage. We assigned a “not applicable” code for studies that did not find an initial older

learner advantage.

The synthesis of the 13 multiple-time-point studies also revealed no clear early advantage

except for some limited evidence for phonological perception or production. Additionally, results

from the “catching up” trend analysis were mixed: while seven studies found that the initial older

advantage carried over to the final data point, six found no differences between younger and

older learners (See Table 4). Only one study showed a continuous younger learner advantage for

Scottish students learning German as a foreign language (Low et al., 1993). However, in the

same study, the results differed for Scottish students learning French; an initial younger learner

advantage disappeared and there were no significant differences between older and younger

starters in the second data point.

This synthesis of multiple-time-point studies also afforded us a better understanding of

the AoL effects across time. Despite an initial disadvantage, some studies found a trend of

younger learners catching up with older learner peers after an extended amount of instruction.

Interestingly, three of these six cases examined speech perception or auditory receptive skills

(Fullana, 2006; Muñoz, 2003, 2006); the other three were investigations of oral language

production and written production (Álvarez, 2006; Navés et al., 2005; Torras et al., 2006).

Combined with the results from single-time-point studies, the results appeared to lend some

support for an early advantage in auditory perception.




3. Discussion

Overall, we did not find unequivocal evidence for a younger learner advantage. The

surveyed studies that examined ST outcomes revealed an initial older learner advantage

consistent with the results in immersion studies. For MT/LT outcomes, the majority of the

single-time-point studies surveyed failed to find a younger learner advantage. Most of the

multiple-time-point MT/LT outcome studies utilized data from two large-scale, longitudinal

projects in Europe: the Barcelona Age Factor project (Muñoz, 2006) and the Basque project

(e.g., Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2004; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2003). Results from various portions of

the two large data sets also suggested an initial older learner advantage, and did not find a long-

term younger learner advantage.

As mentioned earlier, several researchers have argued that it may take a substantially

longer period of time than the typical five-year residence in the immersion literature to capture

the LT differences between younger and older learners in a FL context (Muñoz, 2006, 2008;

Singleton, 2003). However, two studies (Muñoz, 2011, 2014) that examined the long-term

outcomes after an average of 14-15 years still found no younger learner advantage, and some

studies that involved multiple testing time points failed to find a “catching-up” pattern among

younger learners. Taken together, we conclude from the current synthesis that there is no clear

evidence to support a younger learner advantage in a FL learning context. However, because

many of the included studies used data from the two large projects with homogenous populations

(i.e., Spanish, Basque, or Catalan speakers), it is unclear whether the results could be generalized

to learners with different L1s. More longitudinal studies, as well as future studies that test

participants from different L1-FL pairings would help provide insight on the AoL effect on FL

outcomes.


The results also have practical implications. When making decisions about the starting

age of FL instruction, parents, educators and policy makers may want to take the finding into

consideration that the current results show no solid linguistic benefits of an early start except for

some limited evidence for speech perception, which awaits verification and replication. It is

worth mentioning, though, that there may be potential non-linguistic benefits in areas such as

cognitive development, academic achievements, and socio-affective benefits. Some studies have

found positive effects of FL instruction on student performances on academic subjects (Cooper,

Yanosky, & Wisenbaker, 2008), and on learners’ confidence and positive attitudes toward FL

learning (Cenoz, 2003; Heining-Boynton & Haitema, 2007). These advantages may be just as

important, if not more important, as the linguistic benefits. In fact, the goals of FL education as

stated in various regions’/countries’ policy documents, such as Europe (Commission of the

European Communities, 2003) and Mexico (SEP, 2010), are more than just helping young

learners attain FL proficiency. For example, one of the common goals is to cultivate positive

attitudes towards other languages and cultures. To gain a comprehensive picture of the effects of

early FL education, future empirical research on and a systematic synthesis of non-linguistic

outcomes are clearly needed.

The field would also benefit from future syntheses that expand the corpus to include

dissertations, studies published in a language other than English, and even unpublished data. The

variations across the studies in the current synthesis did not warrant a meta-analysis, but a larger

corpus may permit the applications of statistical approaches to the data and afford us a better

understanding of the topic.

