Effectiveness of Subtractive Model in Second Language Learning

The Subtractive Bilingual Model refers to the type of model that involves the acquisition
and usage of the second language as soon as possible. In this model, the child’s first language is
usually replaced by the second language that was being taught especially when the first
language of the child is not yet fully developed. With that, what usually happens is that the
culture tied with the first language of the child is fully replaced by the second language. Though
it might sound convincing that Subtractive Model is the most effective model in second
language acquisition, I’m here to prove that the process in which the first language is neglected
can cause the whole model to fail, making it the least potent among the models of second
language learning. Now, let us see the “effectiveness” of the Subtractive Model.

Again, as what I stated above, in Subtractive Bilingual Model the mastery and acquisition
of the first language is gradually replaced by the second language being taught. Though it might
seem effective at first, in the long run, the effect of neglecting the child’s first language or home
language will slowly affect the child’s acquisition of the second language. In a study conducted
by Clarkson (1992), the result showed that the language proficiency level of bilingual students
who did poorly on the tests was very low in their first language as well as their second
language. On the other hand, the language proficiency of the students who performed better
was high in both their languages. This simply showed that a high language competence is
needed in both languages in order to gain positive aspects in bilingualism. Research has also
shown that home-language skills predict second-language learning; students with a strong
home-language foundation generally score higher on tests of English proficiency (Calderon &
Carreon, 2000; Collier, 1992; Cummins, 1981; Dolson & Mayer, 1992; Ramirez, et al., 1991).
Cummins and Schecter (2003) found that students who have well- 4 developed literacy skills in
their home language acquired the second language more successfully than those students with
weaker literacy skills in the home language. To support the study conducted by Clarkson and
the statement given by several people, I will also include other studies or evidences that will
show the ineffectiveness of Subtractive Model.

In a three-year study (2007-2010) conducted by Kate M. and Tatyana K., they presented
the “Long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational experiences of secondary
English language learners” in three N.Y.C high schools. Their respondents are the LTELL or Long-
term English Language Learners who have attended schools in the USA for seven or more years
and still require language support services. In their study they found out that the LTELLs have
not been able to experience the academic benefits that come when their native languages are
developed in schools (Cummins 2000; Garcı´a 2009), because they do not have the advantage
of a strong academic literacy foundation established in their native language upon which to
build as they acquire English. They found out that the students prefer English over their native
language even though they are unable to master it which also affects their academic literacy
skills that they lack. The researchers recommended that the institutions should offer the
learners the opportunity to develop their native language with clear and consistent policies.
They also recommended that high schools should be prepared to teach LTELL the academic
literacy that a student needs rather than simply assuming that students arrive in high school
with literacy skills that have already been developed.

In a research conducted by Kathryn L.L. and Fred G, they presented different “Alternate
Educational Programs” in which they included the importance of the mastery of the native
language in second language acquisition. They stated that English learners with advanced
mastery in certain aspects of their first language shows superior achievement in English literacy
compared with English learners who lack or have lower mastery of competence in their home
language abilities. In a research about the English learners in California and elsewhere in the
U.S., it showed that it takes up to 2 or even more years for English learners to acquire proficient
oral language skills and even longer when it comes to acquiring oral academic language skills.
Alongside with that, in other evidences, even though most of the English learners in California
are educated in English mainstream classrooms, the majority still lack the academic language
skills needed to be reclassified as English proficient even after 10 years of English instruction.
This research shows that skills in the native language support their literacy development in
English. The development of oral proficiency in the native language can facilitate the
development of literacy skills in English among English learners.

Lastly, in a “blog post” by a coalition of concerned education advocates in the

Philippines on 2013, they called upon their government to have one revision on the
implemented K to 12 curriculum regarding the Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education
(MTB-MLE). Their concern is mostly about lengthening the usage of the mother tongue or the
first language of the child. Instead of using the first language until 3 rd grade, they are suggesting
to extend until the 6th grade. Then they included several evidences to back up there request.
Here, I will include evidences that are relevant to my stand: (1) the first language (L1) generally
needs to be reinforced and developed for 12 years in order for successful second language
learning and academic success to take place. (2) International second language acquisition
literature indicates that under optimal conditions, it takes from six to eight years for a student
to learn a second language in school (as a subject) sufficiently well to use it as a main medium
of instruction. (3) Language education models that remove the first language as a primary
medium of teaching and learning before it has been used for six years will facilitate little
success for the majority of learners. Language education models that retain the first language
as a primary medium of instruction for at least six years can succeed under very well resourced
conditions. Eight years of mother tongue education may be enough under less well-resourced
conditions.
 In conclusion, the mastery and acquisition of first language or the native language of the
child is one of the key factors to a much more effective second language learning. In the studies
and findings that I mentioned, without the mastery of the first language or the native language
of the child, the acquisition of the second language is most likely to fail. In that case, the
acquisition of both languages becomes underdeveloped which can result to lack of skills and
competencies. As what was stated, the mastery of the first language serves as a “bootstrap” in
acquiring the second language. Hence, even with the said model’s promising result of fluency
and acquisition of the second language, the promising result will slowly fade and can result to
incompetence and underdeveloped skills, making the model the least potent among the models
that were being used in second language learning.

References:
http://ensignesleducation.blogspot.com/p/types-of-programs.html
http://catarina.udlap.mx/u_dl_a/tales/documentos/mla/theraulaz_m/capitulo2.pdf
https://katemenken.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/menken-kleyn-ijbeb-134-july-2010-
subtractive-schooling-ltell1.pdf
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/documents/chapter6.pdf
http://mothertongue-based.blogspot.com/2013/01/