BUY ESSAYS ONLINE

theories of language learning https://learn.teachingchannel.com/video/deeper-learning-for-ell-inps https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=52&v=

theories of language learning
https://learn.teachingchannel.com/video/deeper-learning-for-ell-inps

Need Help Writing an Essay?

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper.

Get Help Now!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=52&v=e7ncx8h-s4c&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=TinaCheuk

For this week, in addition to the power point presentation, you will watch one video clip of a secondary classrooms for English learners. After reading Chapter Two in McKay and watching the video clip, write at least one paragraph on how the sociocultural and cognitive theories addressed in chapter two are reflected in the secondary classrooms highlighted in the video. Identify how students in the classrooms were able to use their home languages, and take risks in their new language, and what information the teacher needed to know to organize instruction so that would happen.

C H A P T E R T W O

Young learners and language
learning

Introduction

Assessing the language learning of young learners requires knowledge of
both the general characteristics of young learners, as were outlined in
Chapter 1, and tied to this, knowledge of the characteristics of their lan-
guage learning. Knowledge of childrens approach to, and needs in,
second language learning is critical for fair and valid language assess-
ment. Without an understanding of childrens language learning, teach-
ers and assessors might make choices about assessment that result in
some or all children being disadvantaged. This might happen in the
assessment process itself, or in the teaching that follows as a result of the
assessment.

This chapter first defines what is meant by language use ability and
makes a case for the assessment of language use. It provides a brief
overview of current thinking about the processes of foreign and second
language learning in young learners. There are both sociolinguistic
and cognitive perspectives on childrens foreign/second language learn-
ing that give insights into the complex nature of language learning.
Knowledge of these processes helps teachers and assessors to select
and sequence assessment tasks, and to formulate and apply assessment
criteria appropriately. The chapter then draws on a framework from the
general assessment field to provide an outline of the components of
language knowledge of young learners. These components make up a
theoretical framework of communicative language ability which provide
a basis for assessment of language use.

26

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Wayne State Univ Libraries, on 15 Sep 2020 at 10:20:34, subject to the Cambridge Core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003

https://www.cambridge.org/core

What is meant by language use ability?

The definition of language use ability that underpins the ideas in this
book can be summarized in the following way: the ability to use the
language for the purpose of achieving a particular goal or objective in
a particular situation (adapted from Bachman and Palmer 1996, p. 44).
Language use ability is also known as the ability to use language commu-
nicatively. The meanings that children exchange involve children cre-
atively using the language they have learned to fit the purpose of the
interaction (e.g., to answer questions about a task) and to suit the context
(e.g., when they are talking to the teacher at school). It is possible and
desirable that all young learners learn to use language, that is, to com-
municate in their target language in some way, depending on the needs
of their context and the requirements of the curriculum. Indeed young
learners close relationship with, and dependence on, the immediate
physical environment means that their language learning is, by its
very nature, closely integrated with real, meaningful communication
(Brumfit, Moon and Tongue, 1995).

We can see evidence of language use ability when children in the early
stages of language learning:

understand new language uttered by the teacher, spoken by another
student or written in a story (using strategies to guess what is being said
from the context);

respond appropriately to directives (perhaps with physical movement);

create their own utterances, substituting their own word in a practised
sentence; or form their own sentence(s) based on vocabulary and
structures they have learned or heard;

use language appropriately in non-rehearsed interactions, that is, in sit-
uations where they are not practising language in rote-learned routines.

We see children in more advanced foreign language classes and in second
language classrooms extending their language use ability into situations
where they can, for example,

understand extended teacher input and interaction on classroom
content;

interact with peers, teachers and others for both social and academic
purposes;

read and write in the language on social and academic topics;

Young learners and language learning 27

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Wayne State Univ Libraries, on 15 Sep 2020 at 10:20:34, subject to the Cambridge Core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003

https://www.cambridge.org/core

use the language appropriately, according to purpose and context, and
according to the expectations of their age level;

employ language learning strategies that enable them to take respon-
sibility for their own language learning.