To conclude, in contrast to the large number of early FL programs that rests upon the

“earlier is better” premise, our research synthesis surprisingly revealed limited empirical support


for linguistic benefits except for some potential advantage in auditory skills. The results do not,

however, oppose the value of early FL education, assuming that the quality is high. The potential

benefits in auditory skills may lead to better long-term listening comprehension and speech

communication. Early FL programs may also entail long-term non-linguistic benefits, such as

cognitive (Yellanda, Pollard, & Mercury, 1993) and academic gains (Blackford, Olmsted, &

Stegman, 2012). However, we suggest that the decision to implement early FL education be

weighed against other considerations, such as staff and resources for the FL programs, quality of

FL teachers, and the cost and effect of reduced instructional time in native language development

and other content areas (Nikolov & Djigunovic, 2006)3. The last consideration is particularly

relevant for FL education in a context where language minority children from immigrant families

are already struggling to acquire the majority language, such as children from Mandarin-

speaking families trying to learn English in the United States (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary,

Saunders, & Christian, 2006). Given the demands of having to learn both home and societal

languages, it is not clear whether a particularly early introduction of an additional FL is

beneficial to these language minority children. Finally, educators, policy makers, and parents

also need to set realistic and reasonable expectations of the outcomes of early FL education.

3 Because many studies included in the synthesis did not report information about other variables that can potentially

influence FL learning, such as details of the FL curriculum, quality of the instruction, and FL teacher qualifications,

we were not able to conduct a detailed analysis of the included studies to discuss what circumstances/variables may

or may not render effective early FL learning. Future investigations of the predictors of successful early FL learning

will help address this question and inform FL instruction and education policy. We thank an anonymous reviewer

for this suggestion.


References

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second

language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59(2), 249-

306.

Álvarez, E. (2006). Rate and route of acquisition in EFL narrative development at different ages.

In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp.127–55).

Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Asher, J., & García, G. (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign language. The Modern

Language Journal, 311, 334-341.

Asher, J. J., & Price, B. S. (1967). The learning strategy of the Total Physical Response: Some

age differences. Child Development, 38 (4), 1219-1227.

Birdsong, D. (2009). Age and the end state of second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie &

T. K. Bhatia. (Eds.). The new handbook of second language acquisition. Amsterdam:

Elsevier.

Birdsong, D. (Ed.). (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blackford, K., Olmstead, G., & Stegman, C. (2012). Spanish as a second language for

elementary students: A study of participation on literacy benchmark scores. Journal of

Modern Education Review, 2 (2), 77-89.

Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in foreign language pronunciation: The case of

very advanced late foreign language learners. In D. Birdsong (Ed.) Second language

acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 133-159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Burstall, C. (1975). Factors affecting foreign language learning: A consideration of some related


research findings. Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts, 8, 5-125.

Celaya, M. L., Torras, M.R., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2001). Short and mid-term effects of an earlier

start: An analysis of EFL written production. In S. Foster-Cohen & A. Nizegorodcew

(Eds.), EUROSLA yearbook (pp. 195–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cenoz, J. (2002). Age differences in foreign language learning. I.T.L. Review of Applied

Linguistics, 135-136: 125-142.

Cenoz, J. (2003). The influence of age on the acquisition of English. In M. P. García Mayo & M.

L. García Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language

(pp. 77–93). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Commission of the European Communities. (2003). Promoting language learning and linguistic

diversity: An action plan 2004–2006. Retrieved

from:www.eu.int/comm/education/doc/official/keydoc/actlang/act_lang_en.pdf

Conger, D. (2009). Testing, time limits, and English learners: does age of school entry affect

how quickly students can learn English? Social Science Research, 38 (2), 383-396.

Cooper, T.C., Yanosky, D.J.II., & Wisenbaker, J.M. (2008). Foreign language learning and

SAT verbal scores revisited. Foreign Language Annals, 41(2), 200-217.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2012). Age effects in second language learning. In S. Gass & A. Mackey

(Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 442-460). London: Routledge.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.

Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2004). The effect of the early teaching of English on writing

proficiency. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 525–540.


Enever, J. (Eds.). (2012). ELLiE early language learning in Europe. United Kingdom: British

Council.

Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language

acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104.

Fullana, N. (2006). The development of English (FL) perception and production skills:

Starting age and exposure effects. In Muñoz, C. (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign

language learning (pp.41-64). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Fullana, N., & Mora, J. C. (2007). Production and perception of voicing contrasts in English

word-final obstruents: Assessing the effects of experience and starting age. New Sounds

2007: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second

Language Speech.

García Lecumberri, M. L., & Gallardo, F. (2003). English FL sounds in school learners of

different ages. In M. P. García Mayo & M. L. García Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the

acquisition of English as a foreign language (pp. 115–135). Clevedon, England:

Multilingual Matters.

