View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Investigating Cohort Effects of Early Foreign Language Learning

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Investigating Cohort Effects of Early Foreign Language Learning
Language: English
Authors: Nils Jaekel (ORCID 0000-0003-1562-9189), Michael Schurig (ORCID 0000-0002-7708-0593), Markus Ritter
Source: Language Learning Journal. 2024 52(1):104-116.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Second Language Learning, Second Language Instruction, Second Language Programs, FLES, Language Teachers, Elementary School Students, English (Second Language), Receptive Language, Teaching Experience, Scores, Outcomes of Education, Foreign Countries, Language Proficiency
Geographic Terms: Germany
DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2022.2108124
ISSN: 0957-1736
1753-2167
Abstract: With the rapid implementation of early foreign language programmes in the state of North-Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, first for Grade 3 (ages 8-9 years) in 2003 and then from Grade 1 (ages 6-7 years) in 2008, primary school teachers had to adapt to teaching a foreign language in Grade 1 quickly. Teachers had little experience with language teaching to very young learners, and curricula and materials had not been tested prior to implementation. This study investigates the development of receptive English proficiency across three large cohorts (N = 7,289). The first cohort started in Grade 3, the second cohort was the first to start in Grade 1, and the third cohort started in Grade 1, six years after the initial implementation. Propensity scores were used to compare sampling weights of cohorts without the influence of confounding variables. Results confirmed a slight advantage for an earlier start in primary school for students' receptive proficiency in Grade 5. The results further indicate that proficiency scores did not improve from the first cohort of students starting in Grade 1 to one six years later. Systemic changes in teacher education for language specialists in primary education may not yet have been able to affect student outcomes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1407673
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE1HVlw4RKkaVbfWqBlnGnDAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCzDkZusVDF49kpg_QIBEICBmyEvUwNiaiGCV0BZf_s1wPrf3aritcGYFdDh5S-MEJxFbpUTBwPm68i5fNxhWqAZAwrO0vSacu-spbP03jY1TNJ4ItTWRd0Mc-frih14NqxHwOAla-Wf0VhSuakG4YXaA9uGC0OoY-8don_R62X8pgcER9e-SultUnvZQvM5pu9TDn2Nv3CG6SitaDg2SbvFRt7CYHBp1Z12MIu-
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0174795534;sdq01feb.24;2024Jan17.05:33;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0174795534-1">Investigating cohort effects of early foreign language learning </title> <p>With the rapid implementation of early foreign language programmes in the state of North-Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, first for Grade 3 (ages 8–9 years) in 2003 and then from Grade 1 (ages 6–7 years) in 2008, primary school teachers had to adapt to teaching a foreign language in Grade 1 quickly. Teachers had little experience with language teaching to very young learners, and curricula and materials had not been tested prior to implementation. This study investigates the development of receptive English proficiency across three large cohorts (N = 7,289). The first cohort started in Grade 3 , the second cohort was the first to start in Grade 1, and the third cohort started in Grade 1, six years after the initial implementation. Propensity scores were used to compare sampling weights of cohorts without the influence of confounding variables. Results confirmed a slight advantage for an earlier start in primary school for students' receptive proficiency in Grade 5. The results further indicate that proficiency scores did not improve from the first cohort of students starting in Grade 1 to one six years later. Systemic changes in teacher education for language specialists in primary education may not yet have been able to affect student outcomes.</p> <p>Keywords: Age on onset; early foreign language learning; reading skills; listening skills; propensity score matching</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The shift of language learning into earlier years of primary school has gained popularity across the globe. In Europe, early language learning (ELL) has now been introduced into the primary curriculum in almost every EU member state (Eurostat [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref1">22</reflink>]). The popularity of ELL in Europe is a consequence of the considerable support by the European Council and its 'mother tongue+2' policy (Council of the European Union [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref2">9</reflink>]). Across Europe, for example, most countries have introduced foreign language education early in primary school before students turn eight years old (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref3">23</reflink>]). The value of foreign language skills and cultural competencies is an integral part of this policy, reflecting skills that are seen as valuable for employment, social integration, and are fundamental in appreciating cultural and linguistic diversity. The belief that an early start to foreign language learning in primary school is 'easier' and has a positive, lasting effect on language proficiency is a central reason for its introduction and popularity. Research in second language acquisition (SLA), however, provides only limited support for this belief when minimal input is provided, e.g. in classroom learning. The recent increase in research in language learning outcomes has started a much-needed debate about effective ways of teaching foreign languages to younger learners and policies necessary to provide a supportive educational setting (Hayes [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref4">27</reflink>]; Wilden and Porsch [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref5">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of an earlier start to foreign language education in Grade 1 (ages 6–7 years) versus Grade 3 (ages 8–9 years) on listening and reading language proficiency, replicating Wilden, Porsch, and Ritter ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref6">68</reflink>]). Secondly, we investigate how listening and reading skills in English have developed, 6 years after the original implementation of ELL in Grade 1, with trialled curricula in primary schools. The analyses contrast cohort effects on the development of receptive language proficiency while controlling for learner characteristics and curricula contexts using propensity score matching (PSM).</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-3">Contexts of ELL: policy and methodology</hd> <p>In many countries worldwide, ELL has become more egalitarian in public schools with easy access offered to students from all backgrounds (Buchholz [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]; Zappa-Hollman, Ramanathan, and Morgan [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref8">69</reflink>]); in contrast, some countries have seen their ELL and foreign language programme access decline (Pufahl and Rhodes [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref9">57</reflink>]). In Europe, foreign language policy has had a significant impact on the popularity of ELL programmes (e.g. European Coucil [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref10">21</reflink>]). Regionally, minority language development or indigenous language revitalisation has also played an important role, for example, in Wales and New Zealand (Ministry of Education [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref11">44</reflink>]; The Education Directorate [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>ELL programmes and policies remain, as is common in education, heavily impacted by local and national educational or language policies. Consequently, detailed descriptions are essential in research to make results more relatable from one context to another. Educational contexts differ significantly between and often even within countries. Even in countries where ELL is compulsory, a variety of curricula or pedagogical approaches continue to exist, e.g. in Germany (Hempel, Kötter, and Rymarczyk [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Edelenbos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]) identify four models of ELL in Europe: two with minimal exposure of about one hour per week based on either a rigid, often textbook-based curriculum and another one with more flexible syllabi. The third model centres on language awareness and surveys several languages and cultures. Model four is comprised of intensive language courses, but while the authors deem them highly desirable, they are relatively uncommon. A commonality across Europe is the limited time for ELL of between 1–2 lessons per week, often taught by generalist teachers (Edelenbos, Johnstone, and Kubanek [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]). An increase in lessons to allow more exposure is warranted by SLA research (DeKeyser and Larson-Hall [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>]). However, it is pragmatically problematic, as curriculum and policymakers tend to avoid these recommendations on the grounds of time constraints and therefore may ignore recommendations from SLA research.