Language ability of young English language learners: Definition,configuration,and implications

Abstract

In this study I examined the dimensionality of the latent ability underlying language use that is needed to fulfill the demands young learners face in English-medium instructional environments, where English is used as the means of instruction for teaching subject matters. Previous research on English language use by school-age children provided evidence that language proficiency for academic studies relates to, yet differs from, the language ability needed for social communications. Focusing on learners of English as a foreign language (EFL), I investigated the nature of language proficiency of school-age EFL learners in light of their learning experience.

Analyses were based on test performance from the TOEFL Junior® Comprehensive test a proficiency assessment of English as a foreign language for young learners between the ages of 11 and 15, developed by the Educational Testing Service. The results showed that the two ability constructs (i.e., academic and social language), although theoretically distinct and educationally relevant, were statistically indistinguishable based on EFL learners’ test performance. It was also found that the test performance could be explained best by a higher-order model, indicating that the language ability of these young EFL learners was structurally similar to that usually found with adult learners in a foreign language environment.

The outcomes highlight the interrelatedness of learning environment, age and language proficiency. On the one hand, the nature of the ability construct can vary across groups of learners due to differences in learning environments. On the other hand, learners of different ages who share similar learning environments could be similar in terms of the latent representation of their language proficiency. The study concludes that the interpretation of young EFL learners’ language proficiency needs to take into consideration how language components are developmentally related to each other as a function of learning experience in a foreign language environment.

Keywords

Academic language language ability learning environment social language young learners

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bachman

L. F.

Davidson

Ryan

Choi

I.-C.

(1995). An investigation into the comparability of two tests of English as a foreign language: The Cambridge-TOEFL comparability study. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bailey

A. L.

(2007). Introduction: Teaching and assessing students learning English in school. In Bailey

A. L.

(Ed.), The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test (pp. 1–26). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bailey

A. L.

Heritage

H. M.

(2008). Formative assessment for literacy, grades K-6: Building reading and academic language skills across the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Butler

F. A.

Castellon-Wellington

(2000/5). Students’ concurrent performance on tests of English language proficiency and academic achievement. In The validity of administering large-scale content assessments to English language learners: An investigation from three perspectives (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 663). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

Bradlow

E. T.

Wainer

Wang

(1999). A Bayesian random effects model for testlets. Psychometrika, 64, 153–168.

Carroll

J. B.

(1983). Psychometric theory and language testing. In Oller

J. W.

, Jr. (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 80–107). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Chamot

A. U.

O’Malley

(1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Chapelle

Grabe

Berns

(1997). Communicative language proficiency: Definition and implications for TOEFL 2000. (TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 10). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Cummins

(1979). Cognitive/Academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.

10.

Cummins

(1981a). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 11, 132–149.

11.

Cummins

(1981b). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles, CA: National Dissemination and Assessment Center.

12.

Cummins

(2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

13.

Cummins

(2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In Street

Hornberger

N. H.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, vol. 2: Literacy (2nd ed., pp. 71–83). New York: Springer Science + Business Media LLC.

14.

DeMars

(2006). Application of the bi-factor multidimensional item response theory model to testlet-based tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 145–168.

15.

Finney

S. J.

DiStefano

(2013). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation models. In Hancock

G. R.

Mueller

R. O.

(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 439–492). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

16.

Fouly

K. A.

Bachman

L. F.

Cziko

G. A.

(1990). The divisibility of language competence: A confirmatory approach. Language Learning, 40, 1–21.

17.

Freed

B. F.

Dewey

D. P.

Segalowitz

Halter

(2004). The language contact profile. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 26, 349–356.

18.

(2014). At the interface between language testing and second language acquisition: Language ability and context of learning. Language Testing, 31, 111–133.

19.

Hakuta

Butler

Y. G.

Witt

(2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (Policy Reports 2000–1). University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, University of California, Berkeley.

20.

Harley

Cummins

Swain

Allen

(1990). The nature of language proficiency. In Harley

Allen

Cummins

Swain

(Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 7–25). New York: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.

22.

Oller

J. W.

Jr. (1979). The factorial structure of language proficiency: Divisible or not? In Oller

J. W.

, Jr. (Ed.). Language test at school: A pragmatic approach (pp. 423–458). London: Longman.

23.

Rijmen

(2010). Formal relations and an empirical comparison among the bi-factor, the testlet, and a second-order multidimensional IRT model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47, 361–372.

24.

Sasaki

(1993). Relationships among second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Learning, 43, 313–344.

25.

Sawaki

Stricker

L. J.

Oranje

A. H.

(2009). Factor structure of the TOEFL Internet-based test. Language Testing, 26, 5–30.

26.

Schleppegrell

M. J.

(2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12, 431–459.

27.

Shin

S.-K.

(2005). Did they take the same test? Examinee language proficiency and the structure of language tests. Language Testing, 22(1) 31–57.

28.

Spearman

(1904). “General Intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201–292.

29.

Stevens

Butler

F. A.

Castellon-Wellington

(2000). Academic language and content assessment: Measuring the progress of ELLs (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 552). Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

30.

Stricker

L. J.

Rock

D. A.

(2008). Factor structure of the TOEFL Internet-Based Test across subgroups. (TOEFL iBT Research Report No. 07; ETS Research Report No. 08–66). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

31.

Muthén

(2002, April). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.