Среда 5 сентября 2018

Сегодня иностранные языки, особенно английский, преподаются в начальных школах даже в детском саду. Родители и школы имеют свою собственную цель. Однако интерес детей не принимается. Родители стараются вырастить своих детей хорошо образованными. Даже семьи с низким доходом тратят деньги в частные образовательные центры. С раннего возраста дети подвергаются иностранному языку. Убеждение, лежащее в основе введения иностранных языков в начальных школах, заключается в том, что обучение иностранным языкам ранним девочкам, когда они наиболее восприимчивы, может сократить разрыв, который в настоящее время существует между нашей молодежью и ее европейскими коллегами с точки зрения способности иностранного языка, они более конкурентоспособны на мировом рынке.
Today foreign language especially English is taught in primary schools even in kindergarten. Parents and schools have their own purpose. However children’s interest is not accepted. Parents try to grow up their children well- educated . Even families with low income spend money to private education centers. From young age children exposure to foreign language. The belief underlying the introduction of foreign languages in primary schools is that teaching foreign languages early to young children, when they are most receptive, could close the gap which currently exists between our young people and their European counterparts in term of foreign language capability, making them more competitive on the global market.
ключевые слова: Язык, начальная школа, учебная программа, умение, воздействие, обучение, language, primary school, syllabus, ability, skill, exposure, learn.
автор: Умарханова Нигора Умаржон кизи

One of the most frequently quoted arguments in favour of teaching foreign languages at a primary level is that the years before puberty are the best critical years for acquiring a second/foreign language. The co-relation of age and language learning is also one of the most frequently debated and researched topics in applied linguistics and psycholinguistics. The research in age and language interconnection has been being carried out for forty years now with a few studies going back even earlier (e.g. Penfield, 1953; Thorndike, 1928). Unfortunately, the issue has turned out to be extremely complex, and even now it can not be claimed that it has been fully resolved. There is a consensus, however, that the question has been answered clearly enough as far as the teaching of foreign languages at a primary level is concerned: younger children are not any better at learning foreign languages in a school context than older children or adults are (Smythe, Slennet & Garnder, 1975; Stern Weinrib, 1977;McLaughlin, 1985; Genesee, 1987; Singleton, 1985; and Long,1990). Due to the significance of ‘optimal age’ question in primary education, it will be worth outlining some of the main research in this area first.