</p> <p>ELL programmes and their approach to language learning in primary schools differ from middle or secondary programmes. They often follow a more implicitly focused, playful, and creative curriculum, which is thought to be more age-appropriate (Jaekel et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>]; Piske [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref18">55</reflink>]). ELL programmes tend to emphasise oracy over literacy initially and carefully integrate literacy in a gradual manner. This is an important consideration as L1 literacy development is in its early stages when ELL is introduced. However, the increased focus on oracy also ensures that young learners are repeatedly exposed to the same grammatical constructions to facilitate the internalisation of these structures (Mihaljevic Djigunovic et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref19">43</reflink>]). In contrast, middle and secondary foreign language programmes are often much more explicit in how grammar rules are taught, are often based on the majority L1 and language contrasts, rely on rote learning of vocabulary, and can easily build on L1 literacy (Jaekel et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref20">32</reflink>]; Piske [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref21">55</reflink>]). Furthermore, cognitive maturation may benefit older students in secondary schools as language learning and teaching is often more grammar-focused (Cummins [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref22">11</reflink>]; Jaekel et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref23">32</reflink>]; Muñoz [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref24">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>While students can learn a language early on with some possible advantages such as more native-like pronunciation (DeKeyser [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]; Flege and MacKay [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref26">24</reflink>]), or moderate morphosyntactic benefits (Larson-Hall [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref27">37</reflink>]), research has consistently shown that learning a language later in school or life can be more efficient and faster (Krashen, Long, and Scarcella [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref28">35</reflink>]; Muñoz [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref29">49</reflink>]). This is, to some extent, due to a more developed L1 understanding, including L1 literacy, which can support L2 learning. The increased linguistic understanding also allows for more complex language contrasts. In many contexts, language learning may also be facilitated by intensive language programmes. Well-articulated programmes in primary schools, for example, immersion or partial immersion programmes (Elsner [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref30">19</reflink>]) or Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approaches, have been shown to foster language development and allow attainment of high proficiency levels early on in students' academic careers (Jaekel et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref31">32</reflink>]; Rumlich [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref32">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>The goals of ELL are generally to gradually develop language skills and allow for language learning to occur over a more extended period with modest short-term goals in most contexts (Nikolov [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref33">52</reflink>]). In Germany, the goals of ELL range from A1-A2 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Kultusministerkonferenz [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref34">36</reflink>]). These goals are in line with the generally modest achievements reported for ELL (Curtain [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref35">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Younger learners, particularly girls, have shown positive attitudes towards ELL (Jia and Aaronson [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref36">33</reflink>]; Moyer [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref37">45</reflink>]; Szpotowicz, Mihaljevic Djigunovic, and Enever [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref38">63</reflink>]). However, they are not always consistent and may decline over time (Chambers [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>]; Mihaljevic Djigunovic and Krevelj [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref40">42</reflink>]; Nikolov [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref41">51</reflink>]). Contextual and process variables have been shown to impact the attitudes students have. Making adequate progress is vital to maintain learners' attitudes and motivation (Csizér and Kormos [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref42">10</reflink>]) and avoid boredom to maintain enthusiasm for language learning, particularly for struggling learners (Bolster [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-4">Individual differences and their relevance for ELL</hd> <p>In the highly diverse contexts of public education, it is crucial to consider the effects individual differences have on academic outcomes. The research literature on individual differences in SLA, particularly for learners in primary through high school settings, is still limited. Awareness of these relationships is paramount in developing curricula, adjusting teaching to the point that learner needs are met, and providing an accurate representation of the context and outcomes in the context of research. While the field of individual differences is vast, in this review, we will only focus on variables included in the study (for a more detailed discussion on individual differences, see, for example, Dörnyei [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref44">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the context of this study, the age of onset of learning English as a foreign language (EFL), gender, cognitive abilities, cultural capital, learners' L1, and students' self-concept were included in the conceptualisation of the study. Students who indicated English as their first language were excluded from the analyses. In primary and secondary education, mixed results have been reported for the impact of gender on language outcomes. However, the main tendencies support slight advantages for girls in the areas of listening and reading (Bos [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref46">4</reflink>]; Jaekel et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref47">32</reflink>]; May [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref48">40</reflink>]). Cognitive abilities are a significant predictor for academic success and, more specifically, in the context of test-taking (Muñoz [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref49">50</reflink>]). Figural analogy-based tests have shown their predictive relevance for a variety of language assessments (Dallinger [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref50">13</reflink>]; Jaekel [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>]; Jaekel et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref52">32</reflink>]) and allow for a language-independent evaluation of cognitive abilities. Objectified cultural capital, i.e. book ownership, is an indicator for family literacy and also serves as a proxy for students' socio-economic background (Sieben and Lechner [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref53">62</reflink>]). Book capital is correlated with the academic success of students and is broadly used in educational contexts (Graaf, Graaf, and Kraaykamp [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref54">25</reflink>]). In the context of SLA, Jaekel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]) have shown that book ownership predicts reading and listening outcomes in EFL.</p> <p>With increasing linguistic diversity in classrooms, research on the impact of students' L1 on learning a foreign language in school settings remains scarce. An increasing emphasis on research in this area is particularly vital as foreign language education in schools most often relies on reference to the majority L1, particularly when contrasting grammatical constructs. Research on the L1 impact on foreign language learning highlights the positive impact of biliteracy on L3 learning rather than bilingualism alone (Rauch [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref56">58</reflink>]). In the ELL context that relies more on acquisition-based teaching approaches, multilingual learners may not be at a disadvantage or potentially even benefit from their multilingual background if literacy is not a focus yet (Hesse, Göbel, and Hartig [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref57">30</reflink>]). With a shift to a stronger literacy focus that relies more on explicit grammar learning and contrasting language, these multilingual learners could be at a disadvantage.