109Learning OutcomesBy the end of this chapter you will

109
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this chapter you will be able to accomplish the
following objectives:
1. In the context of Krashen’s input hypothesis, analyze and
interpret the importance of compre-
hensible language input.
2. Explain how affective factors can interfere with learning and
how teachers can help to reduce
their impact.
3. Define the interaction hypothesis and assess its role in
language teaching and learning.
4. Summarize the principle characteristics of communicative
language teaching and explain its
relationship to communicative competence.
5. Identify and evaluate the factors that contribute to ELLs
becoming long-term language
learners.
5Teaching English Language Learners
Monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Thinkstock
CO_TX
CO_NL

CO_CRD
CT CN
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 109 6/30/15 11:12 AM
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.
Introduction
Introduction
Whatever their age and grade level, whatever their first
language, ELLs have one goal in com-
mon: communicative competence—the ability to function
effectively in English in both social
and academic settings. Helping them to reach that goal is the
teacher’s main objective. We
ended the last chapter with a description of how the concept of
communicative competence
contributed to the development of communicative teaching
approaches. One of the more
prominent of these was developed by Stephen Krashen in the
1980s and was called the natu-
ral approach. This approach was based on five hypotheses about
language acquisition (see
Krashen’s Five Hypotheses), and while theorists have taken
issue with the scope and details
of some of them, two of the hypotheses have influenced second
language teaching for the
past several decades and are widely accepted as pillars of
communicative language teaching.
These are the input hypothesis (Chapter 2) and the affective

filter hypothesis, which we will
examine along with the interaction hypothesis proposed by
Michael Long (1996). To under-
stand how these three hypotheses are realized in classroom
practice, we will examine the
four defining characteristics of communicative language
teaching.
As we delve deeper into communicative teaching practices, we
begin with a basic question:
What is the teacher’s main objective in teaching ELLs? Simply
stated, it is to help ELLs acquire
all the English they need for social and academic purposes
while simultaneously learning the
content knowledge appropriate to their grade level. With some
young learners, and under
certain conditions, teachers can meet this objective fairly
quickly, sometimes within the
school year. For others, especially those who begin later than
kindergarten or first grade, it
takes longer, and although the authors of most accountability
measures assume that it takes
three years (Chapter 3), that is not the case for all learners. The
overarching goal in teaching
ELLs, then, is to keep them from becoming long-term English
language learners (LTELLs),
meaning those who have been in school for more than six years
but have not yet attained
adequate linguistic proficiency or the content knowledge
appropriate to their grade level. But
the truth is that most teachers, especially those in the middle
school and high school years,
will almost certainly encounter LTELLs, and so we conclude
this chapter with a discussion
of the conditions under which ELLs become LTELLs, not only
because early intervention can

make a difference, but to help to meet the needs of these higher-
risk students.
Krashen’s Five Hypotheses
Prominent linguist and educator Stephen Krashen is professor
emeritus at the University of
Southern California. He has received many awards for his
publications, and has been greatly
influential in second language education. His theory of second
language acquisition is based
on five interconnected beliefs or hypotheses:
1. The acquisition-learning hypothesis distinguishes between
language learning and
acquisition. This hypothesis claims that acquisition is a
subconscious process, akin to
first language learning, that requires meaningful interaction but
does not involve for-
mal instruction. Language learning is a conscious process and
the product of formal
teaching.
(continued)
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 110 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Section 5.1 Input Matters: The Comprehensible Input
Hypothesis
5.1 Input Matters: The Comprehensible Input Hypothe sis
When parents or other adults want to communicate with an

infant or toddler, they make cer-
tain accommodations—they talk about concrete things (e.g.,
pointing to the family dog when
speaking its name), they simplify their language by using
familiar words, and they repeat
and expand upon the child’s utterance. They make these
accommodations to ensure that the
input is comprehensible, meaning that the child understands. It
makes sense, then, that the
first rule of effective ELL teaching is this: Make language
comprehensible. Whatever theoreti-
cal belief a teacher might hold about language learning,
whatever the age and grade level of
the learner, the language used every day in every class has to be
presented in such a way that
the learner understands the intended meaning—it has to be
comprehensible. That may seem
obvious—to learn anything we have to be able to comprehend
enough of what we hear or
read to, at the least, begin to construct meaning. Consider the
following passage:
何か不測の事態が発生した場合は、直ちに当社の社員にお知らせください。
Do you understand it? Most likely not. Because the symbols
mean nothing to us and because
we have no context for the sentence, most of us wouldn’t even
know how to find out what the
symbols mean. Some of us wouldn’t even know what langua ge
this is and certainly not that it
is a perfectly grammatical sentence in Japanese. Now consider
this passage:
Krashen’s Five Hypotheses (continued)
2. The monitor hypothesis, building on the postulated
distinction between learning and

acquisition, defines the influence of learning on acquisition.
Krashen’s view is that
learners have an “acquisition system” that serves to initiate,
while the “learning system”
(resulting from overtly learned rules) serves as monitor or
editor of the utterance. Over-
active monitors and underactive monitors can impede language
production and prog-
ress, while optimal monitors somehow strike an appropriate
balance between the two.
3. The natural order hypothesis is based on research evidence
that in every language there
is a mostly predictable sequence in which children learn
grammatical structures. Not
every child acquires structures such as the regular past tense
form, the possessive, or
the regular plural in exactly the same order, but the similarities
are significant. Because
there are differences in the order of acquisition—speakers of
Mandarin may acquire
English grammatical morphemes in a different order from
speakers of German, for
example—and because the most important factor is the content
being taught, Krashen
makes it clear that the syllabus should not be structured
according to a presumed order.
4. The input hypothesis is an effort to explain how learners
acquire language. It is not con-
cerned with learning per se, but Krashen stresses that an
environment can be created
for second language learners that makes learning more closely
resemble acquisition.

5. The affective filter hypothesis. Affective factors, or
variables, include motivation, self-
esteem, anxiety, and attitudes, and the hypothesis holds that
these can facilitate or inter-
fere with language acquisition. He envisions them as a filter
which, if raised, impedes
language learning but, if lowered, makes it possible for the
learner to take advantage of
comprehensible input.
Krashen & Terrell, 1983; Krashen, 1985; Schutz, 2007, 2014.
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 111 6/30/15 11:12 AM
https://www.yaqs.co.jp/help/sample5
Section 5.1 Input Matters: The Comprehensible Input
Hypothesis
The neural networks used for Synthetic ERP must include
neuroanatomi-
cally realistic placement and orientation of the cortical
pyramidal neurons.
(Barres, Simons, & Arbib, 2013)
Better? Yes, if only because most of us will recognize the
language as English. Some of us will
know most of the words, and a few of us could work out the
meanings of a few others. But
even with a medical dictionary at hand, chances are that most of
us who do not happen to be
neurologists would not understand the intent, importance, or

even the general subject the
sentence addresses. Why? Because the content is outside our
experience, of little interest, and
a little too difficult—which brings us to Krashen’s input
hypothesis.
According to Krashen, learners will acquire language when the
language they hear is challenging
but easy enough to understand without making a conscious
effort to learn it—in other words,
they can figure it out given the context. The hypothesis holds
that the input learners receive
should be just beyond their level of competence (Krashen,
1985). It should be noted that Krashen
also stated that language acquisition differs from language
learning in that acquisition is an
unconscious process and the product of normal interaction,
whereas learning is the product of
formal instruction (Krashen & Terrell, 1983; Krashen, 1985).
His view of comprehensible input
was that it was linked to acquisition but not to learning.
However, he also believed that acquisi-
tion could happen in the classroom. What this means in practice
is that teachers should strive to
make the classroom as authentic and communicative as possible:
The experience in the class-
room needs to more closely mirror first language acquisition.
The significance of this hypothesis
to communicative language teaching (CLT), as we saw in the
example above, is this:
The goal of any language program is for learners to be able to
communicate
effectively. By providing as much comprehensible input as
possible, especially
in situations when learners are not exposed to the TL (target

language) out-
side of the classroom, the teacher is able to create a more
effective opportu-
nity for language acquisition. (Bilash, 2009)
Now consider this passage:
The three competing theories for economic contractions are (1)
the Keynesian,
(2) the Friedmanite, and (3) the Fisherian. The Keynesian view
is that normal
economic contractions are caused by an insufficiency of
aggregate demand (or
total spending). This problem is to be solved by deficit
spending. The Fried-
manite view, one shared by our current Federal Reserve
chairman, is that
protracted economic slumps are also caused by an insufficiency
of aggregate
demand, but are preventable or ameliorated by increasing the
money stock.
(Hoisington & Hunt, 2011, p. 1)
The difference between this passage and the two previous, for
most of us, is that although we
could not accurately paraphrase it because we don’t know all
the word meanings in this context,
we can at least see the potential for understanding the meaning
by drawing on what we do know
of the word meanings in other contexts and, perhaps, using a
dictionary or asking for explanations.
The issue for teachers is how to find input that is challenging
enough to motivate learners but
not so difficult that it frustrates and causes them to give up. In
oral communication, there is

