Roger Edwards
Investigación y Desarrollo • Volumen 11 • 2016 • Diciembre • Nº 1 • ISSN: 1390-5546 / e-ISSN: 2361-2557
10
the tendencies reported by the Barcelona Age Factor Project
(Muñoz, 2006), 600 hours of instruction between late childhood
and mid-adolescence is sufficient to bring a majority of students to
B1 level. If this analysis is applied to some areas of the European
Union, then it would seem there is no justification for frustration, as
adolescent learners are making the expected rate of progress for
their age (see for example, statistics for Slovenia, Greece and the
Netherlands, in European Commission, 2012). In other areas of
Europe, the majority of students are at A2 level or below, following
600 hours of instruction, which is certainly less than expected.
Araujo and Costa (2013) see the age of beginning training in
the foreign language as an essential ‘opportunity’ for influencing
attainment by the end of compulsory education: “In general,
with respect to system-level policies, we can say that the
most significant effect is the onset of language learning” (p.
28). However, in Vietnam, Colombia and Ecuador (Nguyen,
2017), (Bonilla & Tejado-Sánchez, 2016), (Ureña, 2014), and
in some European nations (see statistics, for example, for the
U.K., France, Poland, Spain in European Commission, 2012),
the rate of acquisition by mid-adolescence is so slow it seems
that considerably reducing the age of onset would have little
additional impact. Earlier onset has been a recommendation in
both Colombia and Ecuador (see, for example MEN, 2014, 2015),
and yet if 600 hours between ages 10 and 16 has produced an
attainment of level A1 at best, it seems unlikely that a further 300
hours between ages 6 and 10 will move students much further
towards a level B1, or indeed B2, by age 16.
On the contrary, if rates of acquisition are far slower among children
than among older adolescents, as a large number of studies have
shown (Muñoz & Singleton, 2011), then those countries with low
attainment by 16 should rather invest only in post-16 compulsory
foreign language tuition. Mandatory university-level English
instruction has been embraced by both Colombia and Ecuador,
but at the same time as their having dedicated scarce resources
to primary-level English teaching (British Council 2015a; British
Council 2015b). Certain government policy may be mistakenly
guided by the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) (Colombo, 1982)
which suggests that native-like attainment may only result from
some degree of L2 immersion during childhood. The CPH is itself
a matter of considerable debate (Muñoz & Singleton, 2011), but, in
any event, it has not been shown that failure to attain a B2 level is
linked to a lack of early-childhood learning opportunities.
Factor 2: class size
W
ithin the education systems of the European Union,
Vietnam, Colombia and Ecuador, class size is rarely less
than 25, and may often be closer to 40 students (British Council,
2015a; British Council, 2015b; Araujo & Costa, 2013). There
is no consensus on how class size correlates to attainment in
language learning. Zarker’s extensive survey of the impact of
class size on both language learning and on other subjects
suggested that the quantifiable benefits may be in the range of
a few percentage points (Zarker, 2000). This is supported by
the conclusions of Araujo and Costa (2013) who stated: “there
is little effect of classroom size in foreign language learning” (p.
28), and they even maintained that reduced class size coincided
with lower attainment in some instances.
The indication that very large classes may be a threat to learning
has been put forward by British Council reports (British Council,
2015b), but without suggesting any strong correlations. On the
other hand, a number of small-scale studies do show considerable
differences in learning progress (see for example, Yi, 2008) and
certainly private academies and specialist language institutes
around the world insist on reduced class sizes as a key benefit
for learners.
None of the surveys and national programmes recommended a
significant reduction in class size within their public education
systems (MEN, 2014; Nguyet, 2017; Education First, 2017a,
2017b; Araujo & Costa, 2013). Certainly, class size in countries
whose education system produces close-to-expected progress
in the acquisition of English, such as the Netherlands or Sweden,
class sizes are no different to those with poorer results (Araujo
& Costa, 2013). Therefore, in the light of much contradictory
evidence, and certainly with no clear indication of a positive
correlation between class size and an improved rate of acquisition,
all of the initiatives and recommendations surveyed are correct
not to prioritise this factor by assigning scarce funding to smaller
classes.
Factor 3: average levels of motivation
T
he average level of motivation of the students within the
European survey was well below those described by the
FSI (Araujo & Costa, 2013). Intrinsic motivation was particularly
low compared with students who voluntarily attend classes at