</p> <p>Self-concept is a dynamic, hierarchical, domain-specific, situated belief system that encompasses one's beliefs to accurately depict one's abilities in a particular domain (Marsh, Xu, and Martin [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref58">39</reflink>]; Mercer [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref59">41</reflink>]; Pajares and Schunk [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref60">53</reflink>]). While self-concept has been shown to predict academic achievement, its relationship can better be described as reciprocal, i.e. academic achievement predicts self-concept and vice versa. Self-concept research has only recently received more attention in SLA (Mercer [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref61">41</reflink>]). For this study with young participants, we consider the L2 self-concept to be a developing belief that is malleable through interactions with one's environment (see other studies Kangasvieri and Leontjev ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref62">34</reflink>]); Waddington ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref63">66</reflink>])).</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-5">Motivation for the study</hd> <p>The starting point for this study was a key contextual limitation of Wilden, Porsch, and Ritter ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref64">68</reflink>]) and Jaekel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref65">32</reflink>]), requiring replication in another sample. Replication studies in the social sciences provide added support for the original study through validation, provide data to support the generalisability of outcomes (Porte and McManus [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref66">56</reflink>]), and offer an opportunity to address the potential shortcoming of the original study and expand the scope. The previous studies (Jaekel et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>]; Wilden, Porsch, and Ritter [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref68">68</reflink>]) presented data of two cohorts, first recruited in 2010. Cohort 1 (C1) started EFL in Grade 3, and cohort 2 (C2) in Grade 1. Wilden, Porsch, and Ritter ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref69">68</reflink>]) reported that students who started in Grade 1 (C2) significantly outperformed students that started in Grade 3 (C1) in both listening and reading skills. C2 students received a total of 105 hours of additional English lessons (Jaekel et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref70">32</reflink>]). Importantly, this cohort was the first-ever cohort of students in the state to learn English in Grade 1. Accordingly, the cohort's context was confounded with several potential issues related to the implementation of ELL:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> a lack of primary school EFL teachers majoring in English instruction,</item> <p></p> <item> the curriculum was new and not yet widely tested,</item> <p></p> <item> materials were new or not yet readily available, and</item> <p></p> <item> teachers in primary schools were adapting their lessons to the younger beginning age with learners that were starting to build their German literacy in Grade 1.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0174795534-6">What has (and has not) changed since C2 data were collected?</hd> <p>Since the initial introduction of ELL in primary schools in Germany, universities have established and expanded programmes to train primary school teachers for English. However, at the time of the initial two cohorts, the large majority of English teachers lacked training (Edelenbos, Johnstone, and Kubanek [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref71">17</reflink>]) and had limited experience teaching a foreign language. By 2018, when this study was conducted, teachers had gained experience, and more teachers with a language degree started working in primary schools.</p> <p>Textbooks are generally used for language learning in Germany. When ELL was shifted to Grade 1, most available books were aimed at Grade 3, building on students' already developing literacy skills in German and their experience learning in school. Since the initial two cohorts, textbooks have been tailored to the needs of 1st graders, requiring only limited literacy skills. State curricula were focused more on oracy skills initially (MSW - NRW [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref72">46</reflink>]) and moved to incorporate literacy skills more (MSW - NRW [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref73">47</reflink>]). During the initial two cohorts' data collection, teachers had little experience working with the curriculum. When data for C3 was collected, teachers had had time to adjust their classes accordingly. Despite these changes, ELL remains a niche subject in primary school (van Ackern [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>]). This is also reflected in a lack of a national curriculum, which the SLA field has long called for to ensure cohesion. Following these contextual changes and developments, a key aim of this current study is to evaluate the contextual effects of the 6-year implementation on students' EFL learning progress.</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-7">Research questions</hd> <p>In this study, we aim to answer two research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How does a start of EFL in Grade 1 versus Grade 3 affect English listening and reading proficiency in Grade 5? (replication study)</item> <p></p> <item> How has the 6-year implementation of EFL in Grade 1 affected English listening and reading proficiency of a new cohort in Grade 5?</item> </ulist> <p>These questions will be tested while controlling for individual student differences and contextual variations using propensity score matching (PSM).</p> <p>Hypothesis 1: C3 will perform significantly better than C2 in English listening and reading assessments due to the additional 1 ½ years of instruction.</p> <p>Hypothesis 2: C3 will perform significantly better than C2 in English listening and reading assessments. This hypothesis is based on the available research literature discussed in the literature review and the hypotheses we proposed in Jaekel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref75">32</reflink>]) that skills should improve with curricular adjustments, and updated teaching materials.</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-8">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0174795534-9">Study context</hd> <p>The current study initially started as part of the longitudinal, multi-disciplinary <emph>Ganz In – All Day-Schools for a Brighter Future</emph> project endorsed by the Ministry of Education in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany (MSW - NRW [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref76">48</reflink>]). Overall, 31 grammar schools participated in 2010 and 2012 (see Figure 1) as part of a quasi-experimental design. Participating schools covered large areas of the state, both in rural and urban contexts.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Project outline – only Grade 5 listening and reading data was included in the analyses.</p> <p>Germany's secondary school system differs between states. Generally, students are streamed into different secondary schools after Year 4. The <emph>Gymnasium</emph> (grammar school) and <emph>Gesamtschule</emph> (comprehensive school) offer high school qualifications that provide full access to tertiary education. With the focus on grammar schools, participants in this study will have shown better than average academic aptitude at their primary school as grammar schools generally attract students with better grades or more promising academic development. The project from which the data originates focused on improving graduation rates in schools with, on average, higher rates of students from immigrant and lower socio-economic background families. Therefore, comparing these data with other grammar schools needs to be done with caution.</p> <p>The current study includes three cohorts and adds a natural experiment setting (i.e. the curriculum implementation) to the original quasi-experimental design. Previously, we compared two cohorts of ELLs at the beginning of secondary school in Grades 5 (ages 9–10 years) and 7, respectively (see Figure 1). C1 started EFL in Grade 3 of primary school, while C2 started in Grade 1. In 2008, students in C2 were the first cohort of students in the state to receive EFL lessons from Grade 1. The new C3 entered Grade 1 in 2014, six years after C2, and was assessed in the fall of 2018. Therefore, the three cohorts that are compared in this study differ in their ELL experience while stemming from the very same geographical and educational context. C1 received 140 hours of EFL instruction, while C2 and C3 received an additional 105 hours for a total of 245 hours across their primary school years.