Jul 11
======

Paradis:2011
------------

This is an interesting analysis and a nice/intuitive model to
interpret how different proposed predictors affect L2 learning
outcomes. However we can see although the models are significant their
R^2 scores do not demonstrate a strong effect (eg. the highest R^2 of
any of the models was .521). The interpretation of the R^2 score is
context and model dependent and should not be the sole judge of model
fit, so this could be up for discussion and would require a more
in-depth analysis of the methods and results in this paper.

One expectation for an improved R^2 score would be including a
predictor of English exposure from school: this was not included in
the models but likely heavily affects and has most of the explanatory
power for successful English-as-L2 learning (we can see examples of
this in countries like India and Nepal where some schools use English
as the primary classroom medium, although English is rarely used
outside of school, yet the children learn to speak/read/write English
at native-like level). I can see why the authors did not include this
factor in their analysis: every participant should have the same
levels of 100% English exposure/high levels of English richness in
school. Thus, they all have the same baseline English exposure from
school, so it’s more interesting to look at predictors which can vary
between the participants. But I wonder how much the English-at-school
predictor would dominate the overall analysis if included...

I was wondering about the design of the Comprehensive Test of
Phonological Processing, for example which rules the non-words are
created by and sorted, which phonemes are used. Also: Is there a
correlation between L1 (i.e. similarity on English) and performance on
this CTOPP test?

Why doesn't Paradis et al. take into account of the impact of mutually
intelligible languages in case of L2 acquisition? I believe this is
also a Child-external factor.

The experiment conducted by Paradis focuses on the L2 acquisition of
children learning English. In my opinion, it would be interesting to
execute follow-up studies on other languages to verify that the
presented findings are universally applicable and not specific to
certain linguistic features of English.

How was language aptitude measured in this study?

According to the population this research worked on (169 children
between the ages of 4;10, 3 to 62 months of exposure to English, came
from newcomer (immigrant and refugee) families residing in Edmonton
and Toronto, Canada), can we generalize its findings? Which variables
are more dependent on the sample they selected?

A more general question: What if the child does not get any input at
home from the parent but is just exposed to external factors
(e.g.input only in kindergarten or youtube videos from a very young
age etc.) Could that affect the level of aquisition and could we
consider that a kind of bilingualism?

The study highlights the significance of child-internal factors over
child-external factors in predicting the rate of English L2
acquisition in children. However, the role of environmental factors,
like the richness of the English environment, still showed notable
impact. Considering this balance, how might interventions be designed
to enhance English L2 acquisition outcomes by effectively integrating
both high-quality language input and strategies to strengthen
child-internal cognitive skills? Are there existing educational
frameworks or programs that successfully incorporate such a balanced
approach, and what evidence supports their efficacy?