When first starting university several names reappeared that I hadn’t heard since A-level. (Introduction to ELL) Of these Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development was briefly mentioned (alongside other infamous names such as Searle and Austin). Whilst Vygotsky points out that there may be a ‘desired age’ to learn certain things (such as language) this does not make it impossible to learn things at a later age. On the other hand some extreme examples such as Genie (Introduction to ELL), a young girl who was not exposed to social contact and thus has never fully acquired a first language, show that exposure at least to a language is vital at a young age.
Certainly reflecting on my own personal experience, I wonder how much of a difference trying to acquire languages at a later age has impacted my ability/ motivation/ belief in myself and therefore my language progress (BSL beginner, BSL continued, Polish).
However, the point of this particular blog post was to point out that there is a large difference between younger and older learners, not just in the way you teach them but how and what you teach them. This difference was particularly obvious to me when I could reflect upon my experience teaching adults (CELTA) and my experience teaching children (Language at work). In both situations the common connection was that English was being taught as a second language. However as a teacher i found it much harder to consider what i should teach in the classroom.
It would never occur to me to teach a young child vocabulary about politics, religion, race issues, or sexual orientation unless the child asked me a question about any of these topics. Yet for an adult learner, as an adult myself, it seems strange that if i didn’t know these topics in a second language I spoke often, I’d never be able to discuss them.