Technical ReportPDF Available

How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning.

Authors:
  • Pearson Education
  • Language Testing Services
  • MetaMetrics Inc

Abstract

This paper provides an insight into a topic which is highly debated and controversial, i.e. how long it takes to learn a language. We first describe a number of important factors impacting the time it takes to learn a language, i.e. starting proficiency level, motivation, aptitude, learning strategies, learning context, and age. We then present available estimates of learning time and, in light of existing research evidence, make a recommendation of how many hours are approximately needed for an average learner to grow in proficiency on the Global Scale of English (De Jong & Benigno, 2017) and the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001). We conclude by making a number of suggestions to help institutions and practitioners set realistic learning goals in relation to time.
How long does
it take to learn
a language?
Insights from
research on
language
learning.
May 2017
Veronica Benigno
John de Jong
Alistair Van Moere
Global Scale of English
Research Series
02 How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning. May 2017
Contents
Learning as a non-linear process. Which variables to account for? 4
 Prociencylevel        5
Motivation 5
Aptitude 6
Learning strategies 6
Learning context 6
Age 6
Learning time estimates: how long does it take to make progress? 7
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center 8
 NationalCentreonImmigrantIntegrationPolicy   8
Council of Europe 8
Pearson 9
Conclusion 10
References 11
03 How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning. May 2017
Executive summary
How long does it take to learn a language? Research
has shown that language is a non-linear process and
that a combination of individual and contextual factors
determines the learning journey and aects the time
each individual needs to make progress. Although
there is no unanimous consent as to how many hours
are needed to gain increasing language prociency,
attempts have been made to produce learning time
estimates - to help educators, institutions, and
ministries set realistic and attainable learning goals as
well as compare dierent programs.
Inthesectionsbelowwerstmentionseveralimportant
factors that impact the time it takes to learn a language, e.g.
motivationandstartingprociencylevel.Then,wepresent
available estimates of learning time and, in light of existing
researchevidence,makearecommendationofhowmany
hoursareapproximatelyneededforanaveragelearnerto
growinprociencyontheGlobalScaleofEnglish(DeJong&
Benigno,2017)andtheCEFR(CouncilofEurope,2001).Such
arecommendationshouldbetakenbythereaderasabasic
guideandadjustedtoreectthespeciccharacteristicsofthe
learning/teaching context.
04 How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning. May 2017
Learning as a non-linear process.
Which variables to account for?
Language learning is non-linear, i.e. dynamic, not
uniform or entirely predictable (Larsen-Freeman, 1997).
A U-shaped learning curve, where performance initially
improves, then deteriorates, and eventually recovers is
documented in both rst language research (Lightbown,
1983) and second language research (Bowerman, 1982).
The U-shaped curve is observed in cases where practice
does not lead to improvement in performance as the
result of restructuring processes (McLaughlin, 1990). The
learning journey of each individual is unique, because
learning does not proceed at a regular and continuous
pace but rather goes through peaks and valleys,
improvement and backsliding. According to the typical
learning curve, peaks generally come at the start and at
the end of the learning process, whereas, in between,
learners tend to “get stuck” in what is referred to as a
“learning plateau” (Gass and Selinker, 2001). This means
that although score gains are expected as a result of
learning over time, some learners may experience static
phases or even temporary regression due to a number of
factors, such as lack of exposure, loss of motivation, etc.
Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the CEFR describe progress in language
prociencyusingbothaquantitative(howmanytasksan
individualcanperform)andaqualitative(howwellanindividual
can perform these tasks) dimension. Chapter 6 points out
thatlearnersmayhaveunevenprolesandachievepartial
competencies(CouncilofEurope,2001,p.133).Dierent
componentsoflanguageabilitydevelopatdierentrates
andfollowdierenttrajectories,e.g.somelearnersmaybe
stronger in some activities, e.g. listening rather than speaking;
ordevelopsomecompetenciesmorequickly,e.g.phonetics
earlierthansyntax.Accordingtotheaction-orientedapproach
outlinedintheCEFR(CouncilofEurope,2001,p.8),learningis
dependent on a number of variables related to the individual
and to their learning experience.
