Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte

Academiejaar 2014-2015

Children’s lexical knowledge of English in Flanders and the Netherlands: A contrastive study on the role of classroom instruction

Jenka Van de Voorde

Supervisor:

Prof. Dr. E. Simon

Masterproef voorgelegd tot het behalen van de graad van Master in de taal- en letterkunde: Engels-Spaans

1

2

Preface

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. E. Simon for her highly appreciated advice, her useful feedback and guidance throughout the writing process of this master dissertation.

Above all I would like to express my gratitude towards the head masters, teachers and participants for allowing me to conduct my research and for their friendly cooperation. A special thank you goes to primary schools De Wegel and De Meidoorn in Eeklo, Sint-Antonius in Balgerhoeke, De Zeester in Philippine and De Kameleon, De Hille and De Geule in Terneuzen. I truly felt welcome every time I paid a visit to each of the schools. Despite the long hours I spent behind my computer for the past few months, it is the great enthusiasm of the participating children that I will remember most about conducting this study.

Moreover, I would like to thank my parents for lending me the car as often as they did in order for me to drive cross borders to collect my data. Additionally, I would like to thank Veerle Vancoillie, without whose help this research paper would not comprise one successful SPSS analysis. And last but not least, I am grateful to my boyfriend Pieter who always supported me throughout these last few months and made sure I could enjoy delicious evening breaks by cooking dinner for me whenever he could.

3

4

Table of contents

1 Introduction ...... 8 2 Theoretical framework ...... 11 2.1 The global and local importance of English ...... 11 2.1.1 The position of English in the world...... 11 2.1.2 English in Flanders ...... 14 2.1.3 English in the Netherlands ...... 15 2.2 Second language acquisition (SLA) ...... 18 2.2.1 Terms and concepts...... 18 2.2.1.1 Second language acquisition ...... 18

2.2.1.2 Foreign versus second language learning ...... 19

2.2.1.3 Acquisition versus learning...... 19

2.2.1.4 Instructed versus non-instructed SLA ...... 21

2.2.1.5 Input versus intake ...... 22

2.2.2 Second language vocabulary acquisition ...... 23 2.2.2.1 Incidental and intentional vocabulary acquisition ...... 26

2.2.3 Factors influencing individual SLA ...... 27 2.2.3.1 Gender and aptitude ...... 28

2.2.3.2 Age ...... 29

2.2.3.3 Sociopsychological factors: Motivation and attitude ...... 30

2.2.3.4 Exposure to the L2 ...... 32

3 Educational system in Flanders and in the Netherlands ...... 34 3.1 Educational system in Flanders ...... 34 3.1.1 Policy of the educational system of the Flemish Community ...... 34 3.1.2 Organisational structure of Flemish education ...... 36 3.2 Educational system in the Netherlands ...... 37 3.2.1 Policy of the educational system of the Netherlands ...... 37 3.2.2 Organisational structure of Dutch education ...... 39 4 Methodology ...... 42 4.1 Informants ...... 42

5

4.1.1 English teaching methods of the Dutch schools ...... 43 4.1.1.1 Take it Easy: De Hille ...... 43

4.1.1.2 EarlyBird: De Geule ...... 44

4.1.1.3 All-in-one: De Kameleon ...... 45

4.1.1.4 EarlyBird: De Zeester ...... 45

4.2 Data gathering ...... 46 4.2.1 Questionnaire ...... 46 4.2.2 English receptive vocabulary test ...... 47 5 Results and discussion ...... 50 5.1 Results of the PPVT-4 ...... 50 5.1.1 Comparison between the Flemish and Dutch schools ...... 50 5.1.2 Comparison between the Flemish schools ...... 54 5.1.3 Comparison between the Dutch schools ...... 56 5.1.4 Comparison between the Flemish and Dutch set scores ...... 57 5.1.5 Comparison between scores on cognate versus non-cognate words ...... 59 5.1.6 Conclusion ...... 61 5.2 Results of the questionnaire in relation to the PPVT scores ...... 61 5.2.1 Gender ...... 61 5.2.2 Attitude ...... 62 5.2.3 Motivation ...... 65 5.2.4 Language contact through popular media ...... 67 5.2.4.1 Television ...... 68

5.2.4.2 Music...... 75

5.2.4.3 Books ...... 77

5.2.4.4 Internet ...... 79

5.2.4.5 Games ...... 83

5.2.5 Conclusion ...... 85 5.3 Discussion ...... 86 6 Conclusion ...... 93 7 Literature ...... 95 8 List of figures ...... 99 6

9 List of tables ...... 101 10 Appendix ...... 102 10.1 Permission letter for the parents ...... 102 10.2 Questionnaire ...... 105 10.3 Answers to question 25 of the questionnaire ...... 112 10.4 Answers to question 28 of the questionnaire ...... 113 10.5 Seven-day diary ...... 115 10.6 Answers to the diaries ...... 117 10.7 Test items PPVT-4: set 1 to 10 ...... 121 10.8 Answering form vocabulary test PPVT-4 ...... 122

Word count: 27 293 words

7

1 Introduction

In the latest edition of the Flemish week magazine Knack (http://www.knack.be/nieuws/, consulted on 18/05/15), current Flemish Minister of Education Crevits posits that investigation has shown how the language skills of Flemish youngsters are on the decline. For this reason, Crevits wishes to stipulate a more ambitious formulation regarding the final attainment of foreign languages (English, French and German). The Minister is convinced that “strong language proficiency and language knowledge are valuable assets for youngsters who end up on the labour market or go on to study further. The increased interest of schools to offer courses in foreign languages is positive. It is important to spread inspirational and innovative examples in the context of multilingual education.” (own translation of Crevits’ quote 1 on Knack.be, consulted on 18/05/2015). Crevits is in favour of multilingual secondary education through Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): pupils are taught non-language subjects such as Biology or Mathematics in English (French or German, i.e. the two official languages in Belgium besides Dutch). Moreover, she believes that primary education already has to take part in multilingual education by offering language initiations in English (French and German), on condition that the pupils master the first official language, namely Dutch.

In Flanders today, formal English instruction is only introduced in the second year of secondary education, when the pupils are generally 13 or 14 years old. In the Netherlands, however, it seems that the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science previously understood the significance of English education. More specifically, from 1986 onwards, English education is compulsory in the last two years of all Dutch primary schools (Booij 2001: 1). However, in recent years, more and more schools opt for English initiations from the first years of primary school onwards (Aarts & Schede 2006: 3). In contrast to their Flemish peers, Dutch children do not only acquire English lexicon through language contact outside school, e.g. by gaming English video games,

1 Original quote: “Een sterke taalvaardigheid en talenkennis betekenen een troef voor jongeren op de arbeidsmarkt of als ze verder studeren. De verhoogde interesse van scholen om vakken in andere talen te geven is positief. Het is van belang inspirerende en innovatieve voorbeelden te verspreiden in het kader van meertalig onderwijs”. (Crevits H. “Vlaanderen zet in op meertalig onderwijs”, Knack.be, consulted on 18/05/2015) 8 they also learn the language through formal instruction from an early age. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate whether there are any notable differences in the English receptive lexical knowledge of 12-year-old Flemish and Dutch children in the last year of primary education, based on the presence or absence of English instruction.

Besides the increasing importance of English in terms of education, the world language is omnipresent in the media and in the daily lives of the Flemish and Dutch community. This everyday contact with the world language undoubtedly affects the English proficiency of children and youngsters growing up in these countries. Since these children incidentally pick up English words and phrases through extracurricular activities, the second part of this study will examine to what extent informal contact to English through popular media enriches the children’s vocabulary knowledge. The focus will be on watching television and films, surfing on the internet, listening to English music and reading English books.

In the field of second language acquisition (in what follows referred to as SLA), research has been done on the English lexical knowledge of Flemish youngsters prior to formal instruction, e.g. by Kuppens (2007) and Houthuys (2011). However, to my knowledge, no contrastive analyses have been conducted on the vocabulary knowledge of Flemish and Dutch pupils. In order to fill this gap in literature I decided to perform a study on the two focus groups, who share the same mother tongue but participate in different educational systems. The aim is to find an answer to the hypothesis whether the Dutch pupils have a broader English receptive vocabulary knowledge than the Flemish because of their English instruction in a classroom setting.

This study was conducted with four Flemish and four Dutch schools that share a similar socioeconomic background. In total, 125 informants participated in this research. All of them were asked to fill out a questionnaire which inquired about their linguistic background, motivation to learn English, attitudes towards the language and their exposure to English through popular media. Their receptive lexical knowledge of English was tested by means of a standardised vocabulary test, namely the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test (fourth edition). By means of the Flemish’ and Dutch’ test results, an answer was sought to the main research question: Are there any notable differences in receptive lexical knowledge of English among Flemish and Dutch children in the last year of primary education, based on the presence or absence of 9

English instruction? Subsequently, the results of the vocabulary test and the findings of the questionnaires were linked to provide an answer to the second research question: Which popular media positively influence the process of second language acquisition?

First, in chapter 2, a theoretical framework on the acquisition of English as a second language will be provided. To begin with, the position of English as a global language in the world will be elucidated, after which we will turn to its presence in Flanders and the Netherlands in sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3, respectively. In section 2.2 the focus will be on second language acquisition and more specifically on the most prominent binary oppositions within the field. In the following section, the most important factors influencing the second language acquisition of my informants will be dealt with. Subsequently, the similarities and differences among the educational systems of Flanders and the Netherlands will be rendered in chapter 3. Further we will move onto the methodology that was used in chapter 4, after which an extensive analysis of the test results and the questionnaire data will be given followed by a discussion in chapter 5. Lastly, in chapter 6, conclusions on this dissertation will be given.

10

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 The global and local importance of English In this chapter, the aim is to represent the global importance of English as the language has risen to the status of world language. First, the position of English in the world will be discussed by means of Kachru’s conceptualisation of the ‘three concentric circles of English’ (Kachru 1986, see also Crystal 2003: 107). Subsequently, the position of English in the Flemish and Dutch society and daily life will be elaborated on. In this respect, attention will be paid to the status of English in competition with Dutch, which is the standard language in both Flanders and the Netherlands.

2.1.1 The position of English in the world

From the 1980s onwards, there has been more and more talk of conceptualisations such as ‘varieties of English’ or ‘New Englishes’ to indicate the localised forms of English around the world. This may not be surprising given that English has achieved the status of official language in over 75 territories and it is represented in every continent. There is no denying it: English has undergone a gradual progress towards the status of world language that is has today. As Crystal (2003: 106) points out:

“the movement of English around the world began with the pioneering voyages to the Americas, Asia […] continued with the 19th-century colonial developments in Africa and South Pacific […] and took a significant further step when it was adopted in the 20th century as an official or semi-official language by many newly-independent states”.

This suggests, in turn, that English owes its dominant status to the political, colonial, economic and cultural power it deployed from the end of the 16th century onwards (Crystal 2003: 106). However, according to Crystal (2003: 110), the language particularly became globally present during the last four decades with an unparalleled growth in world population and increase in independent states.

With regard to the term ‘world English’, Bolton (2005: 69) locates its origin in two conferences that were held in 1978 in which none other than B. Kachru played a

11 major part. During the 1980s, Kachru discussed the “sociohistorical, sociopolitical and ideological underpinnings of the discourses of world Englishes” which allowed him to design the ‘three circles of English’ model (Bolton 2005: 73).

Figure 1: The concentric circles of English by Kachru (1986) source: English as a global language (2012), p 61 The model in figure … distinguishes English in an inner, outer or extended and expanding circle to visualise the spread of English around the world (Kachru et al 2006: 161). Next to the type of spread, this circle model represents “different ways in which the language has been acquired and is currently used” (Crystal 2003: 107). The first or inner circle, contains the countries where the native speakers use English as their native language (ENL). Amongst them we find Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Secondly, Crystal (2003: 107) explains, “the outer or extended circle involves the earlier phases of the spread of English in non-native settings, where the language has become part of a country’s chief institutions, and plays an important ‘second language’ role in a multilingual setting”. Kachru et al (2006: 161) posit that in former British colonies such as South Africa, India, Nigeria and Zambia, English is used as an official language and therefore these countries belong to this category.

Lastly, the expanding circle “involves those nations which recognize the importance of English as an international language, though they do not have a history of colonization by members of the inner circle, nor have they given English any special

12 status in their language policy” (Crystal 2003: 107). Examples of countries belonging to this third circle are Japan, Greece, Argentina and Rwanda. Important for the present study is that Belgium and the Netherlands are also incorporated into this category as they have never been colonised by the British nor does English have acquired any special status in the public administration. In all of these countries English is taught as a foreign language because it is recognised as an important international language. With 500 to 1 000 million members, the expanding circle, as the name suspects, is steadily increasing. Kachru (1985: 243) makes the correct observation that “it is the users of this circle who actually further strengthen the claims of English as an international or universal language”.

In his work, Kachru (2006: 162) cites a case that proves the lack of a clear distinction between the three circles. Namely, South Africa is considered to belong to both the inner and the outer circle at the same time. The reason for this is that English is used as the native language of the white population with British ancestors and the younger generations of South African Indians, while it is considered the second language of other populations such as the whites of Dutch descent. In addition, Booij’s account (2001: 2) implies a decreasing importance of ‘Afrikaans’, i.e. the daughter language of Dutch spoken in South Africa, in favour of English because, even though it has more native speakers than English, “Afrikaans is the symbol par excellence of apartheid, and hence, the younger generation prefers to use English”.

Further, Crystal (2003: 107) draws attention to the fact that countries may change their language policies, e.g. when Tanzania and Kenya became independent they chose to no longer acknowledge English as an official language, and therefore the position of English is adapted as well. Hence, it proves to be more difficult than first anticipated to categorise the countries to one of the three circles. In section 2.1.3 it will become clear that even in Belgium and the Netherlands the status of English is gradually changing.

Besides the terms ‘world English’, ‘native language’ (ENL), ‘second language’ (ESL) and ‘foreign language’ (EFL), there is another prominent denomination to the usage of English, namely English as a ‘lingua franca’ (ELF). Xu (2011: 38) confirms that “in continental Europe, as in many other parts of the world, English is widely used for intercultural communication in a vast array of domains which has led to English 13 being conceptualized as a lingua franca (ELF) or international language (EIL)”. English as a lingua franca can be defined as a means of communication between two or more people whose mother tongue is not English. Lastly, Booij (2001: 2) attributes the popularity of English as a world language to the fact that the language is not linked to nor owned by one particular country. The author clarifies that English differs from French in this respect, as the latter is closely associated to France and its culture.

2.1.2 English in Flanders

Compared to the Netherlands, the language situation in Belgium is rather complicated. As a federal state separated into three distinct communities, the country is divided into three linguistic regions: the Dutch-speaking region of Flanders in the North, the French-speaking region of Wallonia in the South and the minor German- speaking community in the eastern part of Wallonia (Kloots 2003: 6). However, this section will not focus on one of the three official languages in Belgium but on the presence of English in Flanders.

Since Belgium is included in the ‘expanding’ circle, English is taught as a foreign language. Typically, students receive their first English lessons in the second year of secondary education, whereas French, having the status of official national language, is taught from the penultimate year of primary school onwards. However, it is not because the Flemish pupils have a lead on French education, that they are more fluent in it than English. In fact, Goethals (1997: 105) claims that:

“it is not the case that all Belgians (not even most of them, nor all educated adults) are bilingual in the sense that they can easily/fluently switch from Dutch to French or vice versa, nor that they can operate in both these languages, nor that they are confronted with these languages daily. Flanders and Wallonia are, respectively, monolingual Dutch and monolingual French”.

Goethals (1997: 105-106) even alleges that “French is a foreign language for Flemish inhabitants, just as (or for many even more than) English is”. Even so, Goethals (1997: 106) declares that the addition of foreign languages to the educational system positively influences the attitude towards and the motivation to learn foreign languages in Flanders. He points out that foreign language knowledge has always been highly valued in Flemish society. 14

Even though his sources for the information remain unclear, Goethals (1997: 106) states that Flemish 13-year-olds already have acquired 400 English words before formal instruction has taken place. A possible explanation for the youngsters’ considerable knowledge of English is exposure to the foreign language through various media. Children pick up English words and expressions and start using the language through its presence in mass media such as television, radio, computer and video games, English magazines or books, technology, the internet, food labels and advertisement. Goethals (1997: 107) draws our attention to the fact that “the opportunities for didactic exploration of this foreign-languages-aspect in everyday life are considerable”. The greater part of Flemish people are exposed to English on a far more regular basis than to French for example.

Both Kuppens’ (2007) and Houthuys’ (2011) studies on the effect of popular media on English vocabulary acquisition by Flemish (and Walloon) pupils, demonstrate positive findings. Houthuys (2011), who has done research on Flemish children in the last year of primary education, finds that informants who watch English subtitled television programmes (almost) daily, have a more advanced vocabulary knowledge of English. Further, even though listening to English music and playing English video games do not affect the number of correctly uttered words, these activities have a positive influence on the degree of difficulty of the corrected words. Note that this effect only applies to the male participants of her study with regard to playing video games. Kuppens (2007), on the other hand, has examined the key factors that influence the incidental SLA of Flemish and Walloon informants who are in the fifth and sixth year of primary school. Her results point out that watching English television programmes, listening to English music, playing English games and surfing on the internet all prove to be effective ways to acquire English. Only the reading of English books is judged to be unproductive in that respect. According to Kuppens (2007) this can be due to the informants’ lack of a certain acquired level of English vocabulary required to read in the language.

2.1.3 English in the Netherlands

In his article, Booij (2001: 1) immediately sets the tone by saying that “the Netherlands is one of the countries in Western Europe (together with Belgium […]) in which English has a very dominant position as a foreign language, and is developing 15 into a real second language”. In this respect, we might have to reconsider Kachru’s (1986) model that categorises Belgium and the Netherlands as belonging to the expanding circle. It seems that, only 14 years after his model was first published, some Dutch authors already take on a different perspective: they begin to consider English as a second rather than a foreign language. The last couple of years, this trend has also been perceived in Flanders: Since 2014, 24 secondary schools apply the CLIL method in French or English (see Introduction) and in some primary schools, even though they are still more the exception than the rule, English initiation lessons are being taught.

From 1986, Booij (2001: 1) explains, English was introduced into Dutch secondary education and the last two years of primary education as a measurement to help solve the country’s foreign language problems. In contrast to Flanders, part of the secondary schools offer bilingual education or ‘tweetaligonderwijs’. Due to the legislation, multilingual education in Flanders may only amount up to 20% of the teaching time (the language subjects English, French and/or German excluded). Admiraal et al (2006: 76) refer to the term ‘immersion’ to define the Dutch bilingual educational system: namely, even though it is not the language of the larger society in the Netherlands, English serves as the medium of instruction. Booij (2001: 2) explicates that this specific educational system is specially intended for monolingual Dutch- speakers to “enhance their chances for an international career”. Reported by Dronkers (1993: 304), English education has continuously grown from the first half of the 1980s onwards due to “the increased cohesion between the countries of the European Community, and the resulting development of a cosmopolitan culture by part of the Dutch elite”.

In 2004 Admiraal et al (2006: 89) worked together on a study which, on the one hand, examined the effects of the use of English as instruction language in the first four years of secondary education and, on the other hand, analysed the informants’ achievement in subjects being taught in English. Their research led to the findings that the bilingual education students obtained higher English oral proficiency scores and were better at reading comprehension than the focus group in regular secondary education. Moreover, Admiraal et al (2006: 75) observed that “no negative effects have been found with respect to the results of their school leaving exams at the end of secondary education for Dutch and subject matters taught through English”.

16

A second reason for the popular status of English in the Netherlands cited by Booij (2001: 2) is the “very open attitude towards the Anglo-Saxon culture, which has been reinforced by the Second World War”. Apparently, English partly still embodies the language of the liberators, even for those who were born after the end of the war. Further he attributes the popularity of English among the Dutch to its global language status of lingua franca. Moreover, the international trade, demanding a well-mastered knowledge of foreign languages, has proven to be indispensable for the fairly small country (Booij 2001: 2).

With regard to the domains in which English is used, great similarities with Belgium can be observed. Nonetheless, in terms of educational usage, the Netherlands even go a stage further. According to Booij (2001: 3), at least 80% of all university dissertations are written in English and one has to advance specific reasons in order to write a dissertation in Dutch. Keeping in mind that his publication dates from 14 years ago, most likely the percentage has even risen by then. Moreover, similar to Kuppens’ (2007) and Houthuys’ (2011) findings about the Flemish target audience, television appears to be a popular channel to come into contact with English as shows or films in the language are subtitled instead of dubbed. Booij (2001: 3) remarks that “about 40- 60% of the programs on Dutch spoken channels are in English”. Moreover, plenty of English channels such as BBC 1 and 2, MTV, Discovery Channel and National Geographic are available as well.

