The characteristics of young learners that need to be considered in the development and use of ELP assessments may be described largely in terms of the following aspects: (1) English language learning contexts and language ability, (2) cognitive development, and (3) affective factors. We provide a brief account of each aspect to point out specific features and challenges in developing young learnersā ELP assessments.
English Language Learning Contexts and Language Abilities of Young Learners
In developing an ELP assessment, the definition of the assessment construct is dependent upon the specific purposes for which the assessment will be used and target population who will take it (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, 2010). Suppose that the purpose of an ELP assessment is to measure young school-age learnersā English language abilities for communication in school settings. The construct of young learnersā English language abilities, then, needs to be defined with reasonable expectations about what young learners know and are able to do in English in the targeted contexts. Young learnersā English language abilities and development are shaped not only by learnersā personal attributes but also by the contexts in which their English language learning takes place (particularly by their formal school education) (McKay, 2006).
In both EFL and ESL contexts, national or local standards (and curricula) have been the major impetus that influences the ways in which young school-age students learn English (Butler, 2015; McKay, 2000; Nikolov, 2016). In many EFL countries, English curricula in schools place most emphasis on developing studentsā communicative language ability (Baldauf, Kaplan, Kamwangamaly, & Bryant, 2012; Enever, Moon, & Raman, 2009; McKay, 2000). On the other hand, studies have suggested that instruction and assessment with young students are not always carried out as intended in national curricula (e.g., Butler, 2015; Choi, 2008; Huang, 2011; Szpotowicz, 2012). For instance, in a four-year observational/interview study with EFL teachers from seven schools in Poland, Szpotowicz (2012) reported that the elementary grades (i.e., ages 7 to 10) contained very limited interactive oral language tasks as classroom activities. Thus, when students in the study were asked to perform interactive tasks in English during class, they were limited to using formulaic chunks or repeating memorized chunks of utterances. This finding is consistent with McKayās (2006) observation that young learners (especially in early elementary grades) tend to rely heavily on the formulaic language system and unanalyzed, memorized chunks to convey their intended meaning. In the discussion of her findings, Szpotowicz notes that teachers seemed to focus more on teaching foundational skills for students in the earlier grades. Campfield (2006) also notes that form-based instruction is prevalent in EFL contexts and that evaluating young studentsā oral production skills can be challenging partly due to young studentsā instructional settings.
In EFL contexts, young learnersā target language use domains are largely bound to school contexts where major interactions take place with peers and teachers in English classrooms. These young learnersā opportunities to engage in English are likely limited to textbook and instructional activities. This limited and unique exposure to the target language influences the way in which young learners develop both their proficiency as well as their background knowledge on social norms associated with the target language use.
In ESL contexts, young learners likely encounter more linguistically and cognitively complex language tasks as they are immersed in English-medium environments both inside and potentially outside of school. In Kā12 school settings in the U.S., for example, ELP standards are rigorous, including the language skills that students need to meaningfully engage in various disciplinary areas (Bailey & Huang, 2011; Hakuta, Santos, & Fang, 2013; Wolf & Farnsworth, 2014). For instance, ELP standards for kindergarten contain āsupporting own opinions and evaluating othersā opinions in speaking and writingā (California Department of Education, 2012, p. 27).
Despite the enriched input that characterizes ESL contexts, it is important to note that young learners do not necessarily share common background knowledge and experiences (Lenski, Ehlers-Zavala, Daniel, & Sun-Irminger, 2006). In English-speaking countries, young ESL students are a highly heterogeneous group in terms of their linguistic, cultural, and educational background. When it comes to U.S. schools, recent statistics show that over 300 home languages are reported by Kā12 English learners (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2011). The length of studentsā U.S. residence is varied. Some students are themselves immigrants, whereas others were born in the U.S. as children of immigrants. Studentsā formal schooling experience also varies; recently-arrived students may include both those with limited/interrupted formal education as well as those who have acquired academic literacy skills and content learning in their L1 (Wolf et al., 2014). Thus, even among middle schoolers, there are students who are still beginning to develop foundational English skills. The heterogeneous background of young English language learners implies that there are various contextual factors that affect these studentsā ELP attainment.
In both EFL and ESL contexts, younger students (i.e., in the early elementary grades) who also begin to acquire L1 literacy tend to develop comprehension skills (particularly listening skills) faster than productive skills in the L2 (Cameron, 2001; Molloy, 2015). Considering previous research findings on the transfer effect of L1 on L2 acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 2008; Gass & Selinker, 1994; Tessier, Duncan, & Paradis, 2013), young studentsā L1 development might influence their L2 development in oral language and literacy skills in different ways. Bialystok (2001) also illustrates that young learners at the early stages of L2 learning begin to acquire foundational skills such as phonological and decoding skills with simple vocabulary and sentences.
Considering the ways young students learn the target language, the construct of an ELP assessment for young learners should be defined differently from that of adult assessments, particularly with respect to the types and degree of ELP competence specified (Butler, 2016). Following the communicative language ability models that consist of language knowledge and strategic competence to use language communicatively to achieve specific purposes (Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Canale & Swain, 1980), young learnersā language knowledge and strategic competence are continuously evolving as their cognitive maturity develops and as their range of instructional experiences expands. For instance, young learnersā pragmatic and sociolinguistic knowledge (e.g., degree of formality and turn-taking conventions), as part of language knowledge, are likely different from that of adult learners (Butler & Zeng, 2014; Lenski, Ehlers-Zavala, Daniel, & Sun-Irminger, 2006; Szpotowicz, 2012). In the next section, we describe the cognitive characteristics of young learners that also have important implications for the development of ELP assessments.
Cognitive Development in Young Learners
Young learnersā cognitive development is an important consideration in designing ELP assessments, as their cognitive abilities impact their L2 development as well as their performance on assessments. Cognitive domains encompass multiple areas such as visual-spatial processing, working memory, short-term memory, metalinguistic awareness, attention, abstract reasoning/concept formation, and executive functions (Barac, Bialystok, Castro, & Sanchez, 2014). Oneās cognitive ability develops along with the maturation of brain development. Thus, young learnersā growing cognitive capacities must be carefully considered in the assessment of their ELP.
Research has shown that young learnersā cognitive capacity is highly associated with their language development (e.g., Case, Kurland, & Goldberg, 1982; Garlock, Walley, & Metsala, 2001). For example, Garlock et al. (2001) found that the young learners in their study (ages 6 and 7) demonstrated a strong positive relationship between working memory and language abilities in phonological awareness, vocabulary size, and reading. Metalinguistic abilities also improved with the increased cognitive capacity. As described earlier, young learners have limitations in recognizing and extracting general structures across linguistic forms and meanings, with a tendency to use unanalyzed chunks (McKay, 2006). Thus, upper elementary or middle school students, whose cognitive and metalinguistic abilities are more developed, may acquire vocabulary and complex syntactic structures more efficiently than younger students (Bialystok, 2001; Hoff-Ginsberg, 1997).
In addition, younger studentsā cognitive abilities typically are not mature enough to formulate structured representations or abstract concepts (Craik & Bialystok, 2006). Concrete objects with sensory supports are more readily accessible to younger students than abstract concepts in their L2 development and assessment. As an example of young learnersā abstract conceptualization and reasoning, young learners have a ādifferent concept of time and sequenceā (Molloy, 2015, p. 4). Citing Orbach and Lamb (2007), who showed that children develop their ability to think flexibly (back and forth) about sequences of events at around 9 years old, Molloy argues that language learning or assessment activities f...