Early Language Learning in Europe Interaction of contextual and individual variables in instructed early SLA Jelena Mihaljevic Djigunovic University of.

Early Language Learning in Europe

Interaction of contextual and individual variables in instructed early SLA

Jelena Mihaljevic Djigunovic University of Zagreb, Croatia

Magdalena Szpotowicz University of Warsaw, Poland


The present study: part of ELLiE*

multinational longitudinal project: Croatia, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (N = 1,200)

aim: What can realistically be achieved in state schools where relatively limited amounts of class time are available for FL learning?

_________________________________________*This research has been supported by a European Commission grant under the Lifelong Learning

Programme, Project n°. 135632-LLP-2007-UK-KA1SCR. An additional British Council grant supported the Croatian team.


Country contexts: similarities

Croatia Slavonic L1 mostly monolingual

classes central curriculum ca.80 % - English two 45-min lessons per

week

Poland Slavonic L1 mostly monolingual classes central curriculum ca. 80 % - English two 45-min lessons per

week


Country contexts: differences

Croatia long tradition in FLL &

early start compulsory from grade 1

since 2003 grades from the start of

primary school massive out-of-school

exposure (media, tourism)

Poland short tradition in FLL &

early start compulsory from grade 1

since 2008 no grades in lower primary not much exposure (dubbed

TV)


Aims

the interplay of contextual variables and individual learner differences

impact on L2 acquisition


Interplay of individual and contextual variables

Contextual variables

Wider social context

Language-learning milieu

The immediate language

learning environment

National FL education

policySchool setting

Significant others

Nature of instructionOut-of-class

exposure to English


Individual variables

Ability GenderAttitudes & motivation

Linguisticself-confidence


Sample

N = 350 first graders

(age: 6/7 years)

(F – 170; M – 180)

7 schools in Croatia

7 schools in Poland

Croatia Poland

N=172 N=178

F – 85

M – 87

F – 85

M – 93


Methodology

mixed-method approach instruments

administered to whole sample administered to six focal learners per group


Measures

school setting instruction out-of-class exposure ability attitudes & motivation linguistic self-

confidence language achievement

observation oral interviews smiley questionnaires standard questionnaires listening tasks speaking tasks


Classroom instruction – Example 1(Use of L1 & L2)S: Teacher, šta trebamo nacrtati? [what should we draw?]T: Eeee sad gledam [now I look] carefully. Ovdje su [Here are] two

trees, na svakom [on each] tree trebate napraviti plodove [you need to make fruits]. Ovdje znači [So here] apples, ovdje [here] pears. A iznad toga, lijepo ćete ih obojiti [And above that you will colour them nicely], colour them and match them. Ovako. [Like this] Čekaj, čekaj, čekaj. [Wait, wait, wait] Who is big? Tko je od njih [Who among them is] big?

SS: Ovaj tu. Ovaj tu. [This one. This one.] Father. Father. T: Ok, who is strong? To ćete sami odlučiti i spojiti. [You will decide for

yourselves and connect.] Vidite ko je [See how..it is] small, pa povučete crte do njega…[then you draw lines to it]

T: I don’t know.T: Jeste dovršili ovo? [Are you done with this?]


RESULTS


End-of-year language achievement: listening task

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

SD

Median

Mode

0

17

13.670

2.511

14

13


Vocabulary acquisition(listening task)High recognition Poor recognition

nose

red, blue, green, yellow

milk, yoghurt, chocolate

mouth, legs

trousers

pencil, ruler, blackboard

window, chair

doing, writing, riding, eating

kitchen


End-of-year language achievement: speaking task

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

SD

Median

Mode

1

47

17.892

9.593

17

13


Vocabulary acquisition (speaking task)High recall Low recall

colours (blue!)

animals (cat, dog)

toys (teddy bear, doll)

fruit

animals (hamster, mouse, parrot)

toys (kite, train, plane)

animals (snake, crocodile)


Interplay: type of settlement

Differences in motivation, linguistic self-confidence, ability and language achievement

ANOVA: linguistic self-confidence: ns ability: ns motivation:

city YLs < village & town YLs listening scores:

village & town YLs < city YLs speaking scores: ns


Interplay: immediate teaching environment (key)Village schools (43) (46)

(73) (74) (75)

Town schools (47)

(71) (72)

City schools (41) (42) (44) (45)

(76) (77)


Interplay: immediate teaching environment ANOVA:

linguistic self-confidence: ns Ability: ns Motivation:

(45) (city) < (76) (city), (75) (village), (72) (town), (74) (village), (71) (town), (73) (village)

Listening scores: (46) (village) < (77) (city)

Speaking scores: (46) (village) < (77) (city)


Group comparisons

Group (46) / lowest achievement

Group (77) / highest achievement

Unqualified T

Local children

No specialized classroom

Generalist/English T

Children from all over the city

Specialized English classroom


Group comparison

Group (46) / lowest achievement

Group (77) / highest achievement

Too much L1

Whole-class

Too little feedback

Poor motivator

Average classroom management skills

Balance of L1 & L2

In pairs & groups

Appropriate feedback

Very good motivator

Very good classroom management skills


Grp T perception of activities Ls enjoy most

Activities best liked by Ls

(46) TPR games, singing Singing, playing games, role-playing, counting

(77) Games, competitions, acting out, drawing, singing

Learning new words, learning, games


Grp Materials used Error correction

(46) Textbook

Flashcards

CD

T ignores mistakes, even the obvious ones

(77) Textbook

Flashcards

CD

T prompts self-correction


Comparison of 3 high & 3 low achievers See handout


Correlations between ability, language achievement, linguistic self-confidence and motivation (grade 1) (Croatia/Poland)

Ability Listening Speaking Motivation Linguistic confidence

Ability 1.000 .182* .737**

.350*

.684** -.057 .353*

.035 1.000**

Listening 1.000 .416** .799**

-.211** .273**

-.254 .737**

Speaking 1.000 -.376* .515**

.073

.684**

Motivation 1.000 -.109 .353*

Linguistic confidence

1.000


Correlationsgrade 2

Ability Listening Speaking Motivation Linguistic confidence

Ability 1.000 .257** .051 -.079 .035

Listening 1.000 .111 -.144 -.034

Speaking 1.000 .072 -.015

Motivation 1.000 -.127

Linguistic confidence

1.000


Grade 1 Grade 2

product

mot

compreh

Ling confd

ability

product

mot

compreh

Ling confid

ability


Conclusions

Instructed early SLA: teaching context and individual learner differences

seem to be relevant from the beginning of the early start

interplay between contextual factors and individual learner differences is more revealing than separate variables

interplay changes with length of learning


Implicatons

longitudinal approach – key to understanding impact of interplay on SLA

importance of triangulation

include larger samples


Thank you for your attention!


Jelena Mihaljevic Djigunovic

[email protected]

Magdalena Szpotowicz

[email protected]

Early Language Learning in Europe Interaction of contextual and individual variables in instructed early SLA Jelena Mihaljevic Djigunovic University of.

Documents

early language learning

fl learning

ns slide

poland slide

english slide

europe end

week slide

language achievement