García Mayo, M. P. (2003). Age, length of exposure and grammaticality judgments in the

acquisition of English as a foreign language. In García Mayo, M. P., & García

Lecumberri, M. L. (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a second language.

Clevedon, England, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian, D. (Eds.). (2006). Educating

English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Heining-Boynton, A., & Haitema, T. (2007). A ten-year chronicle of student attitudes toward


foreign language in the elementary school. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 149-

168.

Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion education: A

review of the research (Report No. 63). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the

Education of Students Placed At Risk.

Hsieh, M. F. (2011). Learning English as a foreign language in Taiwan: students’ experiences

and beyond. Language Awareness, 20(3), 255-270.

Huang, B. H. (2013). The effects of age on second language grammar and speech production.

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. Online First.

Johnstone, R. (2002). Addressing the ‘age factor’: some implications for languages policy.

Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Krashen, S. D., Long, M. A., & Scarcella, R. C. (1979). Age, rate and eventual attainment in

second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 573-582.

Knudsen, E. (2004). Sensitive Periods in the Development of the Brain and Behavior. Journal

of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16 (8), 1412–1425.

Larson-Hall, J. (2008). Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger

starting age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Research, 24 (1), 35–63.

Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2003). Maturational constraints on foreign-language written

production. In M. P. García Mayo & M. L. García Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the

acquisition of English as a foreign language (pp. 136-160). Clevedon, England:

Multilingual Matters.

Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Lin, H-L., Chang, H-W, & Cheung, H-T. (2004). The effects of early English learning on


auditory perception of English minimal pairs by Taiwan university students. Journal of

Psycholinguistic Research, 33 (1), 25-49.

Long, M. H. (2005). Problems with supposed counter-evidence to the Critical Period

Hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(4),

287-317.

Low, L., Brown, S., Johnstone, R. M., & Pirrie, A. (1995). Foreign languages in primary

schools. Evaluation of the Scottish pilot projects: 1993–1995. Final report. University of

Stirling: Scottish CLIT.

Low, L., Duffield, J., Brown, S., & Johnstone, R. (1993). Evaluating foreign languages in

primary schools: report to Scottish Office. Stirling: Scottish CILT.

MacKay, I.R.A., & Fullana, N. (2007). Starting age and exposure effects on EFL learners’

sound production in a formal learning context. New Sounds 2007: Proceedings of the

Fifth International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech.

Mihaljević Djigunović, J., Nikolov, M., & Ottó, I. (2008). A comparative study of Croatian and

Hungarian EFL students. Language Teaching Research, 12 (3) 433-452.

Miralpeix, I. (2006). Age and vocabulary acquisition in English as a foreign language. In C.

Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 89–106). Clevedon,

England: Multilingual Matters.

Misrachi, E., & Denney, N. W. (1979). Developmental study of foreign language pronunciation.

Developmental Psychology, 15 (4), 458-459.

Mora, J. C. (2006). Age effects on oral fluency development. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the

rate of foreign language learning (pp. 65–88). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Mora, J. C., & Fullana, N. (2007). Production and perception of /i:/-/I/ and /æ/-/ʌ/ in a formal


setting: Investigating the effects of experience and starting age. In J. Trouvain, &

W. J. Barry (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic

Sciences (pp. 1613-1616). Saarbrücken, Germany.

Muñoz, C. (2003). Variation in oral skills development and age of onset. In M. P. García Mayo

& M. L. García Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign

language (pp. 161–81). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Muñoz, C. (2006). The effect of age on foreign language learning: The BAF Project. In C.

Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 1-40). Clevedon,


Muñoz, C. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed

L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 29 (4), 578-596.

Muñoz, C. (2011). Input and long-term effects of starting age in foreign language

learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 49, 113–133.

Muñoz, C. (2014). Contrasting effects of starting age and input on the oral performance of

foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics, 29 (4), 578-596.

Navés, T., Miralpeix, I., & Celaya, M. L. (2005). Who transfers more… and what?

Crosslinguistic influence in relation to school grade and language dominance in

EFL. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2 (2), 113-134.

Navés, T., Torras, M. R., & Celaya, M. L. (2003). Long-term effects of an earlier start: An

analysis of EFL written production. Source: Eurosla yearbook, 3 (1), 103-129.

Nikolov, M. (2010). Interaction of early English and mother tongue. International Journal of

Bilingualism, 14, 283-287. doi: 10.1177/1367006910367853

Nikolov, M., & Djigunovic, J. M. (2006). Recent research on age, second language acquisition,

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/06/17/applin.amu024.short

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/06/17/applin.amu024.short

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367006910367853


and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 234-260.

Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and

practices in the Asia‐Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.

Ojima, S., Matsuba-Kurita, H., Nakamura, N., Hoshino, T., & Hagiwara, H. (2011). Age and

amount of exposure to a foreign language during childhood: Behavioral and ERP data on

the semantic comprehension of spoken English by Japanese children. Neuroscience

Research, 70, 197–205.

Oller, J. W., & Nagato, N. (1974). The long-term effect of FLES: An experiment. The Modern

Language Journal, 58, 15–19.

Olson, L. L., & Samuels, S. J. (1973). The relationship between age and accuracy of foreign

language pronunciation. The Journal of Educational Research, 263-268.

Politzer, R. L., & Weiss, L. (1969). Developmental Aspects of Auditory Discrimination, Echo

Response and Recall. The Modern Language Journal, 53 (2), 75-85.

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2005). Age and third language production: A longitudinal study.

International Journal of Multilingualism, 2 (2), 105-112.

Secretaria de Eduación Pública (SEP). (2010). Programa Nacional de Inglés en Educación

Pública (PNIEB). México DF: SEP.

Singleton, D. (2003). Critical period or general age factor(s)? In M. Del Pilar García Mayo & M.

L. García Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language.


Singleton, D. (1995). Introduction: The age factor in second language acquisition: A critical look

at the critical period hypothesis. In Singleton, D., & Lengyel, Z. (Eds.)., The age factor in


second language acquisition: A critical look at the critical period hypothesis. Clevedon,


Singleton, D. M., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language acquisition: The age factor. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters

Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition:

Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114-1128.

Stankowski Gratton, R. (1980). Una ricerca sperimentale sull'insegnamento del tedesco dalla

prima classe elementare (An experimental study on the teaching of German from the first

elementary grade). Rassegna Italiana di Lingüística Applicata, 12(3), 1.

Tahta, S., Wood, M., & Loewenthal, K. (1981). Age changes in the ability to replicate foreign

pronunciation and intonation. Language and Speech, 24 (4), 363-372.

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.

Torras, M. R., & Celaya, M. L. (2001). Age-related differences in the development of written

production. An empirical study of EFL school learners. In R.M. Mancho´n (Ed.), Writing

in the L2 slassroom: Issues in research and in pedagogy. Special issue of International

Journal of English Studies (pp.103-126).

Torras, M. R., T. Navés, M. L. Celaya, C., & Pérez-Vidal (2006). Age and IL development in

writing. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 156–82).


Wang, Y., & Kuhl, P.K. (2003). Evaluating the “critical period” hypothesis: Perceptual learning

of Mandarin tones in American adults and American children at 6, 10, and 14 years of


age. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1537-1540.

Werker, J. F. and R. C. Tees (2005). Speech perception as a window for understanding plasticity

and commitment in language systems of the brain. Developmental psychobiology, 46(3),

233-251.

Yamada, J., Takatsuka, S., Kotabe, N., & Kurusu, J. (1980). On the optimum age for teaching

foreign vocabulary to children. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language

Teaching, 18 (3), 245–247.

Yellanda, G.W., Pollard, J., & Mercury, A. (1993). The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact

with a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 423-444.


Tables

TABLE 1

Summary of Single-Point Studies on the Age Effects on Short-Term Outcomesa

Authors L1/Foreign

Language/

Research Site

Age at testing (as

the proxy for Age

of initial learning)

(sample size)

Language

dimensionb

Length of

Instruction

/Training

Conclusion

Asher & Price

(1967)

English/

Russian/USA

8;1 yrs, 9;9 yrs, and

13;8 yrs (Total N =

96), adults (N=37)

LC

Four sessions

younger < older <

adults

Misrachi & Denney

(1979)

English/

French/USA

4- 5yrs, 6-7yrs, 8-

9yrs, 10-11yrs, 12-

13 yrs, 18-19yrs

(Total N = 106)

PP

None younger < older

(but only up to 9 or

10 yrs of age, then

the effect tapers off)

Olson & Samuels

(1973)

English/

German/USA

9.5-10.5 yrs (N=20)

14-15 yrs (N=20)

18-26 yrs (N=20)

PP

10 sessions

younger = older

Politzer & Weiss

(1969)

English/

French/USA

Grade 1, 3, 5, 7, 9

(Total N about 250)

SP; PP; Vocabulary

None younger < older

Snow & Hoefnagel-

Höhle (1978)