H. H. Stern, an internationally respected expert in this area and a supporter of the idea of teaching foreign languages in primary school, commented: “Some educators and also group of parents are not aware of the lack of evidence for the dictum ‘the earlier the better’. They believe it is ‘obvious’ that early is better, and they are so convinced of this that they regard any questioning of this view as flying in the face of ‘scientific’ evidence or as a smoke – screen for retrograde policies on the part of educational authorities. They automatically applaud an early start as right and progressive”.
The extra exposure to the language provided by an early start. Although the research reviewed does not provide any worthful evidence that younger children are better or faster second/foreign language learners than older ones, the case for the early introduction of foreign languages does not stand or fall on this issue. One of the most important arguments has been that starting second/foreign language learning in primary school simply increases the number of hours exposure to the language and is likely in the long run, therefore, to produce a higher level of proficiency. There is an implicit assumption here, of course, that the extra time spent on the language in primary school can more easily be ‘spared’ than it can be later on. There is indeed a considerable amount of evidence that proficiency in a foreign language is related to the number of hours exposure to the learning process, though the distribution of that time – whether is more or less concentrated or dispersed – appears to be a mediating factor. (Irish National Teachers Organisation)
The belief underlying the introduction of foreign languages in primary schools is that teaching foreign languages early to young children, when they are most receptive, could close the gap which currently exists between our young people and their European counterparts in term of foreign language capability, making them more competitive on the global market. After all, we just pick up our mother tongue effortlessly as young children, so the logic is that if we teach children early enough, the same will happen with foreign languages. This view stated, for example, by Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1999: Everyone knows that with languages, the earlier you start, the earlier they are“. This popular view has its theoretical foundation in the so-called “Critical Period Hypothesis”, which claims that children are born with an innate Language faculty which atrophies with age, and that it is therefore important to tap into these innate mechanisms before the critical age when they disappear.
Nut what is the research evidence? It is important to distinguish between children immersed in the new language they are learning, for example as immigrants in a new country, and children exposed to a foreign language in the classroom, a few hours a week at best, and usually less than an hour per week in the new language they are learning, for example as immigrants in a new country, and children exposed to a foreign language in the classroom, a few hours a week at best, and usually less than an hour per week in the vast majority of English primary schools.
In the context of foreign language learning in the classroom, are primary school children also more likely than older students to reach native-like proficiency in the long run?
All research investigating whether earlier is better in instructed contexts point in the same direction:
• Young children are very enthusiastic and love learning foreign languages. They find it amusing and they enjoy discovering new words and new ways of saying things.
• Young children are slower at learning languages than adolescent learners, in all aspects of language. To my knowledge, only one study by Jennifer Larson – Hall found a small advantage for an early start, but in that study, the children had six to eight hours of instruction per week for 44 weeks over six years, making the context of learning very different from the one or two weekly hours in other studies.
Probably the most ambitious piece of research investigating the role of age in early foreign language learning in the classroom is the Barcelona Age Factor project. Carmen Munoz and her team capitalized on the fact that the government changed the age at which English was introduced in the classroom in rapid succession, creating a natural experiment whereby they were able to compare second language learners having started at ages 8,11,14 and over 18. Munoz was able to follow a large number of learners over a long period of time. The team then compared their learning on a wide range of measures testing all 4 macroskills: speaking, listening, writing and reading. They found that with the same amount of introduction, late starters were consistently faster and more efficient learners on all measures.
So, is younger really better when learning a foreign language in the classroom? That depends on what we understand by ‘better’. If ‘better’ means faster linguistic progress, the research evidence tells us that older children outperform younger children; their greater cognitive maturity helps them make the best of the limited input and of explicit instruction. The very small number of studies which have found a small advantages for an early start were in instructed contexts with many hours of instructions per week. It seems that young children, learn mainly by doing rather than by conscious learning, that is, they learn more implicitly than older children. As a result, they need abundant input and rich interaction to allow their implicit mechanisms to work. After all, it is estimated that children learning their native language are exposed to 17.000 hours of input by age 4. The one hour per week in the national curriculum bears no resemblance to this quantity of input, and therefore policy expectation must be realistic in term of linguistic development of foreign languages.
If on the other hand, ‘better’ means developing an enthusiasm for learning languages, as well as changing cultural perceptions about the centrality of languages to education by embedding them in the curriculum from the start much of the evidence suggests that younger is better. In our recent study comparing 5, 7 and 11 years olds learning French in England, 96% of the 5 years olds enjoyed learning French, and 88% of the 7 years olds did so too. It seems that even an hour per week has the potential to awaken a lifelong interest in foreign languages, which must be welcome in a country where foreign language learning is undervalued and in crisis. However, this enthusiasm clearly requires nurturing if it is to persist. In our study, the youngest children expressed short term and intrinsic reason for liking French. It is amusive: it is different from their other subject, and they like learning about different countries. By the time they reach age 7, however, children have started realizing that learning a foreign language is hard work and that it takes a long time to be able to hold a basic conversation. The common belief that learning a foreign language early equates with it being easy to learn does not really match their experience, and the popular belief that the English are not good at learning foreign languages is reinforced, when in fact the likely cause is the lack of time and effort spent on language learning. Further challenges arise as children get older. Under present condition in England, they are likely to encounter problems and discontinuity in language learning at the point of transition from primary to secondary school, which may be at least temporarily demotivating (Myles 2017).
On the other hand we have disadvantages. Lack of interest and motivation for learning English. This factor is the most important obstacle in learning English. Most students are not interested in learning the language and just think about passing the course, thus because they are not interested, they do not listen to their teacher and do not learn anything. Even if they learn something they will forget it quickly, because they are tired of its repetition. English teachers should encourage their students to learn the language by repeating. This encouragement should not be verbalized, but some awards should be considered to increase the motivation and interest in students. Students should be encountered to repeat the language, because the language can be learned only by repetition. The second factor is the lack of concentration. When students not have the concentration can not learn the material. Concentration depend on these factors:
1. Fatigue and insomnia
2. Environment
3. Family problems
When all these factors are eliminated, the students can do their best to learn the language and gain a good score.
Since students are not interested in learning English, they got tired of repeating and practicing the language. If the language is taught by means of audio and video, then the students will learn it within a short period of time. We should use specific methods in order to motivate the students in learning English (Khajloo 2013). Asian countries also try to teach English in primary schools. One of them is China. As China’s economy was boosted due to open foreign policies and the use of English, the policy makers of the Ministry of Education (MOE) decided to include English as the first compulsory subject in the secondary school curriculum and tertiary level of study. In 2001, the MOE issued a document entitled ‘Guidelines for Promoting English Language Instruction in Primary School’ (MOE 2001) emphasizing a new approach for using English for effective interpersonal communication. This document supported the early instruction of English language in China (Gao 2009). Then, after two years of consultations and trials, a new ‘student- centered’ English language curriculum was announced for all primary and secondary schools (MOE 2003). Most recently, the latest version, 2011 English Language Curriculum Standard (MOE 2011) has been introduced, maintaining the main concept and design of the previous versions. Although English has been officially introduced as a compulsory subject in primary schools, the teaching hours in the curriculum are not comparable to Chinese and mathematics, as will be illustrated below. According to the National Curriculum, English, as one of the three core subjects, starts from Primary Three: however, local education departments and individual schools have flexibility to decide when to include English lessons. Many schools in metropolitan areas introduce English earlier, from Primary One, whilst for those in remote and rural areas, the introduction of English may have to be delayed due to inadequate teaching resources (Yu Qi 2016).
According to the decree of the first President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov PP-1875 “On measures to further improve the system of learning foreign language” from December 10, 2012 English is taught from the first grades of general schools in the form of gaming lessons, development of oral speech.
Nowadays, according to the decree, schools pay great attention to the study of foreign languages. The decision was implemented five years ago. For five years in the schools of our country foreign languages have been taught since the first grade. There are some difficulties in the implementation of this resolution. Because in Uzbekistan English is studied as a foreign language. Therefore, students can not find a language environment outside the school. Despite this, the decision justifies itself. Within five years, students have greatly expanded their knowledge in this subject. In order to know the attitude of the pupils of primary classes to this subject, we decided to conduct a survey. The students answered the questionnaire with great interest. On the first question of the questionnaire “Do you like English?” 90% of the students gave positive answers. In addition, the questions “Do you understand if the teacher speaks in English?”, “Do you miss English lessons?” and “Do you like the methods of teaching ?” more than 80% of the students also answered positively. This, of course, suggests that the students’ interest in the subject is high. Note that most of the primary school students go to their English course after school. These courses create a communication environment for students, and also provide additional knowledge. I gave only question to teachers “Is it difficult to teach foreign language to pupils of primary classes?”. Teachers answered that the students show great interest in studying this subject and have achieved great success in a short period. Of course we did not check pupil’s knowledge. We were only interested how receptive to the English language from early start they were.