05 How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning. May 2017
Sincethesecondhalfofthelastcentury,researchhas
extensivelydiscussedtheimportanceofindividualdierences
(suchasmotivationandlearningstrategies)andcontextual
dierences(suchasexposuretolanguageinputandteaching
methodologies),particularlyintheareaofsecondlanguage
acquisition(Carrol,1963;Gardner,1985;Skehan,1989;
Spolsky,1989;Ellis,1994).Dierenttheoreticalmodelshave
beenproducedtodescribethewayindividualfeaturesinteract
withexternalfeatures.Thesemodels,oftenproducedwithin
dierentareasofresearchsuchaspsychology,linguistics,and
sociology,dierslightlyintheconstructstheypropose(Ellis,
1994)andhavenotprovidedacomprehensiveanddenitive
explanationoftheextenttowhichthedierentvariables
combinetoproduceagivenoutcome.Asanexample,Spolsky
(1989,p.28)presentsanon-hierarchicalmodelinwhichsocial
context,attitude,motivation,age,personality,capabilities,
previous knowledge, and learning opportunities interact -
determining both the linguistic and non-linguistic learner
outcomes. In what follows, we refer to some important factors
aectingalearner’sjourney,andtherefore,learningtime,
without claiming that this list is comprehensive.
Prociency level.TheCEFRisoneofthemostwidelyaccepted
frameworksofreferencetodescribelanguageprociencyand
itsprogress.Theframeworkdivideslanguageprociencyinto
sixmainlevelsfromA1toC2,oftenerroneouslyinterpreted
asallbeingofequalwidth.However,thelogitscaleunderlying
theCEFRscalerevealsthatitslevelsarenotequidistant-with
A2, B1, and B2 being about twice as wide as the A1 level. At the
other end of the framework, C2 has an undetermined width.
Theimplicationofthisobservationisthatlearnerswilltake
much longer to move from A2 to B1, than to move from A1 to
A2.Infact,atamoreadvancedstageoflanguageprociency,
learnersarerequiredtocarryoutawiderrangeofmore
challengingtasksandactivities.Thetimealearnerneedsto
improvewilldependontheirstartingprociencylevel.
Motivation.Studentswhoaredrivenbyaninternaldesireto
learnthelanguage(integrativemotivation)aregenerallymore
successful than students who have more practical reasons
tolearnthelanguage(instrumentalmotivation),e.g.getting
acerticatetogainaccesstoaninstitution(Gardner,1985).
Recentstudies(DörnyeiandSkehan,2005,citedbyEllisand
Larsen-Freeman, 2006) on the relationship between motivation
and language achievement have demonstrated that motivation
correlatesonlymarginallywithachievement-duetothefact
thatlanguagelearningisaverycomplexconstructtowhich
manydierentdimensionscontribute.Forthisreason,itis
arguedthatanadequatemodelofstudents’motivationshould
include the time factor in order to understand how motivation
changesunderthevariousinternalandexternalinuencesthat
individuals are exposed to.
06 How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning. May 2017
Aptitude.Thisindividualfeaturecanbeassociatedwith
other learner cognitive features such as intelligence. Carroll
andSapon(1959)developedtheModern Language Aptitude
Test(MLAT),atestwhichmeasuresindividuals’aptitudefor
learningaforeignlanguage.Theyidentiedfourcomponents
oftheconstructofaptitude:(a)phoneticcodingability,(b)
grammaticalsensitivity,(c)rotelearningabilityforforeign
languagematerialsand(d)inductivelearningability.The
underlyingtheoryclaimsthatsomeonewithahigheraptitude
will take less time to achieve a given learning goal under
optimallearningconditions(Carrol,1971;2012).