There are different ways of describing language use ability, depending
on the theoretical framework employed. A theoretical model of language
use ability, such as the one presented later in this chapter, gives teachers
and assessors a reference point to check that children are developing
knowledge and skills that will enable them to use language in a range of
situations, according to the curriculum and according to their needs. The
developing language abilities of foreign language and second language
learners, over time, have been described by educators in a number of
foreign and second language standards (McKay, Hudson and Sapuppo,
1994; The National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project,
1996). These language performance standards, examples of which are
given in Chapter 8, describe the development of language use ability;
they are usually based on teacher observations of growth rather than on
second language acquisition research, but it is possible to see that even
in the very early stages of language learning, despite having a limited lan-
guage ability, children are able to make an initial move towards language
use, both in the receptive and productive modes. Children are also able
to make rapid and sure advances in their ability to use language if they
have the right language environment in which to grow, as I will discuss
below.

There are different theoretical perspectives in the field of second lan-
guage acquisition (second language acquisition is the overall term for
the study of both foreign and second language acquisition, and from now
on will be referred to as SLA) on how children learn a foreign or a second
language. The two main perspectives come from a sociocultural perspec-
tive and from a cognitive perspective. Almost all theorists accept that
each perspective incorporates ideas from the other; that is, that children
successfully learn a foreign or second language when both sociocultural
and cognitive influences are activated and interact as they learn.

Sociocultural perspectives in language learning

When children are learning how to use a new language, they are devel-
oping a complex array of knowledge and skills. They are developing

28

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Wayne State Univ Libraries, on 15 Sep 2020 at 10:20:34, subject to the Cambridge Core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003

https://www.cambridge.org/core

much more than knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the new
language. Sociologically oriented modes of language and literacy learn-
ing stress the significance of the socialization process in the language
learning process. Language learning is seen as a primarily social process
rather than an individual process (Gee, 1996). Sociocultural perspec-
tives are widely discussed in the literature, and readers are encouraged
to read further in the area. The main ideas in sociocultural theory in
relation to school language learning are covered here under four main
headings:

Learning how to mean

Developing new identities

Learning the discourses of the classroom

Learning the specific discourses of curriculum content areas

Learning how to mean

Learning how to mean is a term coined by Halliday (1975), and used by
sociolinguists subsequently (Luke & Freebody, 1990; Gee, 1996; Carr,
2003) to emphasize the idea that when we learn to use language, we are
learning how to communicate meaningfully, and that meaning is tied
inextricably to our social and cultural context. The ideas behind the term
learning how to mean underpin what is meant when I talk about learn-
ing how to use language in this book. Language use is engagement in dis-
courses into which members of a community are socialized. Children
need to learn the social text (the way people are expected to interact) of
the language use situation when they are learning language. They have to
learn what is expected when they engage in language use who can talk,
when, where, in what ways, with whom and for what purposes. It is not
possible to use a new language in culturally appropriate ways without
learning the cultural codes (the rules of interaction) of the language. It is
not easy to identify these cultural codes, even for the native speaker,
because they operate largely at the unconscious level. When two people
use the same language to communicate but come from different ethnic
backgrounds, the cause of at least some of their misunderstandings is
likely to come from the different cultural codes they use in communica-
tion.(Crozet, 2001, p. 3).

Language carries these and other cultural codes, and learning a lan-
guage involves learning these codes, gradually, and over time. Crozet

Young learners and language learning 29

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Wayne State Univ Libraries, on 15 Sep 2020 at 10:20:34, subject to the Cambridge Core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003

https://www.cambridge.org/core

(2001) suggests that the following four areas help to identify the cultural
codes in a language:

The role of speaking and silence: e.g., the ways that silence in a con-
versation is accepted or filled; rules about who speaks when.

Approaches to interpersonal relationships: e.g., differences in naming
systems; different ways that children, women and men are expected to
interact.

