HANOI UNIVERSITY

DISTANCE EDUCATION CENTER

RESEARCHING SKILLS

A Critical review of "The Effects of Age Factor on Learning

Supervisor: Pham Thanh Binh M.A.

Hà Nội, 2025
 OUTLINE

I. Introduction

II. Body

1. Review key topics

• An Overview of Age and Critical Period Hypothesis

• Analysis of Age and Critical Hypothesis

2. Critical review of the research

• Summary of the research

• Critical review

III. Conclusion
 VERSION 1: Full-LENGTH

Frank Smith once said “One language sets you in a corridor for life. Two languages

open every door along the way”. Indeed, language is considered an important tool for people

to communicate with each other no matter where they are. With globalization and

cooperation between countries, learning a second language is widely recognized thanks to the

advantages and opportunities it brings. In particular, English has become a popular language

in many different countries as the official language or second language. According to Chua

(2022), English is the most commonly spoken language, with approximately 1,5 billion

speakers at varying ages. The acquisition of a second language, specifically English, is

affected by multiple factors such as age, aptitude, learning styles, personality, motivation, or

attitudes. However, the age factor is believed to have a considerable impact on language

acquisition. Furthermore, linguists have the term Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), which

relates to the relationship between age and second language acquisition. This paper will do a

critical review of the research with the title “The Effects of Age Factor on Learning English:

A Case Study of Learning English in an Online Chinese School” written by Ana Kusíc

(2022). The research successfully gives firm supporting evidence for younger learners being

better than older learners, however, there are still several limitations that make the study less

convincing.

Age, as defined by the Collins English Dictionary, is a period or state of human life.

Second language acquisition or SLA is the process by which learning another language in

addition to the first language. In terms of the Critical Period Hypothesis, supposes that there

is an ideal 'window' of time in a person’s life to acquire language in a linguistically rich

environment, after which further language acquisition becomes much more difficult and

effortful (Lennerberg, 1967). The hypothesis comes to the conclusion that a person learns a

second language much more quickly and easily in their early years due to the brain structure.
Because of their high neuroplasticity, young learners' brains are more flexible and receptive

to
learning new languages. On the other hand, learning a second language later in life will cause

acquisition to be weakened. Lennerberg (1967) also pointed out the precise age of the critical

period, varying from two to twelve years old. It means that when a person reaches puberty,

which is known as the age of twelve or thirteen, they may make slow or indiscernible

progress in their language learning. Linguists and language scholars focus a great deal of

emphasis on age in order to get additional data regarding its influence on second language

acquisition.

The studies of the impact of age on second language acquisition remain a long-

standing debatable topic among linguists. They give contradictory viewpoints on whether

younger or older is better. The majority of academics acknowledge that children and adults

acquire second languages in different ways and at different rates. While some researchers

suppose that younger learners can exceed older counterparts, others argue that adult learners

also have advantages in some regards, such as storing grammatical rules or lexical terms.

Although the debate is ongoing, there are two undeniable factors related to the effect of age

on second language acquisition, they are ultimate attainment and the rate of learning. Studies

on ultimate attainment suppose that younger learners learn faster and more efficiently than

older learners because their exposure to a second language from a very early age often can

result in native-like proficiency. For example, Hyltenstam (1992) carried out a study

involving individuals who arrived in Sweden before adolescence and stayed there for more

than five years compared with Swedish native speakers. The results indicate that people

coming to Sweden after the age of seven had more grammatical errors than Swedish native

participants. However, compared to the other groups, students who arrived in Sweden before

the age of six made fewer mistakes. Additionally, Johnson and Newport (1989) examined the

relationship between the age of engagement in an L2 and the ultimate attainment of L2

grammar. They tested the English grammar ability of 46 native speakers of Chinese and
Korean who arrived in the USA between
the ages of 3 and 39 and had resided there for 3 to 26 years at the time of assessment. They

employed a grammaticality task for judging and came to the conclusion that test results were

linearly correlated to the age of arrival because performance was low after puberty.