To the question whether English might form a threat to the Dutch language Booij (2001: 4) answers negatively. He states that the largest contributions happen on the lexical level as numerous English borrowings find there way into the Dutch language (e.g. printer and computer). On the morphological and grammatical level, hardly any alterations have taken place. To summarise the situation in the Netherlands, Booij (2001: 4) quotes de Bot et al (2000):

“English has a very strong position in the Netherlands, but it is part of a structure of multilingualism in which it has its own place and function, leaving ample space for both the national language, other foreign languages and migrant languages”.

17

2.2 Second language acquisition (SLA)

2.2.1 Terms and concepts

In this chapter, a theoretical outline will be given about the main subject of this master dissertation. First, second language acquisition, commonly abbreviated as SLA, will be elucidated. Further, the oppositional concepts within the field that are indispensable to understand the analysis and outcomes of this research will be taken into consideration. Since the Flemish focus group have not yet received formal English lessons at school while the Dutch ones have, notions like ‘acquisition versus learning’, ‘foreign versus second language acquisition’, ‘incidental versus intentional learning’, ‘instructed versus non-instructed SLA’ and ‘input versus intake’ will be elaborated on.

2.2.1.1 Second language acquisition

Nowadays, SLA is an established discipline within applied linguistics but this has not always been the case. It is only in the last half of the 20th century that the field gained interest (Ellis 1997: 3). Above all, Gass et al (2013: 1) explicate, SLA is an interdisciplinary field that has been closely linked to language pedagogy for the past few years. However, the authors state, “SLA is not about pedagogy, unless the pedagogy affects the course of acquisition”, e.g. when learning takes place in a classroom setting as will be discussed in section 2.2.1.4 (Gass et al 2013: 2). With regard to the study’s boundaries, SLA researchers take on different perspectives. Ellis (2010: 182) posits that for example Doughty & Long (2003) consider SLA as a branch of cognitive psychology whereas scholars like Firth & Wagner (1997, 2007) agree that it primarily consists of a social phenomenon, classifying SLA under sociolinguistics.

In general, SLA refers to the process of learning a non-native language after the native language has been acquired as well as to the study field regarding this linguistic phenomenon (Gass et al 2013: 4). Important to keep in mind is that learning a ‘second language’, in what follows referred to as ‘L2’, can refer to any language that is learned after the first language (L1). Ellis (1994: 12) points out that “the term ‘second’ is generally used to refer to any language other than the first language”.

Appel & Vermeer (1994: 11) point out that second language acquisition can only be achieved when the mother tongue has already been acquired to a certain extent. The

18 researchers explain that in literature, this acquisition norm corresponds to the age of four. In case L2 acquisition takes place before this age, this phenomenon is labelled as ‘simultaneous L2 acquisition’ (Appel & Vermeer 1994: 11). In contrast, when the L2 acquisition commences when the primary language is already properly mastered we talk about ‘successive L2 acquisition’.

2.2.1.2 Foreign versus second language learning

The terms ‘second’ and ‘foreign’ language learning are hard to distinguish from one another. Some scholars, like Gass et al (2013: 5), make the distinction between foreign and second language learning in the sense that

“the former refers to the learning of a nonnative language in the environment of one’s native language. […] Second language, on the other hand, generally refers to the learning of a nonnative language in the envirmonment in which that language is spoken”.

De Bot et al (2005: 7) observe that “in most cases, foreign language acquisition takes place in a setting with formal language instruction”, namely a classroom context. An illustration of foreign language learning can be found in Dutch speakers learning English in Belgium. In contrast, second language learning can involve, for example, German speakers learning English in England and does not necessarily have to occur in a classroom context. In this respect, the main difference between the two is that those who will learn a language in the target language environment, will be exposed to native speakers. Since Ellis (1994: 3) points out that “the term second can refer to any language that is learned subsequent to the mother tongue”, the Flemish and Dutch learners of English in this study are regarded as ‘second language or L2 learners’. In addition, de Bot et al (2005: 7) remark that the underlying process of both acquisition types is fundamentally the same thus it may not be surprising that both terms are used interchangeably.

2.2.1.3 Acquisition versus learning

Another controversial notion in the field of SLA is the opposition between acquisition and learning. Krashen & Terrell (1983), in de Bot et al (2005: 7), define acquisition as “the product of a ‘subconscious’ process, very similar to the one children use in learning their first language, and learning as the product of formal teaching, 19 which results in ‘conscious’ knowledge about the language”. However, the term ‘subconscious’ might be a bit misleading as it is generally acknowledged that some level of attention is needed to be able to notice and to pick up new information. De Bot et al (2005: 8) speculate that Krashen & Terrell (1983) interpret subconscious as “the inability to explain what one knows” as learners are generally unaware of acquired competences and incapable to discuss the language rules they picked up incidentally. Thus, using language forms correctly does not imply that one can clarify why the forms are correct the way they are. In this respect, de Bot et al (2005: 8) express that acquisition is considered as a “natural process of growth of knowledge and skills in a language without a level of meta-knowledge […] while learning is seen as an artificial process in which the ‘rules’ of a language are focussed on”. Although learning can lead to the enhancement of one’s knowledge, it does not always necessarily give rise to acquisition. In literature, the terms ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are often used interchangeably, regardless whether conscious or unconscious processes are involved in the matter. In what follows this may also be the case.

Another debate that is related to the distinction between learning and acquisition, comprises the notions implicit or incidental and explicit or intentional learning. Again, there is a lack of consensus on these concepts. A definition given by Hulstijn (2005: 131) states that

“explicit learning is input processing with the conscious intention to find out whether the input information contains regularities and, if so, to work out the concepts and rules with which these regularities can be captured. Implicit learning is input processing without such an intention, taking place unconsciously”.

Similar to what has been said about acquisition, Mitchell et al (2013: 110) define implicit learning as “situations in which the learning was both incidental (the learner did not intend to learn the feature) and without awareness”. On top of the ‘without awareness’ indicator, Williams (2009) in Mitchell et al (2013: 110) identifies two other characteristics of implicit knowledge: “it is used automatically […] and it is served by different brain systems”. In contrast, explicit learning represents information about language that is held with awareness and includes word meanings, grammar rules or concrete observations on language usage (Mitchell et al 2013: 137). 20

2.2.1.4 Instructed versus non-instructed SLA

As mentioned before and noted by Gass et al (2013: 4), exposure to and acquisition of L2 can occur in a classroom setting as well as in more naturalistic circumstances. Since the Flemish informants of this research currently acquire English exclusively through extracurricular activities in contrast to the Dutch children who also learn the language at school, it is necessary to distinguish between instructed and non- instructed SLA. However, the distinction and interrelation between both have proven to be problematic.

Appel & Vermeer (1994: 11-12) believe that an L2 can be acquired in a natural (i.e. non-instructed) or a non-natural (i.e. instructed) fashion and that it is possible for both ways to be combined . The former can be defined as picking up the L2 in the same way as a child acquires his mother tongue whereas the non-natural manner requires education or learning books. De Bot et al (2005: 12) make a comparison with immigrants who, when moving into a new country, have to learn the native language of the local community. Mainly, these immigrants are subject to non-instructed SLA, i.e. they pick up the language through informal interaction with their environment. On the other hand, part of these migrants customarily also learn the L2 through formal language courses in a community centre or their language mistakes are pointed out to them when they are talking to native speakers (de Bot et al 2005: 12). In these cases, instructed learning takes place.

Furthermore, Ellis (1994: 2) denominates these conceptions as ‘naturalistic’ and ‘instructed’ L2 learning, respectively. In his opinion, the distinction between the two relies upon “whether the language is learnt through communication that takes place in naturally occurring social situations or through study, with the help of ‘guidance’ from reference books or classroom instruction” (Ellis 1994: 12). Noteworthy, the duality between incidental and non-incidental SLA ties in with the distinction between acquisition and learning in section 2.2.1.3. To a large extent, the first coincides with acquisition, whilst non-incidental SLA corresponds to ‘L2 learning’.

In relation to my research, it can be stated that the Flemish pupils acquire English in a non-instructed, naturalistic or incidental setting as they pick up English from what they hear and see outside the classroom environment. Meanwhile, the Dutch

21 informants profit from both non-instructed and instructed SLA since they receive English lessons in school and are being exposed to the language outside the institutional surroundings.

2.2.1.5 Input versus intake

In section 2.2.1.3 about acquisition and learning, the term ‘(sub)consciousness’ was already clarified. In addition, this concept seems to be of relevance to the notions ‘input’ and ‘intake’ as well. De Bot et al (2005: 8-9) determine ‘input’ as “everything around us we may perceive with our senses”, whereas ‘intake’, or ‘uptake’ as they refer to it, is “what we pay attention to and notice”. Moreover, de Bot et al (2005: 8) continue that “some level of attention is required to be able to notice something, and that noticing is crucial in obtaining new information”. Specifically, our surroundings provide us with a great deal of information, though we will only make use of that information that we consciously regard as useful or interesting.

Even though scholars widely affirm that input is prerequisite for L2 learning, “not all input becomes intake, which is necessary for learning” (de Bot et al 2005: 8). In order for input to be turned into intake, some factors are required but it is found difficult to define which ones are indispensable. One example is provided by research on consciousness which has shown that unexpected events often draw attention. In addition, de Bot et al (2005: 8) proceed:

“expectations are important determinants of perceptibility and noticeability, so it is plausible that instruction may have an awareness-raising effect, increasing the likelihood of noticing features in input through the establishment of expectation and comprehending”.

In other words, due to the expectations and comprehension of L2 learners, an instructed L2 learning setting may be advantageous to the increase of the amount of input that is being transferred into intake.

A term that can be added to this discussion is ‘comprehensible input’ as it is formulated in Krashen’s monitor model of SLA (Loewen & Reinders 2011: 35). By this, Loewen & Reinders (2011: 35) account for, Krashen suggests that language acquisition can take place on condition that the input is “just slightly beyond their

22 current proficiency level”. It is only when the greater part of the input is understood by L2 learners, that they are able to acquire the unknown L2 forms and structures. Then again, if the L2 learners are only exposed to utterances which are incomprehensible to them, no SLA can take place. Even though Krashen’s monitor model has been widely criticised on the basis of being insufficient to L2 learning, most scholars agree that the greater part of the input has to be comprehensible to the learners in order for them to acquire L2. In this respect it can be added that “intake may refer to information that strengthens existing knowledge, or it may fill a gap in knowledge that was noticed by the learner before” (de Bot et al 2005: 9).

2.2.2 Second language vocabulary acquisition

Although the true value of vocabulary acquisition has not been fully recognised in the past, the importance of lexicon to L2 learners has recently received more attention in the field of SLA (Gass et al 2013: 194). In Ellis’ work in the 1980s, he admits the centrality of syntax and morphology in SLA research and openly states that at the time “almost nothing [was known] about the acquisition of lexis” (Ellis 1985: 5). More recently, Gass et al (2013: 194) quote Politzer (1978) in stating “of all error types, learners consider vocabulary errors the most serious”. This is remarkable when considering the fact that both corpus- and classroom-based studies indicate lexical errors as the most prevalent among L2 learners (Gass et al 2013: 194). Noteworthy, the lexicon serves as the most important factor to comprehend the bulk of provided L2 information and it is essential to determine syntactic relationships (Gass et al 2013: 196).

As the effects of both incidental (by the Flemish and Dutch informants) and intentional (by Dutch informants) vocabulary learning will be examined in my research, this chapter will deal with issues related to the acquisition of lexicon. In what follows, the differences between L1 and L2 acquisition will be discussed. Subsequently, section 2.2.2.2 will elaborate on incidental and intentional vocabulary acquisition. The final part of this chapter will focus on the influence of the L1 on SLA.

According to Appel & Vermeer (1994: 27), L2 lexical development does not proceed completely in the same way as it does in the mother tongue. In the initial phases of SLA, the L2 learners experience difficulties to distinguish separate words from the

23 spoken utterance (Appel & Vermeer 1994: 28). Gass et al (2013: 196) point out that “if words cannot be isolated from the speech stream, and if lexical information cannot be used to interpret the utterances, the input will not be comprehended”. Customarily, L2 learners pick up ‘chunks’ of language in the initial stages of SLA, e.g. “idontknow”, without being able to separate the words from one another. Of course, the L2 learners grow out of this holistic phase once they start to recognise the separate words. When this happens their approach to SLA becomes more analytic.

Moving onto this next phase, Hulstijn (2001: 261) notes that, in contrast to L1 acquisition, when learning their first few hundred vocabulary items in the target language, L2 learners seem to connect the L2 word to an equivalent word form in their mother tongue, regarding the L2 lexical entry as an extension of the L1 concept. It is only in a later stage that the L2 word is spontaneously linked to its meaning. In relation to this, de Bot et al (2005: 45) cite the findings of Kroll & Stewart (1994), which point out that “translation from L1 to L2 is considerably slower than translation from L2 to L1, especially at slower levels of proficiency”. The authors regard this as evidence that “L1 lexical access runs through the concept, whereas L2 lexical access runs through the L1 entry” (de Bot et al 2005: 45).

Alongside connections to the meaning of an L2 word, also links to other already acquired L2 word forms or structures in the brain are created. De Bot et al (2005: 46) add that when the level of acquisition rises, the lexical connections within the L2 network increase correspondingly. These connections are essential to SLA, since “words are not learned as individual units, but as labels of concepts that are embedded in […] someone’s knowledge of the world” (Duyck’s translation from Appel & Vermeer 1994: 29). Hulstijn (2001: 261) clarifies the situation as following:

“Initially, L2 lexical entries are often coded as phonological or orthographic extensions of L1 lexical entries. This may explain why beginners have been found to confuse phonologically similar words more often and semantically similar words less often than do advanced learners (Henning, 1973)”.

Further, Appel & Vermeer (1994: 30) argue that the more associations with other concepts an L2 learner can make, the easier concepts will be accumulated in the brain, which facilitates the process of vocabulary acquisition. The authors also associate

24 the number of connections that can be made to the extent to which one ‘knows’ a concept. In this context, the distinction is made between receptive and productive knowledge. Appel & Vermeer (1994: 30) state that the first corresponds to ‘merely understanding a word when hearing or seeing it in its context’ whereas the latter can be defined as ‘being capable of attributing different meanings to a single word’. However, Teichroew (1982), in Gass et al (2013: 197), states that the division between receptive and productive lexical L2 knowledge is not clear-cut. The scholar suggests that “vocabulary knowledge can be best represented as a continuum with the initial stage being cognition, and the final being production” (Gass et al 2013: 197).

With regard to receptive lexical knowledge, i.e. the kind that will be examined in my research, it has been acknowledged by Nation & Laufer (1990, 1993; 1992) and quoted by Hulstijn (2001: 262) that:

“5000 base words is generally considered to be a minimal learning target with respect to the comprehension of the main points of non subject-specific texts. […] Hirsh and Nation (1992) have convincingly argued that for such comprehension to be attained readers generally need to be familiar with 95 per cent of the words in a text”.

Not all researchers, however, share this opinion. As an illustration, the study of text coverage and vocabulary knowledge by Hazenberg and Hulstijn (1996), cited by Hulstijn (2001: 262), has shown that “if adults with secondary education want to be familiar with 95 per cent of the words contained in the large variety of non-specialist texts encountered in their daily lives, they must know at least 10,000 base words”. Lastly, the asymmetric strength model of Kroll & Stewart (1990) in de Bot et al (2005: 151) will be briefly taken into consideration in relation to the dichotomy between receptive and productive knowledge. More specifically, this model proposes that the lexical link from L2 to L1 is stronger than the lexical link from L1 to L2 because in the first stages of SLA, these L2 words were actually associated to words in the L1 (de Bot et al 2005: 151). In fact, this hypothesis implies that the receptive knowledge, i.e. hearing or reading a word in the L2 and knowing its meaning in the L1, is supposed to be bigger than the productive one, i.e. hearing or reading a concept in the L1 and having to produce it in the L2. 25

2.2.2.1 Incidental and intentional vocabulary acquisition

In section 2.2.1.3 we already briefly touched upon incidental (or implicit) and intentional (or implicit) acquisition. In terms of vocabulary acquisition, both ways prove to be advantageous.

Ellis (1997: 2) argues that two types of learning mechanisms contribute to vocabulary acquisition: namely the predominantly implicit (unconscious) processes result into the acquisition of the word’s form, its grammatical class information, its collocations etc, whereas “acquisition of a word’s semantic and conceptual properties, and the mapping of word form labels onto meaning representations, result from conscious (or explicit) learning processes”.

With regard to intentional or formal learning, Appel & Vermeer (1994: 246- 247) insist that the most profitable way for children to accumulate lexical knowledge in their memory is when the teacher writes down the unknown word and later refers back to it. Especially for less gifted L2 learners this appears to be very important, as investigations have shown that this group in particular does not acquire incidentally offered lexis unless it frequently recurs (Appel & Vermeer 1994: 247). Further, Hulstijn (1997: 201) promotes an avoidance of rote and context-free learning and the demand for repetition and elaboration.

The opposite, i.e. incidental learning, does not take place in a classroom context, rather it occurs while focusing on comprehending the meaning of an extracurricular activity instead of learning new words. Considering the lack of lexical knowledge among L2 learners, Appel & Vermeer (1994: 246) recommend explicit vocabulary learning and acknowledge the added value of implicit learning. Huckin & Coady (1997: 225) claim that when the learner has already achieved advanced reading proficiency, extensive reading in the L2 is far more productive than instruction to enhance one’s vocabulary knowledge.

Except for the differences between L1 and L2 vocabulary acquisition, there also exist connections between both lexicons (Gass et al 2013: 207). Singleton (1999: 189- 199), in Gass et al (2013: 207) posits that:

26

“L1 and L2 lexis are separately stored, but the two systems are in communication with each other – whether via direct connections between individual L1 and L2 lexical nodes, or via a common conceptual store (or both)”.

Further, the scholar believes that the connectivity in the mental lexis varies from learner to learner depending on the formal and semantic connections one makes. It has been widely acknowledged that the linking of cognates is easier than that of non- cognates when represented without context. According to Loewen & Reinders (2011: 26), cognates “are words that have a similar structure and meaning in the L1 and in the L2. Cognate words are generally easier to learn because of their similarities […] Another way in which cognates can facilitate L2 learning is by freeing up cognitive resources, so that learners can concentrate on learning other things”. Gass et al (2013: 208) note that, according to Titone et al (2011), the earlier an L2 is learned, the greater the strength of the cognate effect is. Thus, since the informants of my research are only 12 years old, the hypothesis is that the children ought to score higher on cognates as they positively affect their SLA process. However, we have to keep in mind that when entering a new language, words undergo various phonetic and orthographic changes based on the new language’s linguistic rules (Ciobanu & Dinu 2014: 100). Since these rules also apply to cognates, part of the cognate words in the PPVT-4 might have undergone phonetic changes to the point where they hamper the pupils’ recognition and knowledge of them.

2.2.3 Factors influencing individual SLA

In contrast to L1 acquisition, which happens more or less at the same acquisition rate and leads to more or less the same level of competence among native speakers of the same language, there are great individual differences between L2 learners. Some individuals are more successful at learning a new language than others. This is because several extra linguistic parameters affect the SLA process and thus cause linguistic variation among L2 learners. Appel & Vermeer (1994: 53) explain that, even though they find themselves in very similar positions, L2 learners form a much more heterogeneous group than L1 acquirers. In this chapter, the emphasis will be on extra linguistic parameters such as: gender and aptitude, age, motivation, attitude and language contact. Even though the different aspects will be discussed separately below, 27 it is important to keep in mind that their impact intertwines with other factors’ influence in the dynamic process of SLA (de Bot et al 2005: 65).

2.2.3.1 Gender and aptitude

Generally speaking, the gender variable has not been broadly discussed in literature as an influencing factor on second language acquisition. In most of the studies that were published on L1 acquisition, females gained the upper hand over males. Appel & Vermeer (1994: 59), for example, note that it is often assumed that the rate to which girls acquire their mother tongue, especially the under 12 year olds, is faster than that of their male peers. Now, experience has shown us that more girls than boys take the plunge to study foreign languages (own translation, Appel & Vermeer 1994: 59). Moreover, according to Ellis (1994: 202), women might be better at L2 learning because:

“they are likely to be more open to new linguistic forms in the L2 input and they will be more likely to rid themselves of interlanguage forms that deviate from target-language norms”.

Scholars like de Bot et al (2005: 69) state that women posses a larger inherent capacity for language learning. What is referred to in literature as “language learning aptitude […] is the extent to which they possess a natural ability for learning an L2” (Ellis 2002: 73). Contrary to what can be expected, aptitude is not part of the general intelligence of a person, rather it is particular to their language learning abilities. Loewen & Reinders (2011: 12) mention that aptitude consists of several components of which the most relevant to this study is the associative memory which “relates to how well learners are able to memorize the forms and meanings of vocabulary items”.