Rules of politeness: the ways that eye contact is used; the ways to
respect elders; the way to ask for information (directly or indirectly).

Non-verbal behaviour: the expected ways of using body language
(gesture, posture, stance, facial expression, etc.) and of using accent,
intonation and rhythm in speech; the ways that hand signs are used to
accompany speech.

As children go through the process of participating in social interaction
and becoming familiar with the cultural codes, they also acquire vocabu-
lary and structures that allow them to express more and more complex
meaning. In sociolinguistic terms the process of language learning is pri-
marily one of entering into a new discourse community or communities,
of a struggle to participate (Pavlenko and Lantolf, 2000).

Developing new identities

As children learn a language, they are in the process of developing new
identities. They are venturing beyond their experiences in their first lan-
guage and culture, to a point where their identity and subjectivity are
being opened up to new possibilities (Carr, 2003). Language is the most
salient way we have of establishing and advertising our social identities
(Lippi-Green, 1997). Young language learners, particularly second lan-
guage learners, are developing new identities in the community and at
school. In formal learning settings, the nature of the classroom the way
that teachers acknowledge and build on first language experiences,
knowledge and skills determines how well children develop their new
identities in the second language. Is the second language a replacement
for the first language, or is it a new tool with which to communicate about
new things, to add to existing knowledge and identity? If it is a replace-
ment, the denial of childrens first language identities is likely to be detri-
mental to their learning of the second language and the development of

30

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Wayne State Univ Libraries, on 15 Sep 2020 at 10:20:34, subject to the Cambridge Core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003

https://www.cambridge.org/core

their new identities in this language. Looking at childrens progress in lan-
guage learning through the window of identity has provided powerful
messages that language learning is more than the development of lan-
guage knowledge (see, e.g., Toohey, 2000; Miller, 2003).

Learning the discourses of the classroom

All children entering a new school need to learn the discourses of the new
classroom and school; how people interact (teachers, students, principals,
parents) and how the language of school is used for different purposes and
in different contexts. The discourse of the classroom can be said to be
made up of the social interaction amongst participants (peers, teacher,
visitors), the everyday business or busy-ness of the classroom when teach-
ers manage learning, giving instructions and setting class tasks, and the
actual academic work of the classroom. Teachers and others construct
meaning in the classroom in ways that reflect the culture of that class-
room, the school system and the society beyond. For some children, it is
easier to learn the discourse of the classroom because it reflects the lan-
guage practices of their home. For others, there may be a wide gap
between the way language is used at home and at school. If childrens lin-
guistic and cultural experiences at home do not match the communica-
tive and cultural environment of the classroom and of school there can be
discordance, and this can result in learning difficulty. This discordance
may be experienced by native speakers of the language (Heath, 1983;
Wells, 1989) as well as by children learning a foreign or second language
who have come to school from a minority linguistic or cultural back-
ground. Children from a particular cultural group may, for example, tell
stories in different ways from the majority of the children in the class. They
are likely to find the new ways of telling stories strange; they need
acknowledgment of this, and help with understanding the new cultures
narrative genre. They may understand instructions differently, perhaps
not being accustomed to the indirectness often used in middle-class com-
munications (Sam, its time for you to settle down!). The extent to which
children are able to learn to use the target language successfully in the
classroom will depend to a large extent on the nature of that classroom
and, in particular, whether there are opportunities (clear explanations,
modelling, references to first language experiences, etc.) to help children
to enter into the discourse of that classroom. Evidence of discordance will
be seen in childrens performance in assessment tasks.