usually enough immediate feedback for the teacher to judge the
appropriateness of the level
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 112 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Section 5.2 The Affective Filter
and to make adjustments. In reading, a quick way to gauge
whether a text is too difficult or not
is to excerpt a short passage and do a Cloze test (Chapter 4).
5.2 The Affective Filter
Comprehensible input is not comprehensible if
the learner is not receptive to it. Certain attitudes
can impede receptivity and thus learning. Negative
attitudes or feelings about the language or having
to learn it, the people who speak it, or schooling
in general are the kinds of variables that can serve
as barriers to learning. Krashen envisions these
variables in terms of affective filters, which, when
raised, screen out much of the language input but,
when lowered, make the input available to the
learner for processing. Moreover, Krashen argues
that the strength or permeability of the filter can
vary from learner to learner:
Those whose attitudes are not optimal for second language
acquisition will
not only tend to seek less input, but they will also have a high
or strong Affec-
tive Filter. Even if they understand the message, the input will

not reach that
part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, or the
language acquisi-
tion device. Those with attitudes more conducive to second
language acquisi-
tion will not only seek and obtain more input, they will also
have a lower or
weaker filter. They will be more open to the input, and it will
strike “deeper.”
(Krashen, 1987, p. 31)
The notion of an affective filter resonates with practitioners
because experience has taught
them that children who are bored, angry, or frustrated are
resistant to learning and thus
harder to teach. But when they are interested, contented, and
engaged, they are more recep-
tive to learning and it is easier for teachers to design effective
learning activities (Bilash, 2009;
Poole, 2011). The practical application of this hypothesis is
obvious: to maximize language
learning and find ways to lower the affective filter. Although
many different attitudes and feel-
ings can contribute to the existence and strength of the affective
filter, they are all subsumed
under four factors: motivation, attitude, self-confidence, and
anxiety level.
Motivation
Every teacher knows the importance of motivation, and
hundreds of books and thousands
of articles have been written on the subject. Definitions vary,
but most educators concur
with Gardner that motivation is “the extent to which the
individual works or strives to learn
the language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction

experienced in this activity”
( Gardner, 1985, p. 10).
In terms of second language acquisition, both Gardner (Gardner
& Lambert, 1972; Gardner,
1982, 1985) and Krashen (1985, 1987) mark a distinction
between integrative motivation and
Freemixer/iStock/Thinkstock
Talking to her child about the family
dog, this mother adjusts her speech,
simplifying and repeating to make it
more comprehensible to an infant.
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 113 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Section 5.2 The Affective Filter
instrumental motivation. Integrative motivation results from a
learner’s genuine interest in
or affection for the language, its culture, and its people.
Children acquiring their first language
do so in order to become part of the family or group. People
who love opera and Italian food
might be motivated to learn Italian as a way of integrating into
that culture. Instrumental
motivation focuses on the practical advantages that will accrue
to the learner as a result of
learning the language. People who need to learn a language in
order to get a job with the State

Department or to pass a test for a graduate degree are motivated
instrumentally. The two are
not mutually exclusive, and research on which is more likely to
predict success in second lan-
guage learning is mixed. Although there is no definitive
evidence that one form of motivation
is superior to the other—because the different ages of subjects,
studies, and many other fac-
tors contribute to success—“. . . it is important to note that
instrumental motivation has only
been acknowledged as a significant factor in some research,
whereas integrative motivation is
continually linked to successful second language acquisition”
(Norris-Holt, 2001).
Although there is no compelling research evidence either way,
it is safe to assume integrative
motivation is a stronger force for children up through the
elementary years than instrumen-
tal motivation for acquiring English. It is also clear that the
strength of motivation affects the
receptiveness to a new language, but although it has an impact
on learners’ success, it also
interacts with other factors including attitude, self-confidence,
and anxiety levels.
Attitude
We all understand what is meant by attitude—it is how we think
or feel about something. As
a psychological construct, attitude refers to evaluative,
emotional reactions to people, objects,
or events. There is strong evidence that affect influences
cognition: “An extensive review of
the latest brain-based research (Jensen, 1995) has clearly shown
the critical links between
emotions and cognition and has concluded that in a positive

state of mind, the learner is able
to learn and recall better” (de Andres, 2002–2003).
Attitude is believed to influence language acquisition in three
ways:
1. Learners with positive attitudes tend to learn the new
language more easily and
faster, whereas those with negative attitudes are more resistant
and make slower
progress.
2. Attitude helps determine learners’ commitment. Those who
give up easily are more
likely to have a negative attitude.
3. Learners with positive attitudes are more likely to participate
in class and thus take
advantage of interaction.
In terms of the affective filter, a positive attitude tends to make
the filter more permeable (or
keep it lowered), while a negative attitude makes it denser (or
keeps it raised). As noted, how-
ever, attitude interacts with the other three components of the
affective filter.
Anxiety Level
Culture shock is a phenomenon that can affect ELLs’ ability to
learn (Chapter 2). One of the
underlying causes of culture shock is the necessity to learn a
new language, often very quickly,
and language anxiety or fear can make it harder for learners to
acquire a new language. This,
in turn, creates more anxiety. For children who have attended
school in another country,

pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 114 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Section 5.3 The Importance of Interaction
school shock can induce anxiety with the same result. Other
kinds of anxiety can also affect
children’s ability to learn—test anxiety (Chapter 4), fear of
negative evaluation or judgment,
or performance anxiety (related to speaking or reading aloud)
can contribute to high levels
of stress. The role of the teacher is to minimize anxiety by
creating a nonthreatening, non-
judgmental environment. It is an important role: “The effective
language teacher is someone
who can provide input and help make it comprehensible in a
low-anxiety situation” (Krashen,
1987, p. 32). Another potential contributor to feelings of
anxiety relates to self-confidence.
Self-confidence
The level of confidence that learners have in their
own abilities to learn could have different sources.
It can originate in the family or be a result of pre-
vious experience in school. If the latter, then it
becomes a circular issue—a learner struggles or
fails to learn something, which leads to feelings of
inadequacy or low self-worth, which in turn affects
his ability to learn. It is very common for adults,
for example, who have failed to learn a foreign
language in school to conclude that the fault lies

within them rather than in the teaching approach.
Equally common is to carry that failure, in their lack
of self-confidence, into the next language learning
experience where it might well impact their abil-
ity to learn. Lack of confidence tends to go hand in hand with
inhibition—learners who have no
confidence in their abilities are less likely to try anything that
involves a risk of failure because
failure only serves to confirm their feelings of inadequacy.
Language learning always involves
making mistakes, and learners who cannot tolerate making
mistakes are less likely to engage in
the kinds of language activities that will help them learn. In
contrast, learners who have fewer
inhibitions, as well as a higher tolerance for uncertainty, are
more likely to engage in classroom
activities, conversations, and other kinds of interactions with
native speakers. These kinds of
interactions, as we will see, are crucial to the acquisition
process.
5.3 The Importance of Interaction
Children learn their first language without being taught
(Chapter 3). But even though they are
innately wired to acquire language, they would not do so in the
absence of human interaction.
It is interaction that is believed to “trigger” and facilitate the
development of language. Jerome
Bruner, in discussing how the natural instinct of humans to
acquire language is activated by
cultural factors that are necessary for the development of
language, states:
. . . language acquisition “begins” before the child utters his
first lexicogram-
matical speech. It begins when mother and infant create a

predictable format
of interaction that can serve as a microcosm for communicati ng
and for con-
stituting a shared reality. The transactions that occur in such
formats consti-
tute the “input” from which the child then masters grammar,
how to refer and
mean, and how to realize his intentions communicatively.
(Bruner, 1983, p. 1)
Dejan Ristovski/iStock/Thinkstock
Creating a safe, welcoming classroom
environment is one way of helping to
lower the affective filter.
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 115 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Communicative language teaching, then, in mirroring
environmental factors believed to facili-
tate first language acquisition, emphasizes the importance of
interaction.
The Interaction Hypothesis
The interaction hypothesis, while similar to the input
hypothesis, focuses not so much on
the language that learners hear, but on the importance of the
communicative environment.
In its strongest form, the hypothesis holds not only that

interaction with native speakers
provides ELLs the opportunity to learn language, but also that
the interaction itself con-
tributes to second language acquisition (Long, 1996; Gass &
Selinker, 2008). The type of
interaction that appears to facilitate language acquisition best is
the negotiation of mean-
ing—when partners in conversation have to work together to
express what they intend
to express. Usually, this happens when there is a failure to
communicate intended mean-
ing—one party in a conversation says something that the other
does not understand or
misunderstands. The two then have to use various strategies to
move the conversation
forward (Richards & Schmidt, 2002). These strategies are often
accommodations made by
the native speaker—slowing down of speech or speaking more
precisely or paraphrasing.
Second language learners may also attempt a paraphrase or a
repair, but will more often
ask for clarification or simply fail to respond, which signals a
communication breakdown.
Consider the following interaction:
Lara: How many car you have?
Teacher: How many cars do I have?
If Lara’s next response is “Yes. How many cars you have?” or
even “How many cars do you
have?”, then the exchange has resulted in a repair, or two, and
the conversation can proceed.
She has received feedback on grammar that she was able to use
to correct her utterance.
But if Lara were to respond with “I don’t know”, then the repair

has gone unheeded, which
might happen, especially with young children who are more
likely to focus on meaning
than form.
The effectiveness of interaction is dependent to a large extent
on the type and quality of inter-
action. If it is used as an opportunity for overt correction of
errors, then it can become a nega-
tive experience. Young learners are often confused and don’t
benefit from overt correction.
Young learners and older learners alike are likely to become
frustrated if their attempts at
conversation are constantly interrupted by correction of
grammar, pronunciation, or word
choice, especially when the correction does not help to clarify
their meaning. Consider the
following dialogue between Cal, age six, and his teacher:
Cal: Give me other one, please.
Teacher: The other what?
Cal: (Points to the apple slices on the table.) Other one, please.
Teacher: You want another apple slice?
Cal: Yes, please. Other one.
Teacher: Apple, Cal. It’s an apple slice. Can you say apple
slice?
Cal: Appo sice.
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 116 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Teacher: No, apple slice. Try again.
Cal: Appo sice.
Teacher: Please give me another apple slice.
Cal: (Gets up and leans across table to reach for apple slice.)
Teacher: What are you doing, Cal?
Cal: You want appo?
In North America and, indeed, many classrooms in the world,
the format (if not the content)
of this exchange is very common. It is referred to as the
initiation-response-evaluation (IRE)
sequence (Mehan, 1979) or “recitation questioning” (Tharp and
Gallimore, 1988). As we saw
in this exchange, however, the routine does little to support or
assist Cal’s language devel-
opment. Teachers should instead try to avoid evaluating the
form and concentrate on the
meaning and intent of the learner’s utterance. In other words,
they need to think about and
respond to what the learner has said ahead of how it has been
said. Effective feedback that
encourages rather than frustrates ELLs has at least some of the
following characteristics:

1. Authenticity. In the dialogue between Cal and his teacher, the
exchange stops being
authentic at the point she says: “Apple, Cal. It’s an apple slice.
Can you say apple
slice?” She has hijacked the conversation, which began as a
simple request for some-
thing Cal wanted, and turned it into an instructional event—and
an ineffective one at
that.
2. Clarity. Sometimes ELLs do not understand the teacher’s
question or the reason
for asking it. That should have been clear to Cal’s teacher when
he got up and tried
to get her an apple slice. Here, he understood the words
perfectly; what he misun-
derstood was her reason for uttering them. He was still trying to
participate in an
authentic conversation! Not only should the meaning of an
exchange be clear, so
should its purpose.
3. Elaboration. There were many different ways this exchange
could have gone. What
would have happened had the teacher said to Cal, after
establishing that what he
wanted was another apple slice, “I don’t blame you for wanting
another one. They’re
really good. What other fruit do you like?” That would have
been an example of
elaboration, one of many possible, and it would have made more
sense to Cal.
4. Connection. Connecting with the learner’s interest and
experience is probably the
most critical characteristic of an effective interaction. By

connecting each response
meaningfully to some aspect of the learner’s experience or
interests, teachers can
gently push learners to participate in more oral exchanges and,
in the process,
acquire new words and phrases and, quite possibly, new
knowledge and higher level
thinking skills.
While very common, this kind of recitation questioning is not
the only kind of interaction in
which teachers and learners can participate. The “instructional
conversation” (Stipek, 2002;
Williams, 2001) is another discussion format, and it is one that
shares the same four char-
acteristics but encourages a high level of participation by ELLs,
constituting interaction that
has the potential for being highly effective. The discussion that
happens in an instructional
conversation engages students because it is interesting and
relevant. For learners with lim-
ited language proficiency, it may be difficult to engage in
lengthy high-level discussions, but
there are a few prompts and responses that can help keep
learners engaged, as we can see in
Feedback Matters: Twelve Useful Responses.
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 117 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Section 5.4 Communicative Language Teaching

Feedback Matters: Twelve Useful Responses
To keep learners engaged in discussions, try the following
responses:
1. I think you’re right! Can you tell me more?
2. That’s right. How did you learn that?
3. That’s right. Why do you think it’s important?
4. I think you’re right about ____, but why do you think ____?
5. That’s close, but something’s missing. What about . . . ?
6. I think I understand what you mean, but in English we
usually say____.
7. I’m not sure I understand. Can you say it another way?
8. That’s a good question to ask. That’s how we learn.
9. You are asking (teacher paraphrases the question). Right?
Who can help me with an
answer to that?
Sometimes learners do not respond, either because they need
more time or because they lack
the language to respond. Helpful responses are still possible:
10. Think about it and let me know when you’re ready.
11. Can you draw it or act it out?
12. Let’s ask the question this way and you can tell me “yes” or
“no.”
The goal of responses in any kind of interaction is to elaborate,
expand, and build learners’
language and content knowledge.
Positive, supportive, helpful responses help create a safe
environment for interaction that
helps to grow language proficiency. As Mohr and Mohr point
out, the teacher’s behavior can
yield other positive benefits for learners: “If teachers model the

use of feedback that extends
student responses, students may likely follow the teacher’s
example in their small group dis-
cussion with peers . . . . Thus, the patterns that are established
during teacher-directed inter-
action may be used in conversations between students” (2007,
para. 31).
Practical Applications
We have examined the role of comprehensible input, affect, and
interaction, focusing primar-
ily on their impact on the learner’s acquisition of language.
How do ELL teachers use this
information in practice? In other words, what does
communicative teaching actually entail?
To answer this question, we must take a closer look at the
defining characteristics of a com-
municative teaching approach, delving deeper into its defining
characteristics.
5.4 Communicative Language Teaching
Communicative language teaching was developed during the
1980s, partly in response to
the immediate communicative needs of English learners in the
United States and other English-
speaking countries. The approach was also a result of the
growing awareness among linguists
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 118 6/30/15 11:12 AM

The Chomskyan View of Language Acquisition
Rejecting the “blank slate” view of the infant mind, Chomsky
contended that children are born
with an innate capacity, or a language acquisition device, that
makes language learning an
inevitability—all they need is exposure. His theory was based
on several observations about
children learning language:
• There is an optimal age for language learning. Children are
most likely to learn lan-
guages fully and fluently between the ages of three and ten.
Learning after puberty is
possible, but it is more difficult.
(continued)
that first and second language acquisition were very similar
processes. Stephen Krashen and
Tracy Terrell took the goal of communicative competence even
further and developed the
natural approach, which eschewed use of the first language and
emphasized helping learn-
ers to develop vocabulary through meaningful interaction
(Krashen & Terrell, 1983; Govoni,
2011). The natural approach has been adapted, modified, and
tweaked by practitioners over
the years, but its tenets remain central to what we now refer to
broadly as communicative
language teaching, or the interactive approach. Any effective
teaching method begins with the
goal for the learner. For ELLs, the goal is clear—being a
successful communicator. What does
that entail? It requires the learner to know

• How to use English for a variety of purposes and functions,
• How to adjust language according to the participants and the
setting of the
conversation,
• How to read and write different types of text, and
• Strategies to use to sustain communication even with limited
linguistic ability.
The theoretical underpinnings of the communicative/interactive
approach, consistent with
the Chomskyan View of Language Acquisition but refined and
added to in recent decades,
assume that language learning is a result of processes such as
• Interaction between learners and other users of the language.
• The collaborative construction and negotiation of meaning
(speaker and hearer
work together to reach understanding).
• Paying attention to language input and actively incorporating
new forms.
• Paying attention to feedback.
• Trying out new forms of language, even if imperfect.
• Experimenting with different ways of saying things (adapted
from Richards,
2006, p. 4).
These assumptions about what students need to learn and how
they learn it are consistent
with the four characteristics that have come to define
communicative language teaching
(Richards, 2006; Spada, 2006). We will examine each of these
characteristics in the following
sections.

pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 119 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Communicative Teaching Is Learner-centered
The first characteristic of communicative language teaching is
that it is learner-centered. The
most important way to realize this characteristic is to make sure
that the language used is at
the appropriate level for the learner, as we will see shortly in
discussing the comprehensible
input theory. But student-centered learning has other
implications as well:
• Learners are expected to assume greater responsibility for
their own learning,
participate in cooperative learning activities, and work in pairs
or small groups
on tasks.
• The teacher is a facilitator and monitor of learning and
progress. Where teachers
were once seen as models of correct usage whose purpose was
to structure exer-
cises to elicit only error-free utterances and to work toward
eradicating any errors
that were made, student-centered learning requires teachers to
plan and engage in
meaningful communicative activities.

• Teachers tailor classroom activities to the interest, age, and
language levels of
learners.
• Teachers create environments that optimize opportunities for
interaction and
learning. The first step in creating such an environment is
establishing how the
classroom will be configured for optimal language learning.
There are several
options, some of which are more conducive to language learning
than others
(Figure 5.1).
The Chomskyan View of Language Acquisition (continued)
• Children do not need a “trigger” for the process to begin.
Parents do not need to teach
or coach children to speak. If they are surrounded by language,
they will pick it up on
their own.
• As they acquire their first language, there are certain kinds of
errors children never
make—they do not get the basic constituent order wrong
(subject-verb-object
in English).
• Developmental errors do occur as children figure out the rules
of the language, but
these tend to be of a lesser magnitude —the wrong tense or the
wrong plural—
indicating that children are in the process of working out just
how the rules work.
• Correcting these developmental errors is not effective. For

example, a four-year-old who
says “forgotted” might respond to a parent’s correction by
saying “forgot,” but she will
not change her behavior until she eventually learns that the
regular past tense does not
apply to this word and certain others.
• Children go through regular and predictable stages of language
acquisition no matter
what language they are learning or where.
Source: Chomsky, 1968; Lemetyinen, 2012; Piper, 2007
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 120 6/30/15 11:12 AM
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Communicative Teaching Does Not Focus on Errors
The second characteristic of communicative teaching is that it

does not focus on errors. Errors
are seen as developmental, meaning that most will disappear as
competence grows. Although
communicative teaching does not completely ignore errors, the
focus in the classroom is nei-
ther on preventing nor correcting them. Error correction is
rarely explicit, but when it occurs,
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Figure 5.1: Arranging for language learning
How a classroom is configured can aid or impede language
learning. Which of these configurations
would be least helpful for facilitating communicative language
learning?
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 121 6/30/15 11:12 AM

it has to be followed by opportunities for learners to use the
correct form in meaningful and
relevant contexts. It frustrates, discourages, and sometimes
confuses a child who is trying to
communicate something to have the teacher interject to fix her
verb form. Consider the fol-
lowing exchange between Maria, age seven, and her teacher:
Maria: I forgotted my lunch, so I buyed some.
Teacher: I forgot my lunch so I bought some.
Maria: Really? What did you get?
Maria was oblivious to her teacher’s attempt to correct her
mistake and so the teacher
persisted:
Teacher: Maria, the word is forgot. I forgot my lunch.
Maria: I know. Me too. I forgotted my lunch.
There are times when it is appropriate to correct errors.
However, teachers who understand
that Maria’s “forgotted” and “buyed” are both positive
indications that she is acquiring the
regular past tense form will realize that she will get it sorted out
by herself in time. Correcting
her now serves no purpose and may even keep her from
speaking. The error in Maria’s verb
forms did not interfere with her making herself understood, and
so attempting to focus her
attention on a grammatical form is pointless. On the other hand,
consider the following utter-
ances, both made by Spanish speakers:

I buy (this book) at library.
I like cheap chocolate cookie.
In Spanish, libreria means “bookstore,” In fact, many Latin
languages have a similar root, and
this Spanish speaker assumed that English would behave like
Spanish. This lexical (word mean-
ing) error is called a cognate, and in this case, it interferes with
meaning. There are two errors
in the second sentence, one a phonological error and the other a
word order error. Spanish does
not mark the distinction between long and short “i” in the way
that English does, and so chip/
cheap is not an unusual error. The word order mistake could
have several explanations, includ-
ing the fact that the learner will have heard “cheap” as an
adjective occurring before a noun in
many different contexts. All three errors in these two sentences
potentially interfere with the
meaning that a learner wants to create, and so the thoughtful
teacher will listen carefully to the
learner. If the errors or similar errors are repeated, then
correction may be needed. If so, it is
important to not make the learner feel uncomfortable and to
make the exercise as meaningful
and relevant as possible. In the case of the distinction between
chip and cheap, it is sometimes
helpful to illustrate how the written language distinguishes
between the long and short “i.”
Communicative Teaching Emphasizes Listening and Speaking
The abilities to converse in social settings and to communicate
effectively in school are essential
components of communicative compete nce, as we have seen.
Literacy is also built on a firm foun-
dation of oral language. Teachers using communicative methods

understand that it is impor-
tant to provide ample opportunity for listening and speaking in
the classroom; this is the third
characteristic of communicative language teaching. ELLs need
to hear the language of the school
and of the content area in a way that they can understand.
Listening and speaking in meaning-
ful contexts, as opposed to repetition of “correct” but irrelevant
utterances, help students learn
vocabulary and sentence structure that will help them when they
begin to read and write.
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 122 6/30/15 11:12 AM
It can be a challenge for teachers to find opportunities for
authentic oral language use with
beginning ELLs without resorting to the first language. This is
where we find inspiration
from our knowledge of first language acquisition. Even though
they don’t have to be taught
their first language, parents or other caregivers assist them by
simplifying their speech and
by providing context: they point, they hold up objects as they
name them, they talk their
way through familiar routines so that infants learn to associate
words with what they repre-
sent. One method that some teachers have used to teach oral
language to beginners is total
physical response (TPR). Using this method, teachers construct

a series of short active sen-
tences that that correspond to activities that the learners can
perform. For example, a TPR
routine might consist of the following:
I pick up the book.
I open the book.
I find page 3.
I close the book.
For beginners, this is considered an authentic language activity
because it teaches them
words they will need in the classroom in the context of the
classroom. Having the learners
perform the appropriate activity with each sentence is a way of
engaging kinetic memory
to reinforce linguistic memory. Consider that this simple
exercise has used only nine words
and two sentence structures. Students can learn it easily, and the
teacher can build upon it to
teach both new vocabulary and classroom routines
simultaneously:
I put the book in my bag .
I lift the bag.
I carry the bag to the door .
I open the door.
Notice that a new structural component has been introduced
with the two prepositional
phrases (highlighted), as well as a new pronoun (my), two new
nouns, and three new verbs.
Obviously, TPR will not work as the only method of instruction
and would not be effective
with more advanced learners, but its principles are sound and
useful for teaching basic vocab-

ulary and sentence structures that can be used immediately in
the classroom setting without
need for translation.
Communicative Teaching Does Not Rely on Home Language
Translation does not play a role in the communicative approach
to teaching; the home lan-
guage is not used. This is the fourth characteristic of
communicative language teaching. The
goal is not to replace the home language but to add a new
language, and the belief is that
learners will master English sooner if they focus entirely on
learning it. More specifically,
requiring learners to communicate only in English is based on
the assumption that first and
second language learning are very similar processes. Since very
young children acquire their
first language without being taught or without translation, it
follows that the older learner,
with more cognitive resources to call upon, can learn a new
language with the appropriate
input—comprehensible input, as we saw above. To be most
effective, input needs to be not
just comprehensible but compelling. It has to be of such interest
that a learner is willing, in a
sense, to overlook the fact that it is in another language.
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 123 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Section 5.5 Identifying the Long-term Learner (LTELL)

With early-stage learners, compelling content will need more
than language as a mode of
presentation. To state the obvious, early-stage learners are not
going to be compelled by what
they cannot understand, and a teacher monologue absent any
visual props will not motivate
them to learn.
As we have seen, communicative language teaching is a broad
approach defined by four
principles and can embrace a variety of methods with the
ultimate goal of preventing ELLs
from becoming long-term language learners, but providing
guidance for teachers of those
who do.
The Long-term Language Learner
Most of the preceding discussion has focused on teaching
elementary school learners, espe-
cially, but not exclusively, beginners. The goal for these
learners is to keep them from becom-
ing long-term language learners, those who have been in school
for more than six years
(although some standards specify an upper limit of three years)
but have not yet attained
adequate linguistic proficiency or the content knowledge
appropriate to their grade level. For
a number of reasons, some outside the control of the schools, a
significant number will reach
middle school without the language or academic proficiency
they need and with a great deal
less time to acquire them.
5.5 Identifying the Long-term Learner (LTELL)
Researchers in California have determined that an ELL child
entering kindergarten has a 50%

chance of becoming a long-term language learner. A recent
study of more than 175,000 learn-
ers in 40 California school districts revealed that 59% of
secondary ELLs are long-term learn-
ers, a number that is likely to increase (Olsen, 2010). These
learners are part of a national
population of ELLs, half of who were born in this country—
some may be second- or even
third-generation immigrants—and have attended U.S. schools
since kindergarten (Ferlazzo &
Sypnieski, 2012). These are the learners considered to be long-
term language learners. Many
will have high levels of proficiency in social English but will
lack the literacy skills they need
to succeed in the content areas. Arguably, the various
accountability movements, by putting
pressure on schools to achieve rapid language acquisition, have
increased the number, but
many other factors contribute.
How ELLs Become LTELLs
One of the reasons why half of ELLs who enter kindergarten in
this country will become
LTELLs is that many spend long periods of time with little or
no language learning support.
Unfortunately, many school districts in this country do not
have, or have not had, a sufficient
number of teachers professionally trained to identify and
appropriately place ELLs or to
teach them. Without specially trained teachers, and facing the
kinds of pressures described
in Chapters 1 and 2, it is unlikely that these districts will have
the kinds of curricular and
learning support materials that they need to provide for the
needs of ELLs. Similarly, as the
demography of the country has changed, often quickly, schools

that never had ELLs have
found themselves ill-prepared to provide effective program
options.
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 124 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Another factor that contributes to the failure of some ELLs to
achieve grade-level profi-
ciency in a timely manner is inappropriate placement. Studying
high school LTELLs who had
attended U.S. schools for seven years or longer, New York
researchers implemented and eval-
uated a bi-literacy program in two high schools. They began by
examining the reasons for the
learners’ limited literacy in either language.
Our findings indicate that a principal cause for LTELL students’
limited liter-
acy skills in either language is that they have attended U.S.
schools in the past
that primarily emphasized their English acquisition. Students
have attended
English-only programs (such as English as a second language
[ESL] and main-
stream) and/or “weak” forms of bilingual education, rather than
consistently
attending programs that offer them the opportunity to develop
native lan-
guage literacy skills. In addition, we have found that the

students often move
in and out of bilingual education, ESL, and mainstream
classrooms. (Menken,
Kleyn, & Chae, 2007, p. 1)
English language learners may also have been assigned to
specialized intervention programs
for native speakers, often on the basis of achievement or
proficiency test scores. Proficiency
and progress assessments designed for native speakers are often
unfair, under representing
what ELLs know or the progress they have made (Chapter 4).
The result is that too many ELLs
are assigned to programs for the learning disabled or to
remedial reading or speech language
programs designed for native speakers (Chapter 9). These are
generally not helpful and, in
fact, severely limit ELLs’ opportunity to learn at grade level.
This is not the only practice that
exacerbates the problem. Other seemingly appropriate options
can result in ELLs having lim-
ited access to the full curriculum. If, for example, ELLs are in
“pull-out” programs (Chapter 4)
in which they are removed from the mainstream class for
English lessons, without careful
scheduling they will routinely miss content instruction in the
class. Learners who have had
these kinds of experiences along with those who represent a
small proportion of school popu-
lation may come to experience social and linguistic isolation.
Feelings of isolation and exclu-
sion greatly reduce the likelihood that they will engage in the
kinds of interaction conducive
to learning English and succeeding in school (Olsen, 2010).
This is a lesson that sixth grade
teacher Kara Crosby learned firsthand, as we see in A Teacher’s