</p> <p>Consequently, data for C3 in Grade 5 were collected to ascertain if a trialled curriculum would yield better outcomes. In 2018, eight schools participated in the replication study, which followed the same procedure as the previous data collections. All previous participating schools, as well as other regional schools, were contacted and asked to take part in this replication study. Participation was voluntary. Two of the schools that participated in <emph>Ganz In</emph> project and the data assessments in 2010/2011 and 2012/2013 did take part in this replication study. Six new schools from the same region agreed to participate in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-10">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were all Grade 5 students (average age of 10 years) at participating schools whose parents consented. In addition, students assented to participate in the study and had the opportunity to opt-out themselves. At each of the participating schools, all Grade 5 classes participated in this study. Overall, 26% of students reported that they speak another language but German at home.</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-11">Procedure</hd> <p>The paper-pencil assessments and student questionnaires were conducted in schools during regular school hours. In addition, parental questionnaires were collected.</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-12">Instruments</hd> <p>The dependent variables 'English reading' and 'Listening proficiency' were assessed using previously validated scales from the <emph>Evening</emph> study (<emph>Evaluation Englisch in der Grundschule</emph> [Evaluation of English as a Foreign Language in Primary School] (Engel and Ehlers [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]). For listening, students answered 28 multiple-choice questions targeting picture recognition (<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref78">17</reflink>) and sentence completion (<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref79">11</reflink>) in German. For reading, 20 multiple-choice and 4 open-answer items assessed text understanding. All items on the reading and listening tests were coded dichotomously. The fit of the items and the consistency of the tests were evaluated within independent one-parameter logistic models. All items showed a reasonable mean-square outfit and infit of MNSQ<subs>min </subs>= 0.90 to MNSQ<subs>max </subs>= 1.15. The reliability of the person estimator reached WLE Reliability<subs>reading </subs>= 0.66 and WLE Reliability<subs>listening </subs>= 0.67. Based on those evaluations, the test scores were derived as sums (Rost [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref80">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Cognitive abilities were assessed with the Figural Analogy Form B subtest of the <emph>Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest 4-12 + r</emph> (<emph>KFT</emph>; Cognitive Abilities Test) by Heller and Perleth ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref81">28</reflink>]), as it allows for an estimate of students' general cognitive abilities independent of their L1 proficiency. In the present sample, the test reached good reliability in line with the norm-sample values (α<subs>norm</subs> =.94, α<subs>all cohorts</subs> =.92, α<subs>cohort 1</subs> =.93, α<subs>cohort 2</subs> =.90, α<subs>cohort 3</subs> =.93).</p> <p>Demographic variables, including student age, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), cultural capital, and home language, were based on students' responses to questionnaires. Regarding cultural capital, the students were asked how many books were present in their homes. Five categories were offered: 1 '0–10', 2 '11–25', 3 '26–100', 4' 101–200', or 5 'more than 200'. For home language, participants were asked which language they regarded as their mother tongue. The answer was dichotomised into 1, 'L1 is the language of the country of the test,' and 0, 'L1 is another language.' Where data was not available from students because of non-response, parental responses were used instead. All items originated from the international TIMSS and PIRLS assessments and were adapted for use in Germany (e.g. Bos ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref82">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>To map self-concept, three individual idiosyncratic variables were used, which asked to what extent the child believed that they would get good grades in English (20a), learn quickly (20b) or refer to themselves as a 'lost cause' (20c; Wilden, Porsch, and Ritter [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref83">68</reflink>])</p> <p>In addition, the participants' last report card grades in German, mathematics, and English were collected (very good (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>) – unsatisfactory (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref85">6</reflink>)).</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-13">Statistical analysis plan</hd> <p>Only students that had completed at least one of the two parts of the test in English were included. The overall percentages of missing values ranged from 18.8% for gender to 22.5% in the test for cognitive abilities.</p> <p>For average distribution of background variables within the cohorts before imputation, please see Table 1. A structural difference distinguishes the first two cohorts from C3. The cognitive abilities and the amount of objectified cultural capital of the sample in C3 are significantly lower than in C1 and C2. Additionally, the proportion of L1 students differs slightly.</p> <p>Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and one-way ANOVA or <emph>X<sups>2</sups></emph> test of background variables by cohort.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Cohort 1 <italic>M</italic>/% (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>Cohort 2 <italic>M</italic>/% (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>Cohort 3 <italic>M</italic>/% (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td><italic>Partial η<sup>2</sup></italic></td><td><italic>X<sup>2</sup></italic></td><td><italic>Cramer-V</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender (girls in %)</td><td char="(">46.73 (49)</td><td char="(">47.20 (49)</td><td char="(">47.17 (49)</td><td /><td /><td char=".">.124</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Grade (German; 1-6)</td><td char="(">1.84 (0.59)</td><td char="(">1.83 (0.59)</td><td char="(">1.85 (0.66)</td><td char=".">0.23</td><td char="."><0.01</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Grade (mathematics; 1-6)</td><td char="(">1.88 (0.61)</td><td char="(">1.90 (0.65)</td><td char="(">1.89 (0.71)</td><td char=".">0.35</td><td char="."><0.01</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Grade (English; 1-6)</td><td char="(">1.74 (0.60)</td><td char="(">1.73 (0.62)</td><td char="(">1.72 (0.65)</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td char="."><0.01</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Self-concept item 1 (20a; 1-4)</td><td char="(">3.51 (0.59)</td><td char="(">3.45 (0.64)</td><td char="(">3.56 (0.63)</td><td char=".">12.40***</td><td char="."><0.01</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Self-concept item 2 (20b; 1-4)</td><td char="(">3.40 (0.68)</td><td char="(">3.34 (0.70)</td><td char="(">3.34 (0.70)</td><td char=".">6.540**</td><td char="."><0.01</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Self-concept item 3 (20c; 1-4)</td><td char="(">1.37 (0.71)</td><td char="(">1.57 (0.89)</td><td char="(">1.38 (0.73)</td><td char=".">43.60***</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>L1 (German in %)</td><td char="(">75.87 (43)</td><td char="(">72.87 (44)</td><td char="(">72.19 (45)</td><td /><td /><td char=".">7.76*</td><td char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Cognitive abilities (0-25)</td><td char="(">17.38 (6.63)</td><td char="(">17.75 (6.05)</td><td char="(">16.48 (6.85)</td><td char=".">11.19***</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Cultural capital (1-5)</td><td char="(">3.51 (1.13)</td><td char="(">3.44 (1.12)</td><td char="(">3.38 (1.18)</td><td char=".">6.29***</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Cohort <italic>N</italic></td><td char="(">3218</td><td char="(">3267</td><td char="(">804</td><td /><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Cohort <italic>N</italic> (listwise deletion)</td><td char="(">2606</td><td char="(">2203</td><td char="(">748</td><td /><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note<emph>:</emph> *<emph>p</emph> <.05 ** <emph>p</emph> <.01 *** <emph>p</emph> <.001; Self-concept item 1 'I get good grades in English.', Self-concept item 2 'I learn quickly in English.'; Self-concept item 3 'In English I am a lost cause.'