Young learners and language learning 31

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Wayne State Univ Libraries, on 15 Sep 2020 at 10:20:34, subject to the Cambridge Core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003

https://www.cambridge.org/core

Language learners in school have to learn not only how to interact
socially in (and outside) the classroom, but also how to participate in the
discourse of academic study. Cummins (1980; 1983) has described social
language (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills or BICS) and aca-
demic language (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency or CALP) as
different on two dimensions: the degree of active cognitive engagement
and the degree of contextual support that is available. He thus recognizes
the role of both cognition and context in language learning and language
use, that is, that childrens cognitive skills are engaged in, and also influ-
enced by, opportunities for language development in these two types of
language use. Cummins represented BICS and CALP through two con-
tinua as illustrated in Figure 2.1. The horizontal continuum refers to the
degree of contextual support that is available (intonation, gestures, pic-
tures, etc.). The vertical continuum refers to the degree of active cognitive
involvement in the task or activity in other words, to the amount of infor-
mation that must be processed simultaneously or in close succession by
the individual in order to carry out the communicative activity
(Cummins, 2001b). Thus tasks in quadrant A (e.g., a face-to-face group
discussion, playing with others in the playground) are more characteris-
tic of BICS, while tasks in quadrant D (e.g., writing a report, giving an oral
presentation on crocodiles) are more characteristic of academic tasks.

Research has shown that it takes considerably longer for second language
learners to develop the abilities they need for academic language use than
it does for them to be conversationally fluent (Cummins, 2000). When
young bilingual learners learn language in the classroom they need to learn
how to perform in the range of different discourses relevant to the school
context. Thus, what Cummins is saying is that if young children are not

32

A C

B D

Cognitively undemanding

Context reducedContext embedded

Cognitively demanding

Figure 2.1 Range of contextual support and degree of cognitive involvement in
communicative activities (Cummins, 2001b, p. 144)

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Wayne State Univ Libraries, on 15 Sep 2020 at 10:20:34, subject to the Cambridge Core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003

https://www.cambridge.org/core

given the instruction they need to become proficient in the kind of acad-
emic language they need in the classroom, then they are unlikely to succeed
at school. Our assessment procedures need to reflect this imperative; we
need to devise and include academic tasks that tap into and monitor chil-
drens ability for academic language use as well as for social language use.

Learning the specific discourses of curriculum content areas

Cummins talked generally about the type of language use ability that
children need to enter the discourse of the classroom. We can also look
more closely at childrens need to learn the specific discourses of subject
content areas such as science, social studies, physical education and
mathematics. Young learners are already engaging at an early age with
beginning versions of the discourse of specific curriculum content areas
(for example, Pour the sand into the scales. Is it heavier or lighter than the
stone on the other side?). As they progress through the elementary years,
the content areas become more specialized, and the language used to talk
about and learn the content becomes more linguistically complex and
academically demanding. In many ways, there are commonalities across
different content areas. Mohan (1986), for example, has devised a know-
ledge framework that picks out the knowledge structures common to
activities across the curriculum. For action situations these are descrip-
tion, sequence and choice, and for organizing information these are clas-
sification, principles and evaluation. Mohan identifies the language of
the different knowledge structures, for example the language of classifi-
cation is set out in Table 2.1.

By following Mohans knowledge framework as a guide to understand-
ing the commonalities of knowledge structures and related language
across different curriculum content areas, teachers can help with the
transfer of thinking skills from one content area to another.

Different academic content areas also have, to some degree, their own
special way of constructing meaning, their own discourse. For example,
analysis of student talk in elementary school science lessons has revealed
that students mainly explain, describe and compare scientific concepts
(Bailey and Butler, 2003). Across content area, genres and functions differ
somewhat, but in general, vocabulary is more specific and specialized
than anything else. Children, particularly those who are learning through
a foreign or second language need to be taught explicitly and not invis-
ibly (Fairclough, 1989) in a way that ensures that they learn both the new

Young learners and language learning 33

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Wayne State Univ Libraries, on 15 Sep 2020 at 10:20:34, subject to the Cambridge Core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003

https://www.cambridge.org/core

culturally based understandings in the curriculum area (for example, the
shared background knowledge, the expectations of teachers) and the lan-
guage (vocabulary, structures, genres) of the new discourse. Assessment
practices can help to make the language of content areas more visible to
children and also give teachers the chance to ensure progress in academic
language.