Story: Marta.
A Teacher’s Story: Marta
Marta was one of only three ELLs in my sixth grade class. From
the first day, Marta appeared
to be a loner. She came from Slovakia and her English was as
good as, or better than, the two
others ELLs, who spoke Spanish and English. I knew that Marta
had been in the same class
with most of the other 23 students in our small town for two
years, but she had apparently
made no friends and rarely joined in activities with the other
children. After a couple of
weeks, I went to her fifth grade and fourth grade teachers and
asked about her. They were
puzzled, too, about why she seemed so unhappy. They had both
gotten to know Marta’s
family, and characterized them as loving, supportive, and as
clueless as her teachers were
about Marta’s lack of adjustment. After another few weeks, I
went to talk to Principal Hayes
about her.
(continued)
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 125 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Some learners in middle and high school may appear to be

LTELLs but are not. Between 9%
and 20% of ELLs in this age group are newcomers or refugees.
“While some of these stu-
dents come with high literacy skills and content knowledge, the
majority . . . are students with
interrupted formal education . . . who have had two or more
years of interrupted schooling in
their home country” (Ferlazzo & Sypnieski, 2012, Adolescent
ELLs & long-term ELLs, para. 1).
A Teacher’s Story: Life Interrupted is the story of one such
child. With such limited formal
education and low levels of first language literacy, these
learners have a great deal of catching
up to do and, because of their ages, not much time in which to
do it. Long-term learners, then,
are a major challenge for schools and teachers. If we are to
assist LTELLs across the academic
hurdles they face and avoid creating more LTELLs, we must
first address some of the miscon-
ceptions about LTELLs.
A Teacher’s Story: Life Interrupted
Not long ago I ran into a former student of mine. Years before,
Kam had arrived in my third
grade class a few weeks after the year began, speaking almost
no English. From what I could
learn, I estimated that Kam had attended school very
sporadically for the previous two years,
and it showed in his lack of preparation. He couldn’t read in
Vietnamese, English, or any other
language. But by June, I thought that Kam was well on his way
to becoming a success story.
I was assigned a 3-4 split for the following year, and I was
hoping that Kam would be in the
class. It certainly made sense that he would be since he hadn’t

reached fourth grade proficiency
in language or social studies, although he had made great
strides. But Kam didn’t return to
school, and I never knew what happened to him until he came
up to me in Baskin-Robbins and
introduced himself. A grown man now, Kam was well spoken
and soft spoken. I asked about
(continued)
A Teacher’s Story: Marta (continued)
Mrs. Hayes was new to the school, having arrived from a middle
school outside Chicago. She
promised to investigate further. A few days later she came back
with what she believed was
the answer. She explained that the program designed for Marta
by Mrs. Hayes’ predecessor
had required that she spend a good part of each day in an ESL
class, which she had done for
two years. She made excellent progress there, and even though
she missed some important
content in fourth grade, she quickly caught up during fifth grade
as her English got stronger
and stronger. The problem clearly wasn’t academic, but Mrs.
Hayes strongly suspected it was
caused by social isolation. She believed that Marta had felt
isolated and perhaps hadn’t even
been in the general classroom enough to make close friends,
and, as I knew, she was at an age
when friendships had become especially important. She
suggested that I refocus my attention
on using group activities in the class and monitor them to see
which other students Marta was
best able to relate to. I did that, and as I identified first one, and
then two, and then three others

that she worked well with, I included those students in the
group with her most of the time.
Happily, by Christmas, there was a marked improvement, and
by the end of the school year,
Marta seemed almost happy.
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 126 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Mistaken Beliefs About LTELLs
One of the major misconceptions is that time spent speaking or
reading and writing the home
language is wasted because what these learners need is more
time in English. Yes, as we have
seen, exposure to English is very important. But there is
compelling research to demonstrate that
literacy in the home language helps the learner in acquiring
literacy skills in another (August &
Shanahan, 2006; Genessee et. al., 2006). It also gives them
confidence about their ability to learn.
Bilingual programs are beyond the means of many districts, but
elementary school teachers
and leaders should encourage home literacy, whatever the
language (Chapter 4). Dr. Deborah
Short points out that the majority of adolescent ELLs are
second- or third-generation immi-
grants, meaning that it is likely that their families may still be
struggling with literacy. On the
other hand, recently arrived ELLs with high levels of education

and literacy in the home lan-
guage can frequently acquire both academic English and content
and exit special programs
within two years or so (Short, 2011).
Another common misconception is that LTELLs cannot learn to
read and write without being
proficient in oral language. For younger children, this is
generally true, but for adolescent
learners, it is not necessarily the case. They need a variety of
authentic language experiences,
oral and written, but with their greater cognitive and “puzzle
solving” abilities, they can usu-
ally benefit from exposure to content text better than younger
learners. Some adolescent
learners struggle with correct pronunciation and because of
their age are less willing to speak
for fear of making errors. For these learners, especially, time
spent on reading and writing
provides them with opportunities to expand their vocabulary,
knowledge of sentence struc-
ture, and content-area knowledge in a nonthreatening way.
Is There Hope for LTELLs?
Undoubtedly, for learners who have been in school for more
than six years, the prognosis is
grim if we rely on what the numbers tell us. But teachers don’t
teach numbers: They teach
individuals, and for most of them there is hope. Often, it is a
matter of finding the appropriate
approach to use with these learners. While some aspects of
language learning are easier for
younger learners, adolescent learners may have an advantage in
learning and applying the
rules of language. Whereas with younger learners, we might
take a more natural approach,

A Teacher’s Story: Life Interrupted (continued)
what he’d been doing, and he looked down at the floor,
embarrassed. “I work,” he told me. “Did
you finish school?” I asked. He told me that his family had
taken him back to live in Cambodia,
waiting until it was safe to return to Vietnam. After a few years,
they returned to the States and
he went back to school, this time in seventh grade. He said he
hadn’t been to school much in
between and he was way behind. It was hard, he said, but he
could do the math, he worked hard,
and he thought he was doing okay. Then, when his ninth grade
teacher told his parents he was
only reading at a third grade level, they decided to take him out
of school and put him to work.
“We own a business,” he said, proudly. “I cook and keep
books.” But his demeanor told me that he
had regrets, and a moment later, he confirmed it: “I wish I stay
in school,” he said. “I wish.”
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 127 6/30/15 11:12 AM
letting them figure out the rules of grammar by engaging in
authentic language experiences,
with older learners it is sometimes more efficient either to
explain a rule or to give them
enough instances of a structure for them to figure it out.

Adolescence is also a time of great creativity and the incipience
of higher order thinking skills,
all of which make them faster learners than younger learners
(Sparks, 2011). They have more
highly developed metacognitive ability, meaning that they are
able to examine and reflect on
their own language learning processes and to make use of
previous language learning experi-
ences. They can, in fact, be far more efficient in learning
English—it’s just that they have so
much more to learn than five- or six-year-olds. Still, the
potential is there to be tapped. If a
teacher can find out what interests and inspires the LTELL to
want to learn—to find the com-
pelling material described earlier—then a great deal of progress
is possible.
Meeting the Needs of Long-term Learners
If teachers are to help LTELLs make progress, they should
begin by building relationships.
They should get to know their students and their families, if
possible, to build trust, respect,
and a sense of partnership in the business of learning. Research
supports the importance of
relationship building for LTELLs: A five-year study of over 400
immigrant children revealed
that “supportive school-based relationships strongly contribute
to . . . the academic engage-
ment of the participants” (Suárez-Orozco, Pimentel, & Martin,
2009, p. 713). Creating an envi-
ronment of trust and safety is only the first step in assisting
LTELLs. What comes next?
There is a genuine urgency to help LTELLs. Since they are a
heterogeneous group, differenti-

ated instructional strategies will be necessary, and many of the
techniques and strategies
suggested throughout the remainder of the book will be
appropriate, with some modification.
One of the significant differences is that each LTELL will need
an individualized instructional
plan that takes into account his or her particular ability or skill
gaps. Even though a learner
may have an especially notable deficit in one domain, such as
writing, every learner needs an
approach that includes attention to all four domains plus critical
thinking skills. In particular,
it is important to concentrate on reading in the content area
because all academic learning
is dependent on the ability to read and to close gaps in content
knowledge. To help LTELLs,
especially those who appear to be “fossilized,” schools need to
consider the following:
1. Focused reading, writing, and vocabulary across the
curriculum (subject-specific).
Advance organizers can be of help! Graphic organizers can be
helpful especially for
younger or beginning learners (one is illustrated in Chapter 6).
Older learners can
benefit from text-based organizers that show them what to
expect from the text, as
shown in Example of a Text-based Organizer.
2. Careful selection of texts to ensure rigorous content in
comprehensible language.
3. Build background for students before they read (or listen or
watch a film)
so that they know what to expect and look for. “This is a story
of a gruesome

murder . . . .”
4. When teaching literature, stay near grade level to maintain
interest (don’t use
second grade stories with fifth graders, or fifth grade stories
with high school
sophomores).
5. Use available technologies!
6. Strategic creation of groups that integrate ELLs with content-
proficient native
speakers.
7. School-wide emphasis on study skills and self-awareness of
learning processes.
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 128 6/30/15 11:12 AM
8. Accommodation for testing. Most states and districts have
policies governing what
kinds of testing accommodation are allowed for certain
assessments, some of which
are described in Assessment Accommodations for ELLs.
9. Use overt instruction for problematic structures but within
authentic context (real
text). It’s okay to teach some sound-symbol correspondence—
how sounds get
represented in letters—but always within a meaningful context.

