Learning new information in L2 is more effortful than in L1. We found different functional connectivity networks of naturalistic learning through speech among adolescents, confirming this prevalent observation

–Tweet from McGill University Professor Gigi Luk

Does learning language require effort? Does it require more effort when learning a new language later in our lives? Why?

Today, we will highlight a study that shows the additional neurological networks that adolescents activate when learning in a second language – a key insight for all educators to consider.

Language Learning: Effortless for Babies, Effortful for Adults

Babies learn language with such ease that they have already begun to recognize the unique patterns of a language–even to distinguish between the unique patterns of multiple languages–while still in the womb.

We therefore tend to assume there is something wholly innate or natural to learning language.

Yet as we’ve explored previously in a series on this blog, even learning our first languages may not be as innate or natural as it can appear. Human language reflects a unique synchrony between our biological and cultural evolution, finely attuned to the social environment in which we interact. It may be argued that babies learn languages more easily because they are learning the patterns of the fabric of their entire social universe, and language is interwoven therein.

This is termed the “critical period” of learning – a period of cognitive and cultural maturation that in humans is far more protracted than that of other animals. While there is clearly something innate about human biology in our receptiveness to language, there is also the fact that this slower process of maturation allows for more complex cultural influences beyond that of any innate biology. Most animal communication systems are more innate and develop fully earlier in life.

Armed with this understanding, it is not so surprising, then, that LLMs have revealed the inseparable connection of form and meaning in human language. Our languages reflect our lives within our communities – our cultural experiences in the world over time that can be understood only in relation to each other.

As we’ve also explored in another series, learning to read and write requires more effort, because it simultaneously demands greater abstraction and greater precision. It requires greater cognitive attention and attuned fine motor ability. As a form of “decontextualized language,” reading and writing go beyond immediate social interactions, requiring structured practice, formal instruction, and sustained cognitive focus.

This greater demand of written language on cognitive resources mirrors the challenges of learning a new language later in life. This means that “cognitive load theory” may have an undervalued contribution to bring to learning a new language.

It Takes Cognitive Effort to Learn Academic Content in a Second Language

So let’s dig into this paper some more . . .

• Citation: Leon Guerrero, S., Mesite, L., & Luk, G. (2024). Distinct functional connectivity patterns during naturalistic learning by adolescent first versus second language speakers. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 18984. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69575-1

In the study conducted by Guerrero, Mesite, and Luk, 38 middle school students—19 native Spanish speakers (of whom 14 were born outside the US) and 19 native English speakers—watched an Earth science video in English while their brains were scanned using fMRI. For an example of the type of video they watched, see here.

They found that bilingual students used more parts of their brains, especially areas related to thinking and controlling attention, compared to monolingual students. Furthermore, while learning in English (their second language), the bilingual students were found to use their Spanish skills to better understand the lesson.

Some further insights from the paper:

“Bilingual adolescents with stronger Spanish cloze comprehension displayed lower connectivity with control regions, thus suggesting that higher-order comprehension skills make L2 processing easier, regardless of whether those skills were acquired in L2 or L1, i.e., English or Spanish.”

In essence, students who had developed more advanced reading comprehension skills in Spanish expended less cognitive effort when processing the video in English. Their robust language skills in their first language served as an internal scaffold, helping them navigate the complexities of an academic lesson in a second language.

“Differences emerge particularly in regions associated with higher-order language processing and cognitive control. This finding is especially relevant to adolescents learning academic lessons in their L2 as such lessons often focus on L2 vocabulary development. The current findings provide support for the idea that, beyond L2 vocabulary, students draw upon higher-order comprehension skills developed in their L1 to integrate L2 word meanings in understanding L2 discourse. This finding highlights the potential benefits of enhancing comprehension using syntactic and integrative skills in the L1 as a linguistic resource.”

This finding illustrates that bilingual teens use similar brain regions for complex language tasks in both languages. Improving a multilingual student's understanding of complex ideas in their first language can boost their learning in another language.