</p> <p>Missing values were then imputed using the R package <emph>Mice</emph> (Buuren and Groothuis-Oudshoorn [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref86">6</reflink>]) along with an analysis of the weighting and comparison of more than two non-equivalent groups with the R packages <emph>Twang</emph> (Ridgeway et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref87">59</reflink>]) and <emph>Survey</emph> (Lumley [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref88">38</reflink>]). <emph>M </emph>= 5 imputed datasets were generated with mice (van Buuren and Groothuis-Oudshoorn [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref89">6</reflink>]). Next, propensity score weights for all three points of measurement were calculated. The point of measurement, therefore, was used as the treatment variable for the derivation of propensity score weights. As the estimation method, the average treatment effect was chosen. This effect estimates the change in the outcome if the treatment was applied to the entire population (Ridgeway et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref90">59</reflink>]). The depth of interactions accounted for was 2. The stopping method was the mean of the effect size. All five propensity score matchings (imputation 1–5) were evaluated for balance by the comparison of weighted and unweighted differences as well as the distribution of the propensity scores between cohorts.</p> <p>The population means, as well as the weighted means of the background variables, are given in Table 2. By implementing propensity score weights, the background characteristics are appropriate to the cohort-specific means of the dependent variables.</p> <p>Table 2. Comparison of population means and weighted means.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Population mean</td><td>Weighted mean (Cohort 1; <italic>n</italic> = 3218)</td><td>Weighted mean (Cohort 2; <italic>n</italic> = 3267)</td><td>Weighted mean (Cohort 3; <italic>n</italic> = 804)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Grade German</td><td char=".">1.85</td><td char=".">1.85</td><td char=".">1.84</td><td char=".">1.85</td></tr><tr><td>Grade mathematics</td><td char=".">1.89</td><td char=".">1.89</td><td char=".">1.89</td><td char=".">1.89</td></tr><tr><td>Grade English</td><td char=".">1.74</td><td char=".">1.74</td><td char=".">1.74</td><td char=".">1.74</td></tr><tr><td>Self-concept item 1</td><td char=".">3.47</td><td char=".">3.49</td><td char=".">3.49</td><td char=".">3.49</td></tr><tr><td>Self-concept item 2</td><td char=".">3.35</td><td char=".">3.36</td><td char=".">3.36</td><td char=".">3.36</td></tr><tr><td>Self-concept item 3</td><td char=".">1.48</td><td char=".">1.45</td><td char=".">1.46</td><td char=".">1.41</td></tr><tr><td>Cognitive abilities</td><td char=".">17.32</td><td char=".">17.36</td><td char=".">17.39</td><td char=".">17.29</td></tr><tr><td>Cultural capital</td><td char=".">3.46</td><td char=".">3.46</td><td char=".">3.46</td><td char=".">3.46</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td></tr><tr><td>L1</td><td>74%</td><td>74%</td><td>74%</td><td>74%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0174795534-14">Results</hd> <p>Table 3 presents average scores in reading and listening for the three cohorts. Based on a multidimensional generalised linear model with cohort as categorical predictor for the reading and listening scores, C2 and C3 differ significantly from C1. With C2 selected as the reference level, C1 scored significantly lower, while C3 did not score significantly higher (Table 4).</p> <p>Table 3. Pooled and weighted average reading and listening scores by cohorts.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Cohort</td><td>Reading</td><td><italic>Se</italic></td><td>Listening</td><td><italic>Se</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td char=".">17.82</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">19.84</td><td char=".">0.07</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td char=".">18.59</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">21.00</td><td char=".">0.07</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td char=".">18.77</td><td char=".">0.13</td><td char=".">21.17</td><td char=".">0.14</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 se = standard error</p> <p>Table 4. Pooled and weighted generalised linear effects between cohorts on reading and listening (Reference = Cohort 2).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Term</td><td>Estimate</td><td><italic>Se</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">39.60</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">379.01</td><td char=".">2164.72</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Cohort 1</td><td char=".">−1.94</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td char=".">−12.62</td><td char=".">816.85</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Cohort 3</td><td char=".">0.34</td><td char=".">0.25</td><td char=".">1.33</td><td char=".">1447.48</td><td char=".">.183</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 When transformed into Cohen's <emph>d</emph> the differences can be enumerated as a small to medium effect of <emph>d</emph> = −0.313 between cohort 1 and cohort 2 and <emph>d</emph> = −0.352 between cohort 1 and cohort 3. The effect of the difference between cohort 2 and cohort 3 is −0.052.</p> <p>Regarding Research Question 1, the results demonstrate an advantage for English skills for starting ELL in Grade 1 (C2 and C3) compared to a later start in Grade 3 (C1), confirming Hypothesis 1 and replicating Wilden, Porsch, and Ritter ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref91">68</reflink>]) findings.</p> <p>As for Research Question 2, the values in Table 3 show a slightly higher score for C3 in their English proficiency scores. However, the multidimensional generalised linear model does not deem the proficiency difference between C2 and C3 to be significant. Hypothesis 2, i.e. that C3 would perform significantly better than C2 after 6 years of ELL implementation, was not confirmed.</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-15">Discussion</hd> <p>There are two main findings from this study. Firstly, as expected, the study replicated Wilden, Porsch, and Ritter ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref92">68</reflink>]) findings that students starting ELL in Grade 1 (C2 and C3) scored slightly higher on receptive skills tests than students that started in Grade 3 (C1), confirming Hypothesis 1. Secondly, there were no differences in receptive proficiency scores between the first-ever cohort of students learning English from Grade 1 onwards in Grade 5 compared to another cohort of students six years later. Hypothesis 2, that ELL in primary school has become more efficient, i.e. implying that students attain higher levels of language proficiency, with expected growing teacher experience, professional development, and trialled curricula, could not be verified. Mean score comparison demonstrates that the two early starting cohorts' mean proficiency scores did not differ significantly, consequently refuting this hypothesis.</p> <p>Propensity score matching allowed us to compare students across cohorts with very similar traits to focus on sample level changes, i.e. analyses focused on the three cohorts within their contextual constraints, not on the traits of students. Propensity scores and associated sampling weights were used to compare non-equivalent cohorts without the influence of confounding variables. Students between the three cohorts were matched based on cognitive abilities, book capital, and L1 predicted receptive proficiency as well as grades in English, mathematics, and German and facets of self-concept. This matching procedure allowed us to compare the three cohorts while avoiding confounding contextual differences.</p> <p>As data were collected after 6–9 weeks in Grade 5, proficiency scores reflect the outcome of primary school English classes rather than gains made after the transition to secondary school. The difference in receptive proficiency between C2 and C3 is negligible and indicates no systemic improvement or learning effect. The results offer two possible explanations: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>) the initial implementation of ELL already achieved the maximum possible outcome for receptive skills, or (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref94">2</reflink>) few changes regarding teacher training, curricular adjustments, materials, and teaching approaches have been made and/or little gains achieved.</p> <p>The first possible explanation posits that there are no further gains possible. If the maximum outcome had already been achieved, the results would be underwhelming. Considering that ELL at this scale, i.e. mandatory state-level implementation, is still very new, this explanation is not likely, because educational research has shown that systemic change is often evaluated in decades (Tenorth [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref95">64</reflink>]). A key factor that likely impacted student outcomes is teacher training and their professional qualities. Teacher training in Germany focused on primary school ELL was increasing capacity to meet the level of the new demand at the time of the data collection, but the impact of these new training programmes may need more time to have an effect. Since our study focused on receptive skills, there may be improvements in productive skills that this study could not uncover.