Learning strategies.Strategiesareusedbystudents,implicitly
andexplicitly,whenapproachingataskandcaninhibitor
facilitatethelearningprocess.Theyvarydependingonthe
learnerprociencylevel,motivation,andlearningstyle.Green
andOxford(1995)classiedstrategiesintosixmaintypes:
metacognitive,e.g.self-monitoring;aective,e.g.anxiety
reduction;social,e.g.askingquestions;memory,e.g.grouping;
cognitive, e.g. summarizing; compensation, e.g. guessing
meanings. It is important that teachers help their students
understand their own learning and develop appropriate
strategies.
Learning context.Thecontextinwhichthelanguageis
learntplaysacrucialroleindeterminingthesuccessofthe
learningexperience.Itisintuitivelyeasytounderstandthat
learninginanimmersioncontext(asistypicalofsecond
languagelearning)yieldsmoreopportunitiestobeexposed
tothelanguage,speedingupthelearningprocess.Inversely,
research has shown that language learning via instruction
oftendoesnotprovideenoughexposuretoachieveuencyin
the target language. In an instructional context, the choice of
the teaching method is decisive to help students improve as
quicklyaspossible.Anumberofstudieshaveinvestigatedthe
eectofinstructionalmethodsonlanguagelearning,although
considerablecontroversystillexistsabouthowinstructioncan
bestfacilitatelanguagelearning(Ellis,2006).
Age.Ifsecondlanguageacquisitionresearchhasdemonstrated
thatearlylanguagelearningleadstobetterprociencyinthe
longrun(Singleton,1989,p.137),similarndingshavenot
beenfoundinforeignlanguagecontexts.Thatsaid,ithasbeen
shownthatadultlearnersdohaveanadvantageincarrying
outtaskswhicharecognitivelymoredemanding,e.g.tasks
involving metacognitive skills.
07 How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning. May 2017
Learning time estimates: how long
does it take to make progress?
How long does it take to learn a language? This is
one of the most troublesome questions for most
practitioners. In view of what has been discussed in
the previous section, it is easy to understand that
too many variables come into play to provide a one-
size-ts-all answer. Below we present the learning
time estimates produced by the US Defense Language
Institute Foreign Language Center, the National
Centre on Immigrant Integration Policy, the Council
of Europe, and Pearson.
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center. An
estimateoflearningtimewasproducedbytheDefense
Language Institute Foreign Language Center(DLIFLC).The
DLIFLC, located in California, has the mission to “provide
culturallybasedforeignlanguageeducation,training,
evaluationandsustainmenttoenhancethesecurityofthe
nation” http://www.dlic.edu/about/mission-vision/The
Institutecategorizeslanguagesintofourlevelsofdiculty
forspeakersofEnglishasarstlanguage–agreatdeal
ofresearch(Ellis,2006)havingprovidedevidenceofthe
phenomenonofL1interference,whichplaysamajorrole
onL2acquisition).Generalprociency(correspondingto
level 3 of the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Skill
Level Descriptions; http://www.govtilr.org/) is achieved in
26, 35, 48, 64, and 88 weeks in categories I, II, III, IV, and
Vlanguagesrespectively.CategoryIincludeslanguages
closelyrelatedtoEnglish;category2languagessimilarto
English;category3languageswithlinguisticand/orcultural
dierencesfromEnglish;categoryIVlanguageswith
signicantlinguisticand/orculturaldierencesfromEnglish;
andcategoryVlanguageswhichareexceptionallydicult
for native English speakers. Each week corresponds to
about 30 hours of instruction, accounting for a total of 780,
1050, 1440, 1920, and 2200 to reach what is B2+ on the
CEFR.TheeciencyoftheteachingmethodattheInstitute
isprobablyduetotheschools’teachingmethodologies,
including problem-solving approaches to course materials
andimmersions(Berbeco,2001).Itshouldalsobeadded
thattheDLIFLCmakesuseofhighlysophisticatedteaching
technology,weeklytrainingprogramsandevenisolation
immersionprogramsofupto5dayshttp://liberalarts.
utexas.edu/tlc/_les/prociencyconference/presentations/
DLI/1.pdfFinally,itmustbenotedthatthemotivation
of the learners is high, since their language learning
achievementsarerewardedbyraisingtheirsalary.Since
theDLIFLCestimateappliestothespeciccontextofthe
armyandwasproducedforlanguagelearnerswhoserst
language is English, it should be taken with great caution.