(Laboratory Study)

English/

Dutch/UK

5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11,

12, 13, 15, 17 yrs,

adults (Total N =

145)

PP None

younger < older


Tahta, Wood, &

Loewenthal (1981)

English/

French &

Armenian/UK

5-15yrs

(N=231)

PP None

younger > older

Thogmartin (1982)

(Experiment 1)

English/Various FL

sounds/USA

7, 8, and 11 yrs

(N=6 each)

PP One training session

(12 trials only)

younger < older

(girls);

younger = older

(boys)

Thogmartin (1982)

(Experiment 2)

English/

Mandarin/USA

5-12yrs

(N=18)

PP Several weeks of

after-school courses

younger = older

Wang & Kuhl

(2003)

English/

Mandarin/USA

6, 10, and 14yrs,

Adults

(N=86)

SP

A 15-

min.introduction &

six 40-min. training

sessions

younger = older

Yamada,

Takatsuka, Kotabe,

& Kurusu (1980)

Japanese/

English/Japan

7, 9, and 11 yrs

(N=10 each)

Vocabulary

Two sessions younger > older

a. All studies used chronological age as the proxy for age of learning.

b. LC = listening comprehension; PP = phonological production; SP = speech perception


TABLE 2

Summary of Single-Time-Point Studies on the Age Effects on Mid-/Long-Term Outcomes

Authors L1/ Foreign

Language/

Research Site

Age of initial FL

instruction

Age at

testing

(sample size)

Length of

instruction

Language dimensions Conclusion

Burstall (1975) English/French/

England &Wales

8-9 yrs 16 yrs

(N = 17,000)

five to

eight years

LC & many other unspecified

dimensions

younger < older

Cenoz (2002)

Spanish &

Basque/English

/Spain

Younger = 7

yrs/Grade 3; Older =

10 yrs/Grade 6

Younger =

13 yrs;

Older = 16

yrs

(N = 60)

Six years Oral Language Production ;

Written Production; LC;

Grammar; Cloze Test

younger < older

Cenoz (2003) Spanish-Basque

bilingual/English

/Spain

4, 8, & 11 yrs 10, 13 and 16

yrs

(N = 135)

600 hours Oral Language Production;

Written Production; LC; Cloze

Test; Reading

Comprehension/Grammar test

younger < older

Doiz &

Lasagabaster

(2004)

Spanish-Basque

bilingual/English

/Spain

Younger = 8 yrs;

Older = 11 yrs

15-16 yrs

(N = 32)

Younger =

792 hours;

Older =

660 hours

Written Production Mixed

(younger > older in

some measures but

younger = older in

others)

Fullana &

Mora (2007)

Catalan-Spanish

bilinguals/Englis

Younger = 3-8 yrs;

Older = 8-12 yrs

Mean = 21

yrs

9 - 18 years Speech Perception;

Phonological Production

younger = older


h /Spain (N = 48)

García

Lecumberri &

Gallardo

(2003)

Spanish-Basque

bilingual/English

/Spain

4, 8 & 11 yrs

9-11 yrs, 13-

15 yrs, 16-18

yrs

(N = 60)

Six years Speech Perception;


younger < older

Larson-Hall

(2008)

Japanese/

English/

Japan

3-13

Mean = 20

yrs, college

students (N =

200)

Six years

or more

Speech Perception; Grammar Mixed

(younger > older in

SP but younger <

older in Grammar)

Lasagabaster

& Doiz (2003)

Spanish-Basque

bilingual/

English/

Spain

4-5 yrs, 8-9 yrs,

11-12 yrs

11-12 yrs (N

= 31); 15-16

yrs (N= 18);

17-18 yrs

(N = 13)

704, 792,

and 693

hours

Written Production

younger < older

Lin, Chang, &

Cheung (2004)

Mandarin/

English/

Taiwan

Mean = 9 yrs Mean = 20

yrs, college

students

(N = 66)

Nine years

or more

Speech Perception; younger > older

(in noisy

conditions);

Low, Brown,

Johnstone, &

Pirrie (1995)a

English/

French/

Scotland

Younger = 4th

grade;

Older = 5th

grade

6th

graders

(N= 28

pairs) and 7th

graders

(N= 23 pairs)

3 years or

more

Paired Interviews

(linguistic analysis such as

num. of 2 and 3 word

utterances and total utterances,

num. of nouns, verbs,

modifiers, etc)

Mixed

(younger > older in

some measures but

younger = older in

others)