</p> <p>The second possible explanation suggests that little or no changes were made over the six-year period between the two assessments of the cohorts that started in Grade 1 or that adjustments effects have not yet trickled down to the classroom to have a meaningful impact. It is likely that a combination of the two may be the cause as state- or system-level changes take time. At the time of data collection, few teachers had extensive experience in teaching a foreign language to young learners. At this early stage in the implementation, many teachers likely lacked specific ELL education, professional development (Edelenbos, Johnstone, and Kubanek [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref96">17</reflink>]; Mihaljevic Djigunovic, Nikolov, and Otto [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref97">43</reflink>]), or (confidence in their) English language proficiency (Edelenbos, Johnstone, and Kubanek [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref98">17</reflink>]; Jaekel et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref99">32</reflink>]; Piske [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref100">54</reflink>]). The lack of qualified primary school English teachers was addressed with intensive courses that prepared licensed teachers to teach without having studied the language. However, it will take time to introduce new licensed primary school teachers with a specialisation in English across the country. This is an important development to consider along with the presented results as research has shown the positive impact teacher quality and experience have on student attainment in general (Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref101">8</reflink>]; Harris and Sass [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref102">26</reflink>]). In the context of language education, teachers' language proficiency (Unsworth et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref103">65</reflink>]), teaching quality, and teacher qualification (Wilden and Porsch [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref104">67</reflink>]) have been shown to have a profound effect on students' language attainment. With increasing numbers of highly qualified language teachers entering the workforce, findings may show different trends in future cohorts.</p> <p>The outcome suggests that more focused research involving quantifiable teacher data such as English proficiency, time spent abroad, experience teaching young learners or efficacy teaching English should be included. Contextual variables are also important to consider to identify universal versus context-specific factors of teaching foreign languages to young learners. Future studies should also include productive skills and other outcome variables such as long-term motivation and efficacy that ELL may impact to determine the overall benefit of an early start to language learning. International, longitudinal studies could help the field better understand how different educational contexts impact ELL.</p> <p>The results do not warrant a recommendation about whether a start in Grade 1 or Grade 3 would be better for learners in the long run. The study only investigated receptive skills and, as such, cannot make predictions about productive skills development for EFL.</p> <p>Lastly, while a focus on measurable outcomes is highly desirable in today's education contexts for policymakers and parents, other curricular goals that are not easily quantifiable, such as intercultural communicative competence, must be considered in decisions about ELL policies.</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-16">Limitations</hd> <p>As with every study, there are limitations. This study did not assess productive skills or collect teacher variables. These are two important factors that need to be considered in future research. As students in C2 and C3 both started early and received 105 English lessons more than C1 in their first two years of primary elementary school, both effects cannot be disentangled to explain which one is the cause for the better performance of C2 and C3.</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-17">Conclusion</hd> <p>An earlier start to ELL allows schools to offer lower intensity programmes across the primary school years. The data demonstrate that an earlier start with only 1–2 language lessons per week resulted in a slight advantage for listening and reading skills early on in Grade 5. The results of this study suggest that we need to have patience and foresight with implementing an educational policy as wide-reaching as ELL. Furthermore, to help better understand foreign language education in primary school in mainstream education, research should increasingly include teacher variables.</p> <hd id="AN0174795534-18">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0174795534-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref74" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ackern, I. van. 2021. Der Englischunterricht am Übergang von der Grundschule zum Gymnasium: Die Perspektiven der Lehrenden und Lernenden. Bochumer Beiträge zur Bildungswissenschaftlichen und Fachdidaktischen Theorie und Forschung, Band 15. Bochum Freiburg : projektverlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref43" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bolster, A. 2009. Continuity or a fresh start? A case study of motivation in MFL at transition, KS2–3. Language Learning Journal 37, no. 2 : 233 – 254. doi: 10.1080/09571730902928102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref45" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bos, W. ed. 2007. KESS 4 - Lehr- Und Lernbedingungen in Hamburger Grundschulen. Vol. 2. HANSE - Hamburger Schriften Zur Qualität Im Bildungswesen. Münster : Waxmann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref46" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bos, W. 2009. KESS 7 - Kompetenzen Und Einstellungen von Schülerinnen Und Schülern an Hamburger Schulen Zu Beginn Der Jahrgangsstufe 7. Vol. Bd. 5. HANSE - Hamburger Schriften Zur Qualität Im Bildungswesen. Waxmann : Münster and München.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Buchholz, B. 2007. Facts and Figures im Grundschul-Englisch: Eine Untersuchung des Verbindlichen Fremdsprachenunterrichts ab der Ersten Klasse an österreichischen Volksschulen. Linguistik und Sprachvermittlung. Wien Münster : Lit.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref85" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Buuren, S. van, and K. Groothuis-Oudshoorn. 2011. Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software 45, no. 3 : 1 – 67. doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i03.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref39" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chambers, G. 2000. Motivation and the learners of modern languages. In New Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Modern Languages, ed. S Green, 46 – 76. Modern Languages in Practice 13. Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref101" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Clotfelter, C.T., H.F. Ladd, and J.L. Vigdor. 2006. Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources XLI, no. 4 : 778 – 820. doi: 10.3368/jhr.XLI.4.778.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref2" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Council of the European Union. 2002. Presidency conclusions: Barcelona European Council. <ulink href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms%5fData/docs/pressData/en/ec/71025.pdf">http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms%5fData/docs/pressData/en/ec/71025.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Csizér, K., and J. Kormos. 2009. An investigation into the relationship of l2 motivation and cross-cultural contact among elementary school students. In Early Learning of Modern Foreign Languages: Processes and Outcomes, ed. M. Nikolov, 62 – 74. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. doi: 10.21832/9781847691477.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummins, J. 1981. Four misconceptions about language proficiency in bilingual education. NABE Journal 5, no. 3 : 31 – 45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curtain, H. 2009. Age effects in second language learning. In The Age Factor and Early Language Learning, ed. M. Nikolov, 40 : 59 – 82. Studies on Language Acquisition. Berlin, New York : Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110218282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dallinger, S. 2015. Die Wirksamkeit Bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts: Selektionseffekte, Leistungsentwicklung Und Die Rolle Der Sprachen Im Deutsch-Englischen Geschichtsunterricht. Ludwigsburg, Germany.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeKeyser, R. 2012. Age effects in second language learning. In The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds. S.M. Gass, and A. Mackey, 442 – 460. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeKeyser, R., and J. Larson-Hall. 2005. What does the critical period really mean? In Handbook of Bilingualism, eds. J.F. Kroll, and A.M.B. Groot, 88 – 108. Oxford : Oxford Univ. Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dörnyei, Z. 2010. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Digital Printing 2010. New York London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edelenbos, P., R. Johnstone, and A. Kubanek. 