With regard to studies conducted on the gender parameter in L2 acquisition, varying outcomes can be observed. For example, in Appel’s study of 1984 on the Dutch proficiency of Turkish and Moroccan youngsters, no differences among girls and boys were noticed. Other studies by Pica et al (1991) on the interaction between native and non-native speakers, confirm the superiority of women on the field. However, in Boyle’s study (1987) on the English proficiency of Chinese students, as referred to in Appel & Vermeer (1994: 49), the male students obtained the best results for the listening vocabulary tests. A plausible explanation given by Doyle postulates that the 28 boys focus longer on the receptive competences when acquiring an L2 while the girls start developing productive competences earlier on.

2.2.3.2 Age

The influence of age on SLA is a controversial topic that has lead to a multitude of studies with widely different results. The vast majority of scholars believe that younger learners will reach higher L2 proficiency levels. For example, Patkowski (1982) and Oyama (1982), as cited by Appel & Vermeer (1994), support the existence of a ‘sensitive period’, which lasts until the end of puberty, in which children often are able to “achieve mastery of L2” (Loewen & Reinders 2011: 9). Krashen (1985) went even further by promoting Lennenberg’s (1967) Critical Period Hypothesis which suggests that the innate ability to learn an L2 in the same way as one has learned his or her L1 ends when reaching puberty around the age of 13 (de Bot et al 2005: 65). The hypothesis especially coins at acquiring a native-like proficiency level of the L2 phonological system. Thus, as Loewen & Reinders (2011: 9) clarify “adult learners must rely on other general learning mechanisms” to acquire the L2 and on top of that they are unable to reach a native-like level of proficiency.

Notwithstanding, Lennenberg’s hypothesis has been widely criticised by other researchers. To begin with, investigation has shown that youngsters and adult L2 learners progress more rapidly through the first stages of SLA than children (Loewen & Reinders 2011: 10). A possible explanation for this advantage is that adult learners possess greater explicit learning capacities, especially when it comes to acquiring grammar rules. Secondly, older children tend to have an advantage over younger ones in their developmental rate. However, Loewen & Reinders (2011: 10) state that children clearly are advantageous in their ultimate level of L2 when compared to adult learners. For this, Gass et al (2013: 441) offer a sociopsychological explanation: “some suggest that adults do not want to give up the sense of identity their accent provides […] that adults are unwilling to surrender their ego to the extent required to adopt a new language, which entails a new life-world”. Further, Appel & Vermeer 1994: 58) add that adults are more constrained to learn or to speak an L2 because they are aware of the fact that they will make mistakes.

29

However, sometimes adult learners succeed in achieving a native-like proficiency of the L2 due to their hard work. As is explained by de Bot et al (2005: 72) a high motivation and a positive attitude towards a second language and its community might enhance the chance of accomplishing complete mastery of it. In fact, these parameters too contribute to the second language acquisition. Therefore both sociopsychological factors will be discussed in the following section.

2.2.3.3 Sociopsychological factors: Motivation and attitude

Next to gender, aptitude and age, the inherent social dimension should not be overlooked in the context of language learning. The notion that motivation, anxiety and perceptions of the L2 can influence one’s SLA process, was already reflected in Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis. Krashen proposed that “learners’ internal emotional state may influence their learning” (Loewen & Reinders 2011: 9). To illustrate, when one’s affective filter is high, he or she has negative perceptions about the L2 or the L2 learning process. In this way, input cannot be incorporated in the learner’s interlanguage system so he or she will not acquire the target language. Here, the emphasis will be on motivation and attitude as these parameters were asked for in the questionnaire.

What Ellis (2002: 75) determines as “the attitudes and affective states that influence the degree of effort that learners make to learn an L2” has proven an effective predictor of second language acquisition. Gass et al (2013: 452) observe that:

“it makes sense that individuals who are motivated will learn another language […] faster and to a greater degree. And, quite clearly, some degree of motivation is involved in initial decisions to learn another language and to maintain learning. […] In general, motivation appears to be the second strongest predictor of success, trailing only aptitude (Skehan, 1989)”.

According to Gardner (1985: 50), as cited by Gass et al (2013: 453), “motivation involves four aspects, a goal, effortful behaviour, a desire to attain the goal and favourable attitudes toward the activity in question”. In their work, Gardner & Lambert (1972) differentiate between two types of motivation: integrative and instrumental motivation (de Bot et al 2005: 72). To my knowledge, most scholars e.g. Gass et al

30

(2013: 453) prefer to make the distinction between these two motivational categories. Hence, these will be discussed in more detail.

On the one hand, there are individuals who are interested in the L2 community and wish to be able to interact with them. By extension, the L2 acquirers wish to integrate into the target culture of this society. This kind of motivation can be referred to as ‘integrative’ and according to Gardner & Wallace’s studies (1972) in Appel & Vermeer (1994: 69) the integrative motivated people obtained the most successful test results. In this respect, Dörnyei (2003: 5) regards motivation to learn the language of another community as a major indicator “responsible for enhancing or hindering intercultural communication and affiliation”. However he does not agree with Gardner’s (2001) believe that integrative motivation implies a psychological and emotional identification with the speakers of the target language. Dörnyei (2003: 5-6) reasons that in a foreign language learning context in which the learners do not get in touch with the L2 community (as is often the case for example in a school context), the identification is made with the cultural and intellectual values associated with the language, as well as with the L2 itself.

On the other hand, when people want to learn a foreign language for practical reasons such as passing a language course, being accepted at a certain university or obtaining a job (promotion), their motivation is called ‘instrumental’. Sometimes referred to as the ‘Carrot and Stick’ type (de Bot et al 2005: 72), learners anticipate direct and effective results from their second language acquisition process. They are not so much interested in the target language community.

As was mentioned above and pointed out by Loewen & Reinders (2011: 15) attitudes are closely linked to motivation on the individual level and, when perceived as positive, they might contribute to the learning process. Specifically, learners can adopt several different attitudes towards the target language which might influence the success of their L2 learning either positively or negatively.

Not only the attitudes towards the target language but also those towards the target language community might affect the L2 learning. Appel & Vermeer (1994: 58), for example, explain how adults often hold negative feelings towards a specific L2 community (whereas children are free of this), and this constitutes a certain motivation

31 to not learn the L2. In fact, this explanation may also serve as a reason for children’s advantage in the acquiring process (see section 2.2.3.2) as they are not influenced by any prejudices.

Lastly, somewhat linked to the previous two sociopsychological factors, Ellis (1984: 101) views ‘groups dynamics’ as a predominant factor in classroom SLA. The researcher notes that:

“Some classroom learners make overt comparisons of themselves with other learners […] Often these comparisons result in emotive responses to the language-learning experience. Competitiveness may be manifested in a desire to out-do other language learners.” (Ellis 1984: 101).

Even though, competitiveness can result in confusion, it can also have a stimulating effect on L2 learning. Baily (1983), in Ellis (1984: 102), postulates that “the learner’s self-image in comparisons with other L2 learners can either impair or enhance SLA”. A possible outcome of a negative self-image may be anxiety to learn the L2. The opposite, i.e. a successful self-image, may lead to positive rewards for the learner and so he or she will keep making efforts to improve the SLA.

2.2.3.4 Exposure to the L2

Last but not least, we will focus on the most significant parameter for my research, namely exposure to the L2. Due to the lack of English instruction, the Flemish focus group in this study can only acquire English lexicon by language contact through extracurricular activities. In literature, this form of SLA is labelled “incidental L2 acquisition” and as is reported by Appel & Vermeer (1994: 75) this can only occur when the learners are exposed to sufficient language input. Input refers to all auditory and visual language stimuli that are available to the L2 learners. Not only do the majority of researchers believe that input is a precondition for L2 learning, they are also convinced that the more learners are confronted with input, the more chance they get to develop in the target language.

Gass et al (2013: 210) suggest that incidental learning might take place when the words in question are cognates in the L1 and the target language, when there is

32 substantial contact in the L2 or when the L2 learners know related words in the target language. With the advent of digital media, exposure to L2 input has never been easier. In this study, part of the aim is to examine the influence of certain popular media on (incidental) English vocabulary learning of Flemish and Dutch primary school children. The focus will be on the following channels: English television programmes and films, English music and books, the internet and English video games. Gass et al (2013: 209) state that whenever the acquirers are performing the former mentioned activities, they aim at comprehending the meaning of what they are reading or listening to rather than explicitly learning new lexicon.

Numerous studies in the past have confirmed that incidental learning can take place through reading or listening. Gass et al (2013: 209) mention Rott’s study (1999) which examined the effect of reading on the acquisition and memory of vocabulary. The outcome implied that no more than two exposures were satisfactory to affirm a vocabulary enhancement and that receptive knowledge was remembered better than productive knowledge. Further, as was mentioned in section 2.1.2, both Kuppens’ (2007) and Houthuys’ (2011) studies on the effect of popular media on the English vocabulary acquisition demonstrated positive findings. Houthuys (2011) concluded that watching English subtitled television programmes (almost) daily, improves the vocabulary knowledge. In addition, Kuppens (2007) pointed out that watching English television programmes, listening to English music, playing English games and surfing on the internet all proved to be effective ways to acquire English.

33

3 Educational system in Flanders and in the Netherlands

As the Flemish and Dutch participant groups of this research paper live in two different countries their educational systems are not uniform. Therefore, it is important to consider both educational systems in more detail in order to determine to what extent they are similar and different.

3.1 Educational system in Flanders 3.1.1 Policy of the educational system of the Flemish Community

As was said in section 2.1.2, Belgium is a federal state separated into the Flemish, the French and the German-speaking community. Goethals (1997: 105) explains that because of the educational and cultural autonomy of the three language communities, there are three freestanding - however analogue - educational systems. The Flemish Community consists of the Flemish Region of Flanders and the Dutch- speaking institutions within the territory of the Brussels Capital Region (Eurydice 2008: 7). As the region of Brussels is French-speaking as well and therefore officially bilingual, the emphasis of this research paper will only be on the Dutch-speaking community of Flanders. In 1988, all but three responsibilities regarding education were transferred to the communities. Three concerns remained under the authority of the state: the determination of starting and end point of compulsory education, the minimum requirements for diploma conferrals and the pension system (Eurydice 2008: 9). Noteworthy, the educational system is monolingual in the entire country: the teaching language is either Dutch or French. Goethals (1997: 106) points out the international schools as an exception to this rule. He explains that they do not depend on Belgian subsidies so they are not obliged to follow Belgian curricula.

Within Flanders (and the rest of Belgium) there are three different educational institutions or ‘educational networks’ (Eurydice 2008: 8).

 A first institution includes Community education (‘Gemeenschapsonderwijs’ or ‘GO’), which comes under the full authority of the Flemish Community and is ought to be neutral concerning religion and philosophical or ideological convictions.

34

 A second educational network is Subsidised public education (‘Officieel Gesubsidieerd Onderwijs’ or ‘OGO’). This network comprises public schools that are subsidised and organised by public institutions such as provinces or municipalities. The provincial schools follow the same curriculum as the community schools, whereas municipal schools have the authority to decide which learning plan they use.  The last educational institution consists of Subsidised free education (‘Vrij Gesubsidieerd Onderwijs’ or ‘VGO’). Schools belonging to this institution are founded by private organisations although they are acknowledged and financed by the state as well. In order to obtain subsidies, the schools have to fulfill certain conditions. For instance, the curriculum should be in correspondence with the statutory provisions. Subsidised private education can be divided into two major categories: a confessional and a non-confessional network. The latter encloses method schools such as Steiner, Freinet or Montessori schools, whereas the confessional network primarily includes Catholic schools although they also enclose - though to a lower extent - Jewish, Protestant and Islamic schools. A report of Eurydice (2008: 8), the Education Information Network in Europe, states that the overall majority of free subsidised schools belongs to the Catholic educational network. Moreover, on the official website of the Flemish government a publication can be consulted which gives a statistical overview of the Flemish educational system for the school and academic year 2013-2014. The information available in table 1 shows how the primary school population is distributed among ‘GO’ (i.e. Community education), ‘VGO’ (i.e. Subsidised private education) and ‘OGO’ (i.e. Subsidised public education).

educational network pupils

GO (Community education) 57868 OGO (Subsidised public education) 249416 VGO (Subsidised free education) 92445 total 399729

Table 1: School population in regular Flemish primary education based on: Flemish Education in Figures 2013-2014, p 12

35

Educational network

GO (Community 15% 23% education) OGO (Subsidised public education) 62% VGO (Subsidised free education)

Figure 2: Distribution across Flemish educational networks source: Flemish Education in Figures 2013-2014, p 12 It can be observed from figure 2 that Subsidised free education comprises three fifth of the entire Flemish primary school population (62%). This number is considerably higher than the population of the other two educational networks: GO or Community education comprises 15% and OGO or Subsidised public education incorporates 23% of the total primary school population.

3.1.2 Organisational structure of Flemish education

optional compulsory age 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

nursery

primary

secondary

Figure 3: Organisation of educational system in the Flemish Community of Belgium In addition, the organisational structure of education in Flanders will be defined. Generally speaking, the educational system in Belgium is divided into three main levels: primary education (including nursery education), secondary education and higher education. Compulsory education in Flanders as well as in the rest of Belgium takes up to 12 years. From the age of six, children are obliged to attend school until the year they turn 18.

Initially, children have the opportunity to start pre-primary education at the age of two and a half. Attendance is not obligatory, however many (working) parents prefer to take advantage of this free alternative for childcare instead of paying for a crèche or day nursery. When turning three years old, children transfer from a so-called ‘lead-in class’ to the first year of nursery school, followed by a second (four years old) and a

36 third year (five years old). Another report of Eurydice (2011: 135) claims that according to a counting of the Flemish Ministry of Education, 99% of the five-year-olds attended nursery school during the school year 2008-2009. Hardly any formal lessons take place in pre-school. All activities, e.g. gym and music, are performed in a playful way that aims to stimulate the toddlers’ cognitive, motorial and affective development.

Subsequently, compulsory education starts in primary school which targets children from six to twelve years old. Primary school usually comprises six consequent school years of basic education in mathematics, reading, writing, history, geography, biology, arts and design. Even though classes are taught in Dutch, i.e. the community’s official language, pupils normally start learning French as a second language from the penultimate year of primary education onwards i.e. from the age of ten to eleven (Eurydice 2008: 7). Moreover, the report published by Eurydice (2008: 7) adds that “English is taught from secondary education onwards. Depending on the educational options chosen, pupils can also learn other languages (including German) at school”.

At the end of primary education, children who have obtained all curriculum goals are rewarded with a certificate and transfer to the secondary education programme. As the focus group of this research paper is in the last year of primary school, I will not further discuss this system.

3.2 Educational system in the Netherlands With regard to the Netherlands, the educational system looks different from the Flemish one in several respects. First of all, the policy of the educational system and its institutions will be dealt with. Next, attention will be paid to some aspects of the organisation of the educational system.

3.2.1 Policy of the educational system of the Netherlands

Since 1994, the Dutch educational system comes under the full authority of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (‘Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap’ or ‘OCW’). The OCW “administers almost all central government expenditure on education” (Eurydice website, accessed 19/04/15).

A first contrast with the three distinct educational networks in Flanders is the bilateral division of Dutch educational institutions.

37

 A first institution comprises Public education and is somehow comparable to Flemish Community education. These schools are run by the municipal council or a public legal entity or foundation set up by the council. They are ought to be neutral concerning religion and philosophical or ideological convictions because they provide secular education.  The second institution stands for Private education which can be compared to Flemish Subsidised free education. This institution encloses schools following particular religious (e.g. Roman Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, Hindu) or pedagogic principles (e.g. Freinet, Montessori). In contrast to public schools, private schools are governed by a board or the foundation that started them up.

As in Flanders, the relationship between both educational institutions and the Dutch government is characterised by a great amount of institutional autonomy (Eurydice 2005: 42). The government merely imposes the funding conditions and quality standards the schools have to achieve by law in order to obtain subsidies. In addition, the educational role of the provincial authorities is limited to supervisory and legal tasks whereas the administration and management of primary (and secondary) schools is locally organised (Key Figures 2014: 12). On the website of the Education Information Network of Eurydice it is stated that both public and private educational institutions are equally funded by the government. Similar to the large distribution of pupils in Subsidised free education in Flanders, almost 70% of all Dutch pupils opt for Private education (Kloots 2003: 6). Furthermore, publications of the OCW can be consulted on the official website of the Dutch Government that present the latest figures regarding the Dutch educational system. To illustrate the current situation, some data of the report covering the period from 2009 to 2013 are displayed in table 2.

38 schools/year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Public schools 33% 33% 33% 33% 32% Protestant schools 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Roman Catholic schools 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Other private schools 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% pupils Roman Catholic schools 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% Other private schools 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% Table 2: School population in regular Dutch primary education source: Key Figures OCW 2009-2013, p 53 It can be observed from table 2 that in the latest Key Figures OCW publication the division of schools and pupils is made over four major denominations: one represents public education and private education is subdivided into Roman Catholic, Protestant and other privately-run schools. Noteworthy is that throughout the last five years the number of public schools corresponds to only one third of all Dutch primary schools. With regard to the Private institution, Roman Catholic and Protestant schools, which are both represented by 30% of the entire school population these past five years, apparently incorporate the largest categories.

Private Protestant and Roman Catholic schools also take up large percentages with regard to the distribution of the pupils. According to the findings, 34% of all Dutch primary school children go to Roman Catholic schools. Second and third in ranking are the pupils enrolled in Public (31%) and Protestant education (28%). The remaining 8% of Dutch primary school children are enrolled in another form of Private education.

3.2.2 Organisational structure of Dutch education

Figure 4: Organisation of educational system in the Netherlands

According to the website of Eurydice, Dutch children are obliged to attend school full-time for a period of 12 years. Full-time education is compulsory for all children from the age of five until the year they turn 18. Compulsory education in the Netherlands is divided into two educational programmes: primary and secondary education. More specifically, different from the Flemish nursery programme for the

39 two-and-a-half up to five-year-olds, most Dutch children do not have the opportunity to enrol in nursery school as their exist “few preschool (sic) facilities for the under- fours” (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu, consulted on 20/04/15). Hence most Dutch children enter primary school at the age of four, even though they are only obliged to from the age of five.

However, local authorities in the Netherlands might provide early childhood day-care programmes (referred to as ‘playgroups’) focussing on children aged two and a half up to five years old. Nevertheless, these children are at risk of developing an educational disadvantage opposed to their peers who already enter primary education at the age of four. No different from nursery education in Flanders, these so-called playgroups do not offer any kind of instruction while Dutch primary schools do from the first year onwards, though in the beginning in a playful method.

Primary education in the Netherlands lasts eight years, starting at the age of four with group 1 and going up to age twelve in group 8. To avoid confusion between the Dutch and Flemish denominations of the age groups, table 3 shows a comparison between the two different systems. For this research, Dutch informants of group eight and Flemish participants of the sixth year were sought.

age Dutch Flemish

2.5-3 years - ‘lead-in’ class

3-4 years - 1st year of pre-school

4-5 years group 1 2nd year of pre-school

5-6 years group 2 3rd year of pre-school

6-7 years group 3 1st year

7-8 years group 4 2nd year

8-9 years group 5 3rd year

9-10 years group 6 4th year

10-11 years group 7 5th year

11-12 years group 8 6th year

Table 3: Comparison Flemish and Dutch primary educational systems

Classes are usually taught in Dutch, i.e. the largest official language in the Netherlands2. However, the Key Factors OCW report (2014: 40) declares that “the

2 In the Netherlands, Frisian serves as a regional and minority language that has obtained official status aside from Dutch. 40 number of schools providing early foreign language education rose to 1,073 in 2013” (see table 4).

Early foreign language instruction (2013)

primary schools pupils percentage

participating 1073 160000 10

non-participating 5576 1426200 90

Table 4: Dutch schools and pupils participating in special language programmes based on: Key Figures 2009-2013, p 41, 48 & 52

In a national report of the Netherlands by the OCW (2008: 6), English is the only mentioned foreign language subject that must be present in the curriculum under the terms of the Primary Education Act. Hence the early foreign language instruction that is dealt with in table 4 coins at English instruction programmes. Moreover, the OCW report (2008: 10) recounts “the emphasis lies on the communicative function of the language. A relationship exists with the European frame of reference”. It can be observed from table 4 that 10% of all primary schools in the Netherlands take part in English instruction.

41

4 Methodology

4.1 Informants

All Flemish and Dutch participants in this research are in the last year of primary education. Even though the children are therefore all 12 years old, their contact with the English language differs not only from school to school but also from pupil to pupil (see chapter 4). Since the main research question is whether there are any notable differences between Flemish and Dutch 12-year-olds regarding their English lexical knowledge based on the presence or absence of English instruction, schools have to meet a number of requirements in order to qualify as participating schools. More specifically, the Dutch schools are selected on the basis of their English educational background and the Flemish ones for their lack of English instruction. In the search for adequate Dutch schools, only schools are included which use a specific English teaching method. As to investigate whether diverse teaching methods will lead to different outcomes with regard to the vocabulary level of the informants, schools using several different teaching methods are included in the research.