Reduce Cognitive Control to Increase Implicit Learning

Another fascinating parallel comes from a study with university students, which examined how cognitive depletion impacts language learning

After engaging in a memory task that taxed their working memory, students learned novel linguistic rules more implicitly, suggesting that cognitive fatigue can paradoxically enhance language learning by suppressing rule-based, conscious learning and promoting implicit pattern recognition—similar to how children learn languages.

As we’ve explored in relation to LLMs, this kind of implicit learning is critical to understanding both human language acquisition and the development of literacy skills.

Cognitive Load Theory and Language Learning

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), a well-established framework in educational research, explains how working memory processes information and why certain tasks demand more cognitive resources. In the context of learning in a new language, the demands on working memory are significantly increased as students must simultaneously process the content of a lesson and the language in which it’s delivered.

For a practical overview of CLT, I recommend Oliver Lovell’s “Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory in Action.”.

As Lovell succinctly explains, “New information takes up more working memory capacity than familiar information.” For multilingual learners, this dynamic is further complicated by the need to juggle both content and language, increasing cognitive load, as our research highlight demonstrates.

Lovell also states that “We reduce the working memory load of a task by chunking and automating.” I think it’s worth further considering both of these in relation to language learning.

Chunking

“Chunking” tasks and texts is an oldie but goodie when it comes to reducing cognitive load for all kinds of students. For novice learners, breaking tasks down to their components, then sequencing them to build practice towards clearly established models and success criteria, is the essence of scaffolding and differentiation.

For older students also learning a new language at the same time, sometimes it may also mean helping them to not let their thinking get in the way. By focusing students on the content itself, we may help free up their unconscious minds for implicit learning of the language associated with the content.

Building Automaticity

As we’ve explored in our first research highlight, “automatizing” the sounds, spelling, and meaning of words in a new language is important. As I wrote in that post:

Key words need to be not merely taught, but seen, heard, and read in varying contexts – and most importantly, actively used by students in varying contexts. Within a lesson, this means drawing attention to and using key vocabulary before, during, and after reading a core text, and this is a great place to start. That key vocabulary then needs to be spaced and interwoven in practice and use throughout the remainder of the unit of study! Some of this may be explicit, especially when first introducing words, but much can also be implicit if the vocabulary is aligned to and key to understanding the topic that all the content, texts, and discussions are oriented around.

Scaffolding with Home Language

As our research highlight also shows, multilingual students have a key and often under-utilized resource they can draw upon as an internal scaffold while learning content in English: they can draw upon previous knowledge and skills in their home languages.

This doesn’t mean that everything should be translated, but rather strategic planning for what and how much can be offered in students' home language as a scaffold to the instructional language and content – and how much we can support students’ in developing metacognitive and metalinguistic awareness so they can draw more intentionally on their multilingual resources.

Practical Implications for Language Teachers

Pop quiz: Who are language teachers? A) World language teachers B) ELA teachers C) ESL teachers D) All teachers

The correct answer is D! All teachers are teachers of language – the language related to the content they are teaching – and all teachers are teachers of students learning newer, more disciplinary forms of English, including students navigating multiple dialects and languages in their homes and communities.

Based on this review, there are several things that teachers can do to help their multilingual students learn more effectively:

• Provide clear and concise instructions and consistent routines. Ambiguity increases cognitive load.
• Break tasks into smaller, manageable steps. Scaffolding reduces demands on working memory.
• Create multiple opportunities for reading, writing, and talking using key words and sentences. Repeated, meaningful use of language solidifies learning.
• Encourage students to leverage their first language. Home languages can serve as a powerful cognitive tool, bridging understanding into a new language.
• Focus learning on meaningful content, rather than on the rules of language. The older we get, the more that our conscious minds can get in the way of the implicit learning that the patterns of languages afford.

In Sum: Cognitive Insights Into Language Learning

This interesting study by Guerrero, Mesite, and Luk offers insight into how adolescent students engage cognitively when learning academic content in a second language. By identifying distinct patterns of brain connectivity, the research reveals that teens with a home language of Spanish rely on additional neural resources, especially in regions associated with attention and cognitive control, to process new information in English. Moreover, students with stronger language skills in their first language of Spanish exhibited reduced cognitive effort when learning in English, highlighting the importance of developing robust literacy skills in both languages.

