How Should You Choose an English Conversation School? Five Research-Backed Criteria
Why this topic is on your mind
Many of you who read the sister article Does early English education really work? were probably relieved by its summary that “critical periods differ by ability” and “there is no need to rush excessively”.
But once relieved, the next question that comes up is “if I do send my child, what should I look at to choose?” Towns are full of ads for English schools, “native teachers”, “phonics”, “all English”, “the latest curriculum”: all sound appealing, but without a basis for judging what really affects effectiveness, there is no way to choose.
This article answers not “should you send your child?” but “if you do send your child, what points does research say to prioritize?” Rather than advertising catchphrases, we work backward from research to set out how to choose.
The basic premise: “not sending your child” is also a perfectly good choice
Before getting into how to choose, let’s confirm this once more. There is no strong evidence that attending an English school once a week for about an hour dramatically raises English ability. This is as mentioned in the sister article.
In other words, if any of the following apply,
- it is a burden on the household budget
- it squeezes time for other play and activities
- your child doesn’t want to go
then the choice of “not sending your child” is perfectly reasonable in research terms too. There is absolutely no need to panic that “my child will fall behind because we don’t send her”.
On that basis, if you can find an environment that meets the five points introduced below, it can be a good opportunity to get comfortable with English. Let’s think not in a binary of “do it / don’t do it” but at the resolution of “if we do it, this is how to choose”.
Criterion 1: “Live people” over screens: the depth of social interaction
The first point is the part with the strongest research support.
An experiment exposing American infants aged 9 to 10 months, growing up in an English-speaking environment, to Chinese (Mandarin) over 4 weeks
showed a result of decisive importance for thinking about choosing an English school.
In the study, the infants were divided into three groups.
- Group A: read picture books and played with an adult who spoke Chinese (with interaction with a live person)
- Group B: shown a recorded video of the same Chinese speaker
- Group C: heard only the audio of the same Chinese
After 4 weeks, when a test of discriminating sounds specific to Chinese (consonants not found in English) was carried out, only the infants in Group A had acquired the ability to discriminate the Chinese sounds. The infants in Groups B and C did not differ from a control group that had no exposure to Chinese at all.
In other words, even with almost the same amount (time) of exposure to the language, the results were clearly divided by whether there was social exchange with a live person.
What this study teaches us about choosing an English school is that “time when the teacher looks the child in the eye, waits for the child’s reaction, and responds” affects effectiveness far more than “flashy video materials playing on a big screen”.
Points to look at when visiting a school
- The number of children per class (too many, and the teacher cannot respond to each one)
- Whether the teacher waits for children to speak, rather than pressing on rapidly
- Whether lessons are run centered on conversation and exchange rather than on materials
- Whether time playing DVDs or videos takes up most of the lesson
Criterion 2: Five minutes every day rather than once a week: frequency of exposure
‘Understanding Second Language Acquisition’, widely read as an introduction to second language acquisition research, concludes that “the amount and quality of exposure” affect acquisition more than age. Among these, there is an important rule of thumb about frequency.
If you secure the same “60 minutes a week”, “about 10 minutes every day” is thought to have the advantage over “60 minutes once a week” in terms of retention. This also matches the basic principle of cognitive science that human memory is strengthened by “spaced practice”.
This does not reject going to an English school once a week in itself. However, the reality in research terms is that attending a school once a week for an hour alone is too thin an exposure for a child’s brain to recognize “this is a sound that’s part of my everyday life”.
The idea of combining it with “every day at home”
For this reason, in choosing a school, rather than thinking “if my child goes to the school, it will take care of everything”, we recommend thinking about it together with how to design everyday contact at home.
Combinations that are less effective
Less effective
Goes to a 60-minute school once a week, but has no contact with English at all at home. English only on school days, and a completely Japanese environment on the other 6 days.
Combinations that are more effective
More effective
In addition to the weekly school, there is time every day at home, 5-10 minutes, in contact with English picture books, songs, and cartoons. Trying out at home phrases learned at school.
When thinking about whether to send your child to a school, “whether going to that school makes it easier to build a habit of contact with English at home” is also something to judge by. For example, whether there are picture books or audio for home study you can take home after lessons, and whether there is guidance for parents on “please use this at home like this”.
Criterion 3: Whether your child enjoys it: directly linked to continuity
The third is the point most often overlooked, yet the one with the most effect.
Second language acquisition research has repeatedly shown that “motivation” and “the affective filter” greatly affect learning outcomes (Ortega, 2009). Put simply, “a child doing it reluctantly is less likely to improve, even when spending the same time”.
For young children, “motivation” is not conscious as it is for adults; it is determined almost entirely by the feeling that “it’s fun, I want to go again”. And whether it is fun links directly to “whether they can keep going”.
Learning English is a marathon. 30 minutes a week continued for three years adds up to far more cumulative exposure than 60 minutes a week given up after six months.