The study is conducted in four Flemish and four Dutch primary school groups. With regard to the selection of the schools, the preference is given to Flemish schools belonging to Subsidised free education and Dutch schools that are part of Private education. The reason for this is that these educational institutions, which are each others equivalent, comprise the largest institution both in Flanders and in the Netherlands. I have decided to work with Flemish Catholic and Dutch Roman Catholic schools in particular, as these schools function as the largest component of Subsidised free and Private education, respectively (see sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1).

As to the location of the participating schools, the prominent selection factor is that the cities share a similar socio-economic background. With regard to the Netherlands, schools situated in Terneuzen, a city in the province of Zeelandic Flanders, have been contacted. A Flemish counterpart has been found in the city of Eeklo which lies in the province of East Flanders. Both cities have a more or less equal number of inhabitants that lies around 20 000 for Eeklo and around 25 000 for Terneuzen.

42

Flemish schools School name teaching method participants De Wegel (Eeklo) / 17 De Meidoorn: 6A (Eeklo) / 17 De Meidoorn: 6C (Eeklo) / 17 Sint-Antonius (Balgerhoeke) / 15

in total 66

Dutch schools

School name teaching method participants De Hille (Terneuzen) Take it Easy 22 De Geule (Terneuzen) Early Bird 12 De Kameleon (Terneuzen) All-in-one 10 De Zeester (Philippine) Early Bird 15 in total 59

Table 5: Flemish and Dutch participants

Table 5 shows the number of participants per participating Flemish and Dutch school. With regard to the Flemish schools, two schools in Eeklo and one in Balgerhoeke were willing to collaborate. Balgerhoeke is a smaller village that borders on Eeklo. Taking into account the Dutch schools, three schools in Terneuzen and one in Philippine participated in this research. Philippine is a village of more or less 2000 inhabitants which lies on the border with Belgium and forms part of the municipality of Terneuzen.

4.1.1 English teaching methods of the Dutch schools

Furthermore, the English teaching methods of the Dutch schools are indicated in table 5. In what follows, each of the methods will be discussed into detail.

4.1.1.1 Take it Easy: De Hille

As of September 2010, De Hille in Terneuzen applies the Take it Easy method. Before that, another English teaching method was used that only focused on groups 7 and 8. For the past five years, the Take it Easy method is implemented from group 5 to 8. Hence, the participants of my research are in their fourth year of English education. Next school year (2015-2016) will be the first year that English instruction in De Hille will take place from group 1 onwards.

43

The Take it Easy method is an interactive whiteboard teaching method that is designed for children in primary education to learn English from group 1 to 8. The lessons are guided by a native English-speaking teacher and are set out in a developmentally appropriate sequence of themes. For example, in group 5 the children learn how to talk about their hobbies, foods and drinks, how to ask directions etc. In groups 7 and 8 some of the themes such as health and welfare, grocery shopping and travelling are already more advanced. According to Mr. P. Dieleman, teacher of group 8 in De Hille, groups 5 and 6 receive 45 minutes of English instruction per week, while groups 7 and 8 have weekly English lessons for one hour and a half. During the lessons with his class group, Mr. Dieleman intents to speak as much English as possible. However, he claims that it is inevitable to explain words or expressions in Dutch on a regular basis.

4.1.1.2 EarlyBird: De Geule

2014-2015 is the third school year that De Geule in Terneuzen offers English classes to groups 1 to 8 by means of the EarlyBird method. Thus, for the participants of my research it is the third year they are taught English in school. EarlyBird was founded in 2003 and has developed over time into a national introductory consultation to early English education.

From the first group onwards, the pupils receive one hour of English per week, divided over two times 30 minutes practice. More specifically, the toddlers (group 1 to 4) are taught English via “iPockets”. These lessons consist completely of videos that are provided to the children on an interactive whiteboard. The toddlers get to see a teacher on the screen who is a native English speaker. This person only addresses the children in his mother tongue. Additionally, the pupils from group 5 to 8 learn English via the “Discovery Island” method. On the basis of videos on the interactive whiteboard and specially developed reading books, the emphasis is on acquiring English vocabulary.

The lessons are composed of topics consisting of eight lessons of 30 minutes each. After class seven, the children take a test. Afterwards, a last eighth class is given as means of repeating the subject matter of the topic. Throughout the lessons, only English is spoken by the teacher.

44

4.1.1.3 All-in-one: De Kameleon

Since school year 2008-2009, English is taught from group 5 onwards in De Kameleon in Terneuzen. All groups receive English instruction for 30 minutes per week. Since many of the school’s pupils are of an immigrant background, the emphasis of the educational programme is on improving the children’s Dutch proficiency. As confirmed by Booij (2001: 4), in order to take their place in Dutch society, it is absolutely required for immigrants to acquire the Dutch language. Therefore, a rather small amount of time is spent on teaching the English language.

The general teaching method that is practiced in De Kameleon is referred to as ‘All-in-one’ projects. The children are educated by means of projects concerning specific topics (e.g. nature). After having finished the lessons of each principle theme, the pupils take a test in order to evaluate their acquired knowledge. Thus, from the fifth group onwards, half an hour of English lecture is included in the teaching projects. According to Mrs. Kuijer, teacher of groups 7 and 8 in De Kameleon, the main focus is on acquiring English lexicon. The teacher states that she talks both English and Dutch during the English classes.

4.1.1.4 EarlyBird: De Zeester

As of September 2012, De Zeester in Philippine applies the EarlyBird methodology. Before 2012, only groups 7 and 8 received English language classes. Thus, for the informants of my research it is the third school year that they receive English lessons. Since De Zeester started applying the EarlyBird method, all children from group 1 to 5 receive 30 minutes of English practice per week. From group 6 onwards, the pupils receive one hour of English class.

As to the methods used for the different age groups, the same structure is maintained as in De Geule. More specifically, the toddlers from group 1 to 4 are taught English via the interactive whiteboard method of “iPockets”. Furthermore, the pupils from group 5 to 8 learn English via the “Discovery Island” method.

45

4.2 Data gathering

The data are gathered during two visits3 to each participating primary school. Throughout a first encounter with the participants, a questionnaire is handed out for the pupils to fill in (see Appendix 8.2). Section 4.2.1 will elaborate in more detail on the survey. The second visit to the schools was devoted to a receptive vocabulary test which will be further discussed in section 4.2.2.

4.2.1 Questionnaire

Before the informants are asked to take the vocabulary test, they are asked to complete a questionnaire which contains three different sets of questions. The first two parts of the questionnaire are largely based on the questionnaire used by De Jans (2013) for his research on the lexical knowledge of English of Flemish secondary school children prior to English instruction. A first series of questions aims at outlining the pupils sociolinguistic background. For example, the children are asked whether they speak other languages apart from Dutch at home in order to identify any bilingual speakers amongst the pupils. These children acquire English as a third language. Note that, since roughly one out of six of the Dutch and only two of the Flemish informants appear to speak another language apart from Dutch at home, this variable was not analysed in relation to the test results in this research as the numbers of these groups are not equivalent. Furthermore, the Flemish and Dutch students had to indicate whether they have followed any extracurricular English courses in the past.

The second part of the questionnaire inquires about the children’s exposure to the English language through popular media. 22 multiple choice questions are asked about the time they daily spend watching English television programmes, playing English video games, surfing on the internet, listening to English music and reading

3 Due to the considerably busy schedule of the last participating school De Geule in March, both visits were combined into one. Beforehand, I had my concerns that completing the questionnaire and taking the test in one visit would take up too much time for the pupils to stay attentive. However, when performing both the questionnaire and the test in De Geule during one visit, I noticed that the pupils stayed focused throughout. Perhaps if this would have happened not at the end but earlier into the data gathering weeks, it could have saved me some time by combining the two visits into one. 46

English books. The options vary from ‘I never do this’ to ‘more than three hours per day’.

The last part of the inquiry is devoted to the attitude and motivation the pupils hold towards English. This section is not asked for in De Jans’ questionnaire but as ‘attitude’ and ‘motivation’ are considered as factors which might influence the SLA process in this study (see section 5.2.2 and 5.2.3), it will be examined whether a link could be drawn to the test results.

Towards the end of the first visit also a diary is handed out to the children (see Appendix 8.5). The aim of this is that all pupils write down the titles of the English television programmes or films they have watched, the English songs they have listened to, the English websites they have consulted, the English games they have played and the English books they have possibly read throughout one week. Each time, I have ensured the children this would only take five minutes a day. When revisiting the class after one week, the diaries were recollected. Unfortunately, roughly 20% of the children did not complete the diaries. Hence, the decision is made to only use the results in my research to refer to popular answers.

4.2.2 English receptive vocabulary test

A second visit to the participating schools is devoted to an official English receptive vocabulary test. The test that is used to perform the research is the norm- referenced “Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test”, Fourth Edition, in what follows referred to as PPVT-4. This edition of the test, which was first published in 2007, has been used in previous master dissertations, e.g by De Jans (2013). The previous edition of the test, however, has been used in several official publications as well. Examples of which are the work of Hoffman, Templin & Rice4 (2012) which links the outcomes from different Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test forms using item response modelling or the study of Pankratz, Morrison and Plante5 (2004) about the difference in standard

4 Published in: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 754-763.

5 Published in: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 714-718.

47 scores of adults on the test. Another illustration is the work of Ukrainetz and Duncan6 (2000) which investigates possible reasons for score increases on the test by children aged four to ten and discusses implications for clinical practice.

The PPVT-4 is used to measure one’s receptive lexical knowledge and consists of a series of twelve-word sets. Set one is supposed to be the easiest one and as the sets advance, the level of difficulty increases too. The test was originally designed for children, youngsters and adults whose L1 is English. Nevertheless, the test can also be used for people with other first languages.

First, a brief summary will be provided on how the test is ought to be performed. The PPVT-4 is available in two similar forms that are indicated as Form A and Form B. The latter was used to perform this research. Each form consists of 228 test items, which are represented by four coloured pictures on one page. When performing the test, the examiner pronounces a stimulus word in English after which the examinee selects the picture that best illustrates the meaning of the spoken word (Dunn & Dunn 2007: 1). Though the test is originally designed for individual usage, in this study it is performed classically to safe time. A PowerPoint presentation showing the scanned pictures is displayed in front of the class. Each student receives an answering form onto which they have to draw a circle around the number of the matching picture on the screen (see Appendix 8.8). To prevent the children from cribbing, they are asked to put a folder in between them. With regard to guessing, no precautions could be made. This disadvantage of receptive exercises should be taken into account when analysing the results of the PPVT-4. Nevertheless, when the informants do not know the correct answer and can easily guess, they still have four options to choose from. Thus, even though the scores of the test might be misleading to some extent because of this, none of the informants can have guessed everything correctly.

Before performing the test, a set goal as to where the performance should stop, had to be decided. To illustrate this, set 1 corresponds to children age 2:6 to age 3:11, whereas set 2 corresponds to children aged four, set 10 to children aged 11 to 12 etc.

6 Published in: Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 336-339.

48

The conclusion was made to consider the first class group as a testing group and to perform the test until set 10 as this set corresponds to the starting level of their peers with English as L1. I wanted to aim high and anticipated that this set was in fact a bridge too far for the informants because of the similarity with their English peers. I reckoned that from this first group’s results, a more appropriate end goal could have been derived.

Surprisingly, when correcting the test results of the first group I noticed that only four of the 17 pupils failed on the eighth set, six on the ninth set and one did so on the tenth. All the others passed all of the ten sets. Because not even half of the pupils had failed one or more sets, the decision was made to keep performing the test in the same way with the consequent class groups. Besides, it had no use to go further than set ten with the other groups as the informants of the first class group had only performed the PPVT-4 until this one. The results were checked and later imported in Excell and SPSS Statistics 22 (‘Statistical Package for the Social Sciences’).

49

5 Results and discussion

This chapter elaborates on the results of the vocabulary test and on the findings of the questionnaire completed by the Flemish and Dutch pupils. The chapter is divided into two main sections. The first part will deal with the general results of the vocabulary test. On the basis of statistic analyses, an answer will be sought to the research question whether there are differences in test results between the Flemish and the Dutch schools. The total scores of the Flemish and the Dutch schools, the individual scores and the set scores of all participating schools will be compared. Additionally, in section 5.2, the test findings will be connected to the different aspects of the questionnaire. Hereby, the results of the PPVT-4 will be linked to the theoretical framework and more specifically to the factors that might influence the process of SLA (see section 2.2.3).

5.1 Results of the PPVT-4

5.1.1 Comparison between the Flemish and Dutch schools

After both the Flemish and Dutch data were accumulated and processed in Excel, the descriptive statistics of the results were determined in SPSS Statistics 22 (‘Statistical Package for the Social Sciences’). The aim is to signal any significant differences between the general scores of the two focus groups by performing one-way ANOVA analyses on the test results. Since a normal distribution is required to perform one-way ANOVA analyses, a Q-Q plot of the Flemish and Dutch results is accomplished first. In figure 5, the Flemish and Dutch general scores certainly show a normal distribution. They are all indicated on one line except for the outer ends where one can find some outliers. However, this is completely normal and does not cause any problems for further analyses.

50

Figure 5: Normal Q-Q plot of the general scores of all Flemish and Dutch schools

In total, 66 Flemish and 59 Dutch pupils took part in the PPVT-4 that consisted of 10 sets or 120 items. First, the descriptive statistics of the two focus groups’ general scores will be presented. Later, in sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 the results of each participant group will be analysed in more detail.

Number of participants Min. Max. Mean Std. Deviation

Flemish schools 66 54% 94% 70% 9,18%

Dutch schools 59 60% 99% 75% 8,18%

Table 6: Descriptive statistics of the general scores of all Flemish and Dutch schools

It can be observed from table 6 that the maximum general score obtained by the Flemish informants is 94% (113/120). In contrast, the minimum score of the Flemish participants is 54% (65/120). When taking into account the maximum general score of the Dutch pupils, an extremely high score of 99% (119/120) can be noted. Moreover, the minimum general score is 60% (72/120). Hence none of the Dutch nor the Flemish informants fails to give less than half of the correct answers. Furthermore, table 6 reveals that the Dutch general mean of 75% (with a standard deviation of 8.18%), lies 5% higher than the Flemish one (with a standard deviation of 9.18%). Accordingly, the median of the Dutch informants of 74% (89/120), which cannot be influenced by outliers, and that of the Flemish pupils of 69% (83/120) are almost similar to the means.

51

After having discussed the Flemish and Dutch maximum and minimum general scores, the results of the two focus groups will be compared. In figure 6, a Stem-and- Leaf plot represents the spread between the general scores of all eight participating class groups. The first four schools presented on the plot are the Flemish participants and the four remaining represent the Dutch informants.

Figure 6: Steam-and-Leaf Plot of the general score for all Flemish and Dutch schools When comparing the medians of all Flemish and Dutch schools in figure 6, it can be observed that all the Dutch ones lie considerably higher. To discover whether there are any statistically significant differences between the Flemish and Dutch general results, a one-way ANOVA analysis is conducted.

GENERALSCORE

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 894,912 1 894,912 8,231 ,005

Within Groups 13373,200 123 108,725

Total 14268,112 124

Table 7: One-way ANOVA analysis of Dutch versus Flemish general scores

Strikingly, the null hypothesis, i.e. no differences in test results between the Flemish and Dutch classes, can be rejected on the 95% significance level because P- value (0.005) is smaller than 0.05. In other words, there is a statistically significant difference between the Flemish and the Dutch focus group in terms of general results

52 on the vocabulary test. Bearing in mind the descriptive statistics in favour of the Dutch participants in table 6, a univariate analysis of variance will be conducted in order to find out the average percentage that the Dutch pupils score relatively higher than their Flemish peers. In this case, the first part of the analysis (‘Tests of Between-Subjects Effects’) confirms the significant effect of the independent variable ‘COUNTRY’ on the dependent variable ‘GENERAL’, i.e. the general score of all the informants. In the second part (‘Parameter Estimates’), the intercept of 75% (89,678/120) represents the mean of the Dutch pupils. To find out the mean of the Flemish participants, the corresponding B-value (-5,360) has to be subtracted from the intercept.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: GENERAL

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 894,912a 1 894,912 8,231 ,005

Intercept 943116,192 1 943116,192 8.674,311 ,000

COUNTRY 894,912 1 894,912 8,231 ,005

Error 13373,200 123 108,725

Total 957090,000 125

Corrected Total 14268,112 124 a. R Squared = ,063 (Adjusted R Squared = ,055)

Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable: GENERAL

95% Confidence Interval

Upper Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Bound

Intercept 89,678 1,357 66,061 ,000 86,991 92,365

Flanders -5,360 1,868 -2,869 ,005 -9,058 -1,662

The Netherlands 0a . . . . . a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.

Table 8: Univariate analysis of variance of general score versus Flemish and Dutch schools This analysis proves that the Dutch schools score relatively higher than the Flemish ones. When taking into account the B-values in the second column, it is found

53 that the Dutch participants score on average 4.5% (5.5/120) higher than their Flemish peers. This is a significant difference when looking at the rejected null hypothesis on the 95% significance level (P-value 0.005<0.05).

5.1.2 Comparison between the Flemish schools

After the comparison of the two focus groups’ general scores in section 5.1.1, this and the following section will deal with the general scores of the Flemish and Dutch school groups, respectively. The following histogram in figure 7 represents the general scores of all 66 Flemish participants on the horizontal axis. The frequency (vertical axis) indicates the number of participants achieving a particular score. As the PPVT-4 consists of 120 items, the highest possible general score is 120.

Figure 7: Histogram representing the general scores of all participating Flemish schools In order to reveal any significant differences in vocabulary level between the Flemish schools, a one-way ANOVA analysis was conducted.

GENERALSCORE

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 600,671 3 200,224 1,729 ,170

Within Groups 7181,647 62 115,833

Total 7782,318 65

Table 9: One-way ANOVA analysis of general score versus Flemish schools

From table 9 it can be noted that the variety between the Flemish schools compared to the general score of their pupils is not significant because the null

54 hypothesis cannot be rejected (P-value 0.170>0.05). Nevertheless, it is interesting to examine the results of each school individually to see if any differences can be noted. The Stem-and-Leaf plot in figure 8 shows the spread between the general scores of the four participating Flemish schools.

Figure 8: Stem-and-Leaf plot general scores Flemish schools The first observation is that the maximum general score of 75% (90/120) the pupils of Sint-Antonius obtain, lies relatively lower than the maximum scores of the three other Flemish schools. A difference of 19% (23/120) is notable compared to the best scoring pupil of De Wegel (94%), which is the maximum score of all Flemish pupils. Furthermore, the highest result obtained by class 6A of De Meidoorn is 88% (106/120) and that of class 6C of De Meidoorn is 86% (103/120). In addition, the mean of Sint-Antonius of 66% lies up to 7% lower than those of the other schools: De Wegel (71%), De Meidoorn 6C (71%) and De Meidoorn 6A (73%). Note that the means of the other Flemish schools lie closer to the general Flemish mean of 70% (84/120 with a standard deviation of 9%).

What is more is that the dispersion between the informants of Sint-Antonius is remarkably smaller compared to the others schools. However, even though the informants of Sint-Antonius on average score lower than the other classes, the minimum score of 57.5% (69/120) is not the lowest score of all participants. In class 6A of De Meidoorn, which also has a much larger dispersion than Sint-Antonius (34%), one pupil scores 54% (65/120), which is the overall minimum score. With regard to De Wegel, the school that obtains the highest general maximum score, the results range from a minimum of 60% to a maximum score of 94%. The fairly wide dispersion of the 55 scores (34%) equals that of De Meidoorn 6A.

5.1.3 Comparison between the Dutch schools

Moving onto the 59 Dutch participants, the histogram in figure 9 represents their general score on the horizontal axis. The frequency (vertical axis) indicates the number of participants achieving a particular score.

Figure 9: Histogram representing the general scores of all participating Dutch schools In order to reveal any significant differences in vocabulary level between the Dutch schools and their English teaching methods (see Methodology, section 4.1.1), a one-way ANOVA analysis is conducted.

GENERALSCORE

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 85,177 3 28,392 ,284 ,837

Within Groups 5505,705 55 100,104

Total 5590,881 58

Table 10: One-way ANOVA analysis of the general score versus Dutch schools

As is noted for the Flemish schools, we can conclude that the variety between the Dutch schools compared to the general score of their pupils is not significant (P- value 0.837>0.05). Thus the different English teaching methods do not lead to statistically different results. Nevertheless, it is interesting to examine the results of each school individually in more detail. The Stem-and-Leaf plot in figure 10 shows the

56 spread between the general scores of the four participating Dutch schools.

Figure 10: Steam-and-Leaf Plot of the general score of all Dutch schools As figure 10 displays, the means of De Zeester (75.5%), De Kameleon (74%), De Hille (75%) and De Geule (75%) do not lie that far apart from each other and from the general Dutch mean of 75% (90/120 with a standard deviation of 8.18% or 9.818/120). The greatest dispersion is observed in primary school De Hille. For this school, the results range from a minimum score of 60% (72/120) to a maximum score of 99% (119/120). On top of that, it is the outlier7 who obtains the latter score and it serves as the overall maximum score of the Dutch focus group. Furthermore, the minimum score is the lowest score of all participants. Thus the dispersion of De Hille is greatest of all four class groups.