Meanwhile, studies on the rate of learning claim that older learners are better than younger

learners regarding the rate of acquisition in the initial stage of SLA. To illustrate, Snow and

Hoefnagel- Höhle (1978) conducted a study on English speakers who were learning Dutch as

a second language and concluded that older learners are better than younger learners

regarding the rate of learning. The study revealed that older learners retained the highest

levels of performance in comparison with young learners within three months. Comparable

research has yielded the same conclusion. These studies show that older adults improved

cognitive function and memory allowing them to process information more easily. In

conclusion, younger learners end up attaining higher L2 proficiency in long-term naturalistic

SLA while older learners are faster in L2 learning initially.

The article titled “The Effects of Age Factor on Learning English: A Case Study of

Learning English in an Online Chinese School” written by Ana Kusíc in 2022 explores how

age influences the success and proficiency of English language acquisition within the context

of an online Chinese school. The rationale behind this study stems from the widely debated

topic of the Critical Period Hypothesis, suggesting an optimal age for language acquisition.

Various former studies have indicated that individuals who begin to learn a foreign language

at an earlier age have a tendency to develop or attain a higher level of mastery than those who

start later. Moreover, although adults may learn more quickly than younger students, children

who acquire a second language will ultimately attain a higher level of proficiency. Kusić aims

to contribute to this ongoing debate by addressing the research question: “Is there a

significant difference in performance and the speed of improvement between the younger

and the older

the language proficiency test for a total of 24 students (with 12 younger learners aged 4-5 and

12 older learners aged 10-12) and the questionnaire with a poll for both native and non-native

teachers. The questionnaire focused on teachers’ perceptions of student performance,

grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. The study findings indicate that generally younger

students scored slightly higher than older students, with the figures being 79.55% and

79.14%, respectively. As the grammar test revealed, the total result of older learners was 58

out of 84 points (69%), which was one point higher than that of young students. Additionally,

the average score for each older student was 4,83 out of 7 points, this was also slightly higher

than the younger learners’ average (4,75 out of 7 points). These results led to the researcher’s

conclusion that old learners exceeded their young counterparts in terms of grammar.

Meanwhile, in terms of vocabulary, with a total score of 134 out of 156 and an average of

11,16 out of 13 points, the performance of young students slightly outstripped that of older

learners. Regarding the teacher’s perspective, although teachers preferred working with older

students, they agreed that children should begin learning English at an early age. The

discussion section delves into the implications of these findings. The younger students have a

shallow world and life knowledge and are still learning the lower levels of English, which

lessens their understanding and language awareness; however, all scholars have come to an

agreement that they are better in the long run compared to the older learners. Young students

have an advantage in learning a new language because their brains are more flexible, thus

easily adapting to the language's mentality. They are also highly motivated, which makes the

learning process easier. On the other hand, older students may have already formed attitudes

and characters that sometimes do not align with the mentality of the new language, making it

harder for them to learn. In conclusion, age is an important component that affects EFL

learning, with earlier exposure resulting in better performance. Teachers should use different

approaches and
instructional methods based on age groups, while motivation can be influenced by various

factors such as teaching strategies, socioeconomic status, and personality traits.

In the discussion part of this research, several lines of reasoning are quite convincing.

First, from the tests, the researcher concluded that the younger learners’ advantages in

learning English resulted from the fact that their brains were more flexible and they could

adjust to the mentality of the language at ease. This argument is persuasive and cogent with

many researchers sharing the same point. Cagac (2018) agreed with this point of view as the

author stated that young learners were inherently flexible and uniquely hard-wired to learn a

foreign language. According to Gopnik et al. (2015), the main reason why adults’ brains were

not as flexible as those of young people was old learners’ broader range of knowledge, which

constrained them from interpreting and absorbing new knowledge. Secondly, with the results

of the grammar and vocabulary tests, a conclusion was drawn that children slightly exceeded

in vocabulary meanwhile vocabulary was the aspect that young learners were better at. Many

other studies have also shared the same viewpoint. In the research of Khodaraze and Jamnani

(2015), they claimed that old learners could achieve better performance than young learners

regarding the grammar aspect. The reason for this advantage was that old learners utilized

universal grammar from their first language, possessed the ability to manipulate the complex

abstract language system, and followed the self-regulatory learning style. In terms of

vocabulary, Orosco (2017) agreed that learners who were from a young age group were better

at learning new words as the researcher elaborated that they had not only more time to be

exposed to the language but also the capability to create associations between words and

meanings. Furthermore, as the nature of young learners and old learners were different, Kusić

coherently and logically suggested that teachers’ instructions and teaching styles should also

be distinct. For example, children should be provided with visual presentations and variety in
the class. Furthermore, in a formal environment, their achievements would be restrained.