Due to the importance of foreign language learning primary school students have English classes on their cirriculum. To reach our aim we sometimes forget about pupils’ interest. Are they interested in language learning? Some research runs we should teach language as early as possible. In some countries children learn English even in kindergartens. So is the younger the better? We can answer this question only after undertaking a huge study. And we should take into consideration pupils’ background and interest.

1. Foreign language teaching in primary schools: issues and research (1991). Irish National Teachers’ Organisation. Dublin.
2. Fenfield, W. (1953) A consideration of the neurophysiological mechanism of speech and some educational consequences. Procedings of the American of Arts and Sciences, 82, 20114.
3. Gao, Yihong. (2009) Sociocultural contexts and English in China: Retaining and reforming the cultural habits. In china and English: Globalization and dilemmas of identity.ed. Bianco Jane Orton Joseph Lo and Gao Jihong, 56-78. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
4. Genese, F. (1987) Learning Through Two Languages Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Cambridge: Newbury House.
5. Khajloo, A.I. (2013) Problems in Teaching and Learning English for Students. International Journal of Engeenering Research and Development.
6. Long, M.H. (1990) Haturational Constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251-285.
7. Mc Laughlin, B. (1985) Second Language acquisition in childhood: Volume 2. School-age children. Second Edition. Hillsdals NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Myles, F. (2017) Learning foreign languages in primary schools: is younger better? Language, Society and Policy.
9. Qi, G. Y. (2016) The importance of English in primary school education in China: perceptions of students. Multilingual Education.
10. Singleton, D. (1989) Language acquisition. The age factor. Clevedon. UK: Multilingual Matters.
11. Smythe, P.C. Stennet. P. G and Gardner, R.C. (1975) The best age for foreign – language training: Issues, options and facts. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32,10-23.
12. Stern. H. H. and Weinrib, A. (1977) Foreign language for younger children: Trends and assessment. Language Teaching and Linguistic Abstract, 10.5-25.
13. Thorndike, E. L. (1928) Adult learning. New York. Macmillan.

Оставить комментарий

Вы должны Войти, чтобы оставить комментарий.