08 How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning. May 2017
National Centre on Immigrant Integration Policy. A similar
estimatehasbeenprovidedbyMcHugh,Gelatt,&Fix(2007)
fortheNationalCentreonImmigrantIntegrationPolicy.In
theirreport,theyprovidecensus-basedestimatesonthe
numberofhoursofinstructionneededbymorethan12million
adultimmigrantsintheUSA(lawfulpermanentresidentsor
unauthorized immigrants) to pass the naturalization exam or to
“achievetheEnglishskillsnecessaryforcivicintegration[…]and,
inthecaseofyouthage17to24,theEnglishskillsnecessary
forpostsecondarystudy”(p.3).Accordingtothereport,an
averageof110yearlyhoursofinstructionforsixyears(fora
total of 660 hours on average) are needed to bring learners to
alevelofEnglishprociencyneededtopassthenaturalization
test(forthoseaged25andolder)ortobeginpostsecondary
education(foryouthsaged17to24).Thestudycitesaprevious
studyconductedin2000bytheMassachusettsInstitutefora
New Commonwealth, according to which between 85 and 150
hours are needed for adults without disabilities to move up
onelevelofEnglishprociencyundertheNationalReporting
Systemrange(seehttp://www.cal.org/caelanetwork/pdfs/
NRSFunctioningLevelTable.pdf for further information about
theNationalReportingSystem).
Council of Europe.TheworkcarriedoutbytheCouncilof
Europe to create a unit-credit, transparent, and coherent
systemtoscalelanguageprociencyinEuropestartedasfar
backasthe1970’swiththepublicationoftheThresholdLevel
(1974;1998),theWaystageLevel(1979;1998),andtheVantage
level(2001).Theseverydetaileddocumentsspeciedthe
functions,specicnotions,andgeneralnotionslearnerswould
beexpectedtobeabletoperformatagivenprociencylevel.
IntheThresholdSpecications(1998)theauthorsstatethat
“thereissomeevidencethat,withadequateguidance,absolute
beginners need an average of 375 learning hours - including
independentwork”(p.9)toachievethislevel,whichwilllater
be made to correspond to the B1 level on the CEFR scale. And
withreferencetotheWaystagelevel,theyassumethatthe
learningloadofthislevelwillbe“abouthalfofthatrequired
forThresholdLevel1990.Forbeginninglearnerswhoare
unable or unwilling to commit themselves right from the start
totheexpenditureoftimeandenergyrequiredforthehigher
objective,Waystage1990maybeanacceptablealternative”
(p.9).AshortwhileafterthepublicationoftheThreshold,
Waystage,andVantageSpecications,theCouncilofEurope
made the revised draft of the unpublished Breakthrough
Specicationspubliclyavailablehttps://www.coe.int/t/dg4/
linguistic/Source/FinalBreakthrough%20specication_6Nov01.
rtfOnpage11ofthisdocumentwereadthat“Thediversity
ofthetargetgroups[…]makesitdiculttoassessthelength
ofstudyrequiredtoreachBreakthrough.Adultlearners
with extensive previous language learning experience will
dosomuchmorequicklythanimmigrantsfromapeasant
background with, perhaps, no previous schooling. As a rough
09 How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning. May 2017
approximation,thelearningloadmaybeestimatedat,say,some
80-100hoursoftuition.Itwillinanycasebeclearfromthe
specicationitselfthattherewillbeconsiderablevariationinwhat
a language learner who has reached this target will in fact be
capable of doing with what he or she has learnt.”