Whereas for adults, more serious approaches and discussions were required. Munoz (2007)

also had the same but more extensive viewpoint. The author not only agreed that young

children should be provided with a large amount of input to facilitate incidental learning,

rather than explicit and formal learning in classes but also stated that communicative

activities will be most suitable for them. Regarding adult learners, Munoz had a more

comprehensive opinion as the researcher said that both explicit learning and implicit learning

could benefit learners from this age group.

However, some points of this study seem to be ill-founded. First of all, when it comes

to the Critical Period Hypothesis, there are two primary aspects that cannot be neglected,

which are the ultimate attainment of proficiency and the rate of learning. In this research, the

author only focused on the ultimate attainment and ignored the rate of learning, which is also

an essential factor. Regarding this aspect, there is a positive correlation between the age of

learners and the speed of learning. If the age of second language learners is higher, the initial

speed of acquiring knowledge is also faster. Therefore, without evaluating the rate of

learning, the researcher failed to provide a holistic and accurate viewpoint on the hypothesis.

Secondly, it is also important to note that the researcher based mainly on the results of

grammar and vocabulary tests to conclude which age group was better at learning English.

However, this is not enough to assess the language abilities of learners. Therefore, in order to

draw a more accurate conclusion, it is suggested that other skills of the participants such as

pronunciation, reading, or listening should also be tested. Furthermore, although the results of

young and old age groups are distinct, it cannot be concluded that it is only due to the

difference in age because there are a wide variety of factors that can also influence the result.

One of them is the time of exposure. As Sheela and Kavikumar (2016) suggested, both

inside-class and outside-class

greater familiarity with the targeted language and an increase in proficiency. Other factors

could be motivation, personality, attitude, and so on (Bao & Liu, 2021). Thus, it can be

inferred that even for learners who are at a favorable age, if their time of exposure to English

and level of motivation is limited or they have a negative attitude toward English, then they

are less likely to achieve a high English level. For this reason, in this research, the difference

in the results that was based on to confirm the hypothesis may be attributed to their hours of

exposure, motivation, or attitude, instead of their age. Finally, to have a firmer and more

accurate result, this research also incorporated a questionnaire about teachers’ perceptions of

whether young learners or old learners were superior in learning English. Nonetheless, this

questionnaire could not provide sound evidence because it consisted of only personal

opinions rather than a factual basis.

In conclusion, this review briefly overviews the age and Critical Period Hypothesis in

second language acquisition and gives a critical review of the article titled “The Effects of

Age Factor on Learning English: A Case Study of Learning English in an Online Chinese

School” by Kusíc (2022). In particular, much research has shown that the age at which a

person learns a second language plays a significant role in their language acquisition.

Younger learners tend to have an advantage in long-term proficiency due to the level of

neuroplasticity and the ability of young learners to absorb new languages more easily, while

older learners may exhibit faster initial progress. Kusic’s study findings were in line with

former studies, showing that younger learners achieved slightly higher scores in language

proficiency tests, particularly in vocabulary, while older learners showed better performance

in grammar. Moreover, the results align with previous research indicating that younger

learners benefit from their flexible brains and adaptability to new languages, while older

learners leverage their existing knowledge and

and approaches based on age groups. However, it is essential for the author to consider other

influencing factors such as the rate of learning, and other aspects of language acquisition. In

light of these limitations, it is recommended that future research should adopt a more

comprehensive approach, including incorporating multiple language skills and examining the

rate of learning. Furthermore, considering a wider range of factors that may impact language

acquisition outcomes such as motivation, exposure to the target language, and attitudes would

provide a more accurate understanding of the role of age in second language acquisition.
 REFERENCES