Point it out, provide
or elicit another example or two, and move on.
10. Link reading and writing and focus on reading
comprehension rather than oral reading.
11. Keep portfolios of work to assist in determining progress
(which should be carefully
monitored).
12. Individual, group, or class projects focusing toward a
common goal that they work
toward over time.
13. Finally, the fact that 70% of all ELLs speak Spanish (Short,
2011) means that
schools may be able to benefit from bilingual programs such as
those described in
Chapter 4. Even if school leaders are unable to establish a
bilingual program, they
may have the resources to assess and help ELLs develop the
Spanish literacy skills
that can benefit them.
Example of a Text-based Organizer
Text-based organizers, sometimes in the form of outlines, can
be used to help ELLs, particu-
larly older learners, anticipate what is to come in a text. The
following is an example of one
such organizer:
The Organization of Chapter 4 (example)
Introduction
Principles of Assessment
Categories of Assessment

Proficiency Testing
Identifying and Placing ELLs
Oral Language Assessment
Reading and Writing Assessment
Monitoring Progress
ELL Program Options
English Mainstream Classroom
ELL Classroom
Bilingual Programs
English Learning Center
Sheltered Classroom
On Choosing
Instructional Methods
Structural Approaches
Functional Approaches
Communicative/Interactive Approaches
Summary
�
Teaching English Language Learners (next chapter)
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 129 6/30/15 11:12 AM
ELLs become long-term language learners for a variety of
reasons, and one or more of the affec-
tive variables discussed earlier will undoubtedly be a factor,
whether cause or result. As teach-
ers, our goal is to offer the kinds of instruction and support that
ELLs need to progress at an
appropriate pace. Nevertheless, for many reasons, some beyond

the teachers’ control, some will
struggle through six or more years of schooling without
reaching grade level in language and
content. They are at higher risk for dropping out, for
unemployment or underemployment, or
for being channeled into low-paying jobs. They deserve and
need the concentrated attention of
schools and teachers engaged in productive, and often
individualized, instruction.
Before leaving this chapter, let’s hear again from a teacher who
learned on his own how to
implement communicative language teaching as he struggled to
make content meaningful for
his ELLs. In Why I Teach: A Year to Remember, we see how
Jorge developed methods consistent
with the comprehensive achievement test approach and put them
into practice.
Assessment Accommodations for ELLs
Although research results cannot determine which, if any,
particular accommodation is
unequivocally reasonable, most states allow some
accommodation for ELLs for taking tests,
particularly standardized tests measuring achievement in
content areas. They typically fall
into four categories, and some of the more commonly used ones
include
Timing/Scheduling
• Increased test time.
• Breaks during test period.
• Text schedule extended (ELLs have more time to prepare).
Setting

• Test administered individually or in small group.
• Test given in setting with minimal distraction.
• Test administered in ESL classroom.
• Additional individual support provided in mainstream
classroom (e.g., ESL teacher or
aide).
Presentation
• Directions repeated in English.
• Directions read aloud in English.
• Key words in directions highlighted.
• Directions simplified.
• Directions explained or clarified in home language.
• Test items read aloud in English.
• Simplified English version of test provided.
Response
• Copying assistance provided between drafts (essays or essay
answers).
• Spelling assistance/spelling dictionaries or spelling and
grammar checker
provided.
• Test taker dictates or uses a scribe to respond in English.
Source: Educational Testing Service, Research report no. 2008-
6, Testing accommodation for English
language learners: A review of state and district policies.
Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media
/Research/pdf/RR-08-48.pdf
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 130 6/30/15 11:12 AM

http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-08-48.pdf
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-08-48.pdf
Summary & Resources
Summary & Resources
In this chapter we have looked at how a communicative theory
of language acquisition is
supported by the three pillars of comprehensible input; the
affective variables of motiva-
tion, attitude, anxiety, and self-confidence; and the quality of
interaction. Understanding
how language is acquired is necessary, but this understanding
alone is insufficient for
determining how to work within the framework of
communicative language teaching, to
organize instruction, and to teach ELLs so that they do not
become long-term language
learners, all while being consistent with the four defining
characteristics of communica-
tive language teaching. We saw that communicative language
teaching is learner- centered,
does not focus on errors, emphasizes listening and speaking,
and does not rely on any
use of the home language. The goal of communicative language
teaching is to keep ELLs
from becoming long-term language learners, those learners who
are neither linguisti-
cally proficient nor able to meet grade-level content standards.
Although LTELLs vary in

the skills they lack, almost all will lack adequate cognitive
academic language proficiency
and therefore will not be able to meet grade-level content
standards. Literacy skills are
at the heart of the problem, and they are also the solution. In
Chapter 6 we will examine
in greater detail some of the approaches to teaching literacy that
have been shown to be
effective and the importance of these approaches.
Key Ideas
1. The main goal of all ELL teachers is to help learners acquire
all the English they need
for social and academic purposes while simultaneously learning
the content knowl-
edge appropriate to their grade level.
Why I Teach: A Year to Remember
That was a very long year. When I got over my initial panic, I
did a quick refresher on the
FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test) to see what
my kids would be up against. I
started to devise strategies to teach them to take a test like this,
but a it only took me about
two weeks to abandon that strategy. I decided instead to focus
on the content of the math and
getting that across any way I could. I used all kinds of objects
to make the lessons more inter-
esting, thinking that if they could touch and manipulate objects,
the concepts would be more
tangible, more real. Reading worried me more. I knew that I
could get an exemption for the
girl who was a true beginner, and when I looked at all the
different kinds of text they’d have
to respond to, I wished I could exempt them all. But then I

talked to a colleague. Her advice
was to make reading fun and interesting, help them to get the
basics of vocabulary and word
identification in stories they wanted to read, and they’d get
there. She was right. I told them
outlandish, fanciful stories about the adventures of two puppets
we had in the room, Joe Bob
and Brutus, and then had them retell the stories while I typed
them and they followed on
the smart board. A few weeks before the test, I started preparing
them for the format and
doing practice tests with them. I was still worried, but not so
much. When the results finally
came, I looked at their individual reports before I looked at the
school’s. Of the 11 who had
written the tests, 10 scored at 2 or higher on a 5 point scale,
which for ELLs was considered
adequate progress. Four of the kids scored above 3 in math. I
was so proud! Of them. And that
is why I teach.
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 131 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Summary & Resources
affective factors The emotions and attitudes
that affect a learner’s state of mind and
willingness to learn. Also called variables.
affective filter An affective factor that,
when raised, screens out much of the lan-

guage input but, when lowered, make the
input available to the learner for processing.
communicative language teaching A
teaching approach that recognizes the simi-
larities between first and second language
acquisition, emphasizing interaction in
authentic settings as the way in which learn-
ers acquire a second language.
instrumental motivation Motivation to
learn that focuses on the practical advan-
tages that will accrue to the learner as a
result of learning the language.
integrative motivation Motivation to learn
that results from a learner’s genuine interest
in or affection for the language, its culture,
and its people.
interaction hypothesis A hypothesis
that focuses not so much on the language
that learners hear (the input hypothesis),
but on the importance of the communica-
tive environment. In its strongest form, the
hypothesis holds not only that interaction
with native speakers provides ELLs the
opportunity to learn language, but also that
the interaction itself contributes to second
language acquisition.
kinetic memory A form of procedural
memory that involves consolidating a spe-
cific motor task—such a dance movements,
bicycle riding, and steering a car—into
memory through repetition.

2. No matter what theoretical stance a teacher might take, the
language used every day
in every class has to be presented in such a way that the learner
understands the
intended meaning—it has to be comprehensible and at a level
that is challenging but
not frustrating.
3. Affective factors can create barriers to language acquisition,
but teachers can reduce
their impact by providing a safe, positive, and supportive
environment.
4. The quality of interaction that occurs between ELLs and
native speakers plays an
important role in the ELLs’ learning. In general, the more
authentic, the better.
5. Authenticity does not mean that teachers should ignore
grammar, pronunciation, or
vocabulary development or overt teaching. It means that
instruction should always
expand upon the broader context of the lesson.
6. Teachers using communicative methods understand that it is
important to provide
ample opportunity for listening and speaking in the classroom.
7. Error correction must be done judiciously, focusing on
mistakes that cause or have
the potential to cause miscommunication. Especially with
younger ELLs, it is helpful
to think of most oral language errors as “developmental.”
8. Early identification and correct placement of ELLs is critical

because too many of
them spend long periods of time with little or no language
learning support.
9. Focusing on reading is especially important for LTELLs
because content learning is
heavily dependent on reading.
10. It is acceptable and often desirable to teach for LTELLs but
always within a meaning-
ful context—point it out, provide or elicit another example or
two, and move on.
Key Terms
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 132 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Summary & Resources
language acquisition Learning language
as an unconscious process and through the
product of normal interaction.
language learning Learning language
through formal instruction.
sound-symbol correspondence The rela-
tionship between the individual sounds in a
word and how those sounds are represented
in print.