Observe your child at the trial lesson
At the trial lesson, look first and foremost at your child’s expression after the lesson. Do they say “That was fun!” or “I don’t want to go again”? If your child can’t express it well in words, observe
- whether there were smiles during the lesson
- whether they were imitating the teacher or raising their hand
- whether they are not completely exhausted afterward (a sign of excessive load)
If you keep going for the reason that “my child doesn’t want to, but it’s for the future”, there is a risk of instilling a dislike of English itself. In the long run, this is a negative.
But children sometimes resist at first and then come to enjoy it once they get used to it, don’t they? I think it might be too early to judge “it doesn’t suit her” from one trial…
Yes, that perspective matters. Some children are nervous at first and can’t express themselves well, so it’s good to have the leeway of “trying it for one or two months and judging including how she is at home”, rather than “deciding immediately after one trial”.
What signs should I watch out for?
If, even after one or two months, she starts saying her tummy hurts on lesson days, can’t sleep at night, or never mentions English at all at home, and these signs continue, it’s quite likely it doesn’t suit her. Conversely, if she starts humming English songs at home or happily talks about her teacher’s name, those are good signs.
That’s easy to understand. So “whether English comes up from my child’s own mouth” is one guide.
Criterion 4: Whether it squeezes the development of the first language
The fourth is a perspective rarely talked about in English school advertising, but very important in research terms.
A review paper summarizing the effects of bilingualism on cognitive function
shows that environments involving multiple languages have various cognitive benefits. On the other hand, accumulated second language acquisition research has also repeatedly confirmed that a foundation of “a strong first language” contributes greatly to acquiring a second language (Ortega, 2009).
In other words, well-advanced development of the first language (Japanese) also works to the advantage of later growth in English. Conversely, cutting time for reading Japanese picture books or for conversation with the family for the sake of English can be negative in the long run.
Concrete effects on choosing a school
- Whether the time spent taking your child there and back and the time tied up by attending the school is squeezing conversation with the family and picture book time
- Whether your child is too tired after lessons, so that exchanges in Japanese at home in the evening are decreasing
- Whether the school instructs you to “switch conversation at home to English” (this cannot be recommended)
The idea of “sacrificing exchanges in Japanese at home for the sake of English” goes against the research findings. Please think of the first and second languages not as competing with each other but as being in the relationship of a foundation and the structure built on it.
Criterion 5: The quality of teachers, rather than flashy materials
Finally, the point most easily underestimated, yet directly linked to Criterion 1 and the most important.
In the world of English conversation for children, appeals based on materials, such as “our own curriculum”, “the latest materials”, and “original characters”, stand out. But from the research findings, the quality of teachers affects effectiveness far more than materials.
The reason is simple: as we saw in Criterion 1, children’s language acquisition happens through “people”. However excellent the materials, a teacher who cannot turn them into exchanges with the child is unlikely to produce effects. Conversely, even with simple materials, a teacher who can draw out the child’s interest, wait for a response, and reply appropriately can be expected to produce sufficient effects.
“Whether the teacher is a native speaker” is a secondary issue
Here we want to touch on a point that is often misunderstood. The image that “native teachers are more effective” is deeply rooted, but research does not draw such a simple conclusion.
As research modeling how the sound system of the first language affects the acquisition of second language sounds (the Perceptual Assimilation Model for L2) shows, acquisition of second language sounds goes through an intricate process related to the sound system of the first language, rather than depending on “how much native pronunciation you were bathed in”. In other words, it is not as simple as children becoming native-like just by hearing a native teacher’s pronunciation.
What matters in practice are three points:
- whether the teacher can read children’s reactions (has experience with children)
- whether the teacher understands the points where Japanese children stumble
- whether teachers don’t change frequently (continuity of the relationship matters)
Look not at the division “native / non-native” but at “whether this is a person who can build a relationship with children”.
More and less effective environments by the five criteria
Here are the five criteria set out so far, laid side by side as examples at both ends. Most schools are somewhere in between, but this can be used as a yardstick for judging.
English learning environments that are less effective
Less effective setting
Classes of 15 or more, with no time for the teacher to respond to each child. More than half the lesson is watching videos. Once a week only, with no link to home. Continuing 'for the future' even though the child doesn't want to. Lessons are long and squeeze time for Japanese at home. Teachers change frequently.
English learning environments that are more effective
More effective setting
Small groups (5-8 or fewer), with time secured for the teacher to look children in the eye and respond. Centered on conversation, songs, and play using the body. Picture books and audio are provided for review at home, with support so parents can use them in daily life. The child says 'I want to go again'. A manageable frequency that doesn't squeeze time for the first language. The same teacher is in charge continuously for a certain period.
Can online materials and apps substitute?
Finally, let’s touch on a topic we are often asked about recently: “What about having children learn English with generative AI like ChatGPT, or apps like Duolingo Kids?”