Comparing the general maximum score of 99% to that of the other schools, the greatest difference can be noted with De Kameleon and De Geule with a maximum of 86% (103/120) and 86.5% (104/120), respectively. The maximum general score obtained by De Zeester is 94% (113/120).

5.1.4 Comparison between the Flemish and Dutch set scores

Besides a comparison of the general scores of all Flemish and Dutch

7 An outlier is a value that lies an abnormal distance from other values in a set of data because it is much smaller or larger than most of them. Generally speaking, the standard deviation of the value is more than 1.5 away from the mean.

57 participants, the set scores of the two focus groups will be analysed. All informants took the PPVT-4 from set one to ten implying a considerable rise in difficulty level as the sets proceed (see Methodology, section 4.2.2). First, figure 11 shows the average Flemish (blue) and Dutch (red) set scores. Subsequently, in figures 12 and 13, the average set scores of the Flemish and Dutch schools, respectively, are displayed.

12

10

8 Flemish schools 6 Dutch schools 4

2

0 SET 1 SET 2 SET 3 SET 4 SET 5 SET 6 SET 7 SET 8 SET 9 SET 10

Figure 11: Average Flemish and Dutch set scores Figure 11 shows very clearly that the Dutch informants obtain higher average scores on (almost) all sets. The average Dutch curve is situated above the Flemish one for nine of the ten sets. The Dutch pupils start off with noticeably higher scores in set 1: their mean of 94% lies no less than 9% higher than the Flemish’ one of 85%. This tendency is reflected throughout set 1 to 6. Important to mention is that the gap between the average scores of the two focus groups increases from set 2 onwards. In set 2 the difference amounts to 3.5% and this number rises up to 8.5% in set 6. However, this trend is interrupted in set 7, which seems to be an exceptional set. Here, the Flemish students obtain the highest average score: 78.5% compared to the average Dutch score of 77.5%. What also stands out is that both the Flemish and the Dutch curves take a considerable fall after set 7. Again, the Dutch pupils obtain the highest average score from set 8 to 10.

Figure 12: Average set scores Flemish schools 58

12

10

8 De Zeester

6 De Kameleon

4 De Hille De Geule 2

0 SET 1 SET 2 SET 3 SET 4 SET 5 SET 6 SET 7 SET 8 SET 9 SET 10

Figure 13: Average set scores Dutch schools It can be observed from figures 12 and 13 that the average set scores of all Flemish as well as those of all Dutch class groups lie fairly close together. It seems that all four groups in each figure form a very similar curve. Especially the curves of the Dutch schools lie visibly close together. This corresponds to the finding in section 5.1.1 that the difference between the means of the least and best scoring Dutch class group is only 1.5% whereas that between the Flemish participants is 7.5%. Moreover, the similar position of the curves also confirms the outcome of tables 9 and 10 in section 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 that there are no significant differences among the focus groups’ general results. Noticeable as well, is that the curve of Sint-Antonius lies clearly lowest of all Flemish schools. Less outstanding, the curve of De Geule is situated lowest of all four Dutch classes.

However, when comparing figures 12 and 13, a different tendency among the focus groups’ curves is noticeable. First of all, the curves of the Dutch pupils steadily fall from set 1 onwards, with a more distinct fall after set 7. However, for the Flemish schools this is not the case as the curves appear to be more v-shaped. After a steady fall from set 1 to 5, the curves of all four class groups take a considerably sharp rise in set 6 and 7 followed by a correspondingly sharp fall in set 8. It seems that for the two focus groups, a small rise from set 9 to 10 is also visible.

5.1.5 Comparison between scores on cognate versus non-cognate words

Moreover, when analysing the test results, extra attention is paid to the general scores obtained for cognate and non-cognate words. In total, 47 of the 120 test items consist of cognates, which corresponds to 39% of the tested words. As mentioned in section 2.2.2.1, the presence of cognates facilitates the SLA process. Hence, it is

59 interesting to examine whether the informants are more successful at pointing out cognates or not.

35 30 25 Average 20 mistakes on non-cognates 15 26,3 22,0 Average 10 mistakes on cognates 5 3,6 3,4 0 Flemish Dutch

Figure 14: Number of mistakes cognates versus non-cognates From figure 14 a considerable difference in the number of mistakes on cognates versus non-cognates can be observed. With regard to the cognate words, it is remarkable how the Flemish and the Dutch informants make roughly the same number of mistakes, i.e. 3.6% and 3.4%, respectively. Moreover, these percentages are extremely low especially when compared to the number of mistakes that are made on non-cognate words. It turns out that all the informants are familiar with English-Dutch cognates and they can point most of them out without difficulty. In general, it seems that the cognates with great graphical and phonological resemblance are best known by the pupils.

Whereas the Flemish and Dutch informants obtain very similar results with regard to the cognates, greater differences can be observed with respect to the non- cognates. In this category, the Flemish participants make considerably more mistakes (26.3%) than the Dutch (22%). These findings confirm those of section 5.1.1 where the univariate analysis of variance proves that the Dutch children on average score 4,5% higher results than their Flemish peers. In between the Flemish and the Dutch class groups’ results, hardly any differences are noted. Bearing in mind the general results that were examined in section 5.1.1, somewhat expectedly, the pupils of Sint-Antonius on the Flemish side make the largest number of mistakes both on the cognate (4.4%) and non-cognate words (29.8%) and among the Dutch class groups it is De Geule who makes most mistakes on both lexical categories, i.e. 4% and 22.9%, respectively.

60

5.1.6 Conclusion

To summarise, section 5.1.1 analysed the general scores of the Flemish and Dutch focus group on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (fourth edition). A first remarkable fact is that none of the 125 informants failed to give less than half the correct answers, irrespective of the presence or absence of formal English instruction. Nonetheless, the Steam-and-Leaf plot of all the participating schools reveals great dispersion between the individual scores. Further, statistic analyses prove that there is a significant difference between the Flemish and the Dutch focus group in terms of general results on the vocabulary test (P-value 0.005<0.05). On average, the Dutch participants scored 4.50% (5.5/120) higher than their Flemish peers.

In the following section, an answer will be sought to the hypothesis whether the broader vocabulary knowledge of the Dutch pupils is due to their English instruction. Moreover, possible explanations will be taken into consideration that can account for the undoubtedly good test results of the Flemish pupils who lack any kind of English formal instruction. Several extracurricular factors will be taken into account that might affect the English acquisition process of the informants and that most probably are the reason for the widely different individual scores. The participants’ answers of the questionnaire will be linked to these parameters and to their test results.

5.2 Results of the questionnaire in relation to the PPVT scores

This second part of chapter 5 will aim to discover connections between several factors that might influence the process of SLA and the pupils’ individual test scores based on the their answers on the questionnaire. Gender and aptitude, age, motivation, attitude and language contact are the prominent factors that are asked for in the questionnaire. We will look at each of these in turn in sections 5.2.1 to 5.2.4.

5.2.1 Gender

In total, 56 boys and 69 girls participate in this research. In order to reveal any significant differences in vocabulary level between the boys and the girls of the participating schools, a one-way ANOVA analysis is conducted.

61

GENERALSCORE

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1101,342 1 1101,342 10,288 ,002 Within Groups 13166,770 123 107,047

Total 14268,112 124

Table 11: one-way ANOVA analysis of general score versus gender The one-way ANOVA analysis of the general score versus the gender variable reveals a significant difference between the boys’ and girls’ results (P-value 0.002<0.05). Consequently, a univariate analysis of variance is conducted to find out which gender scores generally better than the other.

Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable: GENERAL

95% Confidence Interval

Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Intercept 84,174 1,246 67,580 ,000 81,708 86,639 boys 5,969 1,861 3,208 ,002 2,285 9,652 girls 0a . . . . . a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.

Table 12: Univariate analysis of variance of general score versus gender As can be deducted from the B-values in the second column, the Flemish and Dutch boys on average score 5% (5.969/120) higher than their female peers. This is a significant difference when taking into consideration the rejected null hypothesis on the 95% significance level (P-value 0.005<0.05). The boys obtain an average score of 75% (90/120), while the girls have a mean score of 70% (84.5/120). Remarkably, in all class groups except for Sint-Antonius, it was a boy who obtains the maximum score and at least two male pupils end up in the top three of the class groups’ ranking.

5.2.2 Attitude

The last page of the questionnaire contains a set of ten statements with regard to the children’s motivation to learn English and their attitude towards the English language. For every statement, the children could choose from six possible answers on a Likert scale going from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. It happened sometimes that pupils left the answer to a statement blank. These blank answers are included in 62 the figures below as ‘no opinion’. In what follows, the attitudinal statements will be discussed that show different outcomes for the Flemish and Dutch focus group and are therefore relevant to analyse more in detail. They are presented in the tables below and followed by a brief discussion. Subsequently, in section 5.2.3, the motivational statements 37 until 41 will be examined.

60

50

40

30

20 Flemisch

10 Dutch

0 strongly disagree somewhat somewhat agree strongly disagree disagree agree agree

Figure 15: Statement 31 "English is a beautiful language"8 The results of the first statement, i.e. “English is a beautiful language”, already show a certain division between the Dutch and the Flemish pupils: 53% of the Flemish participants strongly believe that English is a beautiful language, compared to only 27% of the Dutch pupils. In general though, most of the informants (somewhat) agree that English is a beautiful language. In fact, only 8% of the Flemish pupils and 12% of the Dutch do not consider English as a beautiful language. The one-way ANOVA analysis of this statement in relation to the general scores shows no significant differences (P- value 0.324>0.05).

40 30 20 10 Flemisch 0 Dutch

Figure 16: Statement 32 "English is a difficult language to understand"9

8 Original statement 31: “Ik vind het Engels een mooie taal.” 9 Original statement 32: “Ik vind het Engels een moeilijke taal om te begrijpen.” 63

66% of the Flemish pupils (somewhat or strongly) disagree that “English is a difficult language to understand”, whereas 54% of all Dutch children do. Only 34% of the Flemish participants believe that English is indeed a difficult language to understand whereas 59% of them reply that they are not good in English when they are asked this question on the questionnaire (see Appendix 8.2). For this, the main reason that is given repetitively is that they find it “difficult to understand the language”. Hence, it seems a bit odd that two third of the Flemish children answer negatively to this statement.

From figure 16 we can conclude that almost half of the participating children who receive English instruction at school (46%) regard English as a difficult language to understand. Taking into consideration the language skills that are asked for in statements 33, 34 and 35 (see Appendix 8.2), more than half of the informants agree that English is a difficult language to write. Furthermore, 45% of the Flemish and 41% of the Dutch participants believe that English is difficult to read. Besides, one third of all participants consider English as a difficult language to speak.

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Flemisch 10 5 Dutch 0

Figure 17: Statement 36 "Learning English is fun"10 As to the last statement “Learning English is fun”, displayed in figure 17, it is striking how almost half of the Flemish pupils (47%) strongly agree that learning English is fun compared to 19% of the Dutch informants. In total, one third of the Dutch participants find it not amusing to learn English (see Discussion). Still, two third of the Dutch participants seem to enjoy learning English at school. All these relatively positive findings might have an influence on the level of English proficiency that the

10 Original statement 36: “Engels leren is leuk” 64 individual learners achieve on the vocabulary test. In fact, their attitude might be positively influenced as well, once their teacher informs them about their good results on the PPVT-4.

5.2.3 Motivation

In most cases, a positive attitude will strengthen the motivation to learn a language (see section 2.2.3.3). Therefore, some motivational statements are asked for in the questionnaire as well. Figures 18 and 19 illustrate that the majority of informants answer positively to each of these statements.

All Dutch informants confirm the statement: “Learning English is important to find a good job later”. This points out that from the moment the children learn English in class, they are aware of the advantages their English education might have in terms of finding a good job. It seems that the Dutch pupils are the paragon of L2 learners with an ‘instrumental’ motivation: they wish to learn English for practical reasons. Moreover, also the gross of the Flemish pupils (88%) believe that English education will enhance their chances on finding a good job in the future.

70 60 50 40 30 20 Flemisch 10 Dutch 0

Figure 18: Statement 37 "Learning English is important to find a good job later"11

Moving onto the statement: “Learning English is important to be able to talk to English speakers” (see figure 19), more positive results can be observed. Again, all the Dutch, as well as 94% of the Flemish informants, consider it of importance to learn English to be able to talk to English speakers. More prominently than for the previous

11 Original statement 37: “Engels leren is belangrijk voor later om een goede job te vinden.”

65 statement, 58% and 64% of the Flemish and Dutch informants, respectively, are strongly convinced that it is interesting to learn English in order to know more about the people and culture represented by the target-language group. This kind of motivation is referred to as ‘integrative’ motivation: the learners might want to identify with a group that has another linguistic nature by learning their language. 70 60 50 40 30 20 Flemisch 10 Dutch 0

Figure 19: Statement 38 "Learning English is important to be able to talk to English speakers"12

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Flemisch 10 5 0 Dutch

Figure 20: Statement 39 "My parents think it is important that I learn English"13 The last statement is this: “My parents think it is important that I learn English”. Here, a clear division between the Flemish and Dutch answers can be observed. Whereas 95% of the Dutch informants point out that their parents believe it important that their child learns English, one third of the Flemish children claim that their parents do not believe so.

12 Original statement 38: “Engels leren is belangrijk om te kunnen praten met Engelstaligen.”

13 Original statement 39: “Mijn ouders vinden het belangrijk dat ik Engels leer.”

66

5.2.4 Language contact through popular media

In this section, the pupils’ extracurricular contact with the English language will be analysed. In the questionnaire, a plurality of questions inquire about several popular media through which the informants might acquire English. Since the test used in this research measures the participants’ receptive English vocabulary knowledge, the focus of the questions is on acquiring English vocabulary.

Before going more into detail on the answers about the different extracurricular activities, an overview of all popular channels is given in figure 21 below. Question 30 of the questionnaire (see Appendix 8.2) asks the informants through which popular media they have acquired most English words. The children are allowed to indicate multiple answers.

80 70 60 50 40 30 Flemish 20 Dutch 10 0 watching listening to surfing on reading gaming television music the internet English and films books

Figure 21: Exposure to English through popular media As the percentages in figure 21 point out, the majority of informants select several activities. This outcome testifies that Dutch and Flemish children believe to learn English through various extracurricular activities. As to the most popular medium, the Dutch and Flemish informants apparently share different preferences. Clearly, the most beloved extracurricular activity of the Dutch children to learn English is gaming. No less than 76% selected this medium, whereas runner-ups ‘watching television and films’ and ‘listening to music’ both are selected by only 58%. As to the Flemish children, it seems that ‘listening to music’ is way out in front with 65% selecting this medium.

Secondly, Flemish children appear to acquire English by watching television and films and thirdly by gaming. This is in line with the findings of De Jans (2013), Houthuys (2011) and Lippens (2010) who recognise the last three named media as the most popular ones in their studies. One Flemish participant takes the liberty to add 67 another extracurricular activity to the list, i.e. travelling, and points out that she learns most English lexicon through travels. In contrast to Houthuys (2011), I have left out this social variable in this question because I mainly wanted to focus on language contact through popular media14. Still, one pupil cites it as the most efficient way to acquire English vocabulary. When examining her questionnaire, it becomes clear that she has made many journeys with her family on which they speak English to the local community. She also claims to keep in touch with some tour guides they have met. As she scores relatively high on the PPVT-4 (76%) compared to her class mean of 71%, her travelling adventures may indeed have enhanced her English vocabulary knowledge. However, it is not possible to draw any conclusions from her good test results with reference to the travelling variable as this is only the account of one pupil.

With regard to figure 21, two more explicit matters can be noticed. The first would be that none of the Flemish children state that they learn English from reading books in the target language, while 5% of the Dutch ones claim they do. Apparently, reading English books is not a popular way to learn English but still three Dutch informants consider it beneficial to acquire English vocabulary. Secondly, the figure above represents that the Dutch children on average visibly indicate more answers than the Flemish ones. To my knowledge this might demonstrate that when receiving English education in school, it becomes easier to learn from other extracurricular activities as well. In what follows, the extracurricular activities will be looked at separately.

5.2.4.1 Television

With regard to television, the informants are asked to indicate how many hours per day and days per week they spend watching English television programmes and/or films with or without Dutch subtitles (see Appendix 8.2). The answers are represented below.

14 In question 7 of the questionnaire: “Where or from whom have you received English lessons and for how long?”, the option ‘holiday in England, America, Australia etc.’ was included. However, only one Flemish and one Dutch informant indicated this answer. Their replies consisted of ‘two weeks in America’ and ‘six weeks in England’. 68

60 50 40 30 Flemish 20 Dutch 10 - never less than 1h less than 3h more than 3h Figure 22: Amount of time a day watching English subtitled programmes/films

50 40 30 20 Flemish 10 Dutch 0 never 1 day less than 3 more than 3 days days

Figure 23: Number of days a week watching English subtitled programmes/films When analysing the questionnaire results, I notice inconsistent answers to questions 9 and 11 (see Appendix 8.2), i.e. pupils who answer ‘never’ to the question whether they watch subtitled English television and then reply ‘more than three days’ when they are asked how many days a week they watch subtitled English television. A possible explanation is that, even though it was illustrated during the explanation before filling out the questionnaire, some informants might have considered ‘English subtitled television’ as programmes or films that are subtitled in English in question 9 and then reinterpreted it as English programmes subtitled in Dutch in question 11. Otherwise it is difficult to explain why 17% of the Dutch pupils declare to never watch English subtitled television while later only 2% answers ‘never’ to the question “How many days a week do you watch English subtitled television”.

Notable in figure... is that the Dutch informants watch more English television with subtitles than the Flemish ones. 34% of the Dutch children watch it more than three days a week compared to only 23% of the Flemish ones. However, the Flemish pupils watch more English programmes that are not subtitled: 33.5% watch English programmes without subtitles less than three days a week while only 7.5% of the Dutch informants do. An additional 15% of the Dutch participants claim to watch it more than three days a week in contrast to 11% of the Flemish ones. Approximately half of all informants never watch English programmes or films without subtitles.

69

Moreover, the Stem-and-Leaf plot in figure 24 clearly shows how the children who watch English television with Dutch subtitles more than three hours a day score considerably higher results on the PPVT-4. Not only is the dispersion of this group substantially smaller than that of the three others, only one pupil, i.e. the outlier, scores less than 75%. Remarkable, the medians of all four groups show an upward trend.

Figure 24: Stem-and-Leaf-plot general score versus time watching English television with subtitles In order to determine whether these different test results are statistically significant, a univariate analysis of variance of the general score versus the amount of time watching English television was conducted. Table 13 shows that there is a highly significant difference between the groups (P-value 0.000<0.05). Further, table 13 points out that the mean of the best scoring group (84%), lies 15% higher than that of the pupils who never watch English television and 10,5% and 9% higher than those who watch it less than one and less than three hours a day, respectively.

70

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: GENERALSCORE

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 2037,680a 3 679,227 6,720 ,000

Intercept 442318,657 1 442318,657 4376,015 ,000

Question 9 2037,680 3 679,227 6,720 ,000

Error 12230,432 121 101,078

Total 957090,000 125

Corrected Total 14268,112 124 a. R Squared = ,143 (Adjusted R Squared = ,122)

Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable: GENERALSCORE

95% Confidence Interval

Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Intercept 101,000 4,496 22,464 ,000 92,099 109,901 never -17,638 4,686 -3,764 ,000 -26,915 -8,361 less than 1 hour -12,600 4,739 -2,659 ,009 -21,983 -3,217 less than 3 hours -10,529 5,115 -2,059 ,042 -20,656 -,403 more than 3 hours 0a . . . . . a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.

Table 13: Univariate analysis of variance of general score versus amount of time watching English television Furthermore, the univariate analysis of variance in table 13, which links the general score to the number of days a week the informants watch subtitled English television, determines a statistically significant between some of the groups. Apparently, the children who watch English television with subtitles more than three days a week obtain the best scores on the vocabulary test. Their mean of 78%, lies significantly higher (P-value 0.011<0.05) than that of the children who never watch English television (63%) and that of the children who watch it only one day a week (70%). It can be observed from table 14 that there is no significant difference in between the test results of the groups who watch English less and more than three days a week (P-value 0.198>0.05).

71

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: GENERALSCORE

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 1210,902a 3 403,634 3,740 ,013

Intercept 230644,353 1 230644,353 2137,361 ,000

Question 11 1210,902 3 403,634 3,740 ,013

Error 13057,210 121 107,911

Total 957090,000 125

Corrected Total 14268,112 124

a. R Squared = ,085 (Adjusted R Squared = ,062)

Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable: GENERALSCORE

95% Confidence Interval

Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Intercept 94,143 3,926 23,977 ,000 86,370 101,916

never -18,476 7,168 -2,577 ,011 -32,668 -4,284

1 day -9,397 4,153 -2,263 ,025 -17,618 -1,176

less than 3 days -5,393 4,164 -1,295 ,198 -13,638 2,852

more than 3 days 0a . . . . .

a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.