This research underscores the cognitive challenges of learning academic content in a second language, but also the potential advantages that come from leveraging home language as a scaffold. By acknowledging the cognitive load that multilingual students navigate, educators can adopt strategies that not only reduce the burden on working memory but also empower students to draw upon their linguistic strengths. In doing so, we can support their ability to learn content and language simultaneously, cultivating both academic achievement and bilingual proficiency.

#language #multilingual #research #cognition

A recent paper caught my eye, Ontogenesis Model of the L2 Lexical Representation, and despite the immediate mind glazing effect of the word “ontogenesis,” I found the model well worth digging into and sharing here—and it may bear relevance to conversations on orthographic mapping.

• Bordag, D., Gor, K., & Opitz, A. (2021). Ontogenesis Model of the L2 Lexical Representation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000250

How we learn words and all their phonological, morphological, orthographic, and semantic characteristics is a fascinating topic of research—most especially in the areas of written word recognition and in the learning of a new language.

This paper thus struck me as an especially insightful attempt to synthesize much of that research. To be clear: this is a model that has not been directly tested, but it seems well-aligned to other theories like orthographic mapping and the lexical quality hypothesis, as well as explain some of the tension between regularity and irregularity in word forms and frequency.

“In intentional word learning from definitions, L2 words with easily encoded orthographic form are better retained. In incidental word learning, words with unusual form are more salient and more easily detected.”

I enjoyed especially the visualizations of phonological, orthographic, and semantic mapping and how they can develop at different rates and trajectories but with interdependence.

A couple of terms that are key to the ontogenesis model (the authors should perhaps come up with a catchier name):

• Fuzziness: “inexact or ambiguous encoding of different components or dimensions of the lexical representation that can be caused by several linguistic, cognitive, and learning-induced factors. These factors include, among others, changes in neural plasticity, the complexity of mapping L2 semantic representations on the existing L1 semantic representations and of mapping L2 forms on the semantic representations, and problems with L2 phonological encoding”
• Optimum: “the ultimate attainment of a representation (or its individual components), i.e., the highest level of its acquisition, when the representation is properly encoded and no longer fuzzy”

These concepts give us a way of visualizing, as per the graphs above, how different dimensions of a word may develop over time. Our goal, of course, is to reach optimum encoding across the sounds, spelling, and meaning so that it is anchored in our long-term memory (i.e. fluent, automatic access and retrieval).

“Each lexical entry can comprise representations from the three domains, and each representation is interconnected with other representations of the same type. Each domain representation can thus develop its own, idiosyncratic network of connections to other representations. Together they constitute the phonological, orthographic, and semantic networks in the mental lexicon.

“The model sees a word’s lexical integration as a gradual process, in which connections to other representations grow in number and strength until the optimum is potentially reached. The optimum in this dimension can be described as an adequately rich network of appropriate connections. Fuzziness in this dimension then refers primarily to an inadequate number of connections to other representations (typically too few) and/or to their inadequate strength (typically too weak), as well as inappropriate connections (e.g., an erroneous connection between the phonological forms of through and dough due to the influence of orthography).”

The added complexity of learning words in a new language is that there are variable interactions across phonological, orthographic, and semantic dimensions with our native language.

“Depending on the grapheme-phoneme relationship between the L1 and L2 and within L2, simultaneous acquisition of orthographic information may thus move the phonological representation closer to or further away from its optimum (and vice versa). Furthermore, the effect of L1 orthography on spoken word recognition in L2 is modulated by L2 proficiency and word familiarity

…a new L2 form representation is connected not only to other, previously established, L2 form representations, but also to L1 forms. The OM thus differentiates between two subnetworks within the form network: an IntraNetwork and an InterNetwork. The IntraNetwork refers to the connections between a given L2 form and other L2 forms, as discussed above. The InterNetwork refers to cross-language connections, i.e., the connections between a given L2 form and L1 forms.”

An interesting and insightful model! I look forward to seeing further studies drawing upon it.

#language #literacy #models #learning #phonology #secondlanguageacquisition #multilingual

Discuss...