Young learners are therefore developing new identities, learning to
become members of a range of different discourse communities. And
they are learning to participate in the language of the classroom and of
content areas. For foreign language learners, opportunities to participate
in the discourse communities of the language they are learning may
come later rather than earlier, though opportunities to interact with pen
pals on the Internet or to read childrens literature from the target culture
bring them closer to the new discourse community. Young learners in
immersion and bilingual programmes meet these challenges earlier than
those in regular foreign language programmes, as they interact with
native speakers and study content areas through the language. Childrens
success in language learning is therefore not simply a matter of their
ability to study successfully or to have the right attitude; it is much more

34

Table 2.1 Classification: thinking processes and language (Mohan, 1986,
p. 79)

Thinking processes Related language

Observing/Measuring/ This is an apple. Mary has three slices of bread.
Describing POINTER WORDS: this/that

VERBS OF CLASS MEMBERSHIP: be
VERBS OF POSSESSION: have
POSSESSIVES: his
GENITIVES: Marys
REFERRING TO OBJECTS: Singular/plural, count/mass,
part/whole. Articles
AMOUNT OR QUANTITY: some/two/half
UNIT NOUNS: piece/lump
NOUNS OF MEASURE: a pound of / a pint of

Comparison Mary has more bread than Sarbjit.
COMPARISON: more than/taller

Classification Apples are a kind of fruit.
GENERIC FORMS: apples/music
SPECIAL NOUNS: kind/sort/species/class
CLASSIFICATION: be/include/place under

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Wayne State Univ Libraries, on 15 Sep 2020 at 10:20:34, subject to the Cambridge Core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003

https://www.cambridge.org/core

complicated than that: what we perceive as language learning ability is
not a fixed characteristic of a person but rather a complex reflection of the
whole learning situation(Bialystok, 2001, p. 89).

Cognitive processes in language learning

Most cognitive theorists acknowledge the importance of sociolinguistic
processes in language learning; however, they stress the importance of
cognitive processes in SLA. To understand and respond appropriately to
a childs performance, it is important to understand the cognitive
processes of language learning. Why is a child using me instead of I?
(me go too). How is it that a child might be able to produce seemingly
complex language early (e.g., I dont want to), but appears not to be able
to do other seemingly simple things (for example, correctly using, for
third person singular, he goes). How is it that young foreign and second
language learners continue to make errors despite the fact that they are
able to communicate successfully with words, phrases and gestures?
Cognitive theorists believe that an understanding of cognitively based
language learning processes helps teachers and assessors to make judg-
ments about childrens performance and to act accordingly with ongoing
teaching and assessment strategies.

In order to illustrate some current thinking about cognitive process in
language learning, this section refers to the theories of three applied lin-
guists concerned with cognition, Schumann (1997), Skehan (1998) and
Cummins (Baker and Hornberger, 2001). Readers are encouraged to refer
to the original publications for a full understanding of these theories.
Skehan is concerned with explaining how second language acquisition
happens through the cognitive abilities of the learner, and how cognitive-
processing problems are overcome. Schumann believes that emotion
underlies most, if not all, cognition and attributes variation in success in
second language acquisition to the role of emotion. Cummins deals with
the influence of childrens first language on their second, and on their
opportunities to become a proficient bilingual at school.

A dual-mode system in language use and language learning

Skehans model is motivated by the fact that human memory is a limited
capacity processor, and that it would not be possible to use language

Young learners and language learning 35

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Wayne State Univ Libraries, on 15 Sep 2020 at 10:20:34, subject to the Cambridge Core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003

https://www.cambridge.org/core

fluently, if we were limited to the processing of rules alone. He hypoth-
esizes that all language users employ a dual-mode system to process and
use language. The two systems that contribute to the dual-mode system
are the formulaic system and the rule-based system.