Pearson.AspartoftheGlobalScaleofEnglish(henceforth:
GSE)researchproject,Pearsonhascarriedoutsomeinitial
investigation into the relationship between learning time and
prociencydevelopment.The GSE is a linear transformation
of the logit scale underlying the descriptors developed
by North (2000) to describe the prociency levels of the
CEFR. The scale, ranging from 10 to 90, was rst used as the
reporting scale for the Pearson Test of English Academic
(Pearson, 2010a) and validated by aligning it to other
international prociency scales such as IELTS and TOEFL
(De Jong, 2009; (De Jong & Benigno, 2017; De Jong & Zheng,
2016; Pearson, 2010a).AstudycarriedoutusingtheVersant
Englishtest(Pearson,2010b)providesevidenceofsignicant
gains in performance between the pre- and post-tests during a
three-weekimmersionprogramme.Followingthisstudy,Pearson
iscurrentlyworkingtocollectadditionalstudentdatatohelp
addressthequestionofhowlongittakestolearnalanguage-in
ordertoacquireagreateramountofevidenceacrossavariety
ofinstructionalcontexts,e.g.youngandadultlearners,dierent
prociencylevels,etc.Table1providesanestimateproduced
byadaptingtheDLIFLCestimateinthelightofexperiencewith
learnersatourEnglishschools.Animportantdierenceismade
between slow learners and fast learners. Fast learners learn in an
idealscenario.Theytakebenetfromanumberofindividualor
context-relatedtraits,forexampletheyarehighlymotivatedand
theirrstlanguageisnottoodistantfromEnglish.The estimate
provided for fast learners claims that learners will take
about 760 hours to enter the B2 CEFR level (at 59 on the
GSE scale).Thisestimateisinlinewiththoseprovidedbythe
DLIFLCguidelinesforcategoryIaswellaswiththoseproduced
bytheNationalCentreonImmigrantIntegrationPolicyandthe
Council of Europe. Note that these are active learning hours,
i.e.,timeexplicitlydevotedtolearningthelanguage,through
instruction and exercises.
CEF
CSE
Hours per level
Total cumulative
Hours required
3 pt GSE-gain
Start Finish Start Finish Fast Slow Fast Slow Fast Slow
<A1 A1 10 22 95 480 95 480 24 120
A1 A2 22 30 95 290 190 770 36 109
A2 B1 30 43 190 616 380 1386 44 142
B1 B2 43 59 380 1109 760 2495 71 208
B2 C1 59 76 760 1996 1520 4491 134 352
*Actual hours will depend on individual factors such as L1,
motivation,intensityofstudy,etc.
TABLE 1
Pearson’sestimateofnumberof
hoursperincreasingprociency
010 How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning. May 2017
Conclusion
How long it takes to learn a language is not an easy
question to answer. It is important that practitioners
understand the complexity of factors which aect
learning time in order to design their teaching activity
to meet the specic needs of the learner and the
learning context. There are no shortcuts in learning a
new language but realistic objectives can be achieved
by making sure learners achieve the minimum required
learning hours estimated at each level. Therefore, we
would like to make the following recommendations
concerning the setting of learning goals in relation to
time.
 Keepinmindthatthetimeittakestoachieveprociency
gains depends on both learner-related and external factors
 Somefeaturesaectinglearningtimearemoredicult
to predict than others, for example individual learning
habits.However,stakeholdersplayanimportantrolein 
creating optimal conditions for learning, for instance
bymakinginformeddecisionsaboutteachingmaterials, 
pedagogical approaches, assessment resources, feedback,
etc.
Before setting learning goals in relation to time,
 itisimportanttoreectonthetypeoflearnerand
their opportunities of exposure to the target language,
 thecurriculumrequirementssetbyaspeciccountry,the
alignment between teaching materials and expected
outcomes,andmoregenerally,anypredictablevariable 
 whichmayhaveanimpactonthelearningresults
Institutions should maximize the opportunities for active
learning. For example, learners should be helped to develop
 critical-thinking,engageintask-basedactivities,reecton
 theirownattitudesandmotivations,andideally,spendsome
personal time learning outside the classroom in
more informal settings
 Finally,itisimportantthatstakeholdersinvolvedinsetting
 goalshaveanunderstandingofthecomplexityoffactors
 aectingthespeedoflearningandarecommittedtosetting
realistic goals.
