Traditionally, children have begun studying foreign languages at secondary school, but introducing them earlier is recommended by some educationalists. This policy has been adopted by some educational authorities or individual schools, with both positive and negative outcomes.
The obvious argument in its favour is that young children pick up languages much more easily than teenagers. Their brains are still programmed to acquire their mother tongue, which facilitates learning another language, and unlike adolescents, they are not inhibited by self-consciousness.
The greater flexibility of the primary timetable allows for more frequent, shorter sessions and for a play-centred approach, thus maintaining learners’ enthusiasm and progress.
Their command of the language in later life will benefit from this early exposure, while
learning other languages subsequently will be easier for them. They may also gain a better understanding of other cultures. There are, however, some disadvantages. Primary school teachers are generalists, and may not have the necessary language skills themselves. If specialists have to be brought in to deliver these sessions, the flexibility referred to above is diminished. If primary language teaching is not standardised, secondary schools could be faced with a great variety of levels in different languages within their intake, resulting in a classroom experience which undoes the earlier gains. There is no advantage if enthusiastic primary pupils become
demotivated as soon as they change schools. However, these issues can be addressed
strategically within the policy adopted.
Anything which encourages language learning benefits society culturally and economically, and early exposure to language learning contributes to this. Young children innate abilities should be harnessed to make these benefits more achievable.
Traditionally
, children have begun studying foreign
languages
at secondary
school
,
but
introducing them earlier
is recommended
by
some
educationalists. This policy has
been adopted
by
some
educational authorities or individual
schools
, with both
positive
and
negative
outcomes.
The obvious argument in its
favour
is that young children pick up
languages
much more
easily
than
teenagers
. Their brains are
still
programmed to acquire their mother tongue, which facilitates learning another
language
, and unlike adolescents, they are not inhibited by self-consciousness.
The greater flexibility of the
primary
timetable
allows
for more frequent, shorter sessions and for a
play-centred
approach,
thus
maintaining learners’ enthusiasm and progress.
Their command of the
language
in later life will benefit from this early exposure, while
learning other
languages
subsequently
will be easier for them. They may
also
gain a better understanding of other cultures. There are,
however
,
some
disadvantages.
Primary
school
teachers are generalists, and may not have the necessary
language
skills
themselves. If specialists
have to
be brought
in to deliver these sessions, the flexibility referred to above
is diminished
. If
primary
language
teaching is not
standardised
, secondary
schools
could
be faced
with a great variety of levels in
different
languages
within their intake, resulting in a classroom experience which undoes the earlier gains. There is no advantage if enthusiastic
primary
pupils become
demotivated as
soon
as they
change
schools
.
However
, these issues can
be addressed
strategically
within the policy adopted.
Anything which encourages
language
learning benefits society
culturally
and
economically
, and early exposure to
language
learning contributes to this. Young children innate abilities should
be harnessed
to
make
these benefits more achievable.