Table 14: Univariate analysis of variance general score versus number of days watching English television with subtitles

70 60 50 40 Flemish 30 Dutch 20 10 0 more equally as many less

Figure 25: Amount of time watching Dutch versus English programmes/films As illustrated in figure 25, the informants were also asked whether they watch more, equally as many or fewer Dutch programmes or films than English ones. As

72 suspected, 56% and 57% of the Flemish and Dutch informants, respectively, answer that they watch Dutch television more often. It is striking, though, that the 12% and 9% of the Flemish and Dutch informants that answer ‘less’, include the pupils who obtain the maximum general scores for all of the eight participating class groups. All of the remaining pupils in this group are situated in the top 7 of the ranking lists of the general results. Thus, the informants who watch more English than Dutch television happen to score better on the vocabulary test than those who watch it equally as much or less.

Lastly, the question was posed whether the participants prefer to watch Dutch, English with Dutch subtitles, English without Dutch subtitles/with English subtitles or dubbed television. In this context, dubbing means that programmes or films that were recorded in English are being transferred into Dutch by adding Dutch sounds to the recording medium and deleting the English sounds. Note that in Belgium as well as in the Netherlands this is only done for children’s programmes. The pupils were allowed to indicate multiple answers. The results are presented in figure 26.

80 70 60 50 40 30 Flemish 20 Dutch 10 0 Dutch English with English with dubbed in subtitles English or Dutch without Dutch subtitles

Figure 26: Watching television habits of the informants Even though the Dutch informants possess a larger English lexicon than the Flemish ones (see section 5.1.1), 46% of them still prefer to watch Dutch television programmes and 34% to watch dubbed programmes. Remarkably, the Flemish percentages lie lower for both these categories (31% and 29%, respectively). When analysing the reasons given for these answers, surprisingly patriotic explanations from the Dutch pupils can be observed compared to the Flemish ones. The latter simply note that they prefer Dutch or dubbed television because it is easier and because they do not understand English very well. What follows is a selection of reasons that are given by the Dutch informants translated from Dutch into English:

73

- Dutch is our native language - Then I know that Dutch people have made the programme or film - Because I live in the Netherlands (but I do watch English movies once in a while)

Surprisingly enough, 68% of the Flemish informants claim to prefer to watch English programmes or films with Dutch subtitles while 60% of the Dutch does. I expected the Dutch children to outnumber the Flemish in this option because, due to their education, they come into contact with English more often than the Flemish pupils. Above all, English subtitled television shows seem to be particularly popular with the Flemish informants. However, the reasons the two focus groups give for watching English television with Dutch subtitles are very similar. They are presented in their English translation in the list below in order of most to least frequently occurring:

- English programmes and films are cooler, more fun, better acted than Dutch ones - You can learn English and at the same time you understand what is being said by reading the Dutch lines - If you hear English often then you will learn it better too - Sometimes the people on the show talk rapidly thus the subtitles make it easier to understand them - I love to watch English action movies, there is more action in them than in Dutch movies - English is a nicer language than Dutch, everything sounds nicer - I understand most of the lines but when I do not know a word or phrase then I can read the subtitles - The older you get, the more grown-up choices you will make in terms of television and films

Another reason that the Dutch pupils cite repeatedly is that they watch English shows with (or without) Dutch subtitles because they are going to follow a bilingual education programme in secondary school. They consider watching English television as a good way of practicing the language. In fact, this explanation is evidence of a instrumental motivation to learn the English language. In Belgium bilingual education remains limited so far due to the language legislation (see section 3.2.2). 74

The last thing that is worth mentioning is that, again, the children who prefer watching English television without Dutch subtitles or with English subtitles (6% of the Flemish and 14% of the Dutch informants) are the pupils who score best on the PPVT-4. It is noteworthy that, the Dutch percentage lies twice as high as the Flemish one for this category which requires a fairly advanced English proficiency. Reasons given for their preference were translated into English and are listed below:

- English series are better (The Walking Dead for example) - I speak the language fluently already - I watch a lot of videos in English (YouTube) - If possible, I generally turn off the English subtitles 5.2.4.2 Music

Likewise, the informants were asked to indicate how many minutes or hours a day they listen to English music (see Appendix 8.2). The results are presented in figure 27 below.

45 40 35 30 25 20 Flemish 15 Dutch 10 5 0 0-15 min 30 min 1h more than 1h

Figure 27: Amount of time a day listening to English music This figure shows a clear unanimity among the informants. The largest group, i.e. those who listen to English music more than one hour a day, comprises 40% of the Flemish and 37% of the Dutch pupils. Moreover, many informants who indicate ‘more than 1h’, additionally announce in their questionnaires that they listen to music all day long. A one-way ANOVA analysis on the general score linked to the amount of time a day the participants listen to English music reveals no significant differences in test results (P-value 0.155>0.05).

GENERALSCORE

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

75

Between Groups 602,584 3 200,861 1,779 ,155

Within Groups 13665,528 121 112,938

Total 14268,112 124

Table 15: one-way ANOVA analysis general score versus amount of time listening to English music

70 60 50 40 Flemish 30 Dutch 20 10 0 Dutch English both Figure 28: Music preference As figure 28 illustrates, two third of all children claim to have a preference for English music. Moreover, 31% of each focus group is fond of both Dutch and English music and only 3% of each group prefers to listen to Dutch music. Here, once more, great similarities stand out among the Flemish and Dutch participants meaning that the two focus groups have a very similar taste in music.

90 80 70 60 50 Flemish 40 Dutch 30 20 10 0 yes, completely yes, partly no

Figure 29: Comprehension of English lyrics According to the findings of Fig. 21 in section 5.2.4, most of the Flemish informants believe that this extracurricular activity comes with the advantage of learning English lexicon. Furthermore, on the question “To what extent do you comprehend English lyrics”, 62% of the Flemish participants answer that they partly understand the lyrics, which means that they pick up words and phrases while listening to English songs (see figure 29 above). 12% even claims to be able to translate the texts of English songs into Dutch because they fully understand them. Despite these percentages, still 25% of the Flemish participants point out that they do not understand a word of English lyrics. Here, a contrast can be observed with the Dutch results. That

76 is to say, only one Dutch pupil answers that he has no clue what the English lyrics are about. What is more is that 78% declare that they understand the English songs to some degree and 21% appear to fully understand them. Perhaps English education ensures a better understanding of English music. Nevertheless, as the number of participants (125) is fairly low, we have to be careful to draw this kind of conclusions.

5.2.4.3 Books

80 70 60 50 40 30 Flemish 20 Dutch 10 0 only only Dutch English I do not Dutch English more more read often often books

Figure 30: Reading habits of the informants Question 18 of the questionnaire (see Appendix 8.2) inquires after the informants’ reading habits. The children have to indicate whether (1) they only read Dutch books, (2) they only read English books, (3) they read Dutch books more often than English books, (4) they read English books more often or (5) they never read books. To those who sometimes read English books or have read one in the past, the additional question is posed to why they do so. The most frequently recurring reasons were translated into English and are listed below: - I read them to improve my English, to learn something out of them - I read them because English is a beautiful language - The topics are interesting - I read them to learn something new and to know whether I understand the books - I read them for fun

The univariate analysis of variance of the general score in relation to the reading habits of the informants confirm that those who sometimes read English books obtain higher results on the vocabulary test. When comparing the results of the ‘only Dutch’ with the other groups, there appears to be a statistically significant difference (P-value 0.031<0.05). Further, no significant differences are noticeable between the other

77 groups. The participants who claim to only read Dutch books obtain a mean of 70% whereas the group who only read English books 81%. However, since the latter comprises only of one student, these findings have no statistical power. Further, compared to the mean of 73% of the informants who state that they read more Dutch books than English ones, the mean of the group who prefers the opposite comprises 75%.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: GENERALSCORE Type III Sum of Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 1094,883a 4 273,721 2,493 ,047 Intercept 96535,873 1 96535,873 879,382 ,000 Question 18 1094,883 4 273,721 2,493 ,047 Error 13173,229 120 109,777

Total 957090,000 125

Corrected Total 14268,112 124 a. R Squared = ,077 (Adjusted R Squared = ,046)

Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable: GENERALSCORE

Std. 95% Confidence Interval Parameter B Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Intercept 90,350 2,343 38,564 ,000 85,711 94,989 only Dutch -5,747 2,626 -2,189 ,031 -10,947 -,548 only English 6,650 10,736 ,619 ,537 -14,607 27,907 more English ,250 3,143 ,080 ,937 -5,973 6,473 more Dutch -2,350 10,736 -,219 ,827 -23,607 18,907 none 0a . . . . . a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant. Table 16: Univariate analysis of variance general score versus reading habits Remarkably, all of the pupils who indicate that they sometimes read English books are in the best scoring half of their class group. Moreover, three out of the eight best scoring pupils of each class group claim to read English books. The maximum scoring pupil of De Geule declares that he reads more English books than Dutch ones and the fifth best scoring child of De Hille even claims to exclusively read English books. Strikingly, five pupils of the top 7 in this class group affirm in the questionnaire that they read English books. Perhaps, this observation might imply that reading

78

English books contributes to the knowledge of English vocabulary. However, more research is needed to conclude this.

Figure 30 demonstrates that the Dutch pupils overall read more English books than the Flemish ones. 75% of the latter group have never read an English book in their lives while only 9% has. For the Dutch informants, the percentage of pupils claiming to have read English books in the past lies considerably higher, i.e. 32%. Remarkably, 27% of all children claim never to read books, although I expected they have to read some literature for school assignments from time to time. Perhaps this is not yet the case at their level of education. No English books were listed in the diaries. 5.2.4.4 Internet

With regard to the amount of time the informants spend surfing on the internet, great similarities can be noticed between the two focus groups. The number of pupils who spend less than one hour and less than three hours surfing on the internet is very similar: 38% and 41% of the Flemish and 41% and 39% of the Dutch children, respectively. Additionally, with a difference of 4% with the Flemish, the Dutch participants comprise the greatest group (15%) that surfs on the internet for more than three hours a day. Remarkably, nine of the participants declare to never use the internet at all, which seems rather exceptional in a technologically developed world as the one we find ourselves in today. In fact, these findings contradict the all-too-often made assumption that all children have access to the internet. The Stem-and-Leaf plot in figure 31 indicates that pupils who surf on the internet more than three hours a day obtain generally higher scores.

79

Figure 31: Stem-and-Leaf plot general score versus amount of time surfing on the internet When conducting a univariate analysis of the ‘surfing on the internet’ variable, statistically significant differences between the groups are noticeable (P-value 0.022<0.05). As is already observed in figure …, the highest scoring group, i.e. those who surf on the internet more than 3 hours a day, obtain a mean of 78%. Secondly, the mean of the pupils who surf on the internet less than three hours a day is 72%. Lastly, the informants who claim to never surf on the internet obtain a slightly higher mean (71%) than those who surf on the internet less than 1 hour a day (70%).

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: GENERALSCORE

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 1089,141a 3 363,047 3,333 ,022

Intercept 615753,628 1 615753,628 5653,415 ,000

Question 20 1089,141 3 363,047 3,333 ,022

Error 13178,971 121 108,917

Total 957090,000 125

Corrected Total 14268,112 124 a. R Squared = ,076 (Adjusted R Squared = ,053)

80

Parameter Estimates

Dependent Variable: GENERALSCORE

95% Confidence Interval

Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Intercept 93,765 2,531 37,044 ,000 88,754 98,776 never -8,465 4,159 -2,035 ,044 -16,699 -,231 less than 1 hour -9,202 2,946 -3,124 ,002 -15,034 -3,371 less than 3 hours -6,765 2,930 -2,309 ,023 -12,566 -,964 more than 3 hours 0a . . . . . a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.

Table 17: Univariate analysis of variance of general score versus amount of time surfing on the internet Somewhat unexpectedly, almost one third of the Flemish pupils indicate that they never visit English websites. As can be seen on figure 32, the Dutch rate lies considerably lower with only 6%. It is prominent that for all the categories, except for the first of course, the Dutch rate is higher than the Flemish one. For example, 17% claim to visit more English sites than Dutch ones. Again, the better scoring pupils on the PPVT-4 belong to this last group while the lowest scoring children often indicate that they never visit English sites. As was expected, the social network site Facebook and the video-sharing website YouTube are most frequently visited by the informants. Several pupils also wrote down in their diary that they consult Instagram and Google.

70 60 50 40 30 Flemish 20 Dutch 10 0 never sometimes equally more English than Dutch sites

Figure 32: Surfing preferences of the informants In relation to this specific extracurricular activity, two questions were asked about chatting as well (see figures 33 and 34). Again, the Dutch pupils (37%) are more accustomed to chatting than their Flemish peers (23%). As a matter of fact, 20% of them chat with family friends or acquaintances multiple times a week. As can be noted in figure 33, fewer of the Flemish children (7.5%) share this habit. Actually, these

81 findings confirm the status of gaming as most popular extracurricular activity of the Dutch children. Since in multiple online video games the players ought to talk to other online players to negotiate strategies or to trade game items, this might explain the high percentage of Dutch children that chat multiple times a week. 25 20 15 10 Flemish Dutch 5 0 once a week multiple times amultiple times a less than 1 time week month per month

Figure 33: Amount of time spent chatting in English However, to the question whether the informants have the impression to learn English while surfing on the internet (represented in figure 34), more Dutch than Flemish participants answer negatively. Apparently, the Dutch children (43%) are not convinced this medium might help improving their English knowledge. 49% of the Flemish children believe that they pick up some words and phrases compared to only 37% of the Dutch. Although, with regard to the first option 20% of the latter claim that they can make conversation because of the items they learn on the internet, compared to only 14% of the Flemish children. When analysing the questionnaires it stands out that the Dutch informants, compared to the Flemish children, are able to give many more examples of words and phrases that they have picked up on the internet. All of them are listed up and added to the appendix (Appendix 8.3).

60

50

40

30 Flemish 20 Dutch

10

0 yes, i can make yes, some words no conversation and phrases

Figure 34: Acquiring English lexicon by surfing/chatting on the internet

82

5.2.4.5 Games

Gaming is the last extracurricular activity that is asked for in the questionnaire. Since gaming is indicated as the most popular medium from which the Dutch children believe to acquire English lexicon, high results for this focus group are expected. The percentages in figure 35 confirm this prediction.

50

40

30 Flemish 20 Dutch 10

0 never less than 1h less than 3h more than 3h

Figure 35: Amount of time a day spent gaming English games No less than 39% of the Dutch informants reports to game between one and three hours a day. Another 15% says to game more than three hours a day. Only 7% of the Dutch participants declare that they never play English video games. In contrast, the percentage of the Flemish pupils for this group is more than twice as high, namely 18%. Additionally, almost half of the Flemish children (44%) indicate that they play English games less than one hour a day. However, the group that games more than three hours a day (21%) is slightly higher than the Dutch one.

Besides, question 28 (see Appendix 8.2) asks how many days a week the children play English video games. Here, the Dutch children are in leader position again: 31% game less than three days a week, 27% more than three days and 20% even says to game all days of the week. The Flemish percentages lie visibly lower with 23%, 20% and 15%, respectively. The Stem-and-Leaf plot in figure 36 demonstrates how the passionate gamers who play English games every day of the week obtain the highest scores on the PPVT-4. It can be observed that the median (64%) of those who never play English video games lies considerably lower than that of the other groups.

83

Figure 36: Stem-and-Leaf plot general score versus number of days playing English games Again, a univariate analyses of variance was conducted to examine whether there are any statistically significant differences between the test results with regard to the gaming variable. Remarkably, between the pupils who game every day and less than or more than three days a week there are no significant differences in test results (P-value 0.662>0.64>0.05). The means of these three groups are 76%, 75% and 71% respectively. However, it seems that the positive influence of gaming does not concern the group that engages in this activity only one day a week, i.e. the mean of the latter is 70% which is significant when taking into account the rejected null hypothesis on the 95% significance level (P-value 0.032<0.05).

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: GENERALSCORE

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 1140,865a 4 285,216 2,607 ,039

Intercept 866609,185 1 866609,185 7921,928 ,000

Question 27 1140,865 4 285,216 2,607 ,039

Error 13127,247 120 109,394

Total 957090,000 125

Corrected Total 14268,112 124 a. R Squared = ,080 (Adjusted R Squared = ,049)

Parameter Estimates

84

Dependent Variable: GENERALSCORE

95% Confidence Interval

Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Intercept 91,333 2,465 37,048 ,000 86,452 96,214 never -8,646 3,594 -2,406 ,018 -15,761 -1,531

1 day -6,869 3,160 -2,174 ,032 -13,125 -,613 less than 3 days -5,727 3,065 -1,869 ,064 -11,795 ,341 more than 3 days -1,367 3,118 -,438 ,662 -7,541 4,807 all days 0a . . . . . a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant. Not surprisingly, only 14% of the Flemish pupils claim to be able to make conversation due to playing English video games (see figure 37 hereunder). The Dutch do not score that much higher with only 20% of the votes. The gross (58%), however, indicate that they have learned some words and phrases because of this extracurricular activity. For the Flemish group, 40% says the same while 47% is convinced that they have learned no English using this popular medium.

70 60 50 40 30 Flemish 20 Dutch 10 0 yes, i can make yes, some words no conversation and phrases Figure 37: Acquiring English lexicon by gaming In the appendix (see section 8.4) a list can be consulted with examples of words and phrases the children have learned because of gaming. Again, the Dutch pupils are able to give many more illustrations than the Flemish ones. Conspicuously, a range of swearing words are found among the examples of the two focus groups. Another popular semantic category is ‘materials and fabrics’.

5.2.5 Conclusion

In section 5.2, the results of the questionnaire provided possible explanations for the individual differences between the participants with regard to their general score. In general, the findings confirmed the observations that were made in the theoretical 85 framework. For example, my results with regard to the influence of television on SLA correspond to the findings of Houthuys (2011) that prove how children who watch English subtitled television programmes (almost) daily, have a more advanced vocabulary knowledge. Further, conform to Kuppens’ results (2007), my research shows how children who never play English video games or play it less than one hour a day, score considerably higher on the vocabulary test. Only the reading of English books was judged to be unproductive in respect to SLA. As the number of participants in this study who read English books is rather limited, no conclusions can be drawn from the results. However, I support Kuppens’ explanation (2007) that the low number of English readers is due to the informants’ lack of a certain acquired level of English vocabulary required to read in the language. In contrast to De Jans’ findings (2013) gender appears to be a significant factor in this study as the boys on average score 5% higher than the girls. Finally, it is important to indicate that the large presence of cognates among the test items (39%) has a significant influence on the general scores.

In the following section, an explanation for the findings of the PPVT-4 and the questionnaire will be sought in accordance to the theoretical framework.

5.3 Discussion

In this chapter, by means of statistic analyses on the informants’ PPVT-4 results, an answer was given to the central research question in this study: Are there notable differences in the English receptive vocabulary knowledge of Dutch and Flemish pupils in the last year of primary education? The answer to this question is affirmative, since the results of the PPVT-4 reveal that the Dutch schools on average score 4.5% (5.5/120) higher than their Flemish peers and this is a statistically significant difference (P-value 0.005<0.05). First, the potential reasons for this significant difference in test results between the Flemish and the Dutch pupils will be discussed. Regardless of the Dutch children’s higher average score, it cannot be denied that also the Flemish informants did surprisingly well on the vocabulary test. Therefore, in the second part of this discussion, more attention will be payed to plausible reasons for their high general scores.

Above all, the contrastive analysis between the Flemish and Dutch focus groups’ results on the vocabulary test confirms the positive effect of formal instruction on SLA.

86

This supports the opinion of de Bot et al (2013: 8) that a classroom setting may be advantageous to the increase of the amount of L2 input that is being transferred into intake. The PPVT-4 reveals that the English receptive vocabulary knowledge of the Dutch is broader compared to that of the Flemish ones as the first obtain noticeably higher results for each of the ten sets except for set 7. Further, the average set score curves of the Dutch school groups lie particularly close together compared to the more dispersed Flemish curves. This shows that the Dutch children share a very similar knowledge of basic English vocabulary. The reason for this is presumably that the Dutch pupils learn basic vocabulary at school by means of a standardised English teaching method.

During my encounters with the Dutch teachers of the participating school groups, I noticed that the English classes in most schools are built up around the same ‘basic’ topics such as: ‘presenting oneself’, ‘going to school’, ‘nature’ and ‘buildings’. Linking this knowledge to Appel & Vermeer (1994: 30), these topic-based teaching methods most likely facilitate the acquisition process because the more associations with other concepts an L2 learner can make, the easier new concepts will be accumulated in the brain. Analysis has proven that the different English teaching methods used by the participating Dutch schools, i.e. ‘Early Bird’ (De Zeester and De Geule), ‘All-in-one’ (De Kameleon) and ‘Take it Easy’ (De Hille) do not have a significant impact on the general scores of their pupils. Furthermore, even though the pupils of De Hille are already in their fourth year of English education, they score more or less the same as their Dutch peers who all have been taught English one year less.