011 How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning. May 2017
References
Berbeco,S.(2016)(eds).Foreign Language Education in America. Perspectives
from K-12, University, Government, and International Learning. Palgrave
Macmillan, London
Bowerman,M.(1982).Starting to talk worse: clues to language acquisition
from children’s late speech errors.InS.StraussandR.Stavy(eds), 
 U-ShapedBehavioralGrowth,pp.10145.NewYork:AcademicPress
Carroll,J.,B.,andSapon,S.,M.(1959).Modern Language Aptitude Test, Form A.
 NewYork:ThePsychologicalCorporation
Carroll,J.,B.(1963).A model of school learning.TeachersCollegeRecord,
64, pp. 723-733
Carrol,J.,B.(1971).Implications of Aptitude Test Research and Psycholinguistic
Theory for Foreign Language Teaching. Paper presented at XVIIth
International Congress, International Association of Applied
 Psychology,Liege,Belgium,July27,1971.
Available at http://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED057071.pdf
Carrol,J.,B.(1989).The Carroll Model: A 25-Year Retrospective and Prospective
View.InEducationalResearcher,Vol.18,No.1(Jan.-Feb.,1989),
pp. 26-31
CouncilofEurope(2001).Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment.CambridgeUniversityPress,
Cambridge
DeJong,J.H.A.L.(2009).Unwarranted claims about CEF alignment of some
international English language tests.PaperpresentedatEALTA
 Conference,June2009.RetrievedMay,5,2017,from
www.ealta.eu.org/conference/2009/docs/friday/John_deJong.pdf
DeJong,J.&Benigno,V.(2017).Alignment of the Global Scale of English
to other scales: the concordance between PTE Academic, IELTS, and TOEFL.
Available at https://prodengcom.s3.amazonaws.com/GSE-Alignment
other-scales.pdf
DeJong,J.H.A.L.,&Zheng,Y.(2016).Linking to the CEFR: validation using
a priori and a posteriori evidence.In:Banerjee,J.,&Tsagari,D.(Eds),
 ContemporarySecondLanguageAssessment.London:Bloomsbury
Academic, pp. 83-100
Ellis,N.,C.(2006).Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition:
contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing,
blocking, and perceptual learning.InAppliedLinguistics,Vol.27(2),
pp. 164-194
Ellis,N.,C.&Larsen-Freeman,D.(2006).Language Emergence: implications for
Applied Linguistics – Introduction to the special issue. In Applied
 Linguistics,vol.27(4),pp.558-589
Ellis,R.(1994).The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
 OxfordUniversityPress.
Ellis,R.(2006).Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective.
 InTESOLQuarterly,vol.40(1),pp.83-107
012 How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning. May 2017
Gardner,R.,C.(1985).Social Psychology and Second Language Learning.
The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold
Gass,S.&Selinker,L.(2001).Second Language Acquisition:
An Introductory Course.SecondEdition.LawrenceErlbaumAssociates
Green,J.M.,&Oxford,R.L.(1995).A closer look at learning strategies,
 L2prociency,andgender.InTESOLQuarterly,29(2),261-297
Larsen-Freeman,D.(1997).Chaos/Complexity Science and Second Language
Acquisition.InAppliedLinguistics,vol.18(2),pp.141-165
Lightbown,P.(1983).Exploring relationships between developmental and
instructional sequences in L2 acquisition.InH.Seliger&M.H.Long
 (Eds.),Classroomorientedresearchinsecondlanguageacquisition,
 pp.217–243.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse
McHugh,M.,Gelatt,J,andFix,M.(2007).Adult English language instruction
in the United States: determining need and investing wisely. National
 CentreonImmigrantIntegrationPolicy.Availableat:
le:///C:/Users/verobeni/Downloads/NCIIP_English_Instruction073107.