New computer-driven research suggests that language use is based
much more on lexical elements or chunks than we have realized in
the past. When learners apply their formulaic system (Skehan also uses
the term examplar-based system) they are relying on the use of chunks
of language and idioms. Chunks might be words or groups of words
and in some cases formulaic units that may contain structure but are
unanalysed (the learner is not able to recognise its grammatical rules
or perhaps even its individual words). Thus Open your books and turn to
page twenty-five may be an unanalysed chunk for beginning school
learners, who may follow the action response of others, understand
what the sentence means as a whole, without understanding its parts,
except for the page number at the end. The formulaic system has only a
limited potential for expressing new and precise meanings language
users can only (in this system) use the formulaic expressions they have
learned, and in the context in which they are relevant. The value of the
system is that learners can draw on the resource of formulaic expres-
sions more quickly than their knowledge of grammatical structures,
and they will tend to do so in moments of communicative pressure
(p. 63). Learners can also use their formulaic system as a learning strat-
egy, to reach for something they dont yet understand properly, and to
push themselves on towards increased proficiency. According to Skehan,
the formulaic system is likely to be context-bound, with language
learned well for a particular context, but not easily transferred to another
context (p. 89).

We know that when young learners are learning language, they rely
heavily on the formulaic system, accumulating chunks, or formulaic
items, and using these to understand and get their meaning across. This
is so in first and second language learning. A newly arrived learner in a
second language classroom learns many chunks of language very early,
especially receptively, but is not able to analyse its rules until later.
Cameron (2001, p. 50) describes how language learners also employ
slots (its . . . ) that can be filled by different nouns and adjectives. For all
learners, chunks continue to be learned throughout language learning,
for example in idioms and phrases (the big bad wolf; white as chalk). As
the next section shows, chunks play an essential role as building blocks
for further language learning for both young and some older learners

36

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Wayne State Univ Libraries, on 15 Sep 2020 at 10:20:34, subject to the Cambridge Core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093.003

https://www.cambridge.org/core

(depending on their learning style and exposure to the language), but
particularly for young learners.

According to Skehan, learners also use their rule-based system, when
they draw on underlying rules of the language to construct sentences and
discourse. Language learners develop their language by:

accumulating memory-based chunks of language which they then
combine to build language.

inducing underlying rules from the language they see and hear
(gaining implicit knowledge of the language rules), or become con-
sciously aware of rules by studying the language (gaining explicit
knowledge of the language rules).

In a well-developed system (e.g., in a first language speakers system) all
of this is done without conscious thought. The demands on the profi-
cient users memory storage are not great in a well-developed system,
since users can generate an infinite number of possible meanings from
a limited set of language rules by drawing on a large pool of memory-
based chunks of language. There is maximum creativity and flexibility
in what the learner is able to process or comprehend, and what he can
produce, and there is no constraint on the production of new combina-
tions of meanings (p. 30). However, in a system that is not well devel-
oped, reliance on the rule-based system during language use, which
can happen especially with learners (young and older) who are learning
by focusing on grammar and vocabulary only, creates a heavy process-
ing burden. Thus, foreign and second language learners who have
had little opportunity to draw on a formulaic system developed through
language use opportunities, quickly become tongue-tied and anxious
as they try to construct a sentence in their head based on the rules
they have learned. The processing constraints are very high. These
learners have more chance of success if they have a supportive envi-
ronment, for example a listener who is willing to wait, and who signals
encouragement, a speaker who is willing to repeat, or enough time to
write and revise without pressure. This kind of situation can be exacer-
bated for young learners who are limited to grammar study because
young learners rule-based system is limited by their still-developing
metalinguistic ability (the

Get Fast Writing Help – No Plagiarism Guarantee!

mywritinghub.com is one of the best Online assignment writing service websites that provide university students with quality academic essays, personal statements, research proposals, essays, term papers, admission essays, annotated bibliographies, reports, research papers, projects, presentations, dissertation, theses, movie reviews, Book reviews, application papers, among others.

Expert and professional Essay Writers to Cover All Your School Needs!

PLACE YOUR ORDER