Mihaljević

Djigunović,

Nikolov &

Ottó (2008)

Croatian or

Hungarian L1

/English/

Hungary &

Croatia

Younger: < 10 yrs;

Older: 10 yrs

14 yrs

(N = 717)

Four years

or more

Reading Comprehension; LC;

Written Production;

Pragmatics; Speaking

younger > older

Miralpeix

(2006)

Catalan-Spanish

bilinguals/Englis

h/Spain

Younger: 8 yrs;

Older: 11 yrs

16 yrs (N =

57) & 18 yrs

(N = 41)

726 hours Productive vocabulary

younger = older

Mora &

Fullana (2007)

Catalan-Spanish

bilinguals/Englis

h/Spain

early childhood,

primary, and

secondary school

college

students

(N = 49)

A few

years or

more

Speech Perception;


younger = older

Mora (2006) Catalan-Spanish

bilinguals/Englis

h/Spain

Younger = 8 yrs;

Older = 11 yrs

16 yrs & 18

yrs (N = 60)

726 hours Speech Production

younger < older

Muñoz (2011)

Catalan-Spanish

bilinguals or

multilinguals/

Spain

Younger = 2-11 yrs;

Older = 11-15.5 yrs

College

students

(N = 162)

On average

13.9 years

General Proficiency; Lexical

Reception; Speech Perception

younger = older

Muñoz (2014) Catalan-Spanish

bilinguals or

multilinguals/

Spain

3-15.5 yrs College

students

(N = 160)

On average

15.5 years

(at least 10

years)

Speech Production younger = older


Navés, Torras

& Celaya

(2003)

Catalan-Spanish

bilinguals/Englis

h/Spain

Younger = 8 yrs;

Older: 11 yrs

17 yrs & 18

yrs (N =

520)

726 hours Written production

younger < older

Ojima,

Matsuba-

Kurita,

Nakamura,

Hoshino, &

Hagiwara

(2011)

Japanese/English

/Japan

6–9 yrs 9–12 yrs

(N = 350)

Three years LC; Semantic Processing

younger < older

Oller & Nagato

(1974)

Japanese/

English/Japan

Grade 1, 3, & 5 G7, G9, G11

(N = 288)

Six years Vocabulary and Grammar

younger = older

a. In Chapter 10 of this report, the authors also tried to compare the long-term performances in Standard Grade by learners who had

started foreign language instruction in primary school versus by those who started later in secondary school. However, according

to the authors, they were not able to obtain comprehensive data to answer this question. Information about the learners, the length

of instruction, specific tasks, etc, was quite limited. We thus decided to exclude this particular comparison from our synthesis.

Running head: OUTCOMES OF EARLY FOREIGN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 31

TABLE 3

Summary of Multiple-Time-Point Studies on the Age Effects on Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes

Authors L1/ Foreign

Language/

Research

Site

Designa Age of

initial FL

instruction

Time points

Age at testing

(sample size)

Language

dimensions (task)

Conclusion Trends of

the younger

catching

up?

(final point)

Álvarez

(2006)b

Catalan-

Spanish

bilingual/

English/

Spain

M

Younger = 8

yrs,

Older = 11

yrs, &

Adults

T1 = 200hrs;

T2 = 416 hrs;

T3 = 726 hrs

T1: 10 yrs, 12yrs,

Adults

(N = 30 per

group);

T2: 12 yrs (N=30),

14 yrs (N=30),

Adults (N=15);

T3: 16 yrs (N=30) &

17 yrs (N = 30)

Oral Language

Production

younger <

older < adults

(T1&T2);

younger =

older (T3)

YES

(716 hrs)

Celaya,

Torras, &

Pérez-

Vidal

(2001)

Spanish-

Catalan

bilinguals/

English/

Spain

C Younger = 8

yrs; Older =

11 yrs

T1 = 200hrs;

T2 = 416 hrs

T1: Y = 10 yrs,

O = 12 yrs;

T2: Y = 12 yrs,

O = 14 yrs

(Total N = 479)

Written

Production

younger <

older

NO

(416 hrs)


Fullana

(2006)c

Spanish-

dominant,

Catalan-

dominant,

Spanish-

Catalan

balanced/

English/

Spain

M 8 yrs; 11

yrs; 14 yrs;

adults

T1 = 200hrs;

T2 = 416 hrs;

T3 = 726 hrs

T1: 11 yrs, 13 yrs,

16yrs, adults;

T2: 13 yrs, 15 yrs, 19

yrs, adults;