pdf
McLaughlin,B.(1990).Restructuring.InAppliedLinguistics,vol.11(2),
pp. 113-128
North,B.(2000).The Development of a Common Framework Scale of Language
 Prociency.Berlin,NewYork:PeterLang
Pearson(2010a).Aligning PTE Academic Test Scores to the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages. Available at
http://pearsonpte.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Aligning_PTEA
Scores_CEF.pdf
Pearson(2010b).The Use of the Versant English Test as a Measure of Score
Improvement. Available at https://www.pearsonhighered.com/versant/
assets/VET_Score_Improvement.pdf
Singleton,D.(1989).Language Acquisition. The age factor. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters
Skehan,P.(1989).IndividualDierencesinSecond-LanguageLearning.
London: Edward Arnold
Spolsky,B.(1989).Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford:
 OxfordUniversityPress
VanEk,J.,A.&Trim,J.L.M.(1998).Threshold1990.
 CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge
VanEk,J.,A.&Trim,J.L.M.(1998).Waystage1990.
 CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge
VanEk,J.,A.&Trim,J.L.M.(2001).Vantage1990.
 CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge
... However, there is a lack of research on mobile-based assessment on language learning, and the studies conducted so far do not report the determinants of students' learning outcomes when students use mobile-based formative assessment activities. Language learning differs from learning a STEM subject in that learning a second language is not a linear process and is not uniform (Benigno et al., 2017). Skills in language learning are developed in parallel while knowledge in STEM is linear. ...
... Skills in language learning are developed in parallel while knowledge in STEM is linear. Learning a second language also depends on contextual factors such as the possibility of practicing the language in real situations, the similarity of the first language with respect to the second language, and the interaction with other learners (Benigno et al., 2017) but some of this factors are not critical in STEM subjects. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Mobile‐based assessment has been an active area of research in the field of mobile learning. Prior research has demonstrated that mobile‐based assessment systems positively affect student performance. However, it is still unclear why and how these systems positively affect student performance. Objectives This study aims to identify the determinants of student performance during students' use of a mobile‐based assessment application in a formative assessment activity as part of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) courses in higher education. Methods A structural model based on hypotheses was validated using PLS‐SEM with data from the interaction of 127 students of eight EFL courses from the A1 and A2 levels of English that used a mobile‐based assessment system for a period of 4 weeks. Automatic data collection in the application and self‐reported instruments were applied. Results and Conclusions Use of scaffolding mechanisms, time on‐task and reported effort are strong predictors of students' learning outcomes. The use of scaffolding strategies predicts students' time on‐task. The provision of corrective feedback is not a predictor of students' learning performance but predicts other constructs such as perceived usefulness and the behavioural intention to use. Implications Mobile‐based assessment systems should include scaffolding mechanisms and integrate strategies to increase the perceived relevance of the formative assessment activity to increase the student learning performance. Scaffolding mechanisms are also useful to increase the student time on‐task in the formative assessment activity. In mobile‐based formative assessment activities more elaborated forms of feedback other than corrective feedback are needed to increase student performance.
Article
Full-text available
This paper describes a study on the necessary time to learn English. The main objective was to determine the elements that require an investment of time to learn English successfully. This quantitative research collected data from 191 users of English through a questionnaire to discover the relationship between the time spent learning English and mastery of the language at a high intermediate level. The findings indicated that the learners reached the level of English they possess in an average of 9.36 years in school contexts. During this time, exposure to the language and activities outside the classroom that indicate a medium-high to high investment of time stand out. The main activities out of the classroom develop receptive skills.
Book
Full-text available
Full account of the development and calibration (with the Rasch model) in a Swiss National Research Project of a set of language proficiency descriptors that became the basis of the illustrative descriptors for both the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, and the prototype for the European Language Portfolio.