Bao, Y., & Liu, S. (2021). The influence of affective factors in second language acquisition on
foreign language teaching. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 09(03), 463–470.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.93030
Çağaç, F. G. (2018). BENEFITS OF LEARNING A FOREIGN LANGUAGE AT AN
EARLY AGE. The Journal of International Social Research, 11(59), 132–137.
https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2018.2622
Chua, A. (2022, January 18). How the English Language Conquered the World. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/18/books/review/the-rise-of-english-
rosemary-salomone.html
Frank Smith (Author of Thread of Evidence). (n.d.).
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/138205.Frank_Smith
Gopnik, A., Griffiths, T. L., & Lucas, C. G. (2015). When younger learners can be better (or at
least more Open-Minded) than older ones. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
24(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414556653
Hyltenstam, K. (1992) Non-native features of near-native speakers: on the ultimate attainment
of childhood L2 learners. Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals, 83(1992), 351-
368. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61505-8
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning:
The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language.
Cognitive Psychology 21, pp. 60-99.
Khodareza, M. & Jamnani, R, (2015). Language acquisition after the critical period: Do adult
learners follow a different route in second language acquisition? Indian Journal of
Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 5(S3), 1481-1492.
Kusic, A. (2022). The effects of age factor on learning English: A case study of learning
English in an online Chinese school. MAP Social Sciences, 2(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.53880/2744-2454.2022.2.1.1
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Munoz, C. (2007). Age-related differences and second language learning practice. Practice in a
Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology.
Cambridge University Press. 229-255.
Orosco, C. (2017). The influence of age on vocabulary acquisition in students of English as a
foreign language. [Master Degree, Universidad de Piura]
Sheela, S. K. & Ravikumar, K. R. (2016). The importance of exposure in learning English as a
second language - strategies to be employed to improve the student’s language exposure
in the context of rapid changes in the field of technology. Research Journal of English
Language and Literature, 4(2), 770-774.
Snow, C. E. & Hoefnagel-Hoehle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition:
evidence from second language learning. Child Development 49, 1114-1128.
 Introduction

This critical review explores the age factor in second language acquisition (SLA) and evaluates
Ana Kusić’s 2022 study, “The Effects of Age Factor on Learning English: A Case Study of
Learning English in an Online Chinese School.” Language is an essential tool for
communication, and with globalization, learning a second language is increasingly recognized
for its numerous benefits. English, in particular, has become the most widely spoken language,
with approximately 1.5 billion speakers (Chua, 2022). Among various factors influencing SLA,
age is often debated, particularly in relation to the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), which
posits that early age enhances language acquisition due to neuroplasticity. This review will
discuss age and the CPH, followed by a detailed critique of Kusić’s research, which will
highlight its strengths and limitations.

Age and the Critical Period Hypothesis

Age is widely regarded as a key factor in SLA. According to the Critical Period Hypothesis
proposed by Lenneberg (1967), there is an optimal period, typically before puberty, during
which language acquisition occurs more naturally and efficiently. Young learners benefit from
high neuroplasticity, enabling them to adapt easily to new linguistic environments. Lenneberg
suggested that after this critical period, language acquisition becomes more effortful due to
reduced brain flexibility. Studies like those of Hyltenstam (1992) and Johnson and Newport
(1989), which affirm this hypothesis, show that younger learners are more likely to achieve
native-like proficiency in the long term.

However, research also highlights advantages for older learners, particularly in the initial stages
of SLA. Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle (1978) found that older learners demonstrate faster
progress in acquiring grammatical rules and vocabulary during the early phases. These findings
suggest that while younger learners excel in ultimate attainment, older learners leverage
cognitive maturity and prior knowledge for initial rapid gains. Thus, the relationship between
age and SLA involves a complex interplay of neurocognitive and experiential factors.

Critical Review of Kusić’s Research

Summary of the Research

The article titled “The Effects of Age Factor on Learning English: A Case Study of Learning
English in an Online Chinese School” written by Ana Kusíc in 2022 explores how age
influences the success and proficiency of English language acquisition within the context of an
online Chinese school. The rationale behind this study stems from the widely debated topic of
the Critical Period Hypothesis, which suggests an optimal age for language acquisition. Using a
mixed-methods approach, the study involved 24 students divided into two age groups: younger
learners (ages 4-5) and older learners (ages 10-12). Data collection included language
proficiency tests and teacher questionnaires assessing performance in grammar, vocabulary, and
pronunciation. The findings indicated that younger learners slightly outperformed older learners
overall, scoring 79.55% compared to 79.14%. Younger students excelled in vocabulary,
achieving an average of 11.16 out of 13 points, while older learners performed better in
grammar, with an average score of 4.83 out of 7 points. The results related to eacher feedback
revealed a preference for working with older students but acknowledged the long-term
advantages of early language exposure. The study concluded that age significantly influences
SLA, with younger learners benefiting from neuroplasticity and older learners leveraging
cognitive maturity.
Critical Analysis