The greatest difference with the Flemish pupils is that the latter do not yet receive English instruction during primary education. Since their SLA process is non- instructional or incidental, the way they acquire English can be compared to a child acquiring his mother tongue (Appel & Vermeer 1994: 12). As discussed in section 2.2.1.4, the width of the Flemish’ English receptive vocabulary knowledge depends on the number of words and phrases they pick up and acquire in naturalistic circumstances, i.e. primarily by language contact through popular media (Gass et al 2013: 4). Hence, the words and phrases that the Flemish pupils acquire are not necessarily organised by consistent topics such as ‘nature’. In contrast, they acquire arbitrary or random lexicon

87 from all sorts of difficulty levels. This might explain why they start off with noticeable lower scores in set 1, i.e. the easiest of all sets.

As an illustration, I am surprised to find that many Flemish pupils are unable to point out the correct answer to basic English words such as tree, frog and bird (49%, 26% and 15% incorrect answers, respectively). When comparing those poor results to the Dutch ones (12%, 5% and 0% incorrect answers, respectively) it becomes undoubtedly clear that pupils who have studied the topic ‘nature’ in a classroom setting have already acquired this kind of basic vocabulary in their English lexicon. In fact, this suggests that topic-based instruction might also be advantageous to the connection making between already acquired L2 word forms or structures in the brain and by extension to SLA. In this respect, de Bot et al (2005: 56) explain that the acquisition level rises in correspondence with the lexical connections within the L2 network.

Even though the Dutch results prove the advantage of English instruction, the difference in average scores of 4.5% (5.5/120) is not that high. Perhaps greater differences in test results have been expected. However, we have to bear in mind three important matters when considering the average test results. For one, the standardised vocabulary test that was used in this research was originally designed to measure the receptive lexical knowledge of native speakers of English instead of L1 Dutch speakers who acquire English as an L2. As the PPVT-4 is a curriculum independent test, part of the lexical words that are represented in sets 1 to 10 might not have been discussed yet in the English teaching methods of the Dutch participating schools. Probably, a curriculum dependent test might have led to more contrastive results. Secondly, as is discussed in the Methodology (see section 4.1.1), the amount of time that the surveyed schools spend on English education is still fairly limited, i.e. going from 30 minutes per week in De Kameleon up to one hour and a half in De Hille. Presumably, research in schools that have a broader supply of English education would result in a different outcome. Lastly, the frequent occurrence of cognates (39%) among the 120 test items may be a reason for the relatively limited difference in test results between the two focus groups. More specifically, the Flemish and the Dutch pupils share a similar lack of mistakes concerning the cognate test items whereas the Flemish children obtain considerably lower results than the Dutch ones for the non-cognate words. Thus, if the test had been composed out of fewer cognates, perhaps the difference in test results

88 would have been higher.

Overall it can be said that the English lexical knowledge of these 12-year-old Flemish and Dutch informants is relatively high. When considering the Flemish and Dutch means of 58% and 63.5%, respectively, for the last and most difficult set, it is impressive how well they still scored. Besides, we must not forget that the degree of difficulty of set 10 actually corresponds to the starting level of their English peers (see Methodology, section 4.2.2). Compared to this, it can be concluded that all the Flemish and Dutch participants did extraordinarily well. Given the fact that even none of the Flemish pupils failed to give less than half of the correct answers, there ought to be more that influences the SLA apart from the formal learning process.

In this context, the most prominent influencing factor that is questioned in my inquiry is language contact through popular media. As the percentages in figure 21 (see section 5.2.4) suggest, the majority of informants select several popular channels from which they believe to acquire English vocabulary. Similar to findings of Kuppens (2007), Houthuys (2011) and De Jans (2013), this outcome confirms the hypothesis that Dutch and Flemish children learn English through various extracurricular activities.

What is most striking about the findings on popular media in relation to the test results is that the more time children spend on extracurricular activities involving the L2, the higher they score on the vocabulary test. For example, the children who surf on the internet for more than three hours a day obtain statistically significant higher scores (P-value=0.022). Moreover, to the question whether the children could give example words and phrases that they have learned by surfing on the internet or by gaming, popular answers belong to the semantic category of ‘materials and fabrics’ (f.e. stone, iron, diamond, paper, cardboard). Linking these findings to a frequently cited online computer game in the diaries, namely ‘Minecraft’, it appears that the children have already picked up a considerable amount of ‘materials and fabrics’ lexicon because of the game. When consulting the website it says: “Minecraft is a game about breaking and placing blocks. At first, people built structures […] but as the game grew players worked together to create wonderful, imaginative things” (Minecraft.net, consulted on 25/04/2015). In my opinion, this proof of gaming as a beneficial platform for incidental learning might account for the fact that boys score statistically significantly higher, i.e. 5% on average, on the PPVT-4 than their female peers. Whereas in De Jans’ study 89

(2013: 74) roughly one third of the informants claims to never play English games, 79% of all children in my research and more specifically 72% of all boys do. Even though correlation does not automatically imply causation, when bearing in mind the contrastive percentage of (passionate) gamers in the two studies it is remarkable that there is no significant difference concerning the gender variable in De Jans’ study (2013: 48) and there is in mine. More research has to be conducted on the matter to draw conclusions.

In contrast to De Jans’ findings (2013), in this study not the internet but watching television with Dutch subtitles serves as the most profitable medium to improve the informants’ receptive lexical knowledge of English. Strikingly, from the Dutch informants’ answers we can conclude that they involve in popular media that include the English language more frequently than their Flemish peers. This knowledge leads to the recognition that L2 learning in a classroom setting also increases the involvement in extracurricular activities that include the L2. This reduced natural barrier to watch English television or chatting in English for example may be the consequence of several factors. For one, the process of L2 learning may lead to self-confidence to communicate and to get involved in the L2. More specifically, as was discussed in section 2.2.3.3, the Dutch L2 learners possibly compare themselves to their peers in class and when they notice that they are doing well, this might lead to a positive self-image. Therefore, Ellis (1984: 102) explains, the L2 learners will keep making efforts to improve the SLA for example by listening to English music or watching subtitled English television in their free time.

Secondly, the acquired basic L2 lexicon makes activities in the L2 more accessible to the learners as their proficiency level rises along with the amount of time the L2 learners are exposed to comprehensible input. Thirdly, some children might enjoy certain input data they receive in class, e.g. English songs, websites, books or films, and look these up at home. Lastly, the L2 learners might become stimulated to further improve their knowledge of and proficiency in the L2 by means of engaging in extracurricular activities.

Besides the influence of popular media on SLA, also motivation to learn the L2 and the attitudes towards the language are taken into consideration. With regard to the question whether they think English is a beautiful language, more than half of the 90

Flemish participants (53%) strongly confirm this, compared to a less convinced Dutch public (27%). In search of a possible parameter explaining the different results, the formal instruction of the English language of the Dutch children comes to mind. Perhaps the attitude towards the L2 of the Dutch pupils is affected by the fact that they ‘have to’ study the language at school. It is possible that imposing the language on the Dutch children in school goes hand in hand with the devaluation of English as a beautiful language. Furthermore, one third of the Dutch participants find it not amusing to learn English (see section 5.2.2). This is remarkable, as they comprise the focus group that receives English education at school. It seems that the Flemish pupils, who have not yet studied English at school but acquire English through entertaining activities such as gaming, have a more optimistic view on the learning process as 82% of them agree with the statement.

With regard to the motivational statements, very positive results are assessed. Surprisingly, all the participants score extremely high on the instrumental and integrative motivation statements. Further, 95% of the Dutch informants point out that their parents believe it is important that their child learns English while one third of the Flemish children claim that their parents do not believe so. Perhaps the Dutch parents want to encourage their children more in order for them to be more motivated to study for their English classes in school. Probably, the Flemish parents appreciate the importance of French more, i.e. the L2 that is taught in Flemish primary schools, but because no question was posed on the parents’ opinion about learning French, no conclusions can be drawn.

Lastly, a linguistic parameter will be discussed, i.e. the presence of cognates, which most likely contributes to the high test results of all the informants as well. As was explained in section 2.2.2.1, cognates are words that share the same origin and that have a similar structure and meaning in the L1 (Dutch) and in the L2 (English). According to Loewen and Reinders (2011: 26), cognates might facilitate the process of SLA by “freeing up cognitive resources, so that learners can concentrate on learning other things”. It seems from the findings in section 5.1.5 that all of the cognates in the PPVT-4 are well-known by the vast majority of informants. Evidence of the broad knowledge of cognates is found in the high results that the Flemish (and the Dutch) children obtained for set 7. The fact that five of the twelve words in this set are cognates

91

(island, harmonica, electrician, tornado and parachute), might explain why the Flemish score higher for this set than the previous ones. All Flemish participants are able to point out island, electrician, parachute and (except for one pupil) tornado.

92

6 Conclusion

In this master dissertation, a contrastive study was made on the English receptive vocabulary knowledge of Flemish and Dutch children in the last year of primary education. As the latter receive formal instruction of English in a classroom setting whereas the first are limited to incidental second language acquisition, the main research question that was dealt with is: Are there any notable differences in receptive lexical knowledge of English among Flemish and Dutch children in the last year of primary education, based on the presence or absence of English instruction?

In order to find an answer to the first research question, 66 Flemish and 59 Dutch informants were subjected to filling out a questionnaire and a standardised vocabulary test. The first inquired about the children’s linguistic background, motivation to learn English, attitudes towards the language and their exposure to English through popular media. The vocabulary test consisted of 120 lexical test items that were devided over 10 sets with an increase in difficulty level as the sets advance.

A one-way ANOVA analysis on the general test results indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between the two focus groups (P-value 0.005<0.05). In fact, the Dutch focus group scores on average 4.50% (5.5/120) higher than their Flemish peers. As was discovered in chapter 4, the main reason for this lead is their intentional L2 learning in a classroom setting. The Dutch children all have a very similar knowledge of basic English vocabulary due to the English teaching methods they are being taught at school. While the Dutch participants are taught L2 lexicon by means of classes that are built up around certain topics such as ‘nature’, the Flemish pupils acquire arbitrary or random lexicon from all sorts of difficulty levels through input in a more naturalistic setting (Gass et al 2013: 4).

However, even though the Dutch children obtained higher results than their Flemish peers, the difference in average scores of 4.5% (5.5/120) is not that high. In my opinion, more contrastive results might have been observed when A) a curriculum dependent vocabulary test would have been used to conduct this research in as opposed to the curriculum independent PPVT-4 and/or B) the participating schools offered a larger amount of time spending to English education and/or C) less cognates were present among the 120 test items as the Flemish and Dutch make more or less the same 93 number of mistakes in this category whereas the Dutch score remarkably higher results for the non-cognate words.

Still, it cannot be denied that the Flemish focus group obtain considerably high test results as well. Now, in order to find an explanation for this outcome we come to the second research question: Which popular media positively influence the process of second language acquisition? Taking into account that the majority of informants select several popular channels from which they believe to acquire English vocabulary, the previous hypothesis that Dutch and Flemish children learn English through various extracurricular activities by Kuppens (2007), Houthuys (2011) and De Jans (2013) is confirmed. Strikingly, statistic analyses on popular media in relation to the test results have proven that the more time children spend on extracurricular activities involving the L2, the higher they score on the vocabulary test. Watching English television with Dutch subtitles serves as the most beneficial extracurricular activity to incidentally acquire English vocabulary knowledge.

Moreover, from the answers of the questionnaire we can conclude that the Dutch children involve in popular media that include the English language more frequently than their Flemish peers. Again, an advantage of formal L2 learning can be observed, i.e. it increases the involvement in extracurricular activities that include the L2 which will lead to an increase in input which subsequently turns into more L2 (lexical) acquisition. On the one hand, the process of SLA can lead to self-confidence to communicate and to get involved in the L2. And, on the other hand, the acquired basic L2 lexicon makes activities in the L2 more accessible to the learner. Further, the L2 learners might become stimulated to further improve their knowledge of and proficieny in the L2 by means of engaging in extracurricular activities.

We can conclude that English language programmes such as those in the participating Dutch schools enrich the children with a broader knowledge of English vocabulary from an early age and hold plenty of other advantages. Moreover, the Flemish’ test results show that children growing up in Flanders today already acquire plenty of English vocabulary in naturalistic circumstances.

The outcome of this research confirms the opinion of scholars like Booij (2001: on the developmental status of English in the Netherlands and in Belgium into a real second language. 94

7 Literature

Aarts, R., & Ronde, S. (2006). Tweetalig onderwijs met vervroegd Engels in het basisonderwijs. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 7(2), 3-14.

Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students' language proficiency in English 1. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 75-93.

Appel, R., & Vermeer, A. (1994). Tweede-taalverwerving en tweede-taalonderwijs. Bussum: Coutinho.

België, Eurydice. (2008). Structures of Education, Vocational Training and Adult Education Systems in Europe. Belgium - Flemish Community – 2008.

Bolton, K. (2005). Where WE stands: approaches, issues, and debate in world Englishes. World Englishes, 24(1), 69-83.

Booij, G. (2001). English as the lingua franca of Europe: a Dutch perspective. Lingua e stile, 36(2), 347-358.

Ciobanu A. M., & Dinu L. P. (2014). Automatic detection of cognates using orthographic alignment. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Short Papers), 99–105.

Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2005). Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. Psychology Press.

95

De Jans, K. (2013). The lexical knowledge of English of secondary school children in Flanders prior to English instruction [master dissertation]. Unpublished dissertation: Ghent University.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language learning, 53(1), 3-32.

Dronkers, J. (1993). The causes of growth of English education in the Netherlands: class or internationalisation? European journal of education, 295-307.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn. D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition. Bloomington: Pearson.

Duyck, M. (2013). The acquisition of English productive and receptive vocabulary of Walloon secondary school children prior to English instruction [master dissertation]. Unpublished dissertation: Ghent University.

Ellis, N. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: Word structure, collocation, grammar, and meaning. M. McCarthy & N. Schmidt (Eds.) (1997), Vocabulary: description.

Ellis, R. (1984a). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Vol. 47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in second language acquisition, 24(2), 223-236.

Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language teaching 43(2), 181-201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

96

Flemish education in figures 2013-2014. Consulted on 5 April 2015 via http://www.onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/onderwijsstatistieken

Gass, S. M., Behney J., & Plonsky L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course, 4th edn. New York: Routledge.

Goethals, M. (1997). English in Flanders (Belgium). World Englishes 16(1), 105-114.

Houthuys, Siona. 2011. The differences between Flemish pupils acquiring English and Walloon pupils acquiring English before the input of formal instruction [master dissertation]. Unpublished dissertation: Ghent University.

Huckin, T., & Coady J. (1997). Second Language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). 1 Q Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning. Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy, 203.

Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: a reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. Robinson, Peter (ed.) Cognition and Second Language Instruction, 258-286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in second language acquisition, 27(02), 129-140.

Kachru, B. B. (1986). The Alchemy of English: the spread, functions and models of non- native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.

Kachru, B. B., Kachru Y., & Nelson C. L. (2006). The handbook of world Englishes. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Key Figures 2009-2013: Education, culture and science [brochure]. Status: published.

97

Kloots, H. (2003). Uitspraakonderwijs in het vak Nederlands in Vlaanderen en Nederland op het einde van de twintigste eeuw. Antwerpen: University of Antwerpen.

Kuppens, A. (2007). De invloed van het mediagebruik op de verwerving van Engelse woordenschat: een empirische studie bij Vlaamse jongeren. In Tijdschrift voor communicatiewetenschap 35(4), 325-336.

Loewen, S., & Reinders H. (2011). Key concepts in second language acquisition. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories. London: Routledge.

Nederland, Eurydice. (2005). Het onderwijssysteem in Nederland 2005.

Verhoeven, J., & Dom, L. (2002). Vlaams Eurydice-rapport 2001: Overzicht van het onderwijsbeleid en de onderwijsorganisatie in Vlaanderen. status: published.

Vlaanderen zet in op meertalig onderwijs. Consulted on 18 May 2015 via http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/vlaanderen-zet-in-op-meertalig-onderwijs/article- normal-571299.html

Xu, J., & Van de Poel, K. (2011). English as a Lingua Franca in Flanders: A study of university students’ attitudes. English Text Construction, 4(2), 257-278.

98

8 List of figures

Figure 1: The concentric circles of English by Kachru (1986) source: English as a global language (2012), p 61 ...... 12

Figure 2: Distribution across Flemish educational networks source: Flemish Education in Figures 2013-2014, p 12 ...... 35

Figure 3: Organisation of educational system in the Flemish Community of Belgium ...... 36

Figure 4: Organisation of educational system in the Netherlands ...... 39

Figure 5: Normal Q-Q plot of the general scores of all Flemish and Dutch schools ... 51

Figure 6: Steam-and-Leaf Plot of the general score for all Flemish and Dutch schools ...... 52

Figure 7: Histogram representing the general scores of all participating Flemish schools ...... 54

Figure 8: Stem-and-Leaf plot general scores Flemish schools ...... 55

Figure 9: Histogram representing the general scores of all participating Dutch schools ...... 56

Figure 10: Steam-and-Leaf Plot of the general score of all Dutch schools ...... 57

Figure 11: Average Flemish and Dutch set scores...... 58

Figure 13: Average set scores Dutch schools ...... 59

Figure 14: Number of mistakes cognates versus non-cognates ...... 60

Figure 15: Statement 31 "English is a beautiful language" ...... 63

Figure 16: Statement 32 "English is a difficult language to understand" ...... 63

Figure 17: Statement 36 "Learning English is fun" ...... 64

Figure 18: Statement 37 "Learning English is important to find a good job later" ..... 65

Figure 19: Statement 38 "Learning English is important to be able to talk to English speakers" ...... 66

Figure 20: Statement 39 "My parents think it is important that I learn English" ...... 66

Figure 21: Exposure to English through popular media ...... 67

99

Figure 23: Number of days a week watching English subtitled programmes/films .... 69

Figure 24: Stem-and-Leaf-plot general score versus time watching English television with subtitles ...... 70

Figure 25: Amount of time watching Dutch versus English programmes/films ...... 72

Figure 26: Watching television habits of the informants ...... 73

Figure 27: Amount of time a day listening to English music ...... 75

Figure 28: Music preference ...... 76

Figure 29: Comprehension of English lyrics ...... 76

Figure 30: Reading habits of the informants...... 77

Figure 31: Stem-and-Leaf plot general score versus amount of time surfing on the internet ...... 80

Figure 32: Surfing preferences of the informants ...... 81

Figure 33: Amount of time spent chatting in English ...... 82

Figure 34: Acquiring English lexicon by surfing/chatting on the internet ...... 82

Figure 35: Amount of time a day spent gaming English games ...... 83

Figure 36: Stem-and-Leaf plot general score versus number of days playing English games ...... 84

Figure 37: Acquiring English lexicon by gaming ...... 85

100

9 List of tables

Table 1: School population in regular Flemish primary education based on: Flemish Education in Figures 2013-2014, p 12 ...... 35

Table 2: School population in regular Dutch primary education source: Key Figures OCW 2009-2013, p 53 ...... 39

Table 3: Comparison Flemish and Dutch primary educational systems...... 40

Table 4: Dutch schools and pupils participating in special language programmes based on: Key Figures 2009-2013, p 41, 48 & 52 ...... 41

Table 5: Flemish and Dutch participants ...... 43

Table 6: Descriptive statistics of the general scores of all Flemish and Dutch schools ...... 51

Table 7: One-way ANOVA analysis of Dutch versus Flemish general scores ...... 52

Table 8: Univariate analysis of variance of general score versus Flemish and Dutch schools...... 53

Table 9: One-way ANOVA analysis of general score versus Flemish schools ...... 54

Table 10: One-way ANOVA analysis of the general score versus Dutch schools ...... 56

Table 11: one-way ANOVA analysis of general score versus gender ...... 62

Table 12: Univariate analysis of variance of general score versus gender ...... 62

Table 13: Univariate analysis of variance of general score versus amount of time watching English television ...... 71

Table 14: Univariate analysis of variance general score versus number of days watching English television with subtitles ...... 72

Table 15: one-way ANOVA analysis general score versus amount of time listening to English music ...... 76

Table 16: Univariate analysis of variance general score versus reading habits ...... 78

Table 17: Univariate analysis of variance of general score versus amount of time surfing on the internet ...... 81

101

10 Appendix

10.1 Permission letter for the parents

Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte Opleiding: Taal- en Letterkunde

Vakgroepvoorzitter: Geert Jacobs Adres: Blandijnberg 2, 9000, Gent Telefoon: 09 264 37 15 Url: http://www.taalkunde.ugent.be

Onderwerp: Onderzoek Engelse woordenschatkennis

Gent, 2015

Beste ouder(s),

Via deze brief willen wij u op de hoogte stellen van een onderzoek uitgevoerd door Jenka Van de Voorde, masterstudente Taal- en Letterkunde: Engels – Spaans aan de UGent. Het betreft een onderzoek naar de Engelse woordenschatkennis van leerlingen in het laatste jaar basisonderwijs in Vlaanderen en Nederland.