Chapter
Full-text available
Linking tests to international standards, such as the CEFR, is a way of establishing criterion-referenced validity. This chapter reports on how CEFR scales were operationalised inpractice in the course of developing the Pearson Test of English Academic. Measures to linkthe test to the CEFR were studied at different stages of test development. A posterioristatistical evidence was also collected from both field tests and live tests. Field test data wereused to establish the extent to which scores from this test can be linked to the CEFR, whichinvolved both a test taker-centred approach and an item-centred approach.
Chapter
There is a story that was recently in common circulation among high school Arabic teachers of an experienced and successful teacher who placed before himself an unusual challenge. He had traveled to many countries in the Middle East to collect materials; his students consistently rated him as a strong teacher; the standardized test results from his classes were surprisingly high for the school’s demographics; he had even developed a curriculum that was published commercially. In short, here was a solid teacher of a highly challenging language. And, to test his aptitude for teaching foreign languages, he decided to teach Arabic to his cat.
Article
Part 1 Evidence of speech milestones: the early stages later stages speech processing milestones evidence from abnormal language development and language disorders. Part 2 The critical period hypothesis - first language-related evidence: the onset of the critical period the end of the critical period first language development after puberty a decline into the vale of years? Part 3 The critical period hypothesis - second language evidence: the younger=better position the older=better position the younger=better at acquiring accent BICS position the younger=better in the long run position age and the second language learning process. Part 4 Theoretical perspectives: the ageing of the senses age and competition between languages neurolinguistics and the critical period cognitive developmental views affect and motivation age and input the de-coupling hypothesis the age factor and nativism. Part 5 The educational dimension: second languages in the early school years second languages for the young-old.
Article
This study builds on previous research using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). Most previous SILL research has made comparisons across the entire survey or in terms of strategy categories and has stressed proficiency level at the expense of other variables. The present largescale (N = 374) study of language learning strategy use by students at three different course levels at the University of Puerto Rico relates strategy use to gender as well as to L2 proficiency level and includes analysis of variation in the use of individual strategies on the SILL. Like previous researchers, we found greater use of learning strategies among more successful learners and higher levels of strategy use by women than by men. Our analysis, however, revealed more complex patterns of use than have appeared in previous studies. With both proficiency level and gender, only some items showed significant variation, and significant variation by proficiency level did not invariably mean more frequent strategy use by more successful students. The strategies reported as used more often by the more successful students emphasized active, naturalistic practice and were used in combination with a variety of what we term bedrock strategies, which were used frequently or moderately frequently by learners at all levels. The study's generalizability and its implications for teachers and researchers are discussed.
Article
The study of how learners acquire a second language (SLA) has helped to shape thinking about how to teach the grammar of a second language. There remain, however, a number of controversial issues. This paper considers eight key questions relating to grammar pedagogy in the light of findings from SLA. As such, this article complements Celce-Murcia's (1991) article on grammar teaching in the 25th anniversary issue of TESOL Quarterly, which considered the role of grammar in a communicative curriculum and drew predominantly on a linguistic theory of grammar. These eight questions address whether grammar should be taught and if so what grammar, when, and how. Although SLA does not afford definitive solutions to these questions, it serves the valuable purpose of problematising this aspect of language pedagogy. This article concludes with a statement of my own beliefs about grammar teaching, grounded in my own understanding of SLA.
Article
The Model of School Learning, first published 25 years ago, has taken its place as a useful guide in research on teaching and learning in schools. The model accounts for variations in school learning with five classes of variables, three, of which can be expressed in terms of time, the other two in terms of achievement. Most aspects of the model have been confirmed, although details remain to be filled out by further research. Ways that the model might be used to address current problems in education are considered. The model's emphasis on aptitude as a determinant of time needed for learning suggests that increased efforts be placed on predicting student potentialities and designing instruction appropriate to those potentialities, if ideals of equal opportunity to learn are to be achieved within a diversity of educational objectives.
Article
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.