T3: 17 yrs, 18 yrs,

adults

(Total N = 281)

SP; PP

SP: younger <

older

(T1&T2);

young = older

(T3)

PP: younger =

older

Mixed (YES

in SP but

NO in PP)

(726 hrs)

García

Mayo

(2003)

Basque-

Spanish

bilinguals/

English/

Spain

L Younger =

8-9 yrs;

Older = 11-

12 yrs

T1 = 396 hrs/4

yrs;

T2 = 594 hrs/6

yrs of instruction

T1: Y = 11-12 yrs

(N=30),

O = 14-15 yrs

(N= 30);

T2: Y = 13-14 yrs

(N=26),

O = 16-17 yrs

(N = 18)

Grammar; Meta-

linguistic

awareness

younger <

older

NO

(594 hrs)

Low,

Duffield,

Brown, &

Johnstone,

(1993)d

English/

German or

French/

Scotland

M Younger =

4th

, 5th

or 6th

grade; Older

= 7th

, 8th

, or

9th

grade

T1 = 1 yr;

T2 = 2 yrs;

T1: Y = 8

th grade

(N= 72 pairs),

O = 8th

grade

(N= 22 pairs) and

9th

grade (N = 36

pairs)

T2: Y = 9

th grade

(N= 12 pairs),

T1: Paired

Interviews

(Pronunciation/Int

onation,

Grammatical

Accuracy,

Structural

Complexity,

Initiation and

Response)

younger >

older for both

French and

German (T1);

younger >

older for

German,

younger =

older for

French (T2)

Mixed

(varies by

task and

target

foreign

language)


O = 9th

grade

(N = 12 pairs)

T2: Paired

Interviews,

Vocabulary

Retrieval

MacKay

& Fullana

(2007)e

Catalan-

Spanish

bilingual/

English/

Spain

C Younger = 8

yrs; Older =

11 yrs

T1 = 200 hrs/2.5

yrs; T2 = 415

hrs/4.5 yrs; T3 =

726 hrs/7.5 yrs

T1: Y = 11yrs,

O = 13yrs;

T2: Y = 13 yrs,

O = 15 yrs;

T3: Y = 17 yrs,

O = 18 yrs

(Total N = 99)

PP

younger =

older

NA

Muñoz

(2006)f

(Study 1:

Longitudi

nal Study)

Catalan-

Spanish

bilinguals/

English/

Spain

L Younger = 8

yrs;

Older = 11

yrs

T1= 200 hrs;

T2 = 416 hrs T1:

Y = 11 yrs,

O = 13 yrs;

T2: Y = 13 yrs,

O = 15 yrs;

(N varies

depending on

tasks)

Grammar,

Lexicon,

Pragmatics, LC,

Productive &

Auditory

Receptive Skills,

Speech Production

varies

depending on

the modality

NO

(416 hrs)

Muñoz

(2006)

(Study 2:

Cross-

Sectional

Catalan-

Spanish

bilinguals/

English/

Spain

C Younger = 8

yrs, 11 yrs,

Older = 14

yrs, Adults

T1 = 200hrs;

T2 = 416 hrs;

T3 = 726 hrs

T1: 11 yrs, 13 yrs,

16 yrs, Adults

(N= 15-78);

T2:

Same as Muñoz

(2006) Study 1

younger <

older

Mixed

(YES

in Auditory

receptive

skills but


Study)

13 yrs, 15 yrs, 19

yrs, adults

(N = 3-88);

T3: 17 yrs & 18 yrs

(N = 39-65)

NO

in other

dimensions)

(716 hrs)

Muñoz

(2003)

Catalan-

Spanish

bilinguals/

English/

Spain

C Younger = 8

yrs; Older =

11 yrs

T1 = 200 hrs;

T2 = 416 hrs T1:

Y = 11 yrs & O =

13 yrs

T2: 13 yrs and 15 yrs

(N varies

depending on task

and time point)

Oral Language

Production;

Auditory

Receptive Skills

younger <

older

Mixed

(YES

in listening

comprehens

ion test but

NO in oral

productive

& auditory

receptive

skills)

(416 hrs)

Navés,

Miralpeix,

& Celaya

(2005)

(Study 1)

Catalan-

Spanish

bilinguals/

English/

Spain

C Younger = 8

yrs; Older =

11 yrs

T1 = 200hrs;

T2 = 416 hrs;

T3 = 726 hrs

T1: Y = 11 yrs;

O = 13 yrs;