Kusić’s research provides valuable insights into the age factor in SLA, but it has notable
strengths and limitations. One strength lies in the mixed-methods approach, which combines
quantitative test results with qualitative teacher perspectives, offering a multifaceted view of
language learning. The study’s focus on grammar and vocabulary aligns with existing literature,
supporting findings that younger learners excel in vocabulary due to their adaptability, while
older learners perform better in grammar by applying prior knowledge and analytical skills.

Despite these strengths, the study’s narrow scope limits its applicability. First, it prioritizes
ultimate attainment over the rate of learning, neglecting the well-documented advantage of older
learners in initial SLA stages. Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle’s (1978) research, for example,
emphasizes the rapid early progress of older learners, which Kusić’s study fails to address.
Including data on the rate of learning would have provided a more comprehensive
understanding of age-related differences.

Second, the study’s reliance on grammar and vocabulary tests overlooks other critical language
skills such as pronunciation, reading, and listening. Language acquisition is a multidimensional
process, and assessing only two components risks oversimplifying the relationship between age
and SLA. Broader skill assessment would strengthen the study’s conclusions.

Third, the influence of external factors like motivation, exposure, and socioeconomic status is
not sufficiently considered. While the study acknowledges the role of age, it overlooks variables
such as time spent practicing English or the learning environment. Research by Sheela and
Kavikumar (2016), which highlights the importance of exposure in shaping SLA outcomes,
suggests that differences in test results may stem from disparities in learning opportunities rather
than age alone.

Additionally, the use of teacher questionnaires as supporting evidence raises concerns about
objectivity. Teacher perceptions, while informative, are inherently subjective and may not
accurately reflect students’ abilities. Incorporating independent observations or standardized
evaluations would enhance the reliability of the findings.

Finally, the study’s small sample size (24 students) limits its generalizability. A larger, more
diverse sample would better represent the complexities of SLA across different age groups and
cultural contexts. For example, including learners from various linguistic and educational
backgrounds could reveal how these factors interact with age in SLA.

Conclusion

This review looks at the role of age in SLA, with younger learners demonstrating long-term
advantages due to neuroplasticity and older learners excelling in initial progress through
cognitive maturity, and gives a critical analysis of Kusic (2022)'s study. Kusić’s study
contributes to this ongoing debate by highlighting age-related differences in grammar and
vocabulary acquisition. However, its limitations—including a narrow focus on ultimate
attainment, exclusion of broader language skills, insufficient consideration of external factors,
reliance on subjective teacher opinions, and a small sample size—restrict its rigor. Future
research should adopt a more comprehensive approach, incorporating diverse skills, larger
samples, and contextual factors such as motivation and exposure. By addressing these gaps,
scholars can deepen our understanding of the role of age in SLA and inform more effective
teaching strategies tailored to learners of all ages.
 REFERENCES

Chua, A. (2022, January 18). How the English Language Conquered the World. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/18/books/review/the-rise-of-english-
rosemary-salomone.html
Hyltenstam, K. (1992) Non-native features of near-native speakers: on the ultimate attainment
of childhood L2 learners. Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals, 83(1992), 351-
368. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61505-8
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning:
The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language.
Cognitive Psychology 21, pp. 60-99.
Kusic, A. (2022). The effects of age factor on learning English: A case study of learning
English in an online Chinese school. MAP Social Sciences, 2(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.53880/2744-2454.2022.2.1.1
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Munoz, C. (2007). Age-related differences and second language learning practice. Practice in a
Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology.
Cambridge University Press. 229-255.
Sheela, S. K. & Ravikumar, K. R. (2016). The importance of exposure in learning English as a
second language - strategies to be employed to improve the student’s language exposure
in the context of rapid changes in the field of technology. Research Journal of English
Language and Literature, 4(2), 770-774.
Snow, C. E. & Hoefnagel-Hoehle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition:
evidence from second language learning. Child Development 49, 1114-1128.