Uw zoon/dochter wordt gevraagd om deel te nemen aan de hierboven genoemde studie. Om te beoordelen of u uw kind hiervoor de toestemming wilt geven, is een duidelijke uitleg van onze kant nodig. Vandaar dat u deze schriftelijke informatie ontvangt. U kunt deze rustig nalezen en in eigen kring bespreken. Ook daarna kunt u nog altijd vragen stellen aan de onderzoekster die aan het eind van deze informatie genoemd staat.

Wat houdt het onderzoek in?

Met het onderzoek willen wij graag de receptieve Engelse woordenschatkennis van Vlaamse en Nederlandse leerlingen met de leeftijd 11-12j in kaart brengen. Dit willen wij doen door middel van:

1. Een enquête die vraagt naar de talige achtergrond en buitenschoolse ervaringen met de Engelse taal (in de media, muziek, internet...). De vragenlijst wordt de 102

leerlingen aangeboden bij een eerste bezoek van de studente aan de klas en dient dan door het kind ingevuld te worden. De klassikale uitleg over het onderzoek en het invullen van de vragenlijst zullen ong. 45 min in beslag nemen. 2. Na het invullen van de enquête wordt aan de leerlingen gevraagd om de 7 daaropvolgende dagen een “dagboekje” bij te houden waarin ze noteren naar welke Engelstalige liedjes ze luisteren, televisieprogramma's/films ze kijken, websites die ze bezoeken, games die ze spelen etc. 3. Het onderzoek wordt afgesloten met een woordenschattest. Deze houdt de "Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test" in waarbij de receptieve woordenschatkennis van de leerlingen onderzocht wordt. De test wordt klassikaal uitgevoerd bij een tweede bezoek van de studente en neemt ong. 35 min in beslag.

Wat is het doel van het onderzoek?

Het onderzoek maakt een vergelijking tussen de woordenschatkennis van Vlaamse schoolkinderen, die tot nog toe geen initiatie tot de Engelse taal verkrijgen in het basisonderwijs, en Nederlandse kinderen waarbij dit wel het geval is. Hierbij wordt gepoogd om eventuele talige niveauverschillen tussen beide bevragingsgroepen te doorgronden. Het hoofddoel van het onderzoek bestaat eruit te achterhalen wat het Engelse woordenschatniveau is van de Vlaamse en Nederlandse leerlingen en of de Nederlandse leerlingen beschikken over een bredere Engelse woordenschatkennis als gevolg van de taalinitiatie die ze tijdens hun basisonderwijs verkrijgen.

Mocht u naar aanleiding van wat u gelezen heeft in de informatiebrief toestemmen met deelname van uw kind, dan kunt u bijgevoegde toestemmingsformulier ondertekend aan de school bezorgen.

Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jenka Van de Voorde

Tel. nr: +324 70 80 73 40 e-mailadres: [email protected]

Toestemmingsformulier

103

Ik geef WEL

NIET toestemming voor deelname van mijn kind aan het onderzoek dat beschreven is in bijgevoegde brief. (kruis aan wat van toepassing is)

Naam kind...... jongen / meisje

Naam ouder......

Datum: ......

Plaats: ...... Handtekening: ......

104

10.2 Questionnaire

Vragenlijst opgesteld door Jenka Van de Voorde in het kader van masteronderzoek: “The lexical knowledge of English of primary school children in Flanders and the Netherlands”

naam: …………………….…………………….…………………….……………… geboortedatum: …………………….…………………….…………………….……

Talige achtergrond 1. Sinds welk leerjaar (kleuterklas telt ook mee) zit je al op deze school? …………………….…………………….…………………….………………………

2. Welke taal spreek je thuis? Indien je niet het eerste bolletje antwoordt, ga dan over naar vraag 3, anders naar vraag 4. o enkel Nederlands o Nederlands en andere: …………………………….……...………………… o enkel andere: ………………………………………….……...……………..

3. Met wie spreek je thuis geen Nederlands? o enkel met mijn vader o enkel met mijn moeder o met allebei mijn ouders o enkel met broer(s)/zus(sen) o met met ouders en broer(s)/zus(sen)

4. Heb je vroeger nog in het buitenland gewoond? Indien je ja antwoordt, ga dan over naar vraag 5, anders naar vraag 6. o ja o neen

5. Waar heb je gewoond in het buitenland en voor hoe lang was dit? o waar: ………………….……...……………………….……...………………

105

o hoe lang: …………………………………….……...………………………. 6. Heb je in het verleden ooit al Engelse les gekregen buiten school? Indien je ja antwoordt, ga dan over naar vraag 7, anders naar vraag 8. o ja o neen

7. Waar of door wie heb je al Engelse les gekregen en hoe lang? o taalcursus, hoe lang: ………………………………………………….…… o uitwisselingsproject of gastgezin, hoe lang: ……………………….....…… o vakantie in Engeland, Amerika, Australië …, hoe lang: …………….….… o vader of moeder die jou Engels leert, hoe lang: ……………….………….. o andere: …………………………………..……….., hoe lang: ……………

8. Zou je van jezelf zeggen dat je goed Engels kan spreken? o ja o neen Waarom wel/niet? ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………...……………………………………………………………

Televisie en films 9. Op een dag waarop je naar ondertitelde Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s of films kijkt, hoeveel uur doe je dit dan? o ik kijk daar nooit naar o minder dan 1 uur per dag o minder dan 3 uur per dag o meer dan 3 uur per dag

10. Op een dag waarop je naar niet-ondertitelde Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s of films kijkt, hoeveel uur doe je dit dan? o ik kijk daar nooit naar o minder dan 1 uur per dag

106

o minder dan 3 uur per dag o meer dan 3 uur per dag

11. Hoeveel dagen per week kijk je naar ondertitelde Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s o films? o nooit o 1 dag per week o minder dan 3 dagen per week o meer dan 3 dagen per week

12. Hoeveel dagen per week kijk je naar niet-ondertitelde Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s of films? o nooit o 1 dag per week o minder dan 3 dagen per week o meer dan 3 dagen per week

13. Schrap wat niet past. o Ik kijk meer / evenveel / minder naar Nederlandstalige programma’s of films dan naar Engelstalige programma’s of films. o Ik kijk nooit / soms / veel naar Engelstalige programma’s of films

14. Kruis aan wat voor jou van toepassing is. o Ik heb een voorkeur voor Nederlandstalige programma’s of films o Ik heb een voorkeur voor Engelstalige programma’s of films met Nederlandse ondertiteling o Ik heb een voorkeur voor Engelstalige programma’s of films zonder Nederlandse ondertiteling (of met Engelse ondertiteling) o Ik heb een voorkeur voor gedubde Engelstalige programma’s/films (= Nederlandstalige stem wordt geplakt op de Engelstalige stem)

Leg uit waarom je dit antwoordde:

107

………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………

Muziek 15. Hoeveel min. of uren per dag luister je ong. naar Engelstalige muziek? …………………………………………………………………………………………

16. Kruis aan wat voor jou van toepassing is. o ik heb een voorkeur voor Nederlandstalige muziek o ik heb een voorkeur voor Engelstalige muziek o ik hoor het allebei even graag

17. Begrijp je meestal de liedjesteksten van de Engelstalige liedjes waar je naar luistert? o ja, ik begrijp ze zo goed als volledig (ik kan de tekst vertalen) o ja en neen, ik begrijp ze deels (hier en daar kleine zinnen of woorden) o neen, ik begrijp er niets van

Boeken 18. Kruis aan wat voor jou van toepassing is. o ik lees enkel Nederlandstalige boeken o ik lees enkel Engelstalige boeken o ik lees vaker Nederlandstalige boeken dan Engelstalige o ik lees vaker Engelstalige boeken dan Nederlandstalige o ik lees geen boeken

19. Indien je soms Engelstalige boeken leest, waarom doe je dit dan? ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………

Internet 20. Op een dag waarop je op het internet surft, hoeveel uur doe je dit dan? o ik surf nooit op het internet 108

o minder dan 1 uur per dag o minder dan 3 uur per dag o meer dan 3 uur per dag 21. Wanneer je surft op het internet bezoek je dan veel Engelstalige sites? o ik bezoek enkel Nederlandstalige sites o soms, maar niet zo veel o ik bezoek evenveel Engelstalige als Nederlandstalige sites o ik bezoek meer Engelstalige dan Nederlandstalige sites

22. Chat je wel eens met Engelstalige vrienden of kennissen? Indien je ja antwoordt, ga dan over naar vraag 23, anders naar vraag 24. o ja o neen

23. Hoe vaak chat je met Engelstalige vrienden, kennissen, onbekenden? o één keer per week o meerdere keren per week o meerdere keren per maand o minder dan één keer per maand

24. Heb je de indruk dat je Engels bijleert door te surfen op het internet? o Ja, ik kan erdoor een gesprek aangaan met iemand o Ja, toch een aantal woorden of uitdrukkingen o Neen

25. Indien mogelijk, geef dan voorbeelden van woorden, uitdrukkingen, zinnen die je geleerd hebt door te surfen op het internet: ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………

Games 26. Op een dag waarop je gamet, hoeveel uur speel je dan Engelstalige games? o ik speel nooit Engelstalige games

109

o minder dan 1 uur per dag o minder dan 3 uur per dag o meer dan 3 uur per dag

27. Hoeveel dagen per week speel je Engelstalige games? o nooit o 1 dag per week o minder dan 3 dagen per week o meer dan 3 dagen per week o alle dagen van de week

28. Indien je veel spelletjes speelt, heb je de indruk dat je daardoor veel Engels bijleert? o Ja, ik kan erdoor een gesprek aangaan met iemand o Ja, toch een aantal woorden of uitdrukkingen o Neen

29. Indien mogelijk, geef dan voorbeelden van woorden, uitdrukkingen, zinnen die je geleerd hebt door te gamen: ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………

30. Op welke manier heb je de meeste Engelse woorden geleerd? Kruis aan, meerdere antwoorden zijn mogelijk. o het kijken naar Engelstalige televisieprogramma’s/films o het luisteren naar Engelstalige muziek o het surfen op internet o het lezen van Engelstalige boeken o tijdens het gamen op de computer, PSP, PS3, PS2, Wii, Xbox, NDS…

110

Attitude en motivatie Bij dit deel vind je een aantal stellingen over de Engelse taal. Er zijn telkens 6 mogelijke antwoorden die gaan van “helemaal niet” tot “helemaal wel” akkoord. Omcirkel het antwoord dat overeenkomt met wat je denkt over de stelling. Per stelling kan je slechts één cijfer omcirkelen.

helemaal niet niet akkoord eerder niet eerder wel akkoord helemaal akkoord akkoord akkoord akkoord

1 2 3 4 5 6

Bijvoorbeeld: Ik eet graag chocolade 1 2 3 4 5 6

31. Ik vind Engels een mooie taal 1 2 3 4 5 6

32. Ik vind Engels een moeilijke 1 2 3 4 5 6 taal om te begrijpen.

33. Ik vind Engels een moeilijke 1 2 3 4 5 6 taal om te lezen.

34. Ik vind Engels een moeilijke 1 2 3 4 5 6 taal om te spreken.

35. Ik vind Engels een moeilijke 1 2 3 4 5 6 taal om te schrijven.

36. Engels leren is leuk 1 2 3 4 5 6

37. Engels leren is belangrijk voor 1 2 3 4 5 6 later om een goede job te vinden

38. Engels leren is belangrijk om te 1 2 3 4 5 6 kunnen praten met Engelstaligen

39. Mijn ouders vinden het 1 2 3 4 5 6 belangrijk dat ik Engels leer

40. Ik ben bereid om extra moeite 1 2 3 4 5 6 te doen om Engels te leren

41. Ik zou graag meerdere andere 1 2 3 4 5 6 talen kunnen spreken en begrijpen 111

10.3 Answers to question 25 of the questionnaire

A) Dutch informants

nouns clothes computer materials/fabrics weapons vehicles other glasses games paper blade car root movie shoes download silk pitchfork plane grade planet jacket setup cardboard sword bike class stable boot musicplayer paper arrows blame roof wood Front loader garbage food stone peace nuts door square

star *appel adjectives adverbs verbs phrases slang swearing words low how go away take me to church swag Dickhead cheaper many play runaway yolo slut happy down go Hello people lol bitch fast flanking Minecraft is a fun game to play Fuck awesome Easy peasy lemon squeezy uptown how are you funny go to the supermarkt cool *Hey I am a Engles persone. I truste you. Are you trust me? *gif the richte answer B) Flemish informants

nouns clothes computer materials/fabrics weapons vehicles other username bike tower Facebook sheep

Youtube dog translater pig password *kow

112 adjectives adverbs verbs phrases slang swearing words invisible on sign up Click on letter E to jump golden off play *do anywhone want do play with me go *How we do reading game over stop thanks shoot *are what you dowing what is your name

10.4 Answers to question 28 of the questionnaire

A) Dutch informants

nouns computer materials/fabrics weapons other warning sand crossbow window foodball axe Death soccer bow trickslot goal dirt table store village adjectives verbs phrases swearing words dead kill you are *dode fuck you *reddy jump you don’t *now where i am i kill you bitch crazy drive pick *my up shovel I hit you stab tap to jump, tap to play buy good luck finish well played crouch the zombies are dead fly sit run B) Flemish informants

nouns materials/fabrics other stone animals forest diamond cobweb cave iron workbench candy

113

verbs phrases swearing words Crafting Hey, good job you stupid motherfucker Help me *ive been trapped Your hero is really good he’s going well Mission failed i find *you golden bike Sniper keer down we will shoot you

114

10.5 Seven-day diary

115

116

10.6 Answers to the diaries DUTCH Television Music games Internet Books

Program QTY Song Artist QTY Game QTY Site QTY Title QTY disney channel 2 uptown funk bruno mars 2 minecraft 15 youtube 20 popstar magazine 1 mtv 1 you and i 1 direction 1 fifa 6 facebook 8 oefen boekje engels 1 discovery channel 7 this is how we do katey perrey 1 call of duty 9 wikipedia 1 take it easy 1 teennick 2 cheerleader oni 5 gta 5 11 google 4 the big bang theory 1 break the rules charli xcx 1 clash of clans 7 vines 1 the waling dead 1 i am an albatroz 1 hill climb racing 1 instagram 4 jackass 1 love me like you do elli golding 3 just dance 1 twitch 1 tlc 4 runaway ed sheeran 4 crossy roads 2 oovoo 1 nickelodeon 2 happy pharell williams 1 candy crush 1 team extreme 1 animal planet 1 love the way you lie emenim 1 lay days 1 total jerkface 1 big mama 1 shake it off taylor swift 1 counterstrike 2 combat 3 godzilla 1 four five seconds rihanna 2 need for speed 1 run bird run 1 big hero 6 1 years and years king 1 flappy bird 1 simpsons 1 cant stop playing 1 farm ville 1 gold rush 1 one last time ariana grande 5 roblox 1 24 kitchen 1 becky g 3 subway survivors 1 the 80s show 1 rihanna 5 pou 1 blacklist 1 sam smith 1 fun run 1 family man 1 jennifer lopez 1 brain wars 1 just add water 1 iggy azelea 1 ninja jump 1 nanny on tour 1 talyor swift 1 wii sports 1 jo frost 1 bittny underwood 1 everybody dance now1 ayo chris brown 2 the next step 1 7 eleven beonce 1 escape plan 1 shower 1 duel survivor 1 home 1 hunger games 1 the lazy song 1 the impossible 1 turn up the love 1

hey baby 1 alejandro lady gaga 1

te amo 1 waka waka 1

where have you been 1 diamonds 1

man down rihanna 1 we found love rihanna 1

fall out boy 1

black or white 1 outside 1

boom clap 1 the heart wants what it wants 1

all about the bass 1 sweets 1

117

Television Music games Internet Books

Program QTY Song Artist QTY Game QTY Site QTY Title QTY

chicken in the corn 1

pills and potions nicky minaj 1

little mix salute 1

take me to church 1

santa tell me arianna grande 1

waves 1

killing it 1

radio active 1 one direction 1

118

FLEMISH Television Music games Internet Books Program QTY Song Artist QTY Game QTY Site QTY Title QTY top gear 1 uptown funk bruno mars 12 minecraft 11 youtube 32 london 1 disney channel 4 you and i 1 direction 2 fifa 2 facebook 12 harry potter 1 chica vampiro 1 wiggle jason derulo 4 world of tanks 1 spotify 2 lion king 1 mtv 1 i wanna scream 1 james bond 1 wikipedia 1 x men 2 ugly heart G,R,l 3 call of duty 2 planet minecraft2 hunger games 1 this is how we do katey perrey 1 gta 5 3 google 14 the dark knight 1 cheerleader oni 8 clash of clans 5 twitter 1 paddington 1 break the rules charli xcx 3 sims 2 weebly 1 national geographic 3 sex is on fire 1 hill climb racing 1 vines 1 planet of the apes 8 till it hurts 1 indestructable 1 instagram 1 james bond 1 tales of tommorow 1 terraria 1 netflix 1 50 cent 1 just dance 1 bones 2 thinking out loud ed sheeran 2 mario bros 1 home and away 1 all i want 1 crossy roads 4 kick ass 2 1 all of me 2 candy crush 1 mastercheff 1 say something 2 battlefield heroes 1 jeff dunham 1 i am an albatroz 1 my talking angela1 austin and ally 2 love me like you do elli golding 14 lay days 3 the bold and the beautifull1 zombie killer 1 funky 1 ridiculessness 1 shotgun yellowclaw 1 clash of lords 1 every minute one born 2 runaway 2 the voice uk 2 tik tak keisha 1 the ellen show 1 happy pharell williams5 pitch perfect 1 love the way you lie emenim 2 jennifer 8 1 litlle thinks 1 direction 1 modern family 1 shake it off taylor swift 5 wizzali en iles 1 best song ever 1 direction 1 good luch charly 2 earthquake 1 barbie life in the dreamhouse1 wearing of the green 1 ultimate survival alaska 1 bangerang skrillex 2 the simpsons 1 teach me 1 discovery channel 3 wild eyes 1 night of the museum 1 no rest for the wicked 1 liv and madd 2 coming home wiz khalifa 1 step up 2 hungry 1 science of stupid 1 four five seconds rihanna 5 house of country 1 are you with me 1 teennick 1 ocean 1 the big bang theory 1 style 1 hot fuz 1 one last time 1 the house whisper 1 read all abou it 1 wizards of tovery place 1 cheers 1

119

Television Music games Internet Books Program QTY Song Artist QTY Game QTY Site QTY Title QTY jessy 1 elasti heart sia 2 dog with the blog 1 trouble maker 1 sam and cat 1 uncover 1

sugar maroon 5 1 stay with me sam smith 1

let it go frozen 2

love me justin bieber 1

hot right now rihanna 1

in your arms 3 concrete angel 1

not about angels birdy 1

roar katty perry 1

night changes 1

piano 2 fabiola 1 the heart wants what it wantsselena gomez 1

magic in the air 1

turn it op 1

she s so gone 1

jail scene 1 dont ya wish 1

blank space taylor 1

i got a felling black eyed peas1

levels avicii 1

years and years king 1 forget you 1

wake me up 1

rolling in the deep adele 1 fire ball 1

120

10.7 Test items PPVT-4: set 1 to 10

SET 1 SET 2 SET 3 SET 4 SET 5

Cat Running Flag Zipper Knee

Apple Window Gate Nest Donkey

Balloon Neck Sad Mountain Measuring

Hand Talking Hopping Horn huge

Airplane Blue Plant Pear Coin

Bird Thumb Kangaroo Yawning Porcupine

Tree Grapes Muffin Caterpillar Tearing

Table Swimming Game Chin Rectangle

Drinking Circle Barn Pouring Full

Frog Mail Writing Decorated Astronaut

Money Hammer Ring Triangle Ship umbrella Candle farmer Desk hook

SET 6 SET 7 SET 8 SET 9 SET 10

Map Diving Tugging Antlers Pedal

Lock Raccoon Root Calculating Construction

Package Island Sharing Pair Arriving

Fruit Drilling Hive Printing Pyramid

Brain Harmonica Guitar Missile Arctic

Goat Time Terrified Angle Signal

Jewelry Electrician Camper Jaw Fictional

Statue Frame Liquid Cliff shore

Chain Tornado Jogging Rough Deflated

Leaking Peacock Tortoise Nostril Sanding

Cashier Annoying Unhappy Walrus Greeting binoculars parachute racket Compass bouquet

121

10.8 Answering form vocabulary test PPVT-4

122

123

124

125