Recall the study by Kuhl et al. (2003) that we saw in Criterion 1. With recorded video or audio alone, infants’ acquisition of phoneme discrimination did not occur. This is thought to apply to some extent in early childhood as well, because “social exchange with people” is what starts deep processing in language learning.
However, this does not mean “apps are pointless”.
- They are useful for review, to consolidate phrases the child already knows
- As a fun way to come into contact with English, they have the effect of lowering resistance
- When a parent looks at the screen together with the child and responds, it comes closer to interaction (= effectiveness rises)
Conversely, sitting a child in front of a screen and leaving them is, in light of the research findings, a way of using them that is unlikely to be effective. If you see an app not as “a handy companion that keeps the child occupied” but as “material that provides topics for parent-child conversation”, the direction for using it becomes clear.
Closing dialogue
In the end, schools that meet all five points are hard to find, aren’t they…
Schools that meet all of them perfectly may indeed be rare. But with the five criteria, you’ll be able to judge “this school is strong here and weak there”. That alone means you won’t be swayed by advertising catchphrases.
If I had to prioritize, which is most important?
If in doubt, make (3), “whether your child enjoys it”, the top priority. If this isn’t met, however well the other four are in place, it won’t last, so it loses its meaning. Conversely, if your child enjoys it, even if some other points are a little weak, cumulative effects will come from continuing for a long time.
And just to confirm once more, the choice of “not sending her” really is all right, isn’t it?
Yes, it really is all right. Children who don’t go won’t end up unable to do English, and reading lots of Japanese picture books to her at home becomes, in the long run, a foundation for English too. Being able to choose calmly between “sending / not sending” from a research perspective matters more than anything.
That takes the pressure off. I’ll decide by watching how my daughter is, without being rushed by ads.
If you also read the sister article Does early English education really work?, I think it will be easier to set your own criteria from both sides: “when and how to start” and “how to choose”.
Research details
Primary sourcesStudy design: An experimental study randomly assigning infants aged 9 to 10 months in an English-speaking environment to three groups
Participants: A total of 32 infants growing up in an English-speaking environment in the US (a group interacting with a live Chinese speaker, a group watching video of a Chinese speaker, and a group hearing only Chinese audio), plus an English-only control group with no exposure to Chinese
Main results: After 4 weeks (12 sessions in total) of exposure, only the group that interacted with a live Chinese speaker became able to discriminate phonemes specific to Chinese. The video group and the audio-only group did not differ from the control group with no exposure to Chinese at all. The authors theorized this as the “social gating hypothesis”, arguing that the human brain selectively processes language input that comes with social interaction more deeply.
Limitations: A study of infants; care is needed in generalizing directly to early childhood and beyond. The sample size is relatively small. On the other hand, the importance of this social interaction has been confirmed repeatedly in many later studies.
Study design: A review paper on the effects of bilingualism on cognitive function
Scope: An integrative review of the main existing studies
Main results: Concludes that environments involving multiple languages can have positive effects on attention control, task switching, executive function, and more. Discusses possible cognitive benefits across the life stages, from infancy to old age. It also mentions that sufficient development of the first language is the foundation for bilingual development.
Limitations: A review paper; in recent years, studies have also appeared pointing out that the effect size of the “bilingual advantage” may not be as large as originally claimed. It is not appropriate to simplify this as “making a child bilingual will definitely raise cognitive function”.
Study design: A paper proposing a theoretical model of second language speech perception (Perceptual Assimilation Model for L2: PAM-L2)
Scope: Integration of existing speech perception research and predictive modeling of L2 phoneme learning
Main results: Argues that the acquisition of second language sounds can be explained by patterns of “assimilation” to the phonological categories of the first language (L1). The difficulty of acquisition can be systematically predicted by which L1 category an L2 phoneme is assigned to. Showed that it is not a simple model of “being bathed in native sounds leads to automatic acquisition”, but an intricate process shaped by the sound system of the first language.
Limitations: A theoretical model, and empirical testing across all language pairs is still ongoing. Testing for individual language pairs, such as Japanese speakers’ acquisition of English L/R, is needed separately.
Study design: A comprehensive introduction to / overview of second language acquisition (SLA) research
Scope: SLA research as a whole (age, cross-linguistic influence, language environment, cognition, development of learner language, aptitude, motivation, affect, social dimensions)
Main results: Integrating many studies, sets out that second language acquisition involves, in combination, “the amount and quality of exposure”, “motivation”, “social environment”, and “the state of first language development”, more than age of starting. It is shown repeatedly across chapters that the concept of a “critical period” is being redefined as “sensitive periods” that differ by ability, and that interaction and social context are the keys to acquisition.
Limitations: An introductory book that does not present new data. However, it is widely adopted internationally as a standard reference in the field of SLA.