T2: Y=13 yrs,

O = 15 yrs;

T3: Y = 17 yrs,

O = 18 yrs

(Total N = 474)

Written Production younger =

older

NA


Ruiz de

Zarobe

(2005)g

Basque,

Spanish/

English/

Spain

M 4-5 yrs/K,

8-9 yrs/G3,

11-12

yrs/G6

T1 = 4 yrs;

T2 = 6 yrs;

T3 = 8 yrs

T1: 7, 11, 14 yrs

(Total N= 90);

T2: 9, 13, 16 yrs

(Total N = 81);

T3: 11, 15, 18 yrs

(Total N= 53)

Speech

Production;

Written Production

younger <

older

NO

Torras &

Celaya

(2001)

Catalan-

Spanish

bilinguals/

English/

Spain

L Younger = 8

yrs; Older =

11 yrs)

T1 = 200hrs;

T2 = 416 hrs T1:

Y = 10 yrs

(N=42),

O = 12 yrs

(N=21);

T2: Y=12 yrs (N=42),

O = 14 yrs (N =

21)

Written production

younger <

older

Mixed

(YES in

accuracy but

NO

in fluency &

complexity)

(416 hrs)

Torras,

Navés,

Celaya, &

Pérez-

Vidal

(2006)

Basque–

Spanish

bilinguals/

English/

Spain

L Younger = 8

yrs;

Older = 11

yrs

T1= 200 hrs;

T2 = 416 hrs;

T3 = 726 hrs

T1: Y =11 yrs (N=

110),

O = 13 yrs (N =

108)

T2: Y = 13 yrs

(N=105),

O = 15 yrs

(N=67);

T3:

Written production

younger <

older

(T1 & T2);

younger =

older (T3)

Mixed

(NO

in Fluency

and

Complexity

measures

but

YES in

other

measures)

(716 )


Y = 17 (N=55),

O = 18 (N = 50)

a. C = Cross-sectional; L = Longitudinal; M = Mixed design (partly longitudinal)

b. The difference between the younger and older learner groups was only one year at Time 3 because the hours of instruction for the

two groups varied at Time 3 and the study tried to control for that.

c. The authors also compared participants’ speech production to that of native speakers of the target FL, and found that participants

were not performing at the native-like level.

d. The authors also observed classroom interactions and coded the linguistic data for the learners. However, the classroom-level

language outcome data were not standardized for all learners. We thus focus only on the results from language assessments that

were administered to all learners individually (i.e., paired interviews). Also, in their report, 7th

grade is labeled as “P7” for 7th

year

in primary School and 8th

grade is labeled as “S1” for first year in secondary school. To avoid confusion and to be consistent in

labeling, we decided to use the ordinal grades.

e. Same as c.

f. At Time 2, the sample sizes for oral interview and narrative tasks were too small (N=4 and 8) to be submitted to significance

testing.

g. To control for exposure, the authors eliminated participants who had been receiving instruction outside school at T2 and T3, so the

sample size decreased from 81 at Time 2 to 53 at Time 3.


TABLE 4

Summary of Multiple-Time-Point Studies by Result of Long-Term Outcomes

Long-term

Outcomes

Study (language modality) Catching-up trend at the final time

point (num. of hours)?

Young = Older

Álvarez (2006) (oral language)

Fullana (2006) (speech perception)

Low et al (1993) (oral language)

MacKay & Fullana (2007) (phonological production)

Muñoz (2006 Study 2) (auditory receptive)

Muñoz (2003) (auditory receptive)

Navés et al (2005) (written production)

Torras et al (2006) (written production)

YES (716 hours)

YES (726 hours)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

YES (716 hours)

YES (416 hours)

Not Applicable

YES (for most measures) (716 hours)

Celaya et al (2001) (written production)

García Mayo (2003) (grammar)

Muñoz (2006 Study 1) (a variety of modalities)

NO (416 hours)

NO (594 hours)

NO (416 hours)


Young < Older Muñoz (2006 Study 2) (a variety of modalities)

Muñoz (2003) (oral productive skills)

Ruiz de Zarobe (2005) (oral production)

Torras & Celaya (2001) (written production)

NO (716 hours)

NO (416 hours)

NO (8 years)

YES (accuracy measures) &

NO (fluency & complexity measures)

(416 hrs)

A Synthesis of Empirical Research on the Linguistic Outcomes of Early Foreign Language Instruction

Documents

Transcript of A Synthesis of Empirical Research on the Linguistic Outcomes of Early Foreign Language Instruction