2006. Die wichtigsten pädagogischen Grundsätze für die fremdsprachliche Früherziehung: Sprachen für die Kinder Europas Forschungsveröffentlichungen, gute Praxis and zentrale Prinzipien: Endbericht der Studie EAC 89/04 (Lot 1). European Commission. <ulink href="http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/language-policy/documents/young%5fde.pdf">http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/language-policy/documents/young%5fde.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Education Directorate. 2017. Welsh in education: Action Plan 2017–2'. The Education Directorate. https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-02/welsh-in-education-action-plan-2017%E2%80%9321.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elsner, D. ed. 2013. Bilingual Education in Primary School: Aspects of Immersion, CLIL and Bilingual Modules. Tübingen : Narr.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engel, G., and G. Ehlers. 2013. Hören – zuhören – verstehen. Möglichkeiten der Analyse, Diagnose und gezielten Förderung des Hörverstehens. In Hörverstehen, Leseverstehen, Sprechen, eds. O. Börner, G. Engel, and B. Groot-Wilken, 44 – 69. Münster : Waxmann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> European Council. 2010. " 2010 Joint Progress Report of the Council and the Commission on the Implementation of the Education and Training 2010 Work Programme." Progress report C 117/1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:117:0001:0007:EN:PDF</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eurostat. 2019. Foreign language learning statistics. Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Foreign_language_learning_statistics#Primary_education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. 2017. Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe: 2017 Edition. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flege, J.E., and I.R.A. MacKay. 2011. What accounts for age effects on overall degree of foreign accent? In What Accounts for Age Effects on Overall Degree of Foreign Accent?, eds. M. Wrembel, M. Kul, and K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, 65 – 82. Polish Studies in English Language and Literature, v. 31-32. Frankfurt am Main; New York : Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graaf, N.D. De, P.M. De Graaf, and G. Kraaykamp. 2000. Parental cultural capital and educational attainment in the Netherlands: a refinement of the cultural capital perspective. Sociology of Education 73, no. 2 : 92. doi: 10.2307/2673239.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, Douglas N., and Tim R. Sass. 2011. Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics 95, no. 7–8 : 798 – 812. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, D. 2020. National foreign language policies for primary schools. Language Teaching for Young Learners 2, no. 2 : 240 – 261. doi: 10.1075/ltyl.19017.hay.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heller, K.A., and C. Perleth. 2000. KFT 4-12 + R - Kognitiver Fähigkeits-Test Für 4. Bis 12. Klassen: Revision. Göttingen : Beltz.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hempel, M., M. Kötter, and J. Rymarczyk. 2017. Fremdsprachenunterricht in Der Grundschule in Den Bundesländern Deutschlands: Eine Bestandsaufnahme Des Status Quo Und Seiner Gewünschten Weiterentwicklung. Zoom: Mentalität Und Medien. Frankfurt am Main : Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hesse, H.-G., K. Göbel, and J. Hartig. 2008. Sprachliche Kompetenzen von mehrsprachigen Jugendlichen und Jugendlichen nicht-Deutscher Erstsprache. In Unterricht Und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch, ed. E. Klieme, 208 – 230. Beltz Pädagogik. Weinheim : Beltz.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaekel, Nils. 2020. Language learning strategy use in context: The effects of self-efficacy and CLIL on language proficiency." International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 58 (2): 195 – 220. doi: 10.1515/iral-2016-0102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaekel, Nils, Michael Schurig, Merle Florian and Markus Ritter. 2017. From early starters to late finishers? A longitudinal study of early foreign language learning in school. Language Learning 67, no. 3 : 631 – 664.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jia, G., and D. Aaronson. 2003. A longitudinal study of Chinese children and adolescents learning English in the United States. Applied Psycholinguistics 24, no. 1 : 131 – 161. doi: 10.1017/S0142716403000079.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kangasvieri, T., and D. Leontjev. 2021. Current L2 self-concept of Finnish comprehensive school students: the role of grades, parents, peers, and society. System 100, no. August : 102549. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2021.102549.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krashen, S.D., M.A. Long, and R.C. Scarcella. 1979. Age, rate and eventual attainment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 13, no. 4 : 573. doi: 10.2307/3586451.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kultusministerkonferenz. 2013. Fremdsprachen in der Grundschule – Sachstand und Konzeptionen 2013. Kultusministerkonferenz. https://<ulink href="http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen%5fbeschluesse/2013/2013%5f10%5f17-Fremdsprachen-in-der-Grundschule.pdf">www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen%5fbeschluesse/2013/2013%5f10%5f17-Fremdsprachen-in-der-Grundschule.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larson-Hall, J. 2008. Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger starting age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Research 24, no. 1 : 35 – 63. doi: 10.1177/0267658307082981.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lumley, T. 2021. Survey: Analysis of Complex Survey Samples. R package version 4.0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, H.W., M. Xu, and A.J. Martin. 2012. Self-concept: a synergy of theory, method, and application. In APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol 1: Theories, Constructs, and Critical Issues, eds. K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, and J. Sweller, 427 – 458. APA Handbooks in Psychology®. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/13273-015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> May, P. 2007. Englisch Hörverstehen am ende der grundschulzeit. In KESS 4 - Lehr- Und Lernbedingungen in Hamburger grundschulen. In HANSE - Hamburger Schriften Zur Qualität Im Bildungswesen, ed. Wilfried Bos, 193 – 214. Münster : Waxmann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mercer, S. 2011. Towards an Understanding of Language Learner Self-Concept. Vol. 12. Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9569-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mihaljevic Djigunovic, J., and S.L. Krevelj. 2009. Instructed early SLA - development of attitudes. Studia Romanica et Anglica 12, 137 – 155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mihaljevic Djigunovic, J., M. Nikolov, and I. Otto. 2008. A comparative study of Croatian and Hungarian EFL students. Language Teaching Research 12, no. 3 : 433 – 452. doi: 10.1177/1362168808089926.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education. 2020. Māori language in education. Ministry of Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/maori-education/maori-in-schooling/6040">www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/maori-education/maori-in-schooling/6040</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moyer, A. 2004. Age, Accent and Experience in Second Language Acquisition. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit : Multilingual Matters. doi: 10.21832/9781853597190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MSW - NRW. 2003. Richtlinien und Lehrpläne zur Erprobung für die Grundschule in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Düsseldorf, Germany : MSW - NRW.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MSW - NRW. 2008. Richtlinien und Lehrpläne zur Erprobung für die Grundschule in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Düsseldorf, Germany : MSW - NRW.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MSW - NRW. 2015. Ganz In' - mit Ganztag mehr Zukunft. MSW - NRW. https://<ulink href="http://www.schulministerium.nrw.de/docs/Schulsystem/Ganztag/Gymnasium/Ganz%5fIn/index.html">www.schulministerium.nrw.de/docs/Schulsystem/Ganztag/Gymnasium/Ganz%5fIn/index.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muñoz, C. ed. 2006. Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit : Multilingual Matters. doi: 10.21832/9781853598937.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muñoz, C. 2008. Age-related differences in foreign language learning. revisiting the empirical evidence. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 46, no. 3 : 197 – 220. doi: 10.1515/IRAL.2008.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nikolov, M. 1999. 