There is an ongoing educational controversy on whether or not it is appropriate to teach English as a foreign language to primary school students in Saudi Arabia. Those who oppose the idea say that doing so will have a negative impact on the ability of children to learn Arabic, their mother tongue. Rather than support one side or the other, I would like to point out some facts of which opponents of such education might not be aware. Many do not realize that there are a number of school programs through which primary-level students are taught English. The first program is called bilingual education, in which non-English-speaking students are taught basic English language skills, while school subjects — math, science, social studies, etc. — are taught in their first language (L1) so that they will not fall behind their English-speaking classmates. Then, once their English proficiency has improved, they are gradually taught these subjects in English only. The second form of English education is called immersion education or “English only,” also known as the “sink or swim” method. Non-English-speaking students are immediately taught all school subjects in English, disregarding entirely their L1. Thus, students at the elementary level are required to use only English throughout the school day both in and outside of class. The third program is second-language education, in which non-English-speaking students are taught their L1 and then, during some part of the school day, study English. Opponents of teaching English as a foreign language as a compulsory part of the primary school curriculum are driven by their concern about the adverse impact on the L1 of introducing English at this early educational stage, especially with bilingual education. The English educational program in Saudi Arabia in particular and in the Arab world in general is regarded as English as a Foreign Language (EFL), in which students study English for no more than four to six hours a week. Therefore, they are exposed to English for 45 minutes per class. Such poor acquisition environments as opposed to rich linguistic environments do not lead to successful acquisition of English as a foreign language. The notion of a critical period for language acquisition is important to note. The Critical Period Hypothesis was proposed by biologist Eric Lenneberg in 1967. It is the only period in the childhood years from age six -14 during which acquiring languages is fully possible, after which the process of learning a foreign language becomes much more difficult and requires greater effort. In more specific terms, the ability to learn a foreign language rapidly deteriorates so that it is very difficult to fully learn a language. This is mainly attributed to neurological considerations or factors, as it has been observed that the language acquisition faculty is not completely flexible. Furthermore, the maturation of cognitive skills does not allow for an effective working out of the regular features of the foreign languages encountered. In other words, after passing the critical period, we may witness a loss of flexibility or openness to receiving the features of a foreign language. The idea of a critical period was also advanced by the Brain Plasticity Hypothesis, introduced by Penfield and Roberts in 1959, which postulates that the optimum period for language acquisition falls within the first 10 years of life, as the brain retains its plasticity during that time. Another major scientific factor is based on two theories proposed by Jim Cummins in 2005, namely the Threshold Hypothesis and the Developmental Interdependence Hypothesis. The expected negative effects can be seen when teaching an FL during the first three years of life because L1 skills are not yet adequately developed. This position is based on the fact that a general course of L1 development precedes through an identifiable sequence of stages during the first five years of life. At the age of four, the child's syntactic or grammatical competence is completely developed, like semantic knowledge, which is fully developed at the age of five. A child's lexical knowledge at this age is believed to be about 14,000 words. Furthermore, phonological development is also fully developed by this age. The expected absence of an obvious adverse impact of introducing English in elementary school is traced back to the assumed reciprocal relationships between L1 and the FL. Learning a foreign language depends in part on L1 competence at the time of studying the FL. If a student's L1 competence is low, competence in the L2 will also be low and vice versa. Cummins formulated this thought further and developed the notion of additive bilingualism, suggesting that a student can add an FL at no cost to L1. Henceforth, learning a foreign language is conferred as an advantage, as it is considered an additional language rather than a replacement for L1. This is simply because a child at the age of five has already developed and completely secured the L1 system and now is capable and ready to absorb or add another FL system, which indeed strengthens and supports the L1 system. In other words, the development of competence in an FL is partially a function of the type of competence already developed for L1. However, this is different in the case of what Cummins called subtractive bilingualism, resulting in an identifiable negative impact of learning an FL. When a child begins learning the FL prior to the third year of life, we expect the complete loss of an FL because a child at that stage of life has not yet attained threshold levels of linguistic competence in his/her own language. Thus, the FL is added or learned at the expense of L1, which diminishes as a consequence. The above factors are also supported by the results of numerous related studies indicating several expected advantages when teaching English in elementary school. There is evidence that students who know English are more creative, develop a deeper understanding of cultures, show stronger skills in their own native language, and generally do better in problem solving and overall academic performance. Those who study a foreign language tend to demonstrate greater cognitive development and divergent thinking than monolingual children. Additionally, students who are competent in more than one language generally outscore those who are speakers of only one language. They also develop enhanced abilities in reading, writing, and mathematics and can grasp linguistic concepts — such as words having several meanings — faster and sooner than their monolingual counterparts. These are scientific factors that we all — from decision-makers within a family to education policy-makers and state authorities — need to take into account to reinstate English language education as a part of the primary school curriculum, as it will raise the standard of education by equipping Saudi students with the necessary skills needed to power their nation's development and, most importantly, refute the commonly held fear that it will be detrimental to Arabic language educational efforts. – The writer is a Saudi academic who can be reached at [email protected]