total physical response (TPR) A teaching
approach based on the notion that learning
occurs with physical movement.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Read the box Why I Teach: A Year to Remember again. How
does Jorge’s experience
illustrate the importance of the comprehensible input
hypothesis, the interaction
hypothesis, and the affective filter hypothesis?
2. Krashen states that despite his belief that learners acquire
grammatical forms in a
mostly predictable order, this order should not be used for
designing a syllabus or
course (see the box Krashen’s Five Hypotheses). Why? (Hint:
Would it violate any of
the tenets of communicative language teaching?)
3. What are the theoretical and practical reasons for teaching all
levels of ELLs using
only English?
4. Construct a short TPR (total physical response) routine
appropriate for first-grade
beginners in English. Explain why you chose the topic you
chose for them.
5. As stated in this chapter, “The goal is not to replace the home
language but to add a
new language, and the belief is that learners will master English
sooner if they focus
entirely on learning it.” How do you reconcile this statement
with this book’s asser-

tion that first language literacy is important to the development
of literacy in the
second language?
6. How do you think that affective variables might interfere
with the comprehensibility
of input? Be specific.
7. Five-year-old Sofia is an ELL learner who produced the
following sentences. Which
errors she makes are likely to be developmental? Which, if any,
would you correct?
How?
a. I no like mango.
b. My mama no like mango too.
c. I like banán.
d. No wants mango.
8. Review the box Assessment Accommodations for ELLs. For
each accommodation, sug-
gest one kind of test or one category of ELL for which the
accommodation might not
be appropriate.
9. What cultural factors should be taken into consideration
when considering appro-
priate forms of interaction for ELLs?
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 133 6/30/15 11:12 AM
Summary & Resources

Additional Resources
For succinct guidelines for implementing communicative
teaching techniques, see
http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/goalsmethods/guidelines.htm
For an exceptional discussion and examples of appropriate and
effective teacher feedback,
see
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/26871/
Experts provide an excellent introduction to middle and high
school ELLs at
http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/middleintro/
Dr. Deborah Short (2011) provides an excellent overview of the
middle and high school ELL
learner together with strategies for teaching ELLs, especially
literacy, in a webcast at
http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/middle/
For an overview of teaching academic English to ELLs, see
http://www.readingrockets.org/webcasts/3003
pip82223_05_c05_109-134.indd 134 6/30/15 11:12 AM
http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/goalsmethods/guidelines.htm
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/26871/
http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/middleintro/
http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/middle/
http://www.readingrockets.org/webcasts/3003

57
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this chapter you will be able to accomplish the
following objectives:
1. Explicate the differences between simultaneous and
sequential second language acquisition
and explain the relevance to ELL teachers.
2. Summarize the major differences between first and second
language acquisition in children.
3. Differentiate among the defining characteristics of each of
the five stages of language learning.
4. Explain why the question “How long does it take to learn
English?” is so difficult to answer.
The English Language
Learner 3
monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock
pip82223_03_c03_057-080.indd 57 6/30/15 11:11 AM
Section 3.1 Becoming Bilingual
Introduction

Lucy and Dinh are both in third grade, and they are both
bilingual: Portuguese-English in
Lucy’s case and Vietnamese-English in Dinh’s. Their teachers
would say that Lucy is a more
fluent speaker, although she didn’t start school in English until
second grade, while Dinh
began in kindergarten, but they would also praise Dinh’s
reading ability. At home, Dinh’s fam-
ily exposed him to English from the time he was three years old,
but Lucy had no exposure
until she started school. Both children are in a mainstream
classroom now, and they require
little additional language support. Yes, both children are
bilingual and share the same class-
room, but they took different paths to get there, as did the other
eight English language learn-
ers in the class.
In this chapter we explore different paths to bilingualism. By
examining the similarities and
differences between first and second language acquisition, we
see how, for example, young
learners might take a different path than older learners. We also
see that whatever the route
to bilingualism, most second language learners go through the
same five stages. However, the
time it takes to arrive at the final destination can vary widely,
depending on a number of dif-
ferent factors. The ultimate goal in teaching ELLs is that they
become functioning bilinguals,
so we begin with a brief discussion of bilingualism.
“Bilingualism refers to the ability to speak
two languages, and bilinguals are those who do so” (Piper,
2012, p. 84). Not everyone who is
bilingual is equally so—most people feel more comfortable in
one language or the other, and

will also rate their own proficiency higher in one or the other.
Some are highly proficient in
speaking their second language but less confident in writing it,
and there are numerous other
variations in skill sets among bilinguals. But fundamentally,
some degree of functional ability
in two or more languages gives one the right to claim
bilingualism.
3.1 Becoming Bilingual
Although the number of bilinguals is definitely increasing,
monolingualism is still the norm
in this country. That trend is changing, however, as we saw in
Chapter 1, and so it is impor-
tant that teachers understand that there may be significant
differences in how their monolin-
gual and bilingual students learn. In part, this is because
acquiring two languages affects the
brain differently than acquiring just one. In recent years,
researchers have discovered that the
benefits of bilingualism have a basis in brain structure and
function.
The benefits of bilingualism are well documented in the
research literature. Researchers
have found, for example, that bilingual or multilingual children
and adults are more toler-
ant of ambiguity. Tolerance of ambiguity is associated with
personality traits and with learn-
ing style. Those with a higher tolerance for ambiguity tend to be
more open-minded and
less rigid, authoritarian, or dogmatic than those with low levels
of tolerance for ambiguity
(Dewaele & van Oudenhoven, 2009; Dewaele, 2013). People
who know and use two or more
languages have also been found to have higher levels of

cognitive empathy as well (Dewaele &
Wei, 2012; Dewaele & Wei, 2013).
In terms of learning, researchers have shown that those with a
low tolerance for ambiguity
tend to find complex or unfamiliar tasks stressful, while
bilinguals are more likely to react
pip82223_03_c03_057-080.indd 58 6/30/15 11:11 AM
more positively, viewing them as an interesting challenge
(Furnham & Ribchester, 1995;
Dewaele & Wei, 2012). We also know that bilingual children
are
. . . better able than their monolingual peers at focusing on a
task while tun-
ing out distractions. A similar enhanced ability to concentrate—
a sign of a
well-functioning working memory—has been found in bilingual
adults, par-
ticularly those who became fluent in two languages at an early
age. It may be
that managing two languages helps the brain sharpen—and
retain—its ability
to focus while ignoring irrelevant information. (Perry, 2008,
para. 5)
Furthermore, there is evidence that the benefits of bilingualism

appear very early in life:
. . . researchers have shown bilingualism to positively influence
attention
and conflict management in infants as young as seven months.
In one study,
researchers taught babies growing up in monolingual or
bilingual homes that
when they heard a tinkling sound, a puppet appeared on one side
of a screen.
Halfway through the study, the puppet began appearing on the
opposite side
of the screen. In order to get a reward, the infants had to adjust
the rule they’d
learned; only the bilingual babies were able to successfully
learn the new rule
(Kovacs & Mehler, 2009). This suggests that even for very
young children, nav-
igating a multilingual environment imparts advantages that
transfer beyond
language. (Marian & Shook, 2012, para. 11)
There is additional evidence that learning multiple languages in
childhood will pay lifelong
benefits. In one study, monolingual and bilingual subjects in
their 60s
. . . underwent brain scans while performing a cognitive task
that required
them to switch back and forth among several different ideas.
Both groups per-
formed the task accurately, but bilinguals were faster, as well as
more meta-
bolically economical, in executing the cognitive mission, using
less energy in
the frontal cortex than the monolinguals. (Kluger, 2013, para.

12)
Other scientists have found that dementia and Alzheimer’s
disease appear later in bilinguals
than in monolinguals (Sohn, 2013). What is not known is
whether the actual onset is later
or whether bilinguals are simply better at coping with it. In
either case, the question is why?
It may be that because bilinguals are accustomed to switching
back and forth between lan-
guages, suppressing one to speak the other, that their brains
have formed enhanced brain
networks, making them better prepared to compensate when
Alzheimer’s sets in (Rodriguez,
2014; Schweizer et al., 2011). Researchers speculate that the
switching back and forth
amounts to a “workout” that increases blood flow and oxygen to
the brain, keeping the neural
connectors healthy (Bialystok, et al., 2004). Or it may be that
the bilingual brain is structur-
ally different. Rodriguez and other researchers (Mechelli et al.,
2004) affirm earlier evidence
suggesting that a number of different factors—age, manner of
acquisition, level of proficiency
attained, and the linguistic learning environment—have an
impact on the brain’s function
and structure.
Acquiring a second language increases the density of gray
matter (brain tissue
that contains information-processing cells) in the left inferior
parietal cortex,
pip82223_03_c03_057-080.indd 59 6/30/15 11:11 AM

and the degree of structural reorganization in this region is
modulated by the
proficiency attained and the age of acquisition. (Rodriguez,
2014, p. 7)
The positive effects of bilingualism on the brain appear to be
strongest in those who acquired
their two languages before the age of five, when the brain still
exhibits its most robust neural
plasticity (Petitto, 2009; Rodriguez, 2014). Because children
who are exposed to and learn two
languages from birth reach the same milestones as monolinguals
at roughly the same time—age
of speech onset, age when 50 words have been attained, and so
on—psychologists and educa-
tors have long believed that a single process or mechanism is
used for both. In recent years, this
belief has been sustained by research findings. Specifically, the
brains of early bilinguals “. . . uti-
lize overlapping classic language areas within the left
hemisphere for each of their languages, and
crucially, the same language areas universally observed in
monolinguals” (Petitto, 2009, p. 190).
Learning two languages before the age of five is considered to
be simultaneous bilingualism,
but the benefits to bilingualism do not vanish if the learning
occurs later than age five.
Later bilingualism changes “. . . the typical pattern of the
brain’s neural organization for lan-

guage processing, but early bilingual exposure does not”
(Petitto, 2009, p. 191). In general,
the changes are in the brain structure (youngest bilinguals) and
in the organization of the
brain (older learners), and these changes impact all learning;
bilinguals are generally more
flexible in their thinking, more focused, and better able to
concentrate (Perry, 2008; Petitto,
2009). For educators, it is important to remember that there may
be fundamental differences
among the learners in their schools—differences between
bilinguals and monolinguals, and
differences among bilinguals. A bilingual is not just two
monolinguals residing in one brain.
Educators refer to learning a second language before puberty as
early second language
acquisition (SLA). Puberty does not end the possibility of
learning a new language, of course,
but phonological processing, which affects accent as well as
reading, is more difficult for post-
pubescent learners (Pettito, 2009). Early SLA is similar to
simultaneous language acquisition,
the major difference being that learners quickly figure out that
their first language doesn’t
work in an English environment and will often respond with a
silent period when they pro-
duce little language but are actively processing the language
they hear (Piper, 2012, Chapter
4). In general, the younger children are when they begin to learn
an additional language, the
more the process will resemble first language acquisition.
Learning Two Languages at Once
Children who learn two languages before the age of five or six
are essentially learning two

first languages, employing similar or identical strategies for
both. One of the surprising facts
about early simultaneous language acquisition is that children
generally keep the languages
distinct, although some code/language mixing, which entails the
mixing of two languages in
the same utterance, will sometimes occur, as in these examples:
Jose, age four: Voy a run! (I’m going to run!)
This example is likely lexical, meaning that the child speaking
Spanish doesn’t know the
appropriate word in that language and resorts to the equivalent
in English. In the following
sentence, however, the mixing probably occurs for a different
reason:
Sara, age four: It’s too hard pour moi. (It’s too hard for me.)
pip82223_03_c03_057-080.indd 60 6/30/15 11:11 AM
It is highly unlikely that she does not know the words “for” and
“me” in English. It may be
that she has not yet mastered the prepositional phrase, but what
is more likely is that she
considers pour moi to be a single word and does not know a
single word equivalent in English
(because there is none). Language mixing is not uncommon and
takes many forms. Formu-

laic expressions in one language, for example, are sometimes
interspersed with the other
language, as in “Bonjour, Papa. Do you have to work today?”
One aspect of language that is
rarely affected by code-switching, at least in young children, is
the sound system. It is rare for
a bilingual child to mix up the sounds of the two languages or
even to assign the wrong stress
pattern to a word or sentence.
Theorists ponder how to fit all these occurrences into a single
explanation of the language
learning process in bilinguals; simply put, the question is, does
the young bilingual child have
one language system or two? These kinds of data do not resolve
the issue, but happily, for
teachers of ELLs, it doesn’t matter very much. Neither code-
mixing nor code-switching is a
cause for concern. Code/language switching refers to the ability
of proficient bilinguals to
select the correct language according to the situational context
or topic of conversation. Bilin-
gual children as young as two or three routinely switch to the
language that matches the
person with whom they are speaking, and the ability to switch
easily between languages in
different situations is the ultimate goal of learning a second
language.
Simultaneous language acquisition is no doubt the easiest
because, as we saw earlier, these
children learn their two languages in essentially the same way
as they would learn one. Chil-
dren who learn English as one of their two languages from birth
or very early childhood,
therefore, rarely present as ELLs. Nevertheless, it is important

to understand how these young
children acquire language in order to develop effective
strategies for ELLs who have not had
substantial exposure to English by the time they are five or six.
It also helps to understand
why it is rarely true that students need no special assistance to
acquire English, that somehow
they will “just pick it up.”
Children become bilingual in a variety of ways. In much of the
world, children acquire one
language in the home but pick up another in the wider
community outside the home. In
Miami, for example, there are many children of Spanish-
speaking parents who learn Eng-
lish at daycare, on the playground, and from English-speakers in
the predominantly English-
speaking community. By the time they get to school, they are
functioning bilinguals. Some
children are bilingual because they have a mother who speaks
one language and a father
who speaks another, or grandparents or other caregivers who
speak a language different
from their parents. Monique and Jacqueline are the daughters
of a Francophone mother and
an Anglophone father. Both girls are fully functioning
bilinguals, even though their patterns
of education differed—Monique attended English Montessori
School from the time she was
two and a half, transferring to a French language school when
she was in first grade. Jacque-
line attended only French school, beginning at age four in pre-
kindergarten. Now nine and
seven respectively, the girls are reading at grade level in both
French and English, although
the medium for instruction in their school is only French. They

learned to read English at
home. Although each of these children took a slightly different
path to bilingualism, there
was an important similarity: In each case, the child associated
one language with one person
or group of people. In general, there was little mixing of the
languages spoken to the child. In
cases such as these, the research evidence of the last hundred
years or so strongly supports
the hypothesis that when children learn in this way, they will
experience little, if any, confu-
sion between the two languages (Piper, 2012; Ronjat, 1913).
Moreover, it appears to be the
pip82223_03_c03_057-080.indd 61 6/30/15 11:11 AM
case that these children learned their two languages the same
way that monolinguals learn
their language—it would simply be inefficient of the human
brain to do otherwise, and the
brain is normally very efficient.
As noted, ELL teachers will encounter rarely simultaneous
bilinguals; learners who are add-
ing English to their home language or languages are much more
common. These students
will, at some point, be sequential bilinguals.
Learning Two Languages in Sequence

Sequential language learners arrive at school with varying
competencies in their home lan-
guage. Whatever their age and degree of linguistic attainment,
they will be placed in school
where they have to learn both the content of the curriculum and
the English language. Most
will have a good foundation in spoken language, although some
children may appear to have
limited speaking ability for cultural rea-
sons (Chapter 2). Some ELLs, particularly
in the later grades, will be literate in the
home language as well, although some will
not. Among those who are, there will be
some variation in their reading and writing
abilities (Chapter 2).
With so much variability in what ELLs bring
to school, it is to be expected that they will
also vary in the length of time it takes them
to reach proficiency in English. The speed
and ease with which they acquire the lan-
guage will depend on a number of factors,
among them age, context or situation,
teaching method, and degree of literacy in
the home language.
Age When the Second Language Is Introduced
In general, the younger the learner, the faster she will learn a
second language. There are a
number of reasons for this, including plasticity of the brain, the
fact that younger learners
have less language to learn and fewer inhibitions about learning
it, and the recent experi-
ence of acquiring the first language. For many decades,
researchers in several disciplines—

neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, education, medicine, and
speech pathology, to name a
few—have been fascinated by the differences in the bilingual
and monolingual brain, as well
as differences between sequential and simultaneous bilinguals.
As research methods such as
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) become more sophisticated,
we are beginning to under-
stand more about how the brain learns and stores language, but
there is no consensus among
researchers yet, and possibly will never be for the simple reason
that there are too many
variables involved in creating a bilingual. What we can
conclude with some certainty is that
age does not in itself diminish the ability to learn a new
language. Although younger learners
have a distinct advantage in learning the sound system, older
learners have more reasoning
and problem-solving abilities.
Comstock/Thinkstock
All these children need is adequate exposure to
acquire two or more languages simultaneously.
pip82223_03_c03_057-080.indd 62 6/30/15 11:11 AM
ELLs who begin to learn English after the age of puberty are
more likely to have a “foreign”

accent, but generally they will learn the structural properties
and vocabulary of the language
faster because they are more experienced learners. The reason
they struggle is the amount
of material to be learned—the tasks are unequal. If a 5-year-old
and a 15-year-old are given
the task to learn 250 words of everyday English vocabulary, the
15-year-old will learn much
faster. The difference is that a 250 word vocabulary is woefully
inadequate for a 15-year-old
but could serve the 5-year-old fairly well. Or to put it another
way, if the task is to reach a
degree of proficiency appropriate for a 5-year-old child, the 15-
year-old will get there much
faster, but, of course, no 15-year-old wants to sound like a 5-
year-old. In short, although the
level of proficiency eventually achieved may vary, learners of
any age can learn language.
The Contexts in Which the New Language Is Introduced
One of the apparent advantages that younger learners have over
older learners is contextual:
What is the purpose for learning the new language, and where is
it learned? In most cases,
younger preliterate children will learn in a social setting,
whether in the community, place of
worship, playground, or even the home. Sometimes, for
instance, a family will have a care-
giver who speaks English and “teaches” the language to the
child in the context of normal
everyday activities. The caregiver may have even exposed the
child to books in English. In
such a situation, the child is exposed to the same kind of
language for the same kind of pur-
pose that the first language was learned. In other instances,
young ELLs will have played with

109Learning OutcomesBy the end of this chapter you will

109Learning OutcomesBy the end of this chapter you will

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 109Learning OutcomesBy the end of this chapter you will

Similar to 109Learning OutcomesBy the end of this chapter you will (20)

More from SantosConleyha

More from SantosConleyha (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

109Learning OutcomesBy the end of this chapter you will