'Why do you learn English? Because the teacher is short.' A study of Hungarian children's foreign language learning motivation. Language Teaching Research 3, no. 1 : 33 – 56. doi: 10.1177/136216889900300103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nikolov, M. 2009. The age factor in context. In The Age Factor in Context, ed. Marianne Nikolov, 40 : 1 – 38. Studies on Language Acquisition. Berlin, New York : Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110218282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pajares, F., and D.H. Schunk. 2005. Self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs. In New Frontiers for Self Research, eds. H.W. Marsh, R. Craven, and D.M. McInerney, 95 – 121. International Advances in Self Research 2. Greenwich, Conn : Information Age Pub.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piske, T. 2013. Frühbeginn allein ist nicht genug. Welchen Einfluss haben Faktoren wie Alter, sprachlicher Input, Geschlecht und Motivation auf die Aussprecheentwicklung und die grammatischen Kentnisse von Zweitsprachenlernern? In Sprachwissenschaft - Fremdsprachendidaktik: Neue Impulse, eds. C. Bürgel, and D. Siepmann, 117 – 144. Thema Sprache - Wissenschaft für den Unterricht. Baltmannsweiler : Schneider Verl. Hohengehren.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piske, T. 2017. The earlier the better? Some critical remarks on current EFL teaching to young learners and their implications for foreign language teacher education. In The Earlier the Better? Some Critical Remarks on Current EFL Teaching to Young Learners and their Implications for Foreign Language Teacher Education, eds. E. Wilden, and R. Porsch, 45 – 57. Münster New York : Waxmann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porte, G., and K. McManus. 2019. Doing Replication Research in Applied Linguistics. New York : Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315621395.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pufahl, I., and N.C. Rhodes. 2011. Foreign language instruction in U.S. schools: Results of a national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals 44, no. 2 : 258 – 288. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01130.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rauch, D.P. 2014. Effects of biliteracy on third language reading proficiency, the example of Turkish-German bilinguals. In Plurilingual Education: Policies - Practices - Language Development, eds. P. Grommes, and A. Hu, 199 – 218. Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity (HSLD), vol. 3. Amsterdam; Philadelphia : John Benjamins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ridgeway, G, D.F. McCaffrey, A.R. Morral, L.F. Burgette, and B.A. Griffin. 2014. Toolkit for Weighting and Analysis of Nonequivalent Groups: A Tutorial for the R TWANG Package. Santa Monica, CA : RAND Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rost, J. 2004. Lehrbuch Testtheorie - Testkonstruktion. 2., Vollst. überarb. und erw. Aufl. Psychologie Lehrbuch. Bern : Huber.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rumlich, D. 2016. Evaluating Bilingual Education in Germany: CLIL Students' General English Proficiency, EFL Self-Concept and Interest. Frankfurt am Main : Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sieben, S., and C.M. Lechner. 2019. Measuring cultural capital through the number of books in the household. Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences 1, no. 1 : 1. doi: 10.1186/s42409-018-0006-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Szpotowicz, M., J. Mihaljevic Djigunovic, and J. Enever. 2009. Early language learning in Europe (ELLiE): a multinational longitudinal study. In Young Learner English Language Policy and Implementation: International Perspectives, eds. J. Enever, J. Moon, and U. Raman, 1. publ, 141 – 147. Garnet Education : Reading.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tenorth, H.-E. 2010. Geschichte der Erziehung: Einführung in die Grundzüge ihrer neuzeitlichen Entwicklung. 5. Aufl. Grundlagentexte Pädagogik. Weinheim München: Juventa-Verl.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unsworth, S., L. Persson, T. Prins, and K. De Bot. January 2014. An investigation of factors affecting early foreign language learning in the Netherlands. Applied Linguistics 36, no. 5 : 527 – 548. doi: 10.1093/applin/amt052.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waddington, J. 2019. Developing primary school students' foreign language learner self-concept. System 82, no. June : 39 – 49. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2019.02.012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilden, E., and R. Porsch. 2020. National foreign language policies for primary schools. Language Teaching for Young Learners 2, no. 2 : 192 – 212. doi: 10.1075/ltyl.19019.wil.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilden, E., R. Porsch, and M. Ritter. 2013. Je früher desto besser?: Frühbeginnender Englischunterricht abKlasse 1 oder 3 und seine Auswirkungen auf das Hör- und Leseverstehen. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 24, no. 2 : 171 – 201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zappa-Hollman, S., V. Ramanathan, and B. Morgan. 2007. EFL in Argentina's schools: teachers' perspectives on policy changes and instruction. TESOL Quarterly 41, no. 3 : 618 – 625. doi: 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00094.x.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Nils Jaekel; Michael Schurig and Markus Ritter</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref103"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1407673
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Investigating Cohort Effects of Early Foreign Language Learning
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nils+Jaekel%22">Nils Jaekel</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1562-9189">0000-0003-1562-9189</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+Schurig%22">Michael Schurig</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7708-0593">0000-0002-7708-0593</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Markus+Ritter%22">Markus Ritter</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Language+Learning+Journal%22"><i>Language Learning Journal</i></searchLink>. 2024 52(1):104-116.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Instruction%22">Second Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Programs%22">Second Language Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22FLES%22">FLES</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Teachers%22">Language Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Receptive+Language%22">Receptive Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Experience%22">Teaching Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Education%22">Outcomes of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Proficiency%22">Language Proficiency</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Germany%22">Germany</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09571736.2022.2108124
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0957-1736<br />1753-2167
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: With the rapid implementation of early foreign language programmes in the state of North-Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, first for Grade 3 (ages 8-9 years) in 2003 and then from Grade 1 (ages 6-7 years) in 2008, primary school teachers had to adapt to teaching a foreign language in Grade 1 quickly. Teachers had little experience with language teaching to very young learners, and curricula and materials had not been tested prior to implementation. This study investigates the development of receptive English proficiency across three large cohorts (N = 7,289). The first cohort started in Grade 3, the second cohort was the first to start in Grade 1, and the third cohort started in Grade 1, six years after the initial implementation. Propensity scores were used to compare sampling weights of cohorts without the influence of confounding variables. Results confirmed a slight advantage for an earlier start in primary school for students' receptive proficiency in Grade 5. The results further indicate that proficiency scores did not improve from the first cohort of students starting in Grade 1 to one six years later. Systemic changes in teacher education for language specialists in primary education may not yet have been able to affect student outcomes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1407673
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1407673
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09571736.2022.2108124
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 104
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: FLES
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Receptive Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Proficiency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Germany
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Investigating Cohort Effects of Early Foreign Language Learning
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nils Jaekel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael Schurig
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Markus Ritter
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0957-1736
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